|
Firstly, I apologize if a similar thread exists elsewhere. I do not have permission to search the forums, so I suppose my cheapness could result in reigniting an already closed issue and so I take responsibility for my penny pinching ways possibly double dipping a topic unnecessarily. That said... One of my friends (whom I will state right now is also an anti-vaxer), has recently started flooding his Facebook feed with Intactivist(TM) posts. For those of (3) of you who might be unaware of this movement, here are some links: http://www.intactamerica.org/ http://www.circumstitions.com/ They only get worse from there so I will trust those actually interested can google it to their heart's content (especially since these sorts of sites actually are more vocal and manipulate searches on "circumcision" as a single-word string). The reason why I wanted to start this this (possibly duplicate thread) is because this 'intactivism' is new to me. I personally have had my 'tip nipped' ("Robin Hood: Men In Tights" reference) and have nothing negative to say about the procedure my parents opted into when I was 3 days old. So this is my personal bias and must be known before I continue into the arguments made against the procedure, which I will begin with first. "It's genital mutilation!" This is the primary argument against circumcision. My problem with this argument is that it minimizes female genitalia alterations which are almost always tied to religion and maintaining a patriarchal control of women. I haven't read of anything that cites circumcision's intent on being of the same ilk. In a back and forth banter, I read someone saying that they were made popular in the 1900's to stifle sexual activity in the United States to maintain a puritan-based society (i.e. work work work, die) but that one individual did not post any references to back up his/her statement nor could I find any readily available information so this seems completely fabricated to me. But in the larger scope of this argument, morally this statement cannot be argued and that's the beauty of it. It's sly in it's phrasing because of the severity of the language. However, emotional arguments are null to me especially since it's something that I personally have been subjected to without any negative effects. "There's no medical reason for it!" This is one argument against foreskin snipping that I come to a chicken/egg question. Have recent studies for the benefits of circumcision been conducted because of the foreskin-stays types or did the foreskin-stays types start saying there's no medical benefits because no studies had been conducted when they began saying this? Studies have been done showing there are significant medical benefits to circumcision. The CDC reports here: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/research/malecircumcision/ The most common benefits of having circumcision I have seen involve preventive infections. The foreskin provides a nature-made petri-dish for such fun stuff as yeast infections if not properly attended to by the penis' owner. However, the more serious implications of the studies done in Africa concerning HIV transmission is certainly a benefit, yes? And concerning my friend who got me started on this dick-talk who I stated is anti-vax, a paradox is reached: He's anti HPV vaccination but then advocates against circumcision which studies have shown prevent spread of HPV (also in the CDC article). Suddenly I find myself in GOP territory of 'you can't win' territory...set up people to fail. But I digress... "The child has no choice in the matter!" This, to me, is the most hilarious argument. Children have no choice for LOTS of things. These choices are deferred to parents. If children were to make all of their choices, they'd die of diabetes by age of 1 1/2. These are the main arguments I see and I find the morality of the argument compelling to some degree, but it becomes obfuscated by comparison to female genital mutilation which is designed to remove all sexual pleasure of women. I find the comparison apples and oranges, personally. HOWEVER, non-medical circumcision is in fact something I think should be banned. The Jewish tradition of circumcision outlined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_milah#Metzitzah_B.27Peh I find this quite hosed up, unsanitary and part of the 'We still do poo poo from the bronze age..uh...just 'cause!'. Before I turn this over to the fine people of SAF, I will say the following: 1.) I think circumcision has medical benefits in both daily life and for society at large (and thinking about it now, I had a small thought that anti-circumcision could be perpetrated by women who hate having to go to geinecologists all the time...?...just thinking via keyboard right there...ignore). 2.) Any arguments saying it causes trauma to the infant that have life long lasting effects are unfounded and just emotional propaganda. 3.) I think this argument against circumcision is a less devastating one in general because it doesn't necessarily have large reaching effects in public health like the anti-vax movement does so at least we can argue this without people's lives being at stake. So now I open the floor. I would like to hear from both genders on this matter and especially from religious types, but overall, I solicit all conversation from anyone. I hope this post doesn't get deleted and if a mod closes this thread, please link to a thread which I cannot search for because of my cheapness. Thanks! HS
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 07:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 13:30 |
|
|
I for one think cutting baby wieners is kind of strange but maybe an exposed glans is the only thing that really separates us from the savages.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 08:01
|
|
|
Tiler Kiwi posted:I for one think cutting baby wieners is kind of strange but maybe an exposed glans is the only thing that really separates us from the savages. To be fair, I didn't cover necessity circumcisions of people of later ages due to health issues...which is a thing. Maybe I should post about this as well?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
I believe the appropriate response is and you can quote me, "u triflin'."
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
Well, over here in noted socialist hellhole Europistan we seem to do fine without cutting poo poo off out dongs, so I dunno if it's really necessary. As for hygiene, we here in noted socialist hellhole Europistan also have figured out this thing called washing your dong, so I also dunno if that's a reason for circumcision. And finally, I kinda think that it's fair to let the child have a say in the matter since it's slightly irreversible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
Does this mean we can post pictures of dongs in the thread as evidence? Appropriately tagged  and linked, of course.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 08:26
|
|
|
I would also like to float the topics of: tipping and the correct way to prepare a steak. e. furthermore,  MY DICK
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 08:28
|
|
|
It's certainly a worthwhile issue to discuss, but the biggest problem is that the conclusion of medical studies about it tend to track pretty closely with the cultural support of circumcision. The United States was traditionally the biggest proponent of circumcision as a standard medical practice, and its studies tend to support the idea that circumcision has all sorts of potential benefits. Europe doesn't have the same kind of religious culture, and its medical communities have never been nearly as supportive of the concept. There's a quiet but longstanding difference of opinion between the two, with European doctors considering it an unnecessary risk, and American doctors considering it a tolerable risk. Opinion also tracks pretty closely with age and family history, the US in particular because it used to be broadly recommended by American doctors to the point that something like 95% of American men born in the 1960s-1970s were circumcised, only to see that percentage drop precipitously when doctors modified their stance and stopped recommending it as a matter of course. Personally, I see it as just an old religious tradition, a cultural relic from when personal hygiene was difficult and the dangers of infection were omnipresent, and that there's no moral reason to maintain such a practice in the modern day. While there have been some studies promising health and STD prevention benefits from circumcision, they remain inconclusive and unpersuasive. The studies should be reviewed and repeated, but there currently is insufficient evidence to recommend routine circumcisions - particularly in areas with limited medical facilities where the practice is both common and dangerous. Kaal fucked around with this message at 08:32 on Aug 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 08:30
|
|
|
Kaal posted:It's certainly a worthwhile issue to discuss, but the biggest problem is that the conclusion of medical studies about it tend to track pretty closely with the cultural support of circumcision. The United States was traditionally the biggest proponent of circumcision as a standard medical practice, and its studies tend to support the idea that circumcision has all sorts of potential benefits. Europe doesn't have the same kind of religious culture, and its medical communities have never been nearly as supportive of the concept. There's a quiet but longstanding difference of opinion between the two, which European doctors considering it an unnecessary risk, and American doctors considering it a tolerable risk. Fortunately, Israel isn't a bombed out ghetto with its acess to medical supplies controlled by a hostile foreign military, and has Mohels to ensure the procedure is clean by sucking the blood from the incision. Unlike Gaza, which may have had its hospitals accidentally bombed in precision strikes aimed at mobile launch pads for some very ambitious Estes rockets built by hobbyists enraged at being treated like subhuman filth. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 08:35
|
|
|
Kaal posted:
This was something I deliberately avoided as much as I could because I do believe in some respects that the US pushes this as a religious thing subconsciously. But this lead me to a paradox which includes things like 'war on christmas'...but that's another topic..
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 08:39
|
|
|
hseiken posted:This was something I deliberately avoided as much as I could because I do believe in some respects that the US pushes this as a religious thing subconsciously. But this lead me to a paradox which includes things like 'war on christmas'...but that's another topic.. Christmas is giving and circumcision is taking away. I know the Christian path here. Anyway, benefits seem to basically be a wash so it seems a rather pointless thing to do. I'm against doing it at birth for that reason and the reason that the child has no choice about it. I've heard some (crazy) people argue that this holds for vaccinations too but that's insane because the value of early vaccination far outweigh any possible likelihood of currently known negative consequences (i.e: almost none). I don't think it's worth getting massively up in arms over either though. It's not anywhere even close to the same universe as female circumcision (FGM). I do think it should probably die a slow death as a practice for all but real medical necessity (such as extreme phimosis) for the reasons above but all in all, it's not a hugely damaging procedure. edit: quote:(and thinking about it now, I had a small thought that anti-circumcision could be perpetrated by women who hate having to go to geinecologists all the time...?...just thinking via keyboard right there...ignore). I'd like you to elaborate on this anyway because what? I mean really, what lead to this line of thought? Granted, seeing a gynaecologist regularly seems pretty awful (though extremely useful) but I'm not sure how that's relevant. NLJP fucked around with this message at 08:58 on Aug 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 08:52
|
|
|
Wales Grey posted:Does this mean we can post pictures of dongs in the thread as evidence? Appropriately tagged I think it would help clarify the debate here if we could see images to compare. After careful viewing of google image results, I think I've found the best comparison set. be advised this is !Circumcised dick: http://i.imgur.com/xGpnUtg.jpg Uncircumcised dick: http://i.imgur.com/vlWKnjC.jpg
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 08:54
|
|
|
Tiler Kiwi posted:I think it would help clarify the debate here if we could see images to compare. After careful viewing of google image results, I think I've found the best comparison set. Is this a subtle hint to get back to politics? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 08:57
|
|
|
For a rather good scholarly discussion of the issues involved, listen to this: http://mydickband.bandcamp.com/album/my-dicks-double-full-length-release
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 09:04
|
|
|
Tiler Kiwi posted:I think it would help clarify the debate here if we could see images to compare. After careful viewing of google image results, I think I've found the best comparison set. Tricky. Fake Edit: can we talk about Mao Sugiyama in this thread? I think someone was asking about how to grill steaks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 09:06
|
|
|
NLJP posted:Anyway, benefits seem to basically be a wash so it seems a rather pointless thing to do. I'm against doing it at birth for that reason and the reason that the child has no choice about it. I've heard some (crazy) people argue that this holds for vaccinations too but that's insane because the value of early vaccination far outweigh any possible likelihood of currently known negative consequences (i.e: almost none). Right, I think it's important to distinguish vaccination from circumcision in this way. Botched circumcisions are terrible. Some of the first sex change operations came about because of them http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer . Even if the circumcision goes OK, the ritual around it in orthodox communities might give you Herpes and you now have to sign a consent form in NYC before getting the blood-suck-out part done http://abcnews.go.com/Health/baby-dies-herpes-virus-ritual-circumcision-nyc-orthodox/story?id=15888618 . Personally I don't care, I mean I'm cut and I turned out OK but there certainly are arguments against it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 09:10
|
|
|
Well yeah, if circumcisions are done they should be done in sterile conditions by proper surgeons. The whole set of unhygienic traditional ultra orthodox Jewish practices on top of circumcision are a whole other can of worms and should be stopped, in my opinion. I don't think they're particularly relevant to a general argument against circumcision though. NLJP fucked around with this message at 09:20 on Aug 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 09:18
|
|
|
hseiken posted:
I'm of the hilarious belief that a person should be given a choice as to whether or not they are permanently disfigured. There is nothing lost by letting a person decide for themselves once they are old enough to understand the process, this is not true of diet. Not that I have anything against juicy dongs one way or the other.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 09:23
|
|
|
Bushmaori posted:I'm of the hilarious belief that a person should be given a choice as to whether or not they are permanently disfigured. There is nothing lost by letting a person decide for themselves once they are old enough to understand the process, this is not true of diet. "Disfigured"? How so?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 09:45
|
|
|
Wales Grey posted:"Disfigured"? How so? Change that to 'permanently altered' and you have the basic argument. Once words like 'disfigured' and 'mutilated' come into arguments about male circumcision people get real mad and the whole thing breaks down because at that point it's more an aesthetic and personal thing. NLJP fucked around with this message at 09:52 on Aug 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 09:49
|
|
|
NLJP posted:Change that to 'permanently altered' and you have the basic argument. You're right, I should have said altered.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 10:04
|
|
|
Serious question: is needing 'lotion' to pleasure you are self a real thing?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 10:06
|
|
|
I needed it when I was a teen. Eventually i could do without it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 10:08
|
|
|
Personally I prefer to do the sex with an uncut dong but as long as the person it's attached to isn't awful or ugly it isn't a deal breaker other way
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 10:17
|
|
|
hseiken posted:1.) I think circumcision has medical benefits in both daily life and for society at large (and thinking about it now, I had a small thought that anti-circumcision could be perpetrated by women who hate having to go to geinecologists all the time...?...just thinking via keyboard right there...ignore). quote:HOWEVER, non-medical circumcision is in fact something I think should be banned. The Jewish tradition of circumcision outlined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_milah#Metzitzah_B.27Peh So... you seem to be generally in favor of circumcisions for medical reasons, but opposed to circumcisions for religious reasons? How on earth could you enforce that distinction? Are there other behaviors you oppose simply because a religious person is engaging in them? If a rabbi told his congregation that they should keep up on their flu shots, would you reflexively join your anti-vaxxer friend to spite him?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 10:28
|
|
|
hseiken posted:In a back and forth banter, I read someone saying that they were made popular in the 1900's to stifle sexual activity in the United States to maintain a puritan-based society (i.e. work work work, die) but that one individual did not post any references to back up his/her statement nor could I find any readily available information so this seems completely fabricated to me. But in the larger scope of this argument, morally this statement cannot be argued and that's the beauty of it. It's sly in it's phrasing because of the severity of the language. However, emotional arguments are null to me especially since it's something that I personally have been subjected to without any negative effects. This comes across as pretty lazy on your part, I have to say. Preventing masturbation was a definite key aim for Victorian pro-circumcision campaigners, who associated masturbation (by either sex) as the cause of a great many social and physical ills (that link is a pro-click on this issue btw). It's questionable to what degree the process worked, but it's worth noting that the use of lube in jacking off is virtually unheard of in uncut populations. Arguments on this issue are invariably going to be emotional, mostly because those involved will have had their minds made up for them before they had any say in the matter. No one wants to admit that the state of their penis gives them reduced sexual pleasure, or that they are less clean as a result, nor are they in any position to make that claim. Similarly, (male) masturbation is considered a shameful topic of discussion so it's rarely openly discussed as a significant aspect of this debate. As such most people just look for arguments that justify the position they're in as The Better Option, which is why we see HIV transmission rate in Africa(???) used to justify the continuation of the practice in sexually liberated, fully plumbed western society. Edit: Whenever this topic has come up with American friends (I have to say, rarely), I've been kind of concerned at how insistent they've been on refuting the anti-masturbation origins of circumcision as a medical procedure. It's not a matter of opinion or faith; it's a matter of historical record. Kegluneq fucked around with this message at 10:48 on Aug 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 10:39
|
|
|
Bushmaori posted:You're right, I should have said altered. No disfigured is the right term. I'm pretty sure if a culture made it a habit of cutting off the nose or a limb of every boy born they would think of euphemisms to refer to it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 10:50
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:No disfigured is the right term. I'm pretty sure if a culture made it a habit of cutting off the nose or a limb of every boy born they would think of euphemisms to refer to it. Disfigured has a definite negative aesthetic meaning, so it's a very relative term. Pro-circumcisers usually argue that a cut penis is more visually appealing, and that it's better to get it done to a child young so that they're not left out when they grow up. (That argument reminds me a little of putting children through laser hair removal.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 10:55
|
|
|
Once again, in a culture where baby boys have their noses removed boys with a nose would be considered visually unappealing. Doesn't make it less barbaric.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 10:57
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Once again, in a culture where baby boys have their noses removed boys with a nose would be considered visually unappealing. A better analogy might be cranial deformation, as a thing that actually happened. (  ) Care should be taken over attacking any medical intervention in children though - you see similar arguments made against circumcising children used to stop trans children from receiving hormones/hormone blockers at an early age, for instance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 11:07
|
|
|
The point being that most 'medical necessity' when it comes to circumcision usually isn't, and is usually based on bullshit historical reasons based on puritanical anti-masturbation rhetoric. There are genuine medical reasons when a circumcision may be necessary, but even in those cases it is reserved as an absolute last resort. These issues also tend to manifest later in life when, funnily enough, people have agency enough to make such choices for themselves. I mean, we don't cut babies open on birth and remove their appendix because of a chance of appendicitis later in life, much as we don't perform mastectomies on children because they may develop breast cancer. The reason these discussions tend to take on emotive turns is because there is virtually no reason to perform the procedure other than cultural reasons and millions of people in the world have managed to live with the shame and disappointment of having a non-disfigured penis.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 11:18
|
|
|
If men wouldn't use this as an argument to prove their dick is objectively better than the other dick, this wouldn't even be an argument. So, this is a pretty terrible OP. e X fucked around with this message at 11:48 on Aug 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 11:35
|
|
|
Do you really think it's appropriate to perform cosmetic surgery on a newborn?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 11:38
|
|
|
Perhaps this might also be of interest to discussion, there is currently a problem in Kenya with men being attacked by gangs and forcibly circumcised: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-28746101 Now maybe I am being overly emotive, but to me when I read that, my gut feeling is that those people are being mutilated.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 11:44
|
|
|
We're fighting the foreskin down there so we don't have to fight it over here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 11:46
|
|
|
hseiken posted:The foreskin provides a nature-made petri-dish for such fun stuff as yeast infections if not properly attended to by the penis' owner. Hahaha you have no idea what you're talking about. Is there an instructional video about how normal dicks work or something? It's not rocket science. This debate seems entirely fueled by misinformation. Find a close friend with a normal dick and ask him to show you the ropes. quote:He's anti HPV vaccination Your friend is a loving moron and you should disregard anything he says. hseiken posted:1.) I think circumcision has medical benefits in both daily life and for society at large You are wrong. hseiken posted:3.) I think this argument against circumcision is a less devastating one in general because it doesn't necessarily have large reaching effects in public health like the anti-vax movement does so at least we can argue this without people's lives being at stake. Indeed, it has a relatively small impact on one's life, which is why there's significantly less backlash against male genital mutilation than there was against female. ColdPie fucked around with this message at 12:09 on Aug 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 12:06
|
|
|
e X posted:If men wouldn't use this as an argument to prove their dick is objectively better than the other dick, this wouldn't even be an argument. Simple, collect opinions from men who got circumcision as adults and can compare what is better. Also, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Wl_uQOABxg
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 12:19
|
|
|
hseiken posted:"The child has no choice in the matter!" You're being disingenuous here. It is very much possible to not harm the child and then later let that child make the decision for themselves when they're grown up and have the agency to do so. There's nothing hilarious about the argument, it's solid. If you want to counter that argument, you should argue that there is less risk and less chance of lasting harm if the procedure is done early in a childs life (reports on this are inconclusive but there does exist evidence in this direction you can refer to) as opposed to later. Saying that an argument is "hilarious" just goes to show that you haven't fully understood the issue. It makes sense with how biased the presentation of the debate is in your OP. What's the point in using the word of an anti-vaxer on one side when there are plenty of non-lunatics arguing in favour of not circumcising, including well-respected medical professionals, except to discredit the case without looking to the arguments.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 12:27
|
|
|
hseiken posted:"It's genital mutilation!" Don't sign your posts. I really hate the bolded argument because it's loving stupid. FGM is a very bad thing, that doesn't make circumcision ok and not mutilation. If you burn down a synagogue you don't get to tell people not to minimize the Holocaust. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 12:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 13:30 |
|
|
Yeah it's a very stupid argument. Protip: It's not one or the other. I'm very much against the mutilation of genitals of either sex and I'm reasonably certain that medical 'science' could easily sterilise the perception of FGM as being of a medical advantage to young women much in the same way young women in Ireland were encouraged to have all their teeth removed and replaced with false teeth, or how hysteria was an actual thing and how a hysterectomy was a medical necessity to prevent it. Bullshit comes in many guises, just because one has become socially acceptable doesn't mean it's right.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 12:48
|
|