Circumcision - Perhaps a good thing afterall?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

Quaxar:

TheIronRuler:

Quaxar:
So. Much. Text.

You know what would drastically lower chances of HIV infections and raise the quality of life without any bodily modification? Condoms.

.
But circumcision is like a condom you constantly carry on you!

Like a condom that only works half the time and only in regards of HIV and HPV. So it's kind of like a bulletproof vest that only stops Glock rounds, if you're only getting shot at with Glocks great but you never know whether someone might have some other bullets in his gun too. I would argue that similar to how a legal helmet-requirement for cyclists can lead to an actual increase in accidents due to the Peltzman effect, the trust in your circumcision can have negative effects on your usage of condoms and thus increase STI rates.

TheIronRuler:
I think I vomited a little inside my own mouth reading about that society.

On the plus side, when I went to check out that tape thing I found it was legit but apparently not working. Who still buys these anyway with all the videos on youtube. Especially when the US version is a frelling $24.

.
You would be surprised at how little those protective ceramic vests can stop in terms of bullets (quantity and quality).

TheIronRuler:

Quaxar:
So. Much. Text.

You know what would drastically lower chances of HIV infections and raise the quality of life without any bodily modification? Condoms.

.
But circumcision is like a condom you constantly carry on you!
.

Quaxar:

Ultratwinkie:
Hell, when you follow the trail of who keeps changing wikipedia and publishing circumcision propaganda it gets creepy as all hell.

http://www.circleaks.org/index.php?title=Brian_J._Morris
http://www.circleaks.org/index.php?title=Gilgal_Society
http://www.circleaks.org/index.php?title=Jake_H._Waskett
http://www.circleaks.org/index.php?title=Robert_C._Bailey

The Gilgal society is a bunch of sadomasochists who take pleasure from cutting foreskins. They even go low enough to publish "erotic" stories of cutting minors. Some of these people work in the UN, and are in charge of spreading circumcision.

And funny enough, some of these people take time out of their day to keep changing wikipedia to show a circumcision bias.

The amount of time people invest to cutting genitals is creepy. Some of those people in that lists are friends convicted pedophiles who take sexual pleasure in circumcision. Its downright scary.

Woah woah woah, that some creepy stuff right there. I have never heard of this Society but they're freaking me out already.
They'll even sell you a VHS tape depicting a circumcision, specifically mentioned as being unlabelled for your own discretion. If unlabelled VHS isn't the epitome of creepyness I don't know what is.

Realitycrash:
What do you know of the reported loss of sexual tactile-senses? I.e having your foreskin cut off makes you lose considerable "sensation", making it harder to orgasm?

Yeah, it totally does. No wait, it doesn't! Or does it? Aaaaaah, it's getting confusing!

.
I think I vomited a little inside my own mouth reading about that society.

Hey, you're back. Welcome back. I take it you disapprove of the procedure? (and I am also going to assume that you have gone through it).

TheIronRuler:

Quaxar:
So. Much. Text.

You know what would drastically lower chances of HIV infections and raise the quality of life without any bodily modification? Condoms.

.
But circumcision is like a condom you constantly carry on you!
.

Quaxar:

Ultratwinkie:
Hell, when you follow the trail of who keeps changing wikipedia and publishing circumcision propaganda it gets creepy as all hell.

http://www.circleaks.org/index.php?title=Brian_J._Morris
http://www.circleaks.org/index.php?title=Gilgal_Society
http://www.circleaks.org/index.php?title=Jake_H._Waskett
http://www.circleaks.org/index.php?title=Robert_C._Bailey

The Gilgal society is a bunch of sadomasochists who take pleasure from cutting foreskins. They even go low enough to publish "erotic" stories of cutting minors. Some of these people work in the UN, and are in charge of spreading circumcision.

And funny enough, some of these people take time out of their day to keep changing wikipedia to show a circumcision bias.

The amount of time people invest to cutting genitals is creepy. Some of those people in that lists are friends convicted pedophiles who take sexual pleasure in circumcision. Its downright scary.

Woah woah woah, that some creepy stuff right there. I have never heard of this Society but they're freaking me out already.
They'll even sell you a VHS tape depicting a circumcision, specifically mentioned as being unlabelled for your own discretion. If unlabelled VHS isn't the epitome of creepyness I don't know what is.

Realitycrash:
What do you know of the reported loss of sexual tactile-senses? I.e having your foreskin cut off makes you lose considerable "sensation", making it harder to orgasm?

Yeah, it totally does. No wait, it doesn't! Or does it? Aaaaaah, it's getting confusing!

.
I think I vomited a little inside my own mouth reading about that society.

I did too. Honestly I wonder how a society that has strong ties to pedophilia can be flouted so openly and no one is trying to burn these men at the stake.

They are tied to pedophiles, sell "erotic" circumcisions videos of babies, and try to pass off pseudoscience (like it stopping all cancer) in their studies while trying to stop real science on the topic through threats.

I mean you can't get much worse than that unless you have them being led by Hitler or Satan. How this goes on unnoticed is beyond me.

LetalisK:

it appeared to me like you were basically attempting to get people to agree with you/silence them through trying to cow them. After all, who doesn't have a knee-jerk reaction against "mutilate" and would hate to be linked with anything even remotely related to "anything mutilation"? Like being against continued development of advanced fighter jets and being labeled "anti-military" because of it(even though they may otherwise be very pro-military). Technically, yeah, that person is in this case, but calling someone anti-military brings along a whole other host of baggage that person now has to deal with even though they shouldn't have to. No, there is nuance there and it's not an all or nothing game. This is a tactic used in politics all the time to suppress dissenting opinions by misrepresenting the other side to be something it actually isn't via prejudicial comments or accusations. Simply throwing "anti-military" at the person is not going to get a constructive response from them as they are going to deeply resent being called or identified as something they are not and will fight back. Maybe I should have started off with that explanation.

Point taken.

Realitycrash:

TheIronRuler:

Quaxar:
So. Much. Text.

You know what would drastically lower chances of HIV infections and raise the quality of life without any bodily modification? Condoms.

.
But circumcision is like a condom you constantly carry on you!
.

Quaxar:

Woah woah woah, that some creepy stuff right there. I have never heard of this Society but they're freaking me out already.
They'll even sell you a VHS tape depicting a circumcision, specifically mentioned as being unlabelled for your own discretion. If unlabelled VHS isn't the epitome of creepyness I don't know what is.

Yeah, it totally does. No wait, it doesn't! Or does it? Aaaaaah, it's getting confusing!

.
I think I vomited a little inside my own mouth reading about that society.

Hey, you're back. Welcome back. I take it you disapprove of the procedure? (and I am also going to assume that you have gone through it).

.
I'm back because of the weekend. I don't always get out every week or two weeks. I'm fine with circumcision.
.

Ultratwinkie:

TheIronRuler:

Quaxar:
So. Much. Text.

You know what would drastically lower chances of HIV infections and raise the quality of life without any bodily modification? Condoms.

.
But circumcision is like a condom you constantly carry on you!
.

Quaxar:

Woah woah woah, that some creepy stuff right there. I have never heard of this Society but they're freaking me out already.
They'll even sell you a VHS tape depicting a circumcision, specifically mentioned as being unlabelled for your own discretion. If unlabelled VHS isn't the epitome of creepyness I don't know what is.

Yeah, it totally does. No wait, it doesn't! Or does it? Aaaaaah, it's getting confusing!

.
I think I vomited a little inside my own mouth reading about that society.

I did too. Honestly I wonder how a society that has strong ties to pedophilia can be flouted so openly and no one is trying to burn these men at the stake.

They are tied to pedophiles, sell "erotic" circumcisions videos of babies, and try to pass off pseudoscience (like it stopping all cancer) in their studies while trying to stop real science on the topic through threats.

I mean you can't get much worse than that unless you have them being led by Hitler or Satan. How this goes on unnoticed is beyond me.

.
Ghengis Khan is much worse than Satan and Hitler combined. or perhaps... *GASP* Lady Gaga.

Ultratwinkie:
I did too. Honestly I wonder how a society that has strong ties to pedophilia can be flouted so openly and no one is trying to burn these men at the stake.

They are tied to pedophiles, sell "erotic" circumcisions videos of babies, and try to pass off pseudoscience (like it stopping all cancer) in their studies while trying to stop real science on the topic through threats.

I mean you can't get much worse than that unless you have them being led by Hitler or Satan. How this goes on unnoticed is beyond me.

Eh, you know what other group obviously does at least two of those things and gets away with it?

I mean, you probably know of at least one.

thaluikhain:
The thing often called "female circumcision" is illegal in a lot of countries. That is not to say they are equivalent.

Depends. WHO divides female genital cutting up into a bunch of different categories depending on what exactly is done. Type III is what most people who want to talk about the horrors of female genital mutilation pretend all of it is, Type Ia is exactly homologous to male circumsicion, and Type IV is a catch-all for anything that isn't in Types I-III (including "nicking" which does no permanent damage yet is just as illegal as Type III in many countries)

The Gnome King:

It brings up interesting questions about how much we value our girls vs. our boys.

It really does. I'd love to hear all the folks who are ambivalent or pro-circumsicion on here tell me their opinion of WHO Type Ia FGM (removal of the clitoral prepuce without damage to the glans). It's homologous to male circumsicion, so you folks should be all for it, especially pushing it in places where more severe types of FGM are common in hopes of causing a cultural drift, in much the same way that we have elaborate pagan festivals in the name of Jesus each year?

LetalisK:
Well, to be fair, it could also be because I'm right. Does one have a more negative impact on an individual than the other? By how much? Mind you, this isn't to say one is positive and one is negative, they can both be negative.

I'm with Kaulen on this one -- you consider your stance reasonable because of cultural historical weight, in much the way you wouldn't consider any other kind of permanent disfigurment performed on infant boys (or any kind of permanent disfigurement performed on infant girls) reasonable.

It's a simple issue of bodily autonomy -- let's not perform permanent body modifications without medical necessity on persons too young to have a say in the matter, hmm? Is that too much to ask? Is there a good reason we only feel that's a reasonable request for girls?

Kaulen Fuhs:

Female circumsicion is far worse in terms of harm done, but both are practices involving involuntary disfigurement and are based on antiquated notions about human sexuality. Neither is necessary, is my point, but one gets a pass because... well, that's the way it's always been done.

How harmful it is regardnig FGM depends on the type done (going all the way down to forms that are homologous or in the case of the "nick" harmless but still counted as "mutilation"), but yeah that pretty much sums it up otherwise.

Ultratwinkie:

I did too. Honestly I wonder how a society that has strong ties to pedophilia can be flouted so openly and no one is trying to burn these men at the stake.

They are tied to pedophiles, sell "erotic" circumcisions videos of babies, and try to pass off pseudoscience (like it stopping all cancer) in their studies while trying to stop real science on the topic through threats.

I mean you can't get much worse than that unless you have them being led by Hitler or Satan. How this goes on unnoticed is beyond me.

Honestly, because it's gendered but only hurts boys, and therefore isn't a "gender issue" worth doing anything about? That also seems to be why painting gential cutting as not being a gender issue at all but an issue of bodily autonomy leads to complaints about trying to minimize the victimization fo girls, because benig an issue of girls being victimized makes it somehow inherently more important than if it's a more general problem. We seem to do that kind of thing a lot in general (see the DOJ threatening to get involved in bullying cases if girls are bullied but not boys because their authority to do so stems from allegedly gender neutral VAWA and Title IX).

thaluikhain:

Eh, you know what other group obviously does at least two of those things and gets away with it?

I mean, you probably know of at least one.

I assume you had one in mind asking that. Care to say who?

TheIronRuler:
You would be surprised at how little those protective ceramic vests can stop in terms of bullets (quantity and quality).

Flawed analogy, call it a tank then that only protects against assault weapons (please nobody start a rant on the term assault weapon). The point still stands that reduced infection chances for two specific viruses do in no way compare to the broad spectrum of a condom and can in fact lead to lesser usage of them because you think you're safe anyway.
And we really can't afford more STIs, resistant Gonorrhea is already a bitch as is.

Ultratwinkie:
They are tied to pedophiles, sell "erotic" circumcisions videos of babies, and try to pass off pseudoscience (like it stopping all cancer) in their studies while trying to stop real science on the topic through threats.

I mean you can't get much worse than that unless you have them being led by Hitler or Satan. How this goes on unnoticed is beyond me.

If it helps you, that circumcision tape is actually of a 23 year old, not an infant. On the other hand they do have some really creepy literature about boys masturbating to watch their sperm under a microscope so it's not much consolation.

Quaxar:

TheIronRuler:
You would be surprised at how little those protective ceramic vests can stop in terms of bullets (quantity and quality).

Flawed analogy, call it a tank then that only protects against assault weapons (please nobody start a rant on the term assault weapon). The point still stands that reduced infection chances for two specific viruses do in no way compare to the broad spectrum of a condom and can in fact lead to lesser usage of them because you think you're safe anyway.
And we really can't afford more STIs, resistant Gonorrhea is already a bitch as is.

Ultratwinkie:
They are tied to pedophiles, sell "erotic" circumcisions videos of babies, and try to pass off pseudoscience (like it stopping all cancer) in their studies while trying to stop real science on the topic through threats.

I mean you can't get much worse than that unless you have them being led by Hitler or Satan. How this goes on unnoticed is beyond me.

If it helps you, that circumcision tape is actually of a 23 year old, not an infant. On the other hand they do have some really creepy literature about boys masturbating to watch their sperm under a microscope so it's not much consolation.

.
I wasn't making a case for circumcision, I was seriously telling you how crappy these things are compared to how much they are praised in pop-culture.

TheIronRuler:

Quaxar:

TheIronRuler:
You would be surprised at how little those protective ceramic vests can stop in terms of bullets (quantity and quality).

Flawed analogy, call it a tank then that only protects against assault weapons (please nobody start a rant on the term assault weapon). The point still stands that reduced infection chances for two specific viruses do in no way compare to the broad spectrum of a condom and can in fact lead to lesser usage of them because you think you're safe anyway.
And we really can't afford more STIs, resistant Gonorrhea is already a bitch as is.

Ultratwinkie:
They are tied to pedophiles, sell "erotic" circumcisions videos of babies, and try to pass off pseudoscience (like it stopping all cancer) in their studies while trying to stop real science on the topic through threats.

I mean you can't get much worse than that unless you have them being led by Hitler or Satan. How this goes on unnoticed is beyond me.

If it helps you, that circumcision tape is actually of a 23 year old, not an infant. On the other hand they do have some really creepy literature about boys masturbating to watch their sperm under a microscope so it's not much consolation.

.
I wasn't making a case for circumcision, I was seriously telling you how crappy these things are compared to how much they are praised in pop-culture.

Sorry, I meant mine was a flawed analogy. I do know they aren't as affective as Hollywood portrays them but it was kind of the first comparison I could think of, you just have to pretend like I was talking about the plot device and not the real thing.

TheIronRuler:

Quaxar:

TheIronRuler:
You would be surprised at how little those protective ceramic vests can stop in terms of bullets (quantity and quality).

Flawed analogy, call it a tank then that only protects against assault weapons (please nobody start a rant on the term assault weapon). The point still stands that reduced infection chances for two specific viruses do in no way compare to the broad spectrum of a condom and can in fact lead to lesser usage of them because you think you're safe anyway.
And we really can't afford more STIs, resistant Gonorrhea is already a bitch as is.

Ultratwinkie:
They are tied to pedophiles, sell "erotic" circumcisions videos of babies, and try to pass off pseudoscience (like it stopping all cancer) in their studies while trying to stop real science on the topic through threats.

I mean you can't get much worse than that unless you have them being led by Hitler or Satan. How this goes on unnoticed is beyond me.

If it helps you, that circumcision tape is actually of a 23 year old, not an infant. On the other hand they do have some really creepy literature about boys masturbating to watch their sperm under a microscope so it's not much consolation.

.
I wasn't making a case for circumcision, I was seriously telling you how crappy these things are compared to how much they are praised in pop-culture.

Maybe because standard Kevlar-vests is designed to protect from small-arms (i.e pistols) fire at a not-too-short-range, and in the army you tend to get shot at by much more powerful rifles?
Still, we're OT. Let's keep it on topic.

Schadrach:
It really does. I'd love to hear all the folks who are ambivalent or pro-circumsicion on here tell me their opinion of WHO Type Ia FGM (removal of the clitoral prepuce without damage to the glans). It's homologous to male circumsicion, so you folks should be all for it, especially pushing it in places where more severe types of FGM are common in hopes of causing a cultural drift, in much the same way that we have elaborate pagan festivals in the name of Jesus each year?

Why am I surrounded by men who have clearly never touched a clitoris?

1) "Without damage to the glans" is considerably harder to achieve in the case of removing the clitoral hood because the external glans clitoris is smaller and awkwardly positioned on the body. Remember, we are talking about small children.
2) The external portion of the clitoris contains as many nerve endings as the entire male penis condensed into an extremely small area. It is far, far more sensitive to touch than the male glans. This raises two problems.
a) Any damage or scarring to this extremely compact nervous structure can have far more serious consequences than even the most extreme assessments of the effects of male circumcision.
b) Removal of the clitoral hood exposes the glans clitoris to direct contact. This can make ordinary activities including sexual intercourse or even normal movement extremely painful. The same is not generally true of male circumcision.

Incidentally, it's perfectly legal and socially acceptable to surgically remove the clitoral hood to the extent that it does not impede normal functioning, i.e. not totally. In fact it's quite a common form of elective vaginoplasty.

Schadrach:
That also seems to be why painting gential cutting as not being a gender issue at all but an issue of bodily autonomy leads to complaints about trying to minimize the victimization fo girls, because benig an issue of girls being victimized makes it somehow inherently more important than if it's a more general problem.

It's "inherently more important" because the effects are greater.

If you can't tell the difference, if you lack the basic anatomical knowledge to be able to realize that there are physical differences between two entirely different organs (with consequences for surgical outcomes performed on them) then your opinion is worthless.

By all means, make the same ethical argument about both. Employ the same rationality. Compare the two. But don't try to pretend that these two things are the same. They're not, and your insistence that they are and that the only thing preventing anyone from realizing it is some kind of evil conspiracy against the mens strips your opinion of any kind of credibility.

Zeh Don:
However, it is the preference of many women for their partners to be circumcised. I'd wager the majority, in fact. Worth considering, perhaps?

The majority of women where exactly? Circumcision is not a common practice where I live and women here seem to have zero trouble with uncircumcised penises. In fact, circumcision is not a particularly common practice in the Western world, so I really doubt that majority of women prefer circumcised partners. If you're talking about American women, then I have to say that the "uncircumcised penises are unhygienic and nasty" -propaganda most likely has influenced their perceptions of uncut penises.

evilthecat:
Three points.

1) (Non-religious) circumcision was initially popularized on the basis of extremely dodgy argumentation

The primary argument for circumcision at the time it became popular in America was that it prevented masturbation, which was thought to be extremely psychologically damaging and to lead to all kinds of perversions and abnormal sexual behaviors. Yeah, really. It was performed for exactly the same reasons that medical clitorodectomies were performed on certain women and girls around the same time.

No, I'm not kidding. Doctors published papers about how circumcising children was healthy because it would prevent them from masturbating (like it totally does!)

There was a slightly more legitimate argument that it prevented transmission of syphillis, which at the time was causing a massive moral panic, but the real argument here was about masturbation. The idea that circumcision was adopted because of clear medical benefits is pretty revisionist. It was adopted on the basis of claims which are both untrue and based on extremely defunct theories about human sexual development.

2) The benefits are highly debatable and not scientifically assured at this point

People have cited all kinds of weird and wonderful medical benefits to circumcision. While it's almost certain that there are some medical benefits, it's currently unclear whether these outweigh the medical risks of the procedure itself. Beyond the general fact that a circumcision is an open wound and the risk of a botched circumcision causing irreparable damage to the penis, it also increases the risk of certain types of infection and inflamation even in adulthood. It's as yet unclear whether there is a clear medical case for circumcision or not, or whether the risks outweigh the benefits.

Now, there are certain medical conditions where people need to be circumcised, of course, and I'm not talking about those. But for everyone else, the medical "benefits" are extremely far from assured at this point in time.

3) Arguments on both sides tend to be both emotionally-motivated and a bit creepy

As a culture, we tend to be slightly obsessed with penises. We have this annoying tendency to fixate on the relative virtues of people's penises, and to constantly ask ourselves who has the "best" penis (generally without bothering to ask or involve the people who actually like penises, because, you know, fuck what they think, they'll like what we tell them to!) We all want our penises to be the best penises ever and generally find the idea that other people's penises might be somehow better than our own at something to be upsetting.

There is actually a very easy way to enhance both your own sexual pleasure and that of your partner. Get a genital piercing. There's absolutely no point sitting here and debating the relative sexual merits of cut versus uncut penises because the differences, if they exist, are miniscule and can be easily compensated for with a very simple process that takes about a minute and costs about $100 from an experienced piercer.

What's that, you don't want to get a genital piercing because you're too squeamish or you don't like the look? Well that's fine, me too. However, the point is that we don't need to get so hung up on who has the "best" penis, not everyone has to have the "best" penis in order to have an enjoyable and mutually satisfying sex life. As a culture, we really need to lose this notion of an "ideal standard", particularly when it's primarily an invention of straight men who have absolutely no interest in cock anyway.

Good post.

I don't care how many dodgy 'studies' get published about how being cut may or may not be kinda-sorta maybe possibly more healthy, sort of, perhaps. Bullshit.

An inoculation doesn't change how your body looks. I wasn't given the choice and that shit shouldn't fly.

This seems like beating a dead horse over a resolved problem, but I figure I should at least respond to people.

That Guy Ya Know:

Those two are in now way contradictory. In the first he states fgm and circumcision should both be classified as genital mutilation, in the second he states that saying they are both mutilation does not mean they are of equal severity. I don't see your problem here, a classification like mutilation can contain varying degrees of severity.

You're right, it can contain varying degrees of severity, which was my entire point. His second quote agrees with this. However, his first quote goes beyond just saying that they should both be classified as genital mutilation and states they shouldn't be distinguished from each other(ie not recognize that there is a difference in severity). Though now I'm apt to believe this contradiction was not intended rather than some purposeful switching of positions.

Schadrach:

I'm with Kaulen on this one -- you consider your stance reasonable because of cultural historical weight, in much the way you wouldn't consider any other kind of permanent disfigurment performed on infant boys (or any kind of permanent disfigurement performed on infant girls) reasonable.

It's a simple issue of bodily autonomy -- let's not perform permanent body modifications without medical necessity on persons too young to have a say in the matter, hmm? Is that too much to ask? Is there a good reason we only feel that's a reasonable request for girls?

I wasn't suggesting that it's only a reasonable request when concerning girls. I don't know where you got that from.

itsthesheppy:

Good post.

I don't care how many dodgy 'studies' get published about how being cut may or may not be kinda-sorta maybe possibly more healthy, sort of, perhaps. Bullshit.

An inoculation doesn't change how your body looks. I wasn't given the choice and that shit shouldn't fly.

Are you saying there is currently not a firm enough scientific basis for you to support circumcision or that there could never be a strong enough scientific basis for you to support it because of other reasons? Because I understand the former, but I'm getting some of the latter from your post and wanting to clarify before I ask any questions.

LetalisK:

itsthesheppy:

Good post.

I don't care how many dodgy 'studies' get published about how being cut may or may not be kinda-sorta maybe possibly more healthy, sort of, perhaps. Bullshit.

An inoculation doesn't change how your body looks. I wasn't given the choice and that shit shouldn't fly.

Are you saying there is currently not a firm enough scientific basis for you to support circumcision or that there could never be a strong enough scientific basis for you to support it because of other reasons? Because I understand the former, but I'm getting some of the latter from your post and wanting to clarify before I ask any questions.

If there was a clear health benefit, we would have heard of it by now. All we're getting instead of strongly biased, dodgy studies that try to justify circumcision. It's a 'solution' desperately searching for a problem.

What I'm saying is that because it makes a clear, irreversible physical difference on the body, the benefit would have to be GREATER than that of an inoculation to make that kind of choice for someone before they have the capacity to make it for themselves.

LetalisK:
This seems like beating a dead horse over a resolved problem, but I figure I should at least respond to people.

That Guy Ya Know:

Those two are in now way contradictory. In the first he states fgm and circumcision should both be classified as genital mutilation, in the second he states that saying they are both mutilation does not mean they are of equal severity. I don't see your problem here, a classification like mutilation can contain varying degrees of severity.

You're right, it can contain varying degrees of severity, which was my entire point. His second quote agrees with this. However, his first quote goes beyond just saying that they should both be classified as genital mutilation and states they shouldn't be distinguished from each other(ie not recognize that there is a difference in severity). Though now I'm apt to believe this contradiction was not intended rather than some purposeful switching of positions.

My point is, male genital mutilation should not be excused merely because it is of lesser severity than female genital mutilation, just as lesser forms of FGM are not excused by the fact that more invasive forms of it also exist.

Yes, there is a spectrum of severity for both genders but they all have a common element of being often irreversible changes to the body and that they are often administered to minors without their consent.

TheIronRuler:

Quaxar:

TheIronRuler:
You would be surprised at how little those protective ceramic vests can stop in terms of bullets (quantity and quality).

Flawed analogy, call it a tank then that only protects against assault weapons (please nobody start a rant on the term assault weapon). The point still stands that reduced infection chances for two specific viruses do in no way compare to the broad spectrum of a condom and can in fact lead to lesser usage of them because you think you're safe anyway.
And we really can't afford more STIs, resistant Gonorrhea is already a bitch as is.

Ultratwinkie:
They are tied to pedophiles, sell "erotic" circumcisions videos of babies, and try to pass off pseudoscience (like it stopping all cancer) in their studies while trying to stop real science on the topic through threats.

I mean you can't get much worse than that unless you have them being led by Hitler or Satan. How this goes on unnoticed is beyond me.

If it helps you, that circumcision tape is actually of a 23 year old, not an infant. On the other hand they do have some really creepy literature about boys masturbating to watch their sperm under a microscope so it's not much consolation.

.
I wasn't making a case for circumcision, I was seriously telling you how crappy these things are compared to how much they are praised in pop-culture.

Eh? LEO/Milspec inserts for vests are always rated for type 3 and higher, those things will stop a 308 at the muzzle, and will take multiple hits from any plausible engagement range.
NATO/STANAG issued ballistic plate inserts are rated for Type IV which means that they will stop all full power .30 cal AP round at the muzzle, and will take multiple hits from close range from a 30-60/7.62R and lower.
The IDF standard issue armor is only rated as Type 3A which is not rated to stop full power rifle rounds but rather intermediate small arms rounds(such as the 5.45/7.62x39) and magnum hand gun rounds.
This is because the IDF usually buys US Army surplus and Type 3A(which was the old Type 3) were phased out in the 90's, regular Type 3 and 4 plates are much heavier(5~+ KG per plate) unless you buy a composite one(which can get to about 2000USD per plate while the normal Type 3 and 3A will cost less than a 100), and since the usual combatants that the IDF operates against rarely have any thing above low power small arms and standard soviet block intermediate cartridges.

Schadrach:

thaluikhain:

Eh, you know what other group obviously does at least two of those things and gets away with it?

I mean, you probably know of at least one.

I assume you had one in mind asking that. Care to say who?

I'm assuming that was a dig at the Catholic Church...

I'd go as far as to say Circumcision is like Alcohol. It carries risks, people would riot were it banned. But if it had not been used as much for the past thousands of years as it has been, people wouldn't bat an eye-lit at it being made illegal.

The only reason Circumcision is legal is because of Judaism and Islam. Were it not for the religious tradition, chances are the practices wouldn't be legal in todays society. For the same reason that getting breast-enlargement on your 13yearold daughter is illegal, aye. You think it would look good on her, no there's not that much risk with the procedure. And yes, society as a whole might come to accept your daughter having larger breasts and a lot of people might even embrace that fact.

But physically altering the looks of your child while it still doesn't have the ability to object (Not even a little teenager whom might have the ability to show the doctors she wouldn't want the operation) seems generally morally objectionable. The kid should have a choice whether it 'wants' to be permanently physically altered.

That is not so much me being against people who cut off their foreskins as a whole, as it is me being against un-needed surgery given to babies without any chance of them deciding for themselves.

Totally for adults/older teenagers getting it done for traditional reasons though, if it's good enough for converts. Its damn well good enough for your own kin. Especially in Islams case where every person on earth is theoretically a Muslim and can choose when he wants to enter into their religion and follow tradition. Seems damn well there's no reason to do it at infancy.

Schadrach:

thaluikhain:
The thing often called "female circumcision" is illegal in a lot of countries. That is not to say they are equivalent.

Depends. WHO divides female genital cutting up into a bunch of different categories depending on what exactly is done. Type III is what most people who want to talk about the horrors of female genital mutilation pretend all of it is, Type Ia is exactly homologous to male circumcision, and Type IV is a catch-all for anything that isn't in Types I-III (including "nicking" which does no permanent damage yet is just as illegal as Type III in many countries)

Why are we arguing whether or not they're equivalent or not, really? Both are harmful procedures with extremely dubious medical and social 'benefit' that are done often on minors without their consent. Does it really matter that one form of genital mutilation is 'worse' than another? People trying to say that circumcision is 'alright' because the level of harm is 'slightly less' are trying to set a bar for like, acceptable levels of bodily harm. There's so much troll logic involved in that that there's no real reason for us to descend on each other trying to prove who got fucked the hardest to satisfy those very poor arguments.

It's not our job to try to prove what is or that this is the absolute worst thing you can do to a human being, and us trying to make it our job just distracts from rational arguments and allows people to move goalposts until any such conversation on the subject is basically nullified in rhetoric.

It's their job to try to prove that this procedure has a legitimate medical and social need and one that can't be done better without surgery on non-consenting minors. And they've failed extremely hard on that account. Every benefit they give is dubious, and every benefit they give can be both granted later in life by a consenting adult or without surgery. They can't prove that this is a procedure that needs happen at the age that it does happen.

Their best argument, really, is to try to appeal to culture or religion, but they know that's a fight they have a weak footing on (because realistically there's going to be a line drawn where child abuse becomes illegal regardless of whether or not you think your god wants you to abuse your children), or to try to move the goalposts by being like "Well, this procedure isn't as bad as having wolverines rip your feet off your body, so we shouldn't care about it at all!".

Schadrach:

The Gnome King:

It brings up interesting questions about how much we value our girls vs. our boys.

It really does. I'd love to hear all the folks who are ambivalent or pro-circumcision on here tell me their opinion of WHO Type Ia FGM (removal of the clitoral prepuce without damage to the glans). It's homologous to male circumcision, so you folks should be all for it, especially pushing it in places where more severe types of FGM are common in hopes of causing a cultural drift, in much the same way that we have elaborate pagan festivals in the name of Jesus each year?

Why would we set up such an argument for such a situation for them? At what point does it help to try to point out some other cultures abuse their children in similar ways? I don't find this a compelling argument against circumcision, I find it a weak argument people will take to make themselves pro-female genital mutilation or pro-child-abuse-is-ok-if-your-culture-says-so.

We shouldn't push for one abuse of children to hope that it'll distract people from an old abuse of children because it's not likely to stop the first abuse anyways, it's just as likely to just add a new way for people to abuse their children. And then it gives people here abusing their children a new way to try to justify their own abuses by going "Look, they're doing it!".

Schadrach:

LetalisK:
Well, to be fair, it could also be because I'm right. Does one have a more negative impact on an individual than the other? By how much? Mind you, this isn't to say one is positive and one is negative, they can both be negative.

I'm with Kaulen on this one -- you consider your stance reasonable because of cultural historical weight, in much the way you wouldn't consider any other kind of permanent disfigurement performed on infant boys (or any kind of permanent disfigurement performed on infant girls) reasonable.

It's a simple issue of bodily autonomy -- let's not perform permanent body modifications without medical necessity on persons too young to have a say in the matter, hmm? Is that too much to ask? Is there a good reason we only feel that's a reasonable request for girls?

The cultural weight argument sort of falls apart when you consider that we're not in the 1700's or whatever culture or time period that we're trying to weigh, we're in today. It seems like an appeal towards laziness really, and it can be used on any argument. To be like "Well, there's a lot of history of being terrible people, so I guess we should just be lazy and be terrible people." is a sort of self fulfilling prophecy that will never go out of vogue. We could then continue to be terrible people, and in 300 years when somebody goes "Let's stop being terrible" somebody will go "There's a lot of cultural weight to being terrible".

It's like when people appeal to tradition to defend shit like being against women's suffrage or gay rights, by being like "Well, we don't know what will happen if we give women the right to vote, it's too soon! Women haven't had the right to vote long enough for us to know whether or not giving them the right to vote will in the long term be a good idea!".

It's this perpetual pushing back the date of action based on the fact that somebody in the past did the same thing.

People can and will do this to any situation that you just want to be lazy about. "I haven't learned to read yet, therefor I shouldn't learn to read now because there's no guarantee that literacy will help me out."

I don't even know why anybody tolerates such an argument.

Schadrach:

Kaulen Fuhs:

Female circumsicion is far worse in terms of harm done, but both are practices involving involuntary disfigurement and are based on antiquated notions about human sexuality. Neither is necessary, is my point, but one gets a pass because... well, that's the way it's always been done.

How harmful it is regarding FGM depends on the type done (going all the way down to forms that are homologous or in the case of the "nick" harmless but still counted as "mutilation"), but yeah that pretty much sums it up otherwise.

I, again, don't know why we're forcing ourselves to debate whether or not something terrible is indeed the worst thing in the universe, or not. It seems like only people not interested in having a rational debate on the subject would try to shut it down by being like "It's not as bad as...". So even if we could prove "It's as bad as...", then all somebody has to do is move that goalpost back a bit further. And even if we can't prove "It's as bad as...", then it doesn't realistically justify inaction, does it?

Schadrach:

Ultratwinkie:

I did too. Honestly I wonder how a society that has strong ties to pedophilia can be flouted so openly and no one is trying to burn these men at the stake.

They are tied to pedophiles, sell "erotic" circumcisions videos of babies, and try to pass off pseudoscience (like it stopping all cancer) in their studies while trying to stop real science on the topic through threats.

I mean you can't get much worse than that unless you have them being led by Hitler or Satan. How this goes on unnoticed is beyond me.

Honestly, because it's gendered but only hurts boys, and therefore isn't a "gender issue" worth doing anything about? That also seems to be why painting genital cutting as not being a gender issue at all but an issue of bodily autonomy leads to complaints about trying to minimize the victimization of girls, because being an issue of girls being victimized makes it somehow inherently more important than if it's a more general problem. We seem to do that kind of thing a lot in general (see the DOJ threatening to get involved in bullying cases if girls are bullied but not boys because their authority to do so stems from allegedly gender neutral VAWA and Title IX).

I don't really understand why it has to be a gender issue or not anyways. Is terrible things suddenly OK if their roots are in patriarchy or not? That just seems like a way to allow bigots to move the issue towards rhetoric. If you couch "This is bad because it's a gender issue" rather than "This is bad because it's a body autonomy issue", and stick to that definition even as that ship sinks, it seems like you're just doing your argument disservice.

I think if some misogynist figured out some concrete mathematical proof that spousal abuse against women makes the DOW Jones and NASDAQ skyrocket as a means of devaluing anti-abuse laws by moving the argument away from gender politics and to make it a 'safer' economic argument, it doesn't suddenly become like, more favorable to let women be beat by their spouses.

If people get too caught up in like, whether or not the root in harm is X, Y or Z rather than just stopping it, we're going to let assholes switch out various top-hats and badges until their stated root of abuse becomes something else.

It's like when homophobes get real butt hurt over the term like "Oh, I'm not homophobic, because I don't fear gay people!", it's stupid to try to prove how they do or don't actually fear gay people, as if homophobia is OK if somewhere in the corner of your mind your rationality for it is Y instead of X.

Damien Granz:

Schadrach:

LetalisK:
Well, to be fair, it could also be because I'm right. Does one have a more negative impact on an individual than the other? By how much? Mind you, this isn't to say one is positive and one is negative, they can both be negative.

I'm with Kaulen on this one -- you consider your stance reasonable because of cultural historical weight, in much the way you wouldn't consider any other kind of permanent disfigurement performed on infant boys (or any kind of permanent disfigurement performed on infant girls) reasonable.

It's a simple issue of bodily autonomy -- let's not perform permanent body modifications without medical necessity on persons too young to have a say in the matter, hmm? Is that too much to ask? Is there a good reason we only feel that's a reasonable request for girls?

The cultural weight argument sort of falls apart when you consider that we're not in the 1700's or whatever culture or time period that we're trying to weigh, we're in today. It seems like an appeal towards laziness really, and it can be used on any argument. To be like "Well, there's a lot of history of being terrible people, so I guess we should just be lazy and be terrible people." is a sort of self fulfilling prophecy that will never go out of vogue. We could then continue to be terrible people, and in 300 years when somebody goes "Let's stop being terrible" somebody will go "There's a lot of cultural weight to being terrible".

It's like when people appeal to tradition to defend shit like being against women's suffrage or gay rights, by being like "Well, we don't know what will happen if we give women the right to vote, it's too soon! Women haven't had the right to vote long enough for us to know whether or not giving them the right to vote will in the long term be a good idea!".

It's this perpetual pushing back the date of action based on the fact that somebody in the past did the same thing.

People can and will do this to any situation that you just want to be lazy about. "I haven't learned to read yet, therefor I shouldn't learn to read now because there's no guarantee that literacy will help me out."

I don't even know why anybody tolerates such an argument.

Um... we don't tolerate it. That's kind of why we're in this thread, arguing with pro-circumcision folks.

Kaulen Fuhs:

Damien Granz:

Schadrach:

I'm with Kaulen on this one -- you consider your stance reasonable because of cultural historical weight, in much the way you wouldn't consider any other kind of permanent disfigurement performed on infant boys (or any kind of permanent disfigurement performed on infant girls) reasonable.

It's a simple issue of bodily autonomy -- let's not perform permanent body modifications without medical necessity on persons too young to have a say in the matter, hmm? Is that too much to ask? Is there a good reason we only feel that's a reasonable request for girls?

The cultural weight argument sort of falls apart when you consider that we're not in the 1700's or whatever culture or time period that we're trying to weigh, we're in today. It seems like an appeal towards laziness really, and it can be used on any argument. To be like "Well, there's a lot of history of being terrible people, so I guess we should just be lazy and be terrible people." is a sort of self fulfilling prophecy that will never go out of vogue. We could then continue to be terrible people, and in 300 years when somebody goes "Let's stop being terrible" somebody will go "There's a lot of cultural weight to being terrible".

It's like when people appeal to tradition to defend shit like being against women's suffrage or gay rights, by being like "Well, we don't know what will happen if we give women the right to vote, it's too soon! Women haven't had the right to vote long enough for us to know whether or not giving them the right to vote will in the long term be a good idea!".

It's this perpetual pushing back the date of action based on the fact that somebody in the past did the same thing.

People can and will do this to any situation that you just want to be lazy about. "I haven't learned to read yet, therefor I shouldn't learn to read now because there's no guarantee that literacy will help me out."

I don't even know why anybody tolerates such an argument.

Um... we don't tolerate it. That's kind of why we're in this thread, arguing with pro-circumcision folks.

I mean I don't know why people are trying to discuss whether or not that weight exists when it's a dumb discussion to have at all.

I guess I mean it'd be like if we were discussing how to build a deck or what wood to use or how wide and what not, and somebody came up and started to interject whether or not Batman or Optimus Prime was better, as a legitimate counterargument on what wood to use for the back yard deck. And then people started to honestly debate the whole Batman/Prime thing, treating it as a legitimate deck building question, even the people who wanted to get on with the project seriously. And then we all let the whole deck project never get finished because we can't decide on the nonsense Batman/Prime question. Like "We can't move on to actually measuring our back yard until somebody solves this Batman riddle!".

I just find when somebody is losing an argument and they go "Well, there's a lot of history in being terrible!" or "We can't start being good because we haven't been decent people long enough to tell whether or not being decent people works out!" they're basically just trying to tank an argument they've already lost by stalling for time.. infinitely.

That's all. I'm just commenting on the fact that those sorts of arguments are just inherently bad.

Damien Granz:

Kaulen Fuhs:

Damien Granz:

The cultural weight argument sort of falls apart when you consider that we're not in the 1700's or whatever culture or time period that we're trying to weigh, we're in today. It seems like an appeal towards laziness really, and it can be used on any argument. To be like "Well, there's a lot of history of being terrible people, so I guess we should just be lazy and be terrible people." is a sort of self fulfilling prophecy that will never go out of vogue. We could then continue to be terrible people, and in 300 years when somebody goes "Let's stop being terrible" somebody will go "There's a lot of cultural weight to being terrible".

It's like when people appeal to tradition to defend shit like being against women's suffrage or gay rights, by being like "Well, we don't know what will happen if we give women the right to vote, it's too soon! Women haven't had the right to vote long enough for us to know whether or not giving them the right to vote will in the long term be a good idea!".

It's this perpetual pushing back the date of action based on the fact that somebody in the past did the same thing.

People can and will do this to any situation that you just want to be lazy about. "I haven't learned to read yet, therefor I shouldn't learn to read now because there's no guarantee that literacy will help me out."

I don't even know why anybody tolerates such an argument.

Um... we don't tolerate it. That's kind of why we're in this thread, arguing with pro-circumcision folks.

I mean I don't know why people are trying to discuss whether or not that weight exists when it's a dumb discussion to have at all.

I guess I mean it'd be like if we were discussing how to build a deck or what wood to use or how wide and what not, and somebody came up and started to interject whether or not Batman or Optimus Prime was better, as a legitimate counterargument on what wood to use for the back yard deck. And then people started to honestly debate the whole Batman/Prime thing, treating it as a legitimate deck building question, even the people who wanted to get on with the project seriously. And then we all let the whole deck project never get finished because we can't decide on the nonsense Batman/Prime question. Like "We can't move on to actually measuring our back yard until somebody solves this Batman riddle!".

I just find when somebody is losing an argument and they go "Well, there's a lot of history in being terrible!" or "We can't start being good because we haven't been decent people long enough to tell whether or not being decent people works out!" they're basically just trying to tank an argument they've already lost by stalling for time.. infinitely.

That's all. I'm just commenting on the fact that those sorts of arguments are just inherently bad.

Naturally, but we weren't arguing with such an assertion (at least I wasn't). I was just trying to explain WHY people hold such a view, in an attempt to show that it's silly to do so. You're right; "That's the way we've always done it" is a non-argument, but that doesn't stop people from subscribing to it all the time.

Kopikatsu:
The issue is that waiting until they're older to preform the procedure can cause scarring and other permanent damage. The reason it's preformed on infants is because they can heal fully.

Just not true. Scarring and other permanent damage can occur at any age, and in fact any mistake on a baby is magnified when he grows up, like writing on a balloon. There is a tiny artery near the intended wound-site, and modern gel-filled diapers can easily conceal the only 35 ml (two tablespoons) of blood that a baby needs to lose for his life to be in danger. A baby can just slip away, and since he was only a day or two old, it's easy to blame some birth defect for his death. It suits nobody to blame the decision to circumcise him.

And your whole argument presupposes that it has to be done or he will want it to have been done. Neither is true.

Let's be logical here everyone. We know why americans started circumcising their sons. To stop them from masturbating.

Did it work? Yes? No?

If it didn't then it's kind of pointless isn't it?

If it did, then kudos to you. Sex will be freaky when they'll have it I guess.

Do you have any idea how small I would look circumcised?! I jest of course, but the decision to chop part of your dick off should be yours, and yours ALONE.

"Baby boys can and do succumb as a result of having their foreskin removed. Circumcision-related mortality rates are not known with certainty; this study estimates the scale of this problem. This study finds that approximately 117 neonatal circumcision-related deaths (9.01/100,000) occur annually in the United States, about 1.3% of male neonatal deaths from all causes. Because infant circumcision is elective, all of these deaths are avoidable."

http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html

Maybe it's not the most deaths ever, but it's still a waste of human life for nothing but a cosmetic surgery.

And all this talk about scarring if you get it done at a later age... You do realize that there is always a circumcision scar right? it's where the foreskin was removed, there's no way you can really avoid getting that scar. Botched circumcision can also lead to things that aren't death, such as the possibility of removing too much and making any and all erections extremely painful wherein the patient then has to go through some amount of foreskin restoration just to combat it.

Although there are times when the foreskin is better off removed, you should still probably wait, there's also several ways to treat each problem. If you're able to catch it early sometimes you can avoid having to be circumcised and the problem that leads to it isn't all that rampant. If circumcision could be reversed I might be more lenient with it but as it stands foreskin restoration isn't perfect and it can't completely revert the penis back to what it was before so no matter what post-operation there will be a permanent effect on the organ. (Severity depending on person, some there's absolutely nothing noticeably different aside from the look)

Realitycrash:

Sitting at a lecture right now, so don't have time to personally go through all the links, but: What do you know of the reported loss of sexual tactile-senses? I.e having your foreskin cut off makes you lose considerable "sensation", making it harder to orgasm?

Having been circumcised as a baby I cannot tell you if I've "lost" any feeling down there, but I can tell you it isn't all that hard for me to reach orgasm. Shoot, I'm positive deathgrip does more to prevent orgasms then circumcision ever did.

This is pretty personal I guess but I am a stranger here. I was circumcised when I was younger due to it being an American thing or something? I'm American born and my dads American, and he decided when I was a few months old that me and my sister weren't worth his time and decided to leave and never contact us again.

Anyway it healed up wrong, which attached the skin the the head in 3 places. I never knew anything about this, this all happened without my consent, and I assumed everything was normal and never even knew about circumcised or uncircumcised penises until I was like 14. So it made masturbating and sex uncomfortable, and even painful after a short while, and I made a sort of "mental-block" if I was approached for sex because, frankly, I was embarrassed and it made me uncomfortable to explain, especially as I'm British and no one here is circumcised (seriously, my friends think it's a Jewish thing only, even I'm not sure why Americans do it).

So when I was 20 I went to the doctors to get it fixed and, in February when I was 21, I got it fixed. It's of course permanently scarred, and the skin has a sort of irregular shaped and it looks arguably worse, so I'll still have to explain to people why it's like that, but at least it's no longer painful.

The point? This should never happen to anyone without their consent. I was an infant when this happened, I had no choice in the matter, and because of some man that ran away when I was a few months old my life has been permanently changed and there's nothing I can do about it.

I would even go as far as saying it should be illegal.

Pluvia:
I was circumcised when I was younger due to it being an American thing or something?

It appears to be far more widespread among Americans, sure. Around here - unless there are medical reasons like a phimosis - it's usually reserved for the children of members of Judaism or Islam.

Anyway it healed up wrong, which attached the skin the the head in 3 places.

Yeah, scar-tissue is kind of patch-work and often doesn't do its job quite right.

The point? This should never happen to anyone without their consent. I was an infant when this happened, I had no choice in the matter, and because of some man that ran away when I was a few months old my life has been permanently changed and there's nothing I can do about it.

I would even go as far as saying it should be illegal.

Agreed. In Germany we have a concept regarding "religious maturity" or "responsibility" I guess. From 14 years onwards a person cannot be forced to attend any services against their will. They can be part (or choose not to be part) of the religious group they desire. That's in theory, of course, since in practice parents can still cause all sorts of pressures, but... yeah.
Anyway, I think the same age should be the requirement for the circumcision. Considering it's an irreversible mark of joining a religious group the 14 year old may not even want to be a part of anymore, this applies on more than just the level of leaving the body intact.
Of course, the religious groups in question demand it be done much earlier, so everybody is in an uproar. While physicians are still calling for changes, the politicians have largely turned away from the issue again, but it's far from over, I'd say.
I'm with you: The rights of the child supersede the rights of the parents, certainly when it comes to things like modifications of the body, medically unnecessary surgeries, scarring etc..
We give parents a lot of leeway, but there are points at which we as a society say "no, you cannot do this, even though you are the parents". This is the same concept, except it draws the line a little differently than other views may.

Pluvia:
This is pretty personal I guess but I am a stranger here. I was circumcised when I was younger due to it being an American thing or something? I'm American born and my dads American, and he decided when I was a few months old that me and my sister weren't worth his time and decided to leave and never contact us again.

Anyway it healed up wrong, which attached the skin the the head in 3 places. I never knew anything about this, this all happened without my consent, and I assumed everything was normal and never even knew about circumcised or uncircumcised penises until I was like 14. So it made masturbating and sex uncomfortable, and even painful after a short while, and I made a sort of "mental-block" if I was approached for sex because, frankly, I was embarrassed and it made me uncomfortable to explain, especially as I'm British and no one here is circumcised (seriously, my friends think it's a Jewish thing only, even I'm not sure why Americans do it).

So when I was 20 I went to the doctors to get it fixed and, in February when I was 21, I got it fixed. It's of course permanently scarred, and the skin has a sort of irregular shaped and it looks arguably worse, so I'll still have to explain to people why it's like that, but at least it's no longer painful.

The point? This should never happen to anyone without their consent. I was an infant when this happened, I had no choice in the matter, and because of some man that ran away when I was a few months old my life has been permanently changed and there's nothing I can do about it.

I would even go as far as saying it should be illegal.

I agree with you, 100%, though my history is not nearly as sordid. Frankly, I'm disgusted by the people saying they'll do this to their children and it's nobody else's business.

You people are mutilating your sons, and I'm damn well making it my business.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked