hseiken posted:

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

ColdPie posted:

Hahaha you have no idea what you're talking about.

quote:

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:

Your friend is a loving moron and you should disregard anything he says.

quote:

You are wrong.

quote:

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.

Ddraig posted:

Yes, there's also some people who believe that it is a key part of regulating ejaculatory response, plus it has a few other benefits.

Goes back to the anti-masturbation roots of the practice.

hseiken posted:

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/news/articles/2012/07/09/uncircumcised-boys-at-higher-risk-for-infection-study
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/male-yeast-infection.html

Apparently the moisture trapped between the glans and foreskin = higher risk of at least yeast infections and requires careful attention to hygiene and preventive measures above and beyond those who are circumcised.


This actually brings me to a propaganda photo my friend posted where he claims 'The best part of my penis was [removed]' (removed was used because he used deliberately violent words to play on emotion). My problem with this comment is...how would someone *know* this if they never once had their foreskin after reaching sexual maturity (and this kid's case, he was circumcised days after birth). If one has no experiences to the contrary of their current state of being, then it's simply a greener grass argument, especially since one cannot explain sex and likely this particular boy's case is just a botched surgery but he interprets it as having his sexual pleasure removed and assumes every circumcision results in his own personal misfortune.


Okay, then I disregard his arguments against circumcision.


I put up a couple sources. Maybe you could put up some interpreting the available data differently.


Shouldn't the backlash be against the doctors (because I should be clear I'm only speaking of medical, sterile circumcisions, not hosed up voodoo jewish religious traditions) that hosed up the circumcision and possibly negligent parents that didn't do follow up visits to deal with post op infections and inspections?


One more thing I want to respond to...


You also mentioned history of lube. I can't help but think some of these lube guys don't understand their bodies. Masturbation isn't about 'faking a vagina' using your hand, it's about stimulation itself so it leads me to believe that these lube-peeps don't have a good relationship with their body. But that's just anecdotal opinion...I've never once used lube, am cut and also never have a problem with rubbing one out. Most of the time, I have a harder time finding a good big titty video to visually stimulate me that I've not seen a million times.

hseiken posted:

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/news/articles/2012/07/09/uncircumcised-boys-at-higher-risk-for-infection-study

The article posted:

For the study, published July 9 in the journal CMAJ, the researchers analyzed information on nearly 400 boys who visited an emergency room with symptoms of a urinary tract infection. Forty of these boys had not been circumcised and had a visible urethra; 269 weren't circumcised and had a partially visible or nonvisible urethra; and 84 were circumcised.

quote:

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/male-yeast-infection.html

Helsing posted:

The article posted:
[For the study, published July 9 in the journal CMAJ, the researchers analyzed information on nearly 400 boys who visited an emergency room with symptoms of a urinary tract infection. Forty of these boys had not been circumcised and had a visible urethra; 269 weren't circumcised and had a partially visible or nonvisible urethra; and 84 were circumcised.]

Not really sure what definitive conclusions we can draw from this. Even if we take this as evidence that uncircumcised men are at a higher risk for urinary track infections (how much higher? and did the researchers try to control for other factors? Is it possible the circumcised people in the community came from different demographic groups that might explain these differences? The article doesn't say) it's still not clear that cutting off part of the penis is the right solution. It may be that simply teaching better basic hygiene would solve this problem without requiring an operation that will make sex less pleasurable.

Forgall posted:

R. Mute posted:

Is this, like... important enough to care about?

hcreight posted:

It's not even a religious practice unless you're Jewish.

R. Mute posted:

So... what? Does anyone here disagree? What are you guys suggesting should be done? What?

Arakan posted:

Islam

Helsing posted:

Doesn't circumcision make the head of the penis less sensitive, thereby making sex less pleasurable?

R. Mute posted:

So... what? Does anyone here disagree? What are you guys suggesting should be done? What?

sbaldrick posted:

I couldn't tell you but then again I never had an orgasm before my circumcision.

This is honestly one of the stupidest issues that people get mad about today.

Skeesix posted:

Probably if/when you have a son, think long and hard about what gets done to his dongle.

Helsing posted:

You do realize that people come here because they enjoy debating topics, right? We aren't a parliament or court that has the power to change things, we're a bunch of internet nerds who like to debate and discuss ideas either because we enjoy those things for their own sake or because we think we'll get a better understanding of the topic by debating it rather than just reading about it.

Of course you actually do understand that since you're also debating here, you're just choosing to argue about why we're talking about this topic at all. If you think this is a dumb or pointless discussion maybe just read a different thread?

I agree its not exactly a pressing issue but I do know people who resent the fact they were circumcised. If they feel mad about it I'm not sure its our place to tell them they're being irrational. Having your genitals altered in a way you regret when you were too young to consent seems like a legitimate grievance.

If it turns out that we're performing a basically pointless surgery on millions of people and as a consequence these people have a (slightly) diminished sex life then that hardly seems irrelevant. It may not rank up there with income inequality or global warming or invading foreign countries but I think we can somehow spare a bit of server space to discuss this topic.

R. Mute posted:

So... what? Does anyone here disagree? What are you guys suggesting should be done? What?

hseiken posted:

"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.

Helsing posted:

I agree its not exactly a pressing issue but I do know people who resent the fact they were circumcised. If they feel mad about it I'm not sure its our place to tell them they're being irrational. Having your genitals altered in a way you regret when you were too young to consent seems like a legitimate grievance.

If it turns out that we're performing a basically pointless surgery on millions of people and as a consequence these people have a (slightly) diminished sex life then that hardly seems irrelevant. It may not rank up there with income inequality or global warming or invading foreign countries but I think we can somehow spare a bit of server space to discuss this topic.

Helsing posted:

Saying that the foreskin requires "careful attention to hygiene and preventive measures" seems a little bit odd unless you consider "apply soap and water while in the shower" to be some kind of prohibitive burden.

ColdPie posted:

It's more complicated than that. There's lots of misinformation and tradition behind the practice, which leads to people like the OP encouraging MGM. There are also a sizable amount of babies born to single mothers, or possibly just with the father not present, which would lead to an anti-MGM father not having his opinion expressed. I think overall you're right that the main issue is most people don't care, so they just go with what the father has.

I think Helsing summed it up pretty well:

Popular Thug Drink posted:

I'll be a father in about six months, if my theoretical son wants to be circumcised he can make that decision after he turns 18. Thank You.

Ddraig posted:

The scale is different, but it's still the same form of argument.

Helsing posted:

Doesn't circumcision make the head of the penis less sensitive, thereby making sex less pleasurable?

7c Nickel posted:

Anyone comparing it to lopping off the clitoris is being loving insulting.

Powercrazy posted:

Any rational liberal person would hold this position regardless of what happened to them as a new-born.

botany posted:

This. Yes it's a dumb unneccesary medical procedure, but holy poo poo please stop calling it "male genital mutilation" as if it was even slightly comparable to having your clitoris scraped out with a glass shard you goddamn weirdos.

paranoid randroid posted:

I would also like to float the topics of: tipping and the correct way to prepare a steak.

e. furthermore, MY DICK