|
Yes female genital mutilation is far worse, but so what? Both are completely unnecessary procedures, one being worse than the other doesn't really make the lesser one any less terrible. It's a rather cynical way of attempting to shut down debate. If we were having a debate about income tax and someone brought up 'well what about slavery? Yeah, you ain't got an answer for that, do you?' it would be equally pointless. I'm firmly opposed to genital mutilation of anyone against their will, as I have previously stated. I'm firmly opposed to any unnecessary and possibly harmful medical procedure based on societal conventions.
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 12:52 |
|
|
It would actually be more like you saying that income tax was like slavery and us saying that that's not an okay thing to say.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
Referring to circumcision as MGM trivializes FGM. I say this as a person with a mutilated dick who has never experienced sexual dysfunction or ill health due to the unnecessary procedure carried out on me as an infant. Circumcision is actually less terrible than FGM. Circumcision isn't really terrible at all, it's just an mild annoyance at best. You're coming across as a self-righteous weirdo, which I dunno maybe that's the impression you want to give. Your decision. It's stupid and spergy to draw moral equivalency between the two.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
I want to go back to the claim that there's some sort of conspiracy of doctors hiding all the evidence of the magical earth shattering orgasms he could be having right now if he only had that little bit of extra skin.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
It's sort of like saying that getting plugged with a BB gun is exactly as bad as having your brains blown out Kurt Cobain-style. Sure, they may functionally be the exact same thing, but the exception is that one isn't really a problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:I want to go back to the claim that there's some sort of conspiracy of doctors hiding all the evidence of the magical earth shattering orgasms he could be having right now if he only had that little bit of extra skin.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
There's no real way to tell about "feeling better" or any of that stuff because a) orgasms are partially mental, and b) feelings are subjective. "Amount of sensation" does not mean better or worse sensation, so there's no point of reference. Even people that have been circumcised later in life are not a barometer because of the difference between practically always being that way and not, and having a mental point of comparison. Sensation is an unsolvable argument. I personally don't orgasm most of the time while having sex, but I don't know if it's because I'm a picky spoiled rear end in a top hat or I don't have enough of the right sensation down there due to being circumcised or because I beat off too much as a teen and destroyed stuff down there. Therefore, for that reason, if I ever had a kid, god forbid, I wouldn't have him circumcised to err on the side of caution, and would suggest that to anyone else as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:It would actually be more like you saying that income tax was like slavery and us saying that that's not an okay thing to say. I do not hold this belief, nor do I believe that circumcision is really comparable to female genital mutilation especially given that the latter is exclusively designed to curtail sexual pleasure. Circumcision is still a completely unnecessary medical procedure that has virtually no good reason for being performed on children. Virtually any supposed medical benefit for the majority of people it is performed upon is so miniscule that it is comparable to curing dandruff with decapitation. There is a few circumstances where it is a medical necessity but these are usually a last resort corrective procedure, not a speculative preventive one. I apologize if I come across as a bit of a loon, I just don't think the existence of something worse means we can accept something less bad because 'it could be worse'. Yes, it can always be worse, and often is, that doesn't mean steps shouldn't be taken to fix the lesser problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Circumcision is still a completely unnecessary medical procedure that has virtually no good reason for being performed on children. Virtually any supposed medical benefit for the majority of people it is performed upon is so miniscule that it is comparable to curing dandruff with decapitation. The CDC article seems to make a pretty good case for circumcision in Sub-Saharan Africa (unless I'm grossly misinterpreting data).
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:I apologize if I come across as a bit of a loon, I just don't think the existence of something worse means we can accept something less bad because 'it could be worse'. Yes, it can always be worse, and often is, that doesn't mean steps shouldn't be taken to fix the lesser problem. You first have to accept that circumcision is a problem. I don't think people enjoying pistachio ice cream is a problem. Getting a little bit of your dick snipped off is weird but it's not a problem, it's just an unnecessary thing that people do, like tattoos or piercings.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
I believe this topic is warmly and adequately covered in the intactivist comic, "Foreskin Man." http://www.foreskinman.com/index.htm (not very work safe)
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:You first have to accept that circumcision is a problem. I don't think people enjoying pistachio ice cream is a problem. Getting a little bit of your dick snipped off is weird but it's not a problem, it's just an unnecessary thing that people do, like tattoos or piercings.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:You first have to accept that circumcision is a problem. I don't think people enjoying pistachio ice cream is a problem. Getting a little bit of your dick snipped off is weird but it's not a problem, it's just an unnecessary thing that people do, like tattoos or piercings. Yeah, but there's usually laws about getting tattoos. I know I couldn't get one when I was a baby, and if my parents got me one they would have probably had to answer some difficult questions. I had to wait until I was old enough to make up my own mind about a permanent alteration to my body.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
If Imperial powers hadn't completely suppressed every ethnic group where tattooing children was actually a thing? Yeah I'd probably be ok with the Ainu giving their little girls arm wards or whatever. But the Japanese pretty much wiped that out as a practice, ostensibly because it was "too cruel", but actually as part of a campaign to completely eradicate their culture and force them to assimilate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Really? I mean, the right to decide what happens to your own body is pretty much a fundamental human right. With few exceptions, such as medically necessary procedures (such as vaccines and such) nobody should have a drat thing to do with what happens to your body except yourself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
This is entirely a cultural issue dressed up in the English press as a medical issue. Various cultures have been cutting the genitals of both sexes, and the "victims" of each procedure largely support their continued practice, aided mostly by misinformation. For example, it is often said by certain populations that a woman should have their clitoris removed, otherwise it will continue to grow into a penis, making the woman undesirable to future partners. Similar falsehoods are believed about the human penis to justify genital cutting. Here are some women defending female "circumcision" in Egypt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcJNAtn-c6I I think that making this type of unalterable decision for your child infringes on his or her right to bodily integrity and self-determination, so this should really be an elective procedure for those who are old enough to consent to it (notwithstanding those procedures that are medically necessary). Everything else isn't really relevant.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Really? I mean, the right to decide what happens to your own body is pretty much a fundamental human right. In practice, though, parents decide all sorts of physical things for their children. From getting children to expose themselves to the harm of contact sports, deciding what medication they receive, to changing their body shape through diet, though the extreme structural changes that come with some things like being a baseball pitcher, ballet dancer, et al., we do a lot to determine what happens to our children's bodies. We are starting to pay some attention to the risks posed by contact sports, but that's just a small part of the whole.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
Yes, but for the most part these are usually not accompanied by permanent changes to your bodily integrity. Choosing a child's diet is not really comparable to cutting off part of their body or permanently scarring their skin with intent. It can lead to some hosed up outcomes of course (a parent can choose to starve their child which can lead to permanent issues) but there are safeguards in place in society that will hopefully prevent those problems from happening.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
I view making your kid play Pee Wee Football as much more dangerous than circumcision.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
I just view it as everyone having control of their own bodies. If piercing and tattooing your baby is frowned upon, lopping off a piece of their genitals goes way past that.Ddraig posted:Really? I mean, the right to decide what happens to your own body is pretty much a fundamental human right. So this. Even if it isn't harmful it goes against my philosophy in this. Only medically necessary (and cosmetic like harelip of course) procedures should be put upon someone who can't decide for themselves.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:I view making your kid play Pee Wee Football as much more dangerous than circumcision. More dangerous? Probably, yeah. I personally got pretty badly hosed up due to a rugby injury when I was a kid. I'm not really sure who is to blame for that really, if anyone, since it was something I voluntarily wanted to play and wasn't forced. That doesn't really change the fact that medically unnecessary procedures are being forced on unconsenting children.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:I apologize if I come across as a bit of a loon, I just don't think the existence of something worse means we can accept something less bad because 'it could be worse'. Yes, it can always be worse, and often is, that doesn't mean steps shouldn't be taken to fix the lesser problem. Nobody is making that argument though? Or maybe Thug Drink is, but I'm cetainly not. It's perfectly okay to have a problem with circumcision, just please don't call it "male genital mutilation", because that implies that it's the male version of FGM, which it really isn't. The male equivalent of FGM would be to be have your glans chopped off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Yes, but for the most part these are usually not accompanied by permanent changes to your bodily integrity. Yes they are. Ballet causes permanent changes, most contact sports do too. quote:Choosing a child's diet is not really comparable to cutting off part of their body or permanently scarring their skin with intent. It's actually far worse: the high incidence of diabetes type II in the US is partially lifestyle, but it's hugely diet-related. quote:It can lead to some hosed up outcomes of course (a parent can choose to starve their child which can lead to permanent issues) but there are safeguards in place in society that will hopefully prevent those problems from happening. There are no safeguards in place against ridiculously impacting your kids health by just feeding them really badly. Not except in the most extreme circumstances. I think it's perfectly fine to be for the concept of bodily integrity for children, but if you're going to pursue it, narrowly limiting yourself to circumcision is pretty weird. In general, our society holds children as incompetent to make decisions about their bodies, and we delegate that to parents. Where this crosses the line is only at the very extremes: it's worth looking at whether those lines should be drawn closer, but I don't see the point at treating circumcision as worse than setting someone up for diabetes. Can you explain why you feel it's worse?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
Literally everyone I know who give the slightest amount of a gently caress about circumcision have Asperger's, which seems about right. Personally I stick with a quote from Chelsea Handler, of all people, on this issue. It went something like "if you want white girls to give your son blowjobs, have him circumcised; if you want them to be grossed out and not want to touch his foreskin, then don't". Skips all the dumb arguments and goes straight to the "it is culturally/aesthetically pleasing".
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I think it's perfectly fine to be for the concept of bodily integrity for children, but if you're going to pursue it, narrowly limiting yourself to circumcision is pretty weird. In general, our society holds children as incompetent to make decisions about their bodies, and we delegate that to parents. Where this crosses the line is only at the very extremes: it's worth looking at whether those lines should be drawn closer, but I don't see the point at treating circumcision as worse than setting someone up for diabetes. That's a pretty dumb argument, to be honest. There are people campaigning against infant malnutrition, there are people campaigning against kids beauty pageants, there are people campaigning against circumcision. You're not obligated to evaluate all bad things in the world and then restrict yourself to whatever numerically comes out on top. If you care more about bad thing A than bad thing B, by all means speak out against it. Your argument kind of sounds like those people saying you're not allowed to criticize Israel unless you're equally critical of Iran, Russia and Syria.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
botany posted:Nobody is making that argument though? Or maybe Thug Drink is, but I'm cetainly not. It's perfectly okay to have a problem with circumcision, just please don't call it "male genital mutilation", because that implies that it's the male version of FGM, which it really isn't. The male equivalent of FGM would be to be have your glans chopped off. This is actually a common misconception, as there are a variety of forms of FGM that don't involve full excision of the clitoris. A more analogous procedure to circumcision would be the removal of the clitoral prepuce (female foreskin) and/or labia. In addition, some non-Western forms of circumcision, like sub incision, don't really remove anything necessarily. In all cases it's better to assess it on a case by case basis rather than making blanket statements about each procedure based on gender. a primate fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Aug 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:I view making your kid play Pee Wee Football as much more dangerous than circumcision. Hard to argue with this but I'm not sure that the argument against circumcision is primarily that it's dangerous. But let's say that we get all the way to the end of any such discussion and we all agree that forcing a kid to play pee wee football is in every way worse than circumcising a baby -- so what? All this means is that if we should stop circumcising children we should also stop making kids play football. It's like saying 'I think public flogging is a preferable alternative to the death penalty', it doesn't actually get you anywhere on either topic even if everyone is willing to agree.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
a primate posted:This is actually a common misconception, as there are a variety of forms of FGM that don't involve full excision of the clitoris. A more analogous procedure to circumcision would be the removal of the clitoral prepuce (female foreskin) and/or labia. I'm aware of that, but removal of the clitoral hood isn't what the campaigns against FGM are about. Edit: Basically, yes, there are lesser forms of FGM that are roughly comparable to circumcision, but there are no rougher forms of circumcision that are equivalent to the really bad cases of FGM. Which is why we don't call circumcision "male genital mutilation".
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
For what it's worth I really don't agree with children being forced into sports, especially contact sports and other activities known to permanently damage development (such as ballet). I also think greater steps need to be taken to curtail nutritional problems, which certainly create hideous outcomes. I think the key difference is that while certain things such as nutrition can be damaging, it's generally assumed that parents are better capable and able to provide it better than children could. If left to their own devices children would eat all sorts of terrible poo poo - I know I did whenever I got the chance. I don't think many children would voluntarily choose to have their foreskin removed, though. Often that assumption is flawed but I don't really know how we can fix that other than having standardised and mandatory nutrition enforced by government for everyone. I think we are easily able to solve the problem of 'don't cut or add stuff to your child's body unless it is necessary', though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
botany posted:That's a pretty dumb argument, to be honest. There are people campaigning against infant malnutrition, there are people campaigning against kids beauty pageants, there are people campaigning against circumcision. You're not obligated to evaluate all bad things in the world and then restrict yourself to whatever numerically comes out on top. That's not my argument, though. I'm not talking about infant malnutrition or kids beauty pageants. quote:If you care more about bad thing A than bad thing B, by all means speak out against it. Your argument kind of sounds like those people saying you're not allowed to criticize Israel unless you're equally critical of Iran, Russia and Syria. I don't think that's a good analogy. What I'm saying is that your argument is "A child should have control over what happens to their body", that is not actually a value our society holds to be true, culturally or legally. We hand that decision over to the parents and only place limits at the very extremes. Circumcision is not at one of those extremes--in that it is not a very harmful practice, when compared to other things. If you're basing your argument on a principle--bodily integrity for children--then you should be consistent in that argument. Ddraig posted:For what it's worth I really don't agree with children being forced into sports, especially contact sports and other activities known to permanently damage development (such as ballet). We don't really recognize the 'voluntary' nature of children, though, because their decisions tend to be completley overwhelmed by their parent's desires. There are cultures where circumcision takes place in childhood but not as a baby, and they have high rates of continuance, too. The problem is, of course, how do you tell if a kid is 'forced' into sports, or just encouraged to do it? The nature of consent in a child is a really difficult subject ethically, legally, and otherwise. You seem to be--and please correct me if I'm wrong--approaching this from the context of figuring out what the child most wants, whereas, I think because that's so difficult to figure out, our society tends to approach it by looking at how harmful the action is to the child. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Aug 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
botany posted:I'm aware of that, but removal of the clitoral hood isn't what the campaigns against FGM are about. AFAIK they are actually against all procedures that affect women's genitals. See WHO's definition here: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
a primate posted:AFAIK they are actually against all procedures that affect women's genitals. See WHO's definition here: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/ That's not my point. Yes the campaigns include the less severe forms, but the main problem that the campaigns vocally rally around are nerve-severing cuts / full clitoral removal. The really influential works, Desert Flower or Warrior Marks, for instance, all center around that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:I think we are easily able to solve the problem of 'don't cut or add stuff to your child's body unless it is necessary', though. Just curious, but what if it wasn't necessary but it is helpful? Say if they have poor vision and you get them laser surgery? Or they have good vision but  comes up with a way to give them perfect vision and infrared vision? Maybe, maybe not? Let's say it's just what everyone is doing for their kids and not doing it will mean that their brains won't ever really be able to adjust to the procedure by the time they can consent and there's real reason to believe that they'll be less likely to get a good job because of it.Look I think circumcision (and also contact sports) is a terrible idea , I just think the rule should be 'don't do stupid poo poo to your children' and we just need to have a flexible and developing view of the definition of 'stupid' because people innovate new stupid all the time and discover old stupid as stupid all the time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
botany posted:That's not my point. Yes the campaigns include the less severe forms, but the main problem that the campaigns vocally rally around are nerve-severing cuts / full clitoral removal. The really influential works, Desert Flower or Warrior Marks, for instance, all center around that. That's cool info, but it's still true that the WHO and others think that any alterations of women's genitals that aren't medically necessary should not be performed. My argument is that it is simply cultural inertia that prevents similar statements extending to male genitals (and probably the Western revulsion of infibulation and full excision). It's worth pointing out that proponents of FGM make similar arguments about cleanliness, etc. The procedures may vary in degree, but not kind.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
Qublai Qhan posted:Just curious, but what if it wasn't necessary but it is helpful? Say if they have poor vision and you get them laser surgery? Or they have good vision but Well for what it's worth you'd be very hard pressed to find a reputable laser eye surgeon who would be willing to do laser eye surgery on a child for numerous reasons. The least harmful alternative should always be the one that's chosen, such as eye glasses. When they're old enough to decide for themselves then they can get the surgery, if they wish. As for the second, isn't that more to do with peer pressure? I mean, that's usually the kind of logic that leads to cultural practices like circumcision in the first place. 'My child won't fit in if he's different' etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
My stance is that there's little to no meaningful difference and hey, I didn't possess consciousness for the icky procedure and only found out it was a thing much later so what the gently caress do I care 
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:I apologize if I come across as a bit of a loon, I just don't think the existence of something worse means we can accept something less bad because 'it could be worse'. Yes, it can always be worse, and often is, that doesn't mean steps shouldn't be taken to fix the lesser problem. That said, Germany ruled that it was child abuse and I ain't ever heard any strong points to the contrary. If you wanna mutilate you're children, chop parts of them or scar them or whatever as is your custom, that's cool by me. Stick a spear into their small intestine, have them suck older dudes cocks or whatever your old dead men told you was right and good in your culture, I certainly wouldn't wanna speak against that lest I become a Cultural Imperialist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Well for what it's worth you'd be very hard pressed to find a reputable laser eye surgeon who would be willing to do laser eye surgery on a child for numerous reasons. The least harmful alternative should always be the one that's chosen, such as eye glasses. OK let's be more sci fi then. Brain implant that you're unemployable without for any career that involves your brain (and again not getting it at birth means even if you get it later it your brain will never learn to use it?)
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
The practical reason desert nomadic tribes practiced circumcision was because their soldiers would get yeast infections in their foreskin while on campaign and they didn't have the water available to wash it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 12:52 |
|
|
Qublai Qhan posted:OK let's be more sci fi then. Brain implant that you're unemployable without for any career that involves your brain (and again not getting it at birth means even if you get it later it your brain will never learn to use it?) In a dye in the wool socialist so I'd be campaigning for a world where such a thing wouldn't be necessary at all. Honest answer: I would still be in favour of bodily integrity. Irrespective of perceived advantages, it's not the parent's choice to make invasive procedures that are again not necessary (I assume in this world there are other jobs that do not require having invasive brain surgery as a child)
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 23:48
|
|