Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: MillCreek on January 19, 2015, 04:02:11 PM
-
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/fla-boys-circumcision-spurs-lengthy-legal-battle-protests-28320788
Judges love foreskin cases.
-
Florida...it could only happen in Florida...
-
Why are people so turbo up in arms over this? As I understand, there's only marginal advantages but no significant disadvantages.
-
Why are people so turbo up in arms over this?
Because people are nuts...
-
Why are people so turbo up in arms over this? As I understand, there's only marginal advantages but no significant disadvantages.
Yeah, I wonder about this, too. Do people out there really have nothing better to do than worry about other peoples' foreskin? The whole thing just seems weird.
-
Yeah, I wonder about this, too. Do people out there really have nothing better to do than worry about other peoples' foreskin? The whole thing just seems weird.
I have had the experience of dealing with some 'intactivists': either from the perspective of trying to sue the physician who did a circ on them as an infant 30+ years ago, or by filing disciplinary or regulatory complaints against healthcare facilities to try and prevent circs from being performed there. My sample size of these people is small, probably around 10 or so. All of them were middle-aged (30-50) white males. In my non-clinical opinion, probably six of them had some sort of psychiatric pathology around the whole issue. It was clearly the focus of their life and the hook upon which they hung all of their problems and failures in life and relationships.
-
My sample size of these people is small, probably around 10 or so.
This is the problem I have with a lot of the women who complain; either their sample size is way too small for a proper conclusion, or they're just morally not the sort of people I would go to for advice.
I mean, really; even a sample size of 40, split down the middle, (wow, is that the wrong phrase for the subject or what?) would still have a fair likelihood of being biased by too many on one side or the other who are significantly good or bad in bed for other reasons. Much beyond that, and you're getting into women who aren't particularly observant of quality anyway.
-
This is the problem I have with a lot of the women who complain; either their sample size is way too small for a proper conclusion, or they're just morally not the sort of people I would go to for advice.
I mean, really; even a sample size of 40, split down the middle, (wow, is that the wrong phrase for the subject or what?) would still have a fair likelihood of being biased by too many on one side or the other who are significantly good or bad in bed for other reasons. Much beyond that, and you're getting into women who aren't particularly observant of quality anyway.
I have no idea what you said, but I fully support your right to say it.
-
Why are people so turbo up in arms over this? As I understand, there's only marginal advantages but no significant disadvantages.
You mean they make a mountain out of a mohel hill?
Not original, I know, but at least I'm first in this thread to say it. =)
-
I find it interesting that in most cases of spouses disagreeing over circumcising their son, the vast majority of the time the dad wants it done and the mom that objects.
-
I think the only people that should make the decision are those that have skin in the game.
-
I find it interesting that in most cases of spouses disagreeing over circumcising their son, the vast majority of the time the dad wants it done and the mom that objects.
that seems odd to me...
Admittedly, I'm not sure how much extra care is required cleaning the twig while it's confined to a diaper, but it seems to me that a person who is going to spend a lot of time changing those diapers would be against any extra work.
(yes, if I ever have a boy, this will be one of the top considerations when deciding this issue. I know, I know, I'm a horrid human being. In my defense the only toddler I know is 3 and considers the question "do you want to use the potty?" to be mortal insult. I'm not sure I could take three + years of cleaning out the nooks and crannys on a little boys personal parts)
-
If I'm not mistaken, it's required by law or regulation (Health Dept.) in NYC, at least around 1939. If I didn't already have enough "research" crap to do, I'd look into that further.
-
I changed more diapers than my wife. Heck my kids were 3 weeks old before she changed one
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Admittedly, I'm not sure how much extra care is required cleaning the twig while it's confined to a diaper, but it seems to me that a person who is going to spend a lot of time changing those diapers would be against any extra work.
(yes, if I ever have a boy, this will be one of the top considerations when deciding this issue. I know, I know, I'm a horrid human being. In my defense the only toddler I know is 3 and considers the question "do you want to use the potty?" to be mortal insult. I'm not sure I could take three + years of cleaning out the nooks and crannys on a little boys personal parts)
You may be on to something. We got a pamphlet from our pediatrician that explained how to care for both intact and mutilated penises. The intact section was about 2 sentences: wipe it off during diaper changes and wash the exterior during baths. Never try to expose the glans or stick anything up there (this agrees with my Hungarian grandparent's advice that you need a ruler to care for [intact] baby penises:to smack the hands of anyone who tries to mess with it). The mutilated-penis-care section was frankly horrific, describing just how much bleeding and bruising is considered "normal" how to avoid "skin bridges" as the penis attempts to heal itself, apply petroleum jelly as a barrier to try to keep feces off the open wound, how to spot an infection so you can bring him back in to be billed yet again.
My Dr. also said it's common for parents of intact babies to follow the advice given for mutilated babies, which is often promulgated as penis advice in general, and unsurprisingly and cringingly causes problems.
-
Not sure about calling it mutilation when it prevents aids, cancer, infections of all stripes, and on a young infant is basically a scrape with little to no bleeding.
-
And we're off to the races again. ;/
-
The mutilated-penis-care section was frankly horrific, describing just how much bleeding and bruising is considered "normal" how to avoid "skin bridges" as the penis attempts to heal itself, apply petroleum jelly as a barrier to try to keep feces off the open wound, how to spot an infection so you can bring him back in to be billed yet again.
;/
Its about on par with the care needed to be given to the bit of umbilical cord until it falls off. Most adults can take care of these things without any drama, let alone trauma.
-
I'd love to poll 'inactivists' to see what their stance on abortion is, I bet the results would be head-scratching.
-
(snip)
My Dr. also said it's common for parents of intact babies to follow the advice given for mutilated babies, which is often promulgated as penis advice in general, and unsurprisingly and cringingly causes problems.
So, I guess we found the intactivist.
Again. Is it really that huge of a deal? If so, why?
I'm not disagreeing with you. Though the word choice is off-putting. It's akin to seeing pierced ears as "mutilation". It's seemingly harmless body modification, with seemingly few to no health concerns assuming you're not a complete muppet.
-
;/
Its about on par with the care needed to be given to the bit of umbilical cord until it falls off. Most adults can take care of these things without any drama, let alone trauma.
Yep. With Thing 2 about all we had to do post-circ was "frost the cupcake" with vaseline at each diaper change for a few days. Thing 3 did not get a circ, though I wish he had. While he hasn't had any serious infections, it does smell a LOT more than his older brother, and he has had at least one yeast infection and frequent redness in spite of doing everything "right" (even by zahc's definition) in terms of hygiene.
-
Irregardless of one's stance on snipping of infants, does anyone else think that by the time the kid is 4 it's not a great idea?
What will never be remembered at 8 days is a big deal to a 4 YO.
-
APS discussing this for the umpteenth time :lol:
So what if something does go wrong and a less than fully functional member results? How would you feel about having a hand in messing up your son's sex life? Putting scars on something that relies on compliant and elastic skin seems counter intuitive. The purported health benefits aren't that solid either. Smelly penis? Wash it. Afraid of STDs? Wear a condom... or better yet don't go into depths unknown... It may have been "a solution" waaaaay back when people roamed the desert for decades on end, with little spare water and no latex trees around... FFWD to 2015... not so much. It's more of a capricious tradition. "If it ain't broke, don't try n' fix it" works best.
So...how about preventive appendectomies?
-
APS discussing this for the umpteenth time :lol:
So what if something does go wrong and a less than fully functional member results? How would you feel about having a hand in messing up your son's sex life? Putting scars on something that relies on compliant and elastic skin seems counter intuitive. The purported health benefits aren't that solid either. Smelly penis? Wash it. Afraid of STDs? Wear a condom... or better yet don't go into depths unknown... It may have been "a solution" waaaaay back when people roamed the desert for decades on end, with little spare water and no latex trees around... FFWD to 2015... not so much. It's more of a capricious tradition. "If it ain't broke, don't try n' fix it" works best.
So...how about preventive appendectomies?
how often does it go wrong? and how does that number compare to numbers for yeast infections and other issues stemming from non snipped? because it seems to me that there is no real compelling evidence on way or another.
-
how often does it go wrong? and how does that number compare to numbers for yeast infections and other issues stemming from non snipped? because it seems to me that there is no real compelling evidence on way or another.
A "less than fully functional member" ALWAYS results, I mean by definition. You are excising parts here. Not only do you lose the majority of nerve ends, the loss of the foreskin results in scarifiication of what's left. Discussion of "complications" is moving the goalposts.
If you circumcised your kid, you already chose to radically change his penis and affect his future sex life. Best case scenario is he and his future wife are content with what they are missing and convince themselves that it's ok.
Circumcision is the only prophylactic surgery still performed in the civilized world. Maybe it could be justified if there was truly life-threatening concerns, but there aren't. My friend's kid got a UTI, and the prescription was "make him drink lots of water". This leads me to conclude that the motivation is mostly cosmetic, and unfortunately for the victim utterly irreversible.
-
Irregardless of one's stance on snipping of infants, does anyone else think that by the time the kid is 4 it's not a great idea?
Had a friend who voluntarily got it done at 11. I can't imagine.
-
Had a friend who voluntarily got it done at 11. I can't imagine.
Knew a guy who got it done in his 20s.
-
A "less than fully functional member" ALWAYS results, I mean by definition. You are excising parts here. Not only do you lose the majority of nerve ends, the loss of the foreskin results in scarifiication of what's left. Discussion of "complications" is moving the goalposts.
:rofl:
Talk about moving the goalposts. You've just redefined things to make all circumcision wrong by definition. That does nothing to help inform the discussion.
The question is rates of complications weighed against the benefits, not how to redefine circumcision in the worst possible light.
Had a friend who voluntarily got it done at 11. I can't imagine.
Knew a guy who got it done in his 20s.
I knew someone who had it done the summer before high school. He regarded it as an improvement, not mutilation.
I know another guy who married into a Jewish family and took up the faith. I've no idea if he had to get it done, but if so, it would have been in his 30's.
-
Know several guys had it done in their 40's
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I know another guy who married into a Jewish family and took up the faith. I've no idea if he had to get it done, but if so, it would have been in his 30's.
OK, I thought 11 was bad, but at least that one was probably not planning to use it any time soon. Doing it as late-stage prep for marriage seems counterproductive.
-
Even as an adult, its a relatively small cut. I'd take a circumcism over a lot of things that I've had happen to me in the last 20 years- broken bones,sprains, kidney stones, biopsies, cavities filled, bouts of the flu, burns etc. Then there's the finger nail that is falling off that I smashed at work a few months back...
-
OK, I thought 11 was bad, but at least that one was probably not planning to use it any time soon. Doing it as late-stage prep for marriage seems counterproductive.
Like I said, I've no idea if he needed to have it done or not. But even if so, it's still doesn't seem like that big a deal. Timing might be awkward if done the day before the wedding, but that seems unlikely.
-
A "less than fully functional member" ALWAYS results, I mean by definition. You are excising parts here. Not only do you lose the majority of nerve ends, the loss of the foreskin results in scarifiication of what's left. Discussion of "complications" is moving the goalposts.
If you circumcised your kid, you already chose to radically change his penis and affect his future sex life. Best case scenario is he and his future wife are content with what they are missing and convince themselves that it's ok.
Circumcision is the only prophylactic surgery still performed in the civilized world. Maybe it could be justified if there was truly life-threatening concerns, but there aren't. My friend's kid got a UTI, and the prescription was "make him drink lots of water". This leads me to conclude that the motivation is mostly cosmetic, and unfortunately for the victim utterly irreversible.
Radically changed his sex life? Best case scenario with his wife is they have to convince themselves? Are you shitting me? You talk as if only a few people have had it done and every single person has been been mentally scarred and is now not able to perform and have to hide it in shame. "Don't look at it woman for it is circumcised!" Give me a freakin break. ;/
Seems to me that the opposite is true. Where are you coming up with these crazy scenarios?
-
They have a website
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
They have a website
So does Art Bell.
-
They have a website
They always do.......
-
They have a website
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I don't know why, but THAT made me laugh to the point of bringing tears to my eyes.
-
After sotu I need laughs too.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
A "less than fully functional member" ALWAYS results, I mean by definition. You are excising parts here. Not only do you lose the majority of nerve ends, the loss of the foreskin results in scarifiication of what's left. Discussion of "complications" is moving the goalposts.
If you circumcised your kid, you already chose to radically change his penis and affect his future sex life. Best case scenario is he and his future wife are content with what they are missing and convince themselves that it's ok.
Circumcision is the only prophylactic surgery still performed in the civilized world. Maybe it could be justified if there was truly life-threatening concerns, but there aren't. My friend's kid got a UTI, and the prescription was "make him drink lots of water". This leads me to conclude that the motivation is mostly cosmetic, and unfortunately for the victim utterly irreversible.
well, I've never been with an uncut guy, so I can't give a true comparison from a female perspective.
However, I've been with an assortment of cut guys and, trust me, they were all fully functional. Nor were they disappointed with the results.
I'm sorry, but the only personal perspective I would take seriously is from someone who was sexually active both before and after the procedure. Other than that, well, you can't miss what you don't know, nor can you say you got it better if you've never had the bad.
-
Know several guys had it done in their 40's
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
could you please poll them and post the results here, so we can finally have this damn question answered.
-
could you please poll them and post the results here, so we can finally have this damn question answered.
Yeah. So. How exactly is that conversation supposed to go?
"Hey Joe, this is Bob. I know we haven't talked in a while, but I wanted to call you up and ask you about your penis."
:rofl:
-
2 of them had it done for medical reasons and I don't know why the other guy did it. The one problem they mentioned was they had a lil spray to use to prevent or halt an erection during the healing process. I never asked exactly what the medical reasons were. It's kinda a don't ask don't tell thing
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Yeah. So. How exactly is that conversation supposed to go?
"Hey Joe, this is Bob. I know we haven't talked in a while, but I wanted to call you up and ask you about your penis."
:rofl:
pretend you're doing a research study?
-
Ask csd for their numbers and call 'em yourself.
"Hey Joe, this is Liz. I don't know you. We've never met. But there's this guy on the internet who told me about your penis. I wanted to call you up and talk about it."
Be sure to record the conversation and post it here.
:rofl:
I should really be doing something productive right now...
-
I should really be doing something productive right now...
Instead, you're here talking about penises. :facepalm:
Chris
-
And giggling like a schoolkid.
:P
-
Ask csd for their numbers and call 'em yourself.
"Hey Joe, this is Liz. I don't know you. We've never met. But there's this guy on the internet who told me about your penis. I wanted to call you up and talk about it."
Be sure to record the conversation and post it here.
:rofl:
I should really be doing something productive right now...
you really shouldn't think I wouldn't.
Come on, guys! don't we want this infernal question answered once and for all!
Don't you want to know if you should be ranting and raving at your parents for their mutilation of your dangles?
-
The one problem they mentioned was they had a lil spray to use to prevent or halt an erection during the healing process.
Problem? Hell, where can I get some of that stuff?
-
Ask csd for their numbers and call 'em yourself.
"Hey Joe, this is Liz. I don't know you. We've never met. But there's this guy on the internet who told me about your penis. I wanted to call you up and talk about it."
Be sure to record the conversation and post it here.
:rofl:
I should really be doing something productive right now...
Yeah, that would sound legit.
:rofl:
-
http://www.circumcisioncomplex.com/jewish-conspiracy/
http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=55862
[popcorn]
-
^^^Wow. Some of that reads as if it was from The Protocols of Zion and responses thereto.
-
It's the Joos fault!
-
okay, on hearsay account (although I trust the person that made the statement) a man who was circumcised as an adult did state that he had lost sensation.
-
Somehow throughout this, I can't help thinking of the "Married With Children" episode where Al Bundy gets a circumcision instead of a circular incision.
Laffaminnit.
Terry
-
To listen to some of you, it's amazing that how the rest of the world survives with all that skin... =D
-
To listen to some of you, it's amazing that how the rest of the world survives with all that skin... =D
Citations needed.
-
Citations needed.
Citations for what? That the rest of the world outside of Jews, Arabs,a few African tribes and US isn't into peepee-snipping? Or that the rest of the world survives?
it prevents aids, cancer, infections of all stripes
How did Western civilization do without it for most of it's existence, and not perish in a pile of rotten wangs?
-
OK, so you have one guy saying that circumcision prevents certain medical conditions. Doesn't really demonstrate your point.
More citations needed. =|
Forget that. Just read the whole thread, and it's obvious that the "intactivists" here are the only ones amazed that people have survived - after circumcision.
Source: zahc and Blakenzy's posts in this thread.
-
Citations for what? That the rest of the world outside of Jews, Arabs,a few African tribes and US isn't into peepee-snipping? Or that the rest of the world survives?
How did Western civilization do without it for most of it's existence, and not perish in a pile of rotten wangs?
Those are true statements of the medical reasons for it - not assertions that it's somehow bad or destroying the world not to do it. It isn't right to use a perjorative like mutilation to describe it, was the point.
-
okay, on hearsay account (although I trust the person that made the statement) a man who was circumcised as an adult did state that he had lost sensation.
Did you test it?
-
I think the plural of penis is penes, but I didn't fact-check that.
(I'm still in proofreading mode from another thread in the "Round Table.")
:rofl:
-
I think the plural of penis is penes, but I didn't fact-check that.
(I'm still in proofreading mode from another thread in the "Round Table.")
:rofl:
I prefer penii
-
I've said it before and I'll say it again...
You people are nuts.
-
We are speaking English, not Latin or Greek. The word may originate from another language, but it gets treated the same as working-class Anglo-Saxon vocabulary. So, one can simply, uh, strap on "-es" and call it good.
As for conspiracy theories, I scratch my cranium at some of the Jewish-based sort(1), but I have little doubt considering where America's first real physicians & surgeons got their training--and the times--that there was no little Jewish influence on the origin and growth of the practice. Hell, such progressive folk thought it grand to involuntarily sterilize folk and give them lobotomies.
A little bit of skin, given the medical benefits supposed at the time, would not merit any forethought.
(1) OTOH, there is at least one Jewish-initiated circumcision conspiracy in the Bible I can recall.
-
I prefer penii
Does your wife know about this?
-
(1) OTOH, there is at least one Jewish-initiated circumcision conspiracy in the Bible I can recall.
:rofl: True, I forgot about that.
-
I prefer penii
You would.
Chris
-
It isn't right to use a perjorative like mutilation to describe it, was the point.
Mutilation is the accurate term. It's the word "circumcision" that is euphemism. Some people even use the term "female circumcision", because accurately calling it mutilation is unpleasant and pronounces judgement as to the practice's barbaric essence, which prevents the barbarians from attempting to launder or whitewash their evil.
-
Mutilation is the accurate term. It's the word "circumcision" that is euphemism. Some people even use the term "female circumcision", because accurately calling it mutilation is unpleasant and pronounces judgement as to the practice's barbaric essence, which prevents the barbarians from attempting to launder or whitewash their evil.
Tomato/tomahto
FGM is not even in the same ballpark as male circumcism, but I think that ground has been covered before.
(1) OTOH, there is at least one Jewish-initiated circumcision conspiracy in the Bible I can recall.
>:D [ar15]
-
Tomato/tomahto
FGM is not even in the same ballpark as male circumcism, but I think that ground has been covered before.
>:D [ar15]
Saying it doesn't make it true. Of course girls and boys are different, there is that. but proponents of genital mutilation basically sound the same. There is no basis for choosing one to be acceptable over the other, except as a coping mechanism to avoid acknowledging one's own mutilation, or because one or the other is the norm in one's culture.
Circumcision is no notable negative effects on your health and does not inhibit ... sexual desire either.
The problem with the representation of ... circumcision as ‘mutilation’ is that the term, among other things, presupposes some irreversible and serious harm. This is not supported by current medical research on ... circumcision.
--Fuambai Ahmadu, "circumcised" woman. I removed the word "female" for clarity.
circumcised women point to the risks of painful clitoral adhesions that occur in girls and women who do not cleanse properly
What is removed is the prepuce - a small piece of the sheath that extends from the clitoris. That sheath has no sexual function
In a study in northern Sudan, published in 1983, only 558 (17.4 percent) of 3,210 women opposed FGM
Who advised the World Health Organization to coin the phrase "mutilation"? Whoever did was cynically manipulating language. We "mutilate" the umbilical cord by cutting it off at birth and arbitrarily deciding how long the navel should be. We "mutilate" our bodies with ear rings, tongue rings, tatoos, nose jobs etc.
--Nowa Omoigui, defending what I will continue to accurately call genital mutilation (of females)
These people, and arguments are obviously bunk to us. Because we are lucky to live in America, we know that clitoral adhesions are not the bane of intact women, that no part of the female genitalia is "superfluous". We know they are lying when they say sexual function is not impacted by removal of "extra" tissue or state that the clitoris is not important even interferes with intercourse. When it is women saying these things, we correctly discern that they are still wrong and either genuinely don't know what they are missing, or they are coping via ostrich method. After all, once you know you have been mutilated, you can be angry, sad, or just accept it, or deny it. Denial is adaptive.
People in countries that don't practice male genital mutilation, and who have intact genitals, know that arguments for MGM are just as laughable.
-
Saying it doesn't make it true.
Exactly. That applies to your opinions just as much as anyone else's.
=)
-
Saying it doesn't make it true. Of course girls and boys are different, there is that. but proponents of genital mutilation basically sound the same. There is no basis for choosing one to be acceptable over the other, except as a coping mechanism to avoid acknowledging one's own mutilation, or because one or the other is the norm in one's culture.
Nope.
FGM is the removal of the clitoris and oftentimes the labia as well.
FGM=/=circumcism
The word association you are using of circumcism--->FGM--->MGM is beyond absurd.
Its like saying an apple grows on a tree, a dog pees on the tree, so apple=dog pee. ;/
-
Saying it doesn't make it true. Of course girls and boys are different, there is that. but proponents of genital mutilation basically sound the same. There is no basis for choosing one to be acceptable over the other, except as a coping mechanism to avoid acknowledging one's own mutilation, or because one or the other is the norm in one's culture.
--Fuambai Ahmadu, "circumcised" woman. I removed the word "female" for clarity.
--Nowa Omoigui, defending what I will continue to accurately call genital mutilation (of females)
These people, and arguments are obviously bunk to us. Because we are lucky to live in America, we know that clitoral adhesions are not the bane of intact women, that no part of the female genitalia is "superfluous". We know they are lying when they say sexual function is not impacted by removal of "extra" tissue or state that the clitoris is not important even interferes with intercourse. When it is women saying these things, we correctly discern that they are still wrong and either genuinely don't know what they are missing, or they are coping via ostrich method. After all, once you know you have been mutilated, you can be angry, sad, or just accept it, or deny it. Denial is adaptive.
People in countries that don't practice male genital mutilation, and who have intact genitals, know that arguments for MGM are just as laughable.
Do I understand your reasoning correctly: FGM is wrong. Someone somewhere used similar-sounding arguments to justify circumcision. Therefore circumcision is wrong, too?
This is obviously a logical fallacy, and I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to realize this. What gives?
-
Mutilation is the accurate term. It's the word "circumcision" that is euphemism.
Um, it's actually a literal description of the procedure.
People in countries that don't practice male genital mutilation, and who have intact genitals, know that arguments for MGM are just as laughable.
:lol: You're claiming that every uncirc'ed/"unmutilated" American somehow knows that circumcision (literal, male circumcision) has none of the alleged benefits? Seriously? So basically every woman who buys into the health benefits of circumcision has had some work done to her privates. :lol:
-
OK. FGM
cutting off the covering of the clitoris = cutting off the foreskin (except the ramifications for woman are more drastic that the ones for men)
removing clitoris = cutting off the entire head of the penis (yes, guys, when chromosomes split and ya'll turn XY, that's what that started from)
sewing shut the labia = there is no equivalent.
Comparing FGM to male circumcision is a non starter. Even the mildest form makes sex outright painful, rather than (presumably) less pleasurable. mmmkay?
-
I don't know, or care to argue about, the best way to compare various forms of genital mutilation. I am merely maintaining that all forms of male and female non-consenual genital cutting are properly considered mutilation. Unlike others here, I do not harbor an unjustified belief/faith that some types of nonconsensual genital modification are categorically different phenomena from others in any way that matters for the purpose of determining the moral ok-ness of said genital cutting. That is exactly what people have taken issue with here:they have alleged that routine neonatal circumcision is "not mutilation".
I find no reason to give MGM special status as "not mutilation" simply because the victims are male. Both male and female genital mutilation have been practiced throughout time. Both draw blood and remove healthy tissue. Arguments for both are extremely similar. Proponents of both allege hygiene benefits, proponents of both downplay the harm done and insist the damage is minor. Rhetoric from both camps exhibits ignorant of basic anatomy, with fgm proponents insisting the clitoris obstructs childbirth, and mgm proponents insisting the foreskin, frenulum, and ridged band have no sexual function. Victims of both insist they are happy it was done to them and wish to do it to their children. A subset of proponents of both insist that the crime is a necessary part of their culture and religion. Sexual partners of the mutilated say they prefer it.
I see no basis by which routine neonatal circumcision is not simply genital mutilation which has been practiced throughout history, which is despicable, and which the human race needs to evolve past. MGM only gets a pass in American culture because it is commonplace and familiar in certain subcultures. Evil is not the better for being commonplace or familiar...that makes it more evil, not less.
-
Nope.
FGM is the removal of the clitoris and oftentimes the labia as well.
FGM=/=circumcism
The word association you are using of circumcism--->FGM--->MGM is beyond absurd.
Its like saying an apple grows on a tree, a dog pees on the tree, so apple=dog pee. ;/
There goes my appetite for apples.
-
I see no basis by which routine neonatal circumcision is not simply genital mutilation which has been practiced throughout history, which is despicable, and which the human race needs to evolve past. MGM only gets a pass in American culture because it is commonplace and familiar in certain subcultures. Evil is not the better for being commonplace or familiar...that makes it more evil, not less.
A position I have evolved to as well. I didn't see it for what it was when my son recieved his. His involved the use of the plastic ring, so it just didn't seem like such a big deal. Hindsight though, I wouldn't have done it.
-
I don't know, or care to argue about, the best way to compare various forms of genital mutilation. I am merely maintaining that all forms of male and female non-consenual genital cutting are properly considered mutilation. Unlike others here, I do not harbor an unjustified belief/faith that some types of nonconsensual genital modification are categorically different phenomena from others in any way that matters for the purpose of determining the moral ok-ness of said genital cutting. That is exactly what people have taken issue with here:they have alleged that routine neonatal circumcision is "not mutilation".
I find no reason to give MGM special status as "not mutilation" simply because the victims are male. Both male and female genital mutilation have been practiced throughout time. Both draw blood and remove healthy tissue. Arguments for both are extremely similar. Proponents of both allege hygiene benefits, proponents of both downplay the harm done and insist the damage is minor. Rhetoric from both camps exhibits ignorant of basic anatomy, with fgm proponents insisting the clitoris obstructs childbirth, and mgm proponents insisting the foreskin, frenulum, and ridged band have no sexual function. Victims of both insist they are happy it was done to them and wish to do it to their children. A subset of proponents of both insist that the crime is a necessary part of their culture and religion. Sexual partners of the mutilated say they prefer it.
I see no basis by which routine neonatal circumcision is not simply genital mutilation which has been practiced throughout history, which is despicable, and which the human race needs to evolve past. MGM only gets a pass in American culture because it is commonplace and familiar in certain subcultures. Evil is not the better for being commonplace or familiar...that makes it more evil, not less.
Uh huh. Things aren't evil just because people object to them. Your logic here could easily be used against ear piercing, or toenail trimming, for children. "People say they're good, but I don't think they're good, and they are non-consensual, and I think they are bad, and people have been doing them for a long time, so that makes it worse."
I don't know, or care to argue about, the best way to compare various forms of genital mutilation. I am merely maintaining that all forms of male and female non-consenual genital cutting are properly considered mutilation.
IOW, your arguments aren't working, and people don't take your medical judgment as gospel truth, so you fall back on assertions.
-
I don't know, or care to argue about, the best way to compare various forms of genital mutilation. I am merely maintaining that all forms of male and female non-consenual genital cutting are properly considered mutilation. Unlike others here, I do not harbor an unjustified belief/faith that some types of nonconsensual genital modification are categorically different phenomena from others in any way that matters for the purpose of determining the moral ok-ness of said genital cutting. That is exactly what people have taken issue with here:they have alleged that routine neonatal circumcision is "not mutilation".
I find no reason to give MGM special status as "not mutilation" simply because the victims are male. Both male and female genital mutilation have been practiced throughout time. Both draw blood and remove healthy tissue. Arguments for both are extremely similar. Proponents of both allege hygiene benefits, proponents of both downplay the harm done and insist the damage is minor. Rhetoric from both camps exhibits ignorant of basic anatomy, with fgm proponents insisting the clitoris obstructs childbirth, and mgm proponents insisting the foreskin, frenulum, and ridged band have no sexual function. Victims of both insist they are happy it was done to them and wish to do it to their children. A subset of proponents of both insist that the crime is a necessary part of their culture and religion. Sexual partners of the mutilated say they prefer it.
I see no basis by which routine neonatal circumcision is not simply genital mutilation which has been practiced throughout history, which is despicable, and which the human race needs to evolve past. MGM only gets a pass in American culture because it is commonplace and familiar in certain subcultures. Evil is not the better for being commonplace or familiar...that makes it more evil, not less.
LOLOLOL.
What's your stance on abortion?
-
I was gonna ask but was afraid to. You are a bad bad man
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
A position I have evolved to as well. I didn't see it for what it was when my son recieved his. His involved the use of the plastic ring, so it just didn't seem like such a big deal. Hindsight though, I wouldn't have done it.
I made my decision purely on the basis of medical advantage - what's the upside of remaining with fire skin for boys? Medically speaking that is
-
I don't know, or care to argue about, the best way to compare various forms of genital mutilation.
I'm pretty sure we're not comparing various forms of genital mutilation.
;)
-
Arguing with zahc about circumcision is like arguing with Occutards about Capitalism.
-
The thing is, there is research supporting positive medical advantages to male circumcision.
There's nothing but medical harm from FGM.
*shrug* I just don't appreciate the comparison, and I am skeptical of the anti male circumcision movement. It really does seem pretty irrationally irate. Seems to me that the human race will continue regardless of if men have foreskins or not.
Leave it up to the parents.
-
Leave it up to the parents.
Why not leave it up to the child? I have no problem with voluntary body mods. Do you agree that cutting off healthy body parts from your children is wrong? But the penis is different? Because why? Even if some medical complications can be avoided, the penis is the only case where prophylactic surgery is considered reasonable. Why is that? Probably because the "medical reasons" justification is plain BS.
LOLOLOL.
What's your stance on abortion?
In most cases I feel it's something like manslaughter. I think that life begins at conception so there's really no stage at which it is ok form of family planning. In cases where the mother's life is in danger or where due to hardship the child will likely die anyway, my pragmatism takes over.
Your logic here could easily be used against ear piercing
Yes. Ear piercing is not nearly as extreme as genital reduction. I would go so far as to call it harmless, though unsightly. But yes ear piercing is a non-necessary body mod that is often forced on children, so in that respect the two phenomena are similar.
so you fall back on assertions
Stating plain fact is not "falling back". Removing healthy flesh from innocent babies : mutilation. The burden is on those who wish to assert that routine neonatal circumcision is the exception, or that different rules should be applied for some reason. I'm still waiting for a compelling reason to consider it categorically special or different than say, removing the nose or outer ears. The best the pro - mutilation camp can come up with is usually flimsy statements downplaying the harm done.
It really does seem pretty irrationally irate
Strapping babies to plastic boards, ripping their foreskin off of the glans, and either slicing or mashing off the mobile skin that would protect their penis and which contains most of its sexual receptors, so that even the remaining mucous membranes dry out and scarify into keratinized scar tissue is one thing. Being puzzled that some of them aren't happy about it is just obtuse.
what's the upside of remaining with fire skin for boys? Medically speaking that is
The upside is having a fully functional, rather than reduced and scarred penis. Medically speaking, the hospital loses out on an easy $300, and it's harder to sell them viagra later.
http://www.academia.edu/6395137/Adding_Insult_to_Injury_Acquisition_of_Erectile_Dysfunction_from_Circumcision
-
Why not leave it up to the child? I have no problem with voluntary body mods.
In most cases I feel it's something like manslaughter. I think that life begins at conception so there's really no stage at which it is ok form of family planning. In cases where the mother's life is in danger or where due to hardship the child will likely die anyway, my pragmatism takes over.
Yes. Ear piercing is not nearly as extreme as genital reduction. I would go so far as to call it harmless, though unsightly. But yes ear piercing is a non-necessary body mod that is often forced on children, so in that respect the two phenomena are similar.
Stating plain fact is not "falling back". Removing healthy flesh from innocent babies : mutilation. The burden is on those who wish to assert that routine neonatal circumcision is the exception, or that different rules should be applied for some reason. I'm still waiting for a compelling reason to consider it categorically special or different. The best the pro - mutilation camp can come up with is usually flimsy statements downplaying the harm done.
Strapping babies to plastic boards, ripping their foreskin off of the glans, and either slicing or mashing off the mobile skin that protects the penis and contains most of its sexual receptors is one thing. Being puzzled that some of them aren't happy about it is just obtuse.
The upside is having a fully functional, rather than reduced, penis. Medically speaking, the hospital loses out on an easy $300.
yep. irrationally irate.
Also, true story.
My mother decided to wait on ear piercing despite being pressured to do it when I was a baby. When I was 6, I begged for pierced ears. After months, she gave in.
So we went to the piercing place at the mall, and they did one ear. I screamed so much that Mom had to take me on a walk around the mall before she bullied me into getting my second ear done (She figured that at that point, to just get it done)
Before my ears healed up I was sent up to my fathers family to be the flower girl in my aunts wedding. Mom tried to change out my blue bear earnings for the gold studs, but I whined and so she just sent the studs along for Grandma to change. Except Grandma just took out the bears and forgot the studs. By the time I got home, my ears had healed over.
I still haven't gotten up the courage to get them repierced, even with the incentive of a bet with my Mom that she would get a second set if I got mine done.
I wish I had pierced ears and I also wish I had no part in either the decision making process or the memory of getting it done.
-
yep. irrationally irate.
Maybe he has skin in the game? :angel:
[I could not come up with a way to use "No skin off his nose," so I feel somewhat a punny failure.]
==================================
For my own part, this is such a minor issue to get wound up about I do have to wonder about the wound-up-ees. We have parents deliberately raising boys as girls and vice versa, looking to truly mess those kids up forever and there is less outrage at THAT than over circumcision. I also guess we have solved the problem of parents treating their kids like punching bags such that we can focus on trivialities. Not to mention using their kids for sexual gratification.
Oh well, I guess everyone's got to have a hobby.
-
I got my ears pierced when my oldest was 6 or 7 so I was 50. She wanted hers pierced but was a lil scared so I went first. She sat in my lap talking to me almost didn't notice it being done.
Youngest still hasn't asked. She may never she goes crazy if she gets a splinter.
On the op though Zach gave me some things to consider. And I am not sure what I would do if I had a boy, well that's not true wife had tubes tied so if I had a boy I am gonna run and hide. But while I can't say he made me switch sides he made me aware there is another side
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Stating plain fact is not "falling back". Removing healthy flesh from innocent babies : mutilation.
Well, see, you're not "stating plain fact." You're asserting your own beliefs as fact. Go ahead and look up the word "mutilate" in various dictionaries. Here's Merriam Webster online, as an example:
: to cause severe damage to (the body of a person or animal)
: to ruin the beauty of (something) : to severely damage or spoil (something)
That only describes circumcision if you think it does. Your value judgments aren't facts; they're question-begging.
The best the pro - mutilation camp can come up with is usually flimsy statements downplaying the harm done.
When you peddle whoppers like that, you can't expect to be taken seriously.
https://www.google.com/search?q=study+health+benefits+circumcision&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a
I don't really care about circumcision, but your mendacious arguments annoy me.
-
I made my decision purely on the basis of medical advantage - what's the upside of remaining with fire skin for boys? Medically speaking that is
Well, if there was no advantage, don't you think people would be born without it by now?
The thing is, there is research supporting positive medical advantages to male circumcision.
This research is kind of questionable. Non-representative samples, for instance.
I wish I had pierced ears and I also wish I had no part in either the decision making process or the memory of getting it done.
If you do decide to go for it, don't go to the mall. A tattoo/piercing shop is far better. Someone with proper skills and equipment will actually do a job that won't make you run around screaming.
That said, I got my first earring courtesy of drinking with a friend who had a needle and an apple handy.
-
Buy the DIY ear piercing kits. It's easy
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I don't think it's really going to matter. For some reason, I can dig the scab off a puncture daily to keep it from getting an abscess, but even the thought of someone shooting a needle through my ear makes me want to run around screaming.
-
They have kits? Kids these days...
I did my DIY piercings with safety pins.
-
Well, if there was no advantage, don't you think people would be born without it by now?
Why would that be?
-
Well, if there was no advantage, don't you think people would be born without it by now?
One could say the same about butt crack hair. Its only purpose seems to be making a dirty place harder to clean and providing follicles to become abscessed.
-
How would you feel about having a hand in messing up your son's sex life?
How would you feel if your son had an adverse reaction to a vaccine an died? Better not vaccinate.
How would you feel if your son had an adverse reaction to an allergen and died? Better feed him the same diet chemo patients have and make him live in a bubble.
-
How did Western civilization do without it for most of it's existence, and not perish in a pile of rotten wangs?
The same way they survived without vaccines or antibiotics?
-
I prefer penii
Obviously you should have went Navy instead of Army. :-*
-
Why would that be?
If, as claimed, having foreskin makes the reproductive organs disease-prone, it will disappear over time, since people with diseased wangs are kind of unlikely to reproduce.
However, if evolution isn't your thing, you can look at it this way - why would humans be created with useless parts?
One could say the same about butt crack hair. Its only purpose seems to be making a dirty place harder to clean and providing follicles to become abscessed.
Just because you don't know what the real purpose is, does not mean it doesn't exist. I have never had an abscess in my ass and don't find it particularly hard to clean.
Butt hair reduces friction and allows you to fart quietly.
-
Nope.
FGM is the removal of the clitoris and oftentimes the labia as well.
FGM=/=circumcism
The word association you are using of circumcism--->FGM--->MGM is beyond absurd.
Its like saying an apple grows on a tree, a dog pees on the tree, so apple=dog pee. ;/
FGM is the equivalent of castration, not circumcision.
-
Bah, work calls before I can finish working my way through this trainwreck, so I'll just say this.
To answer Rev's question of "Why do people care" I think it's either gay marriage syndrome (1) or a man desperately trying to blame external factors for his inability to perform sexually.
(1) GMS is my term for people who are sad they missed out on actual human rights abuses like slavery or governmental segregation and so need to make up social injustices to fight so they can feel good about themselves.
-
FGM is the equivalent of castration, not circumcision.
Nope. Oophorectomy is the equivalent of castration.
FGM does not remove the ability to reproduce, nor does it stop hormone production, like castration does.
-
If, as claimed, having foreskin makes the reproductive organs disease-prone, it will disappear over time, since people with diseased wangs are kind of unlikely to reproduce.
However, if evolution isn't your thing, you can look at it this way - why would humans be created with useless parts?
The appendix.
-
If, as claimed, having foreskin makes the reproductive organs disease-prone, it will disappear over time, since people with diseased wangs are kind of unlikely to reproduce.
One could say the same about most imbeciles, but modern society has made it much easier for them to survive, and there are plenty of women who apparently see no problem with bearing the children of darn near anything that will bed them.
However, if evolution isn't your thing, you can look at it this way - why would humans be created with useless parts?
Male nipples. QED
-
The appendix.
William Parker, Randy Bollinger, and colleagues at Duke University proposed in 2007 that the appendix serves as a haven for useful bacteria when illness flushes those bacteria from the rest of the intestines.[12][13] This proposal is based on a new understanding of how the immune system supports the growth of beneficial intestinal bacteria,[14][15] in combination with many well-known features of the appendix, including its architecture, its location just below the normal one-way flow of food and germs in the large intestine, and its association with copious amounts of immune tissue. Research performed at Winthrop University-Hospital showed that individuals without an appendix were four times more likely to have a recurrence of Clostridium difficile colitis.[16] The appendix, therefore, may act as a "safe house" for commensal ("good") bacteria. This reservoir of gut flora could then serve to repopulate the digestive system following a bout of dysentery or cholera.[17]
Once again, if you don't know what the purpose is, doesn't mean there isn't one.
-
Bah, work calls before I can finish working my way through this trainwreck, so I'll just say this.
To answer Rev's question of "Why do people care" I think it's either gay marriage syndrome (1) or a man desperately trying to blame external factors for his inability to perform sexually.
(1) GMS is my term for people who are sad they missed out on actual human rights abuses like slavery or governmental segregation and so need to make up social injustices to fight so they can feel good about themselves.
This about nails it, I'd say.
-
One could say the same about most imbeciles, but modern society has made it much easier for them to survive, and there are plenty of women who apparently see no problem with bearing the children of darn near anything that will bed them.
That's a relatively recent phenomenon.
Male nipples. QED
I guess you either have some defect, or the women in your life don't know what they are doing. In either case, I'm sorry.
-
how often does it go wrong? and how does that number compare to numbers for yeast infections and other issues stemming from non snipped? because it seems to me that there is no real compelling evidence on way or another.
Aren't those the best kind of issues to get all worked-up about?
-
That's a relatively recent phenomenon.
Still, they somehow got to the current time rather than having been eliminated by any selective breeding up to this point.
-
Still, they somehow got to the current time rather than having been eliminated by any selective breeding up to this point.
Being a moron isn't 100% genetic.
-
(1) GMS is my term for people who are sad they missed out on actual human rights abuses like slavery or governmental segregation and so need to make up social injustices to fight so they can feel good about themselves.
Ah, a valuable term for the lexicon. It is about the only explanation for the hatefulness of most gender-deniers.
I guess you either have some defect, or the women in your life don't know what they are doing. In either case, I'm sorry.
I'll just say that not everyone shares the same preferences, but that doesn't prove a defect.
See, this is why some discussions shouldn't be broached in a public forum, when there are private forums available (somewhere out there).
-
Ah, a valuable term for the lexicon. It is about the only explanation for the hatefulness of most gender-deniers.
Even then there are things I don't understand, like why the "war on women!" and etc types give a free pass to the Islamic nations where women and gays are actually oppressed.
I'll just say that not everyone shares the same preferences, but that doesn't prove a defect.
See, this is why some discussions shouldn't be broached in a public forum, when there are private forums available (somewhere out there).
I'd just as soon people keep their sexual deviations to themselves, regardless of what forum we're on.
-
If one goes and reads Leviticus and Deuteronomy with a eye toward sanitation and disease prevention, you'd notice that Moses and G-d, pretty much got things right. Banning the consumption of certain foods that are prone to either carry or cause diseases is a good way to keep your tribe healthy when a plague or other illness is going around.
Circumcision is a way to prevent disease (yeast infections for one) from being passed around. So not having a haven for germs and bacteria (even though they knew nothing about them), seems like a good idea.
Same with modern times, having a penis that is not a haven for various things to free-ride upon and get passed around seems like good idea. Plus there are the religious dictates for some folks.
I don't see how it can be genetic mutilation. I had it done to me at birth and have found sex to be a pleasant and enjoyable experience, it has not affected my performance either as I have 2 children (that I know of). The only thing that has done in my desire and ability was cancer and 4 years of chemo. While yes, it would be fun to give it another go, I recognize that cancer and chemo have pretty much wiped out the plumbing and the desire. =| =| =|
-
Even then there are things I don't understand, like why the "war on women!" and etc types give a free pass to the Islamic nations where women and gays are actually oppressed.
I thought the answer was obvious.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FwXxke1B.jpg&hash=718148b841029f4866f936d544b5707c4630a98f)
-
FGM is the equivalent of cutting the tip of the penis off entirely. As mentioned, I think, the female equivalent of circumcision would be removing the clitoral hood. This is not a health-equivalent however, due to female parts being more innie than outie, this actually opens females up to more infection and cleanliness issues.
The most rabid "intactivists" I've run into are circumcised and absolutely obsessed with even the possibility that they might be missing out on some extra sensation from the missing skin, and this seems to drive their rabidness. In their case (not to be remotely applied to all anti-circumcision folk), I think they have other, deeper issues, and have just latched on to them being circumcised as the root of all their problems.
-
FGM is the equivalent of cutting the tip of the penis off entirely. As mentioned, I think, the female equivalent of circumcision would be removing the clitoral hood. This is not a health-equivalent however, due to female parts being more innie than outie, this actually opens females up to more infection and cleanliness issues.
The most rabid "intactivists" I've run into are circumcised and absolutely obsessed with even the possibility that they might be missing out on some extra sensation from the missing skin, and this seems to drive their rabidness. In their case (not to be remotely applied to all anti-circumcision folk), I think they have other, deeper issues, and have just latched on to them being circumcised as the root of all their problems.
So, in actuality, they DON'T have any skin in the game?
-
^^^ LOL.
-
Circumcision is a way to prevent disease (yeast infections for one) from being passed around. So not having a haven for germs and bacteria (even though they knew nothing about them), seems like a good idea.
Yep. Invented by primitive tribes in hot climates.
Same with modern times, having a penis that is not a haven for various things to free-ride upon and get passed around seems like good idea.
Modern times have modern plumbing and the knowledge of how diseases are caused. Also, the human body in general is a haven for bacteria, and it isn't as much of a problem as it sounds.
However, people are free to copy the body modifications of primitive tribes. I just find it amusing that frequently the same people who approve of circumcision are the ones who look down on extensive tattoos or ear tunnels and would be up in arms if people did that to small children.
-
If, as claimed, having foreskin makes the reproductive organs disease-prone, it will disappear over time, since people with diseased wangs are kind of unlikely to reproduce.
However, if evolution isn't your thing, you can look at it this way - why would humans be created with useless parts?
Just because you don't know what the real purpose is, does not mean it doesn't exist. I have never had an abscess in my ass and don't find it particularly hard to clean.
Butt hair reduces friction and allows you to fart quietly.
Evolution doesn't think. It can't go, well this is useless, I will get rid of it now. Less likely to reproduce perhaps, but that less I would imagine is pretty small. Doesn't seem to of stopped STDs though.
How about when we didn't have things like toiletries or running water, how easy was it to clean then?
-
Yep. Invented by primitive tribes in hot climates.
Modern times have modern plumbing and the knowledge of how diseases are caused. Also, the human body in general is a haven for bacteria, and it isn't as much of a problem as it sounds.
However, people are free to copy the body modifications of primitive tribes. I just find it amusing that frequently the same people who approve of circumcision are the ones who look down on extensive tattoos or ear tunnels and would be up in arms if people did that to small children.
For a forum that loves to discuss preparing for the worst, how has his assertion that modern plumbing and other amenities negating the need for circumcision not been challenged?
-
Yep. Invented by primitive tribes in hot climates.
Modern times have modern plumbing and the knowledge of how diseases are caused. Also, the human body in general is a haven for bacteria, and it isn't as much of a problem as it sounds.
However, people are free to copy the body modifications of primitive tribes. I just find it amusing that frequently the same people who approve of circumcision are the ones who look down on extensive tattoos or ear tunnels and would be up in arms if people did that to small children.
Tattoos and ear tunnels? Think maybe those impact a child's career prospects a little more than circumcision?
Not that they're necessarily something to look down, but seriously, not the same.
-
So, in actuality, they DON'T have any skin in the game?
They're just feeling a little snippy
-
Evolution doesn't think. It can't go, well this is useless, I will get rid of it now. Less likely to reproduce perhaps, but that less I would imagine is pretty small. Doesn't seem to of stopped STDs though.
Well, the claim is that foreskin is actually detrimental, making for more diseases and such. And detrimental traits should disappear, especially in something so directly related to reproduction.
How about when we didn't have things like toiletries or running water, how easy was it to clean then?
Apparently, it was easy enough for the entirety of the Western world, and for much of Asia. There isn't a European society where it's traditional. You'd think if it's as big of a problem as the pro-circ people say, circumcision would have become common long before the Victorian masturbation hysteria. It didn't.
Tattoos and ear tunnels? Think maybe those impact a child's career prospects a little more than circumcision?
Not that they're necessarily something to look down, but seriously, not the same.
Tattoos that are covered by a t-shirt would not impact prospects in any career I would want my child to have, and in careers I don't want them to have they might actually improve the prospects.
Don't like ear tunnels for comparison? We can use something less visible. Nipple rings, genital piercings, scarification.
-
Tattoos that are covered by a t-shirt would not impact prospects in any career I would want my child to have, and in careers I don't want them to have they might actually improve the prospects.
Don't like ear tunnels for comparison? We can use something less visible. Nipple rings, genital piercings, scarification.
So what health benefits have been claimed for nipple rings, tattoos, etc?
-
So what health benefits have been claimed for nipple rings, tattoos, etc?
Don't know, don't care.
Anybody can claim anything. It doesn't matter. Proven benefits do matter, but I find the supposed proof of circumcision benefits flimsy enough to not matter.
-
Don't know, don't care.
Anybody can claim anything. It doesn't matter. Proven benefits do matter, but I find the supposed proof of circumcision benefits flimsy enough to not matter.
I wasn't talking about your expert opinion on circumcision. I was talking about people who, in good faith, have their children circumcised, believing that medical studies demonstrate its benefits. You seem to be saying they're no different from someone that tattoos their kid for no good reason.
And FWIW, I am not in a position of having to defend myself, or my parents.
-
I wasn't talking about your expert opinion on circumcision. I was talking about people who, in good faith, have their children circumcised, believing that medical studies demonstrate its benefits. You seem to be saying they're no different from someone that tattoos their kid for no good reason.
Some people refuse vaccinations for their children, also in good faith and believing medical studies. Some people vote for gun control, also in good faith and believing studies demonstrating its benefits. I'm sure someone deciding to tattoo their kid has good reasons, for them. Maybe it's make them more attractive, or protect them from evil spirits.
It's not a life-saving procedure, and not even a corrective one (having a foreskin isn't a defect). So, it's an elective body modification performed on a child.
-
In the context of the modern industrial west the reasons in favor of the procedure seem more to be rationalizations than anything else.
If we were colonizing some third world shithole where infections were running rampant it would make some sense. Better yet teach the third worlders how to keep their winkie clean.
Other than the initial pain you are exposing the newborn to, the procedure doesn't seem to have any serious negative long term effects. So the arguments pro/con are somewhat academic.
-
Some people refuse vaccinations for their children, also in good faith and believing medical studies.
Is this true? My understanding is that there's no solid medical science behind the anti-vaccine movement. What studies exist are unreliable, and choosing not to vaccinate on that basis is not acting in good faith.
In the context of the modern industrial west the reasons in favor of the procedure seem more to be rationalizations than anything else.
The medical reasons include reduced risk of all sorts of unpleasant stuff, from yeast infections to cancer and HIV. Is this rationalization? I'd agree that the benefits are smaller compared to many other medical treatments, but that doesn't mean the benefits are insignificant, and it doesn't make pursuing them irrational.
-
Is this true? My understanding is that there's no solid medical science behind the anti-vaccine movement. What studies exist are unreliable, and choosing not to vaccinate on that basis is not acting in good faith.
Studies exist, and people believe them. The faith is good, even if the studies aren't. It's faith, no proof required.
The medical reasons include reduced risk of all sorts of unpleasant stuff, from yeast infections to cancer and HIV. Is this rationalization? I'd agree that the benefits are smaller compared to many other medical treatments, but that doesn't mean the benefits are insignificant, and it doesn't make pursuing them irrational.
The studies in this area are questionable for everything but yeast infections. You can't infect what you don't have, it's true, but IMO that's hardly a reason to go cutting things off. I'm somewhat prone to injuries to my fingertips, but I think I'm going to keep them just the same. Choosing to believe studies that have issues and using them to support your decisions is certainly rationalization.
-
Choosing to believe studies that have issues and using them to support your decisions is certainly rationalization.
Can you cite some of the "issues" that exist with the circumcision studies? I'm well aware of the issues with the vaccine studies. Mainly lying and failing to actually do a study. I wasn't aware the circumcision studies were similarly fraudulent.
-
http://sciencenordic.com/male-circumcision-leads-bad-sex-life
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/more-circumcision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds
http://m.livescience.com/1624-study-circumcision-removes-sensitive-parts.html
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/05/when-bad-science-kills-or-how-to-spread-aids/
http://m.adc.bmj.com/content/early/2008/10/06/adc.2008.144063.abstract?rss=1
You can play dueling science all day, or just use common sense to conclude forciblel mutilation of healthy tissue could never be justified on health grounds, even if you conclude for the victims that it is "worth it".
Science is the currency used in the US to justify mutilation. This is not surprising as science is effectively the majority religion of the US. In the third world the currency used is regular religion. It's mutilation all the same.
-
Some people refuse vaccinations for their children, also in good faith and believing medical studies. Some people vote for gun control, also in good faith and believing studies demonstrating its benefits. I'm sure someone deciding to tattoo their kid has good reasons, for them. Maybe it's make them more attractive, or protect them from evil spirits.
OK, so you admit that your circumcision/tattoo comparison is a non-starter. Thank you.
So, it's an elective body modification performed on a child.
Aside from observant Jews, I don't see anyone disagreeing with that.
-
You can play dueling science all day, or just use common sense to conclude forciblel mutilation of healthy tissue could never be justified on health grounds, even if you conclude for the victims that it is "worth it".
Science is the currency used in the US to justify mutilation. This is not surprising as science is effectively the majority religion of the US. In the third world the currency used is regular religion. It's mutilation all the same.
IOW, screw the science! I say it's mutilation! Because!
-
Studies exist, and people believe them. The faith is good, even if the studies aren't. It's faith, no proof required.
The studies in this area are questionable for everything but yeast infections. You can't infect what you don't have, it's true, but IMO that's hardly a reason to go cutting things off. I'm somewhat prone to injuries to my fingertips, but I think I'm going to keep them just the same. Choosing to believe studies that have issues and using them to support your decisions is certainly rationalization.
... I have a question for you.
Have you ever had a yeast infection?
Being more prone to such issues and being allergic to some of the over counter medications makes me dubious of your claim that such infections are no big deal.
-
Studies exist, and people believe them. The faith is good, even if the studies aren't. It's faith, no proof required....Choosing to believe studies that have issues and using them to support your decisions is certainly rationalization.
So, is it good faith, or is it rationalization?
Usually, "rationalizing" something means that you're trying to justify something you know you shouldn't do, on behalf of some ulterior motive. What would be the ulterior motive for circumcision?
-
... I have a question for you.
Have you ever had a yeast infection?
Being more prone to such issues and being allergic to some of the over counter medications makes me dubious of your claim that such infections are no big deal.
Actually, yes. I also have a pretty good idea of who gave it to me. My own damn fault for going there...
I didn't say they are no big deal. I said that the supposedly huge risk of them is overstated. It's not that it isn't unpleasant when it happens, it's that it doesn't happen very often. Most uncircumcised men never have one. This "increased risk" talk makes it sound like it's about a weekly occurrence, or at least something people live in fear of. It isn't.
Usually, "rationalizing" something means that you're trying to justify something you know you shouldn't do, on behalf of some ulterior motive. What would be the ulterior motive for circumcision?
Doesn't have to be an ulterior motive. People often rationalize decisions they simply didn't have a good reason for making,or didn't put a great deal of thought into.
In this specific case I bet this is something people most often do just because it's a common thing and they don't really give it much thought.
-
Usually, "rationalizing" something means that you're trying to justify something you know you shouldn't do, on behalf of some ulterior motive. What would be the ulterior motive for circumcision?
Don't overlook the almighty dollar. Circumcision is a key $2-300 upsell on every birth. Genital mutilation brings in ~400 million dollars a year for a non-treatment of a non-problem. With few consumables and no capital investment aside from some straps to hold the screaming newborns down.
-
Actually, yes. I also have a pretty good idea of who gave it to me. My own damn fault for going there...
I didn't say they are no big deal. I said that the supposedly huge risk of them is overstated. It's not that it isn't unpleasant when it happens, it's that it doesn't happen very often. Most uncircumcised men never have one. This "increased risk" talk makes it sound like it's about a weekly occurrence, or at least something people live in fear of. It isn't.
[bold mine] False. Increased risk is increased risk. Anything you read into it beyond that is, well, just you reading things into it.
Doesn't have to be an ulterior motive. People often rationalize decisions they simply didn't have a good reason for making,or didn't put a great deal of thought into.
In this specific case I bet this is something people most often do just because it's a common thing and they don't really give it much thought.
So are you saying that some people act in good faith, in electing for circumcision; and then rationalize their decision, when they begin to have regrets?
-
Don't overlook the almighty dollar. Circumcision is a key $2-300 upsell on every birth. Genital mutilation brings in ~400 million dollars a year [tinfoil] for a non-treatment of a non-problem. With few consumables and no capital investment aside from some straps to hold the screaming newborns down.
Well, that covers the medical industry, but I thought WH was talking about the parents.
Still, if it's as risky as you say, you'd think the MillCreeks would have shut that down long ago.
-
Well, that covers the medical industry, but I thought WH was talking about the parents.
Still, if it's as risky as you say, you'd think the MillCreeks would have shut that down long ago.
We charge $ 240 for a circumcision. We don't see very many complications at all. We offer it because our patients ask for it.
-
[bold mine] False. Increased risk is increased risk. Anything you read into it beyond that is, well, just you reading things into it.
This is a very simplistic understanding of risk. Just because a procedure reduces the risk of something, does not in any way show that the procedure is worthwhile. For example, there are conflicting studies about the Dreaded Urinary Tract Infection that mutilation proponents seem so afraid of, but just to be charitable, let's consider a study that indicates circumcision reduces risk of TDUTI by 50%. If 1% of intact males is have UTI problems, and circumcision reduces this to .5%, this means that for every man you saved from TDUTI problems, about 100 men got their penis irreversibly reduced for zero benefit whatsoever. On the balance this is a terrible idea because 100 babies are mutilated, 100 of them incur risk of even more morbid complications aside from the the genital reduction itself, 1 of them probably grows up to be a rabid intactivist, and chances are overwhelming for each individual that they aren't even going to benefit from the proven TDUTI reduction feature, even if it is a real effect.
But hey, some bad studies show a 12% reduction in risk of contracting AIDs! Better keep chopping them off.
This is just one illustration of one common problem with not-even-wrong studies "supporting" neonatal circumcision, which tout reduction in maladies without balancing other effects. Other common ones are failing to consider circumcision itself as an effect of itself (it has "no impact", except somehow conveys magical benefits despite being an alleged non-procedure), showing that penile structures left behind after circumcision are similarly sensitive as in intact males and therefore circumcision doesn't affect sexual function (what about all the parts you removed?).
We offer it because our patients ask for it.
I applaud your frank honesty. Your comment is in accordance with my usual estimation of medical ethics. While I ponder the implications of this policy, please tell me: do they ask for it in some secret newborn - language? My children didn't learn to ask for things until they were over a year old.
-
Don't overlook the almighty dollar. Circumcision is a key $2-300 upsell on every birth. Genital mutilation brings in ~400 million dollars a year [tinfoil] for a non-treatment of a non-problem. With few consumables and no capital investment aside from some straps to hold the screaming newborns down.
I like the constant use of appealing to emotion in your arguments.
-
I like the constant use of appealing to emotion in your arguments.
Thanks.
I heard him cry during the time they were circumcising him. The thing that is most disturbing to me is that I can still hear his cry. . . . It was an assault on him, and on some level it was an assault on me. . . . I will go to my grave hearing that horrible wail, and feeling somewhat responsible, feeling that it was my lack of awareness, my lack of consciousness.
--Nancy Cohen
It’s absolutely horrible. I didn’t know how horrific it was going to be. It was the most gruesome thing I have ever seen in my life. I told the doctor as soon as he was done, if I had a gun I would have killed him. I swear I would be in jail today if I did have a gun.
--Melissa Morrison
I can’t even describe the emotion. Rage isn’t right... It was nothing like his cries when he got his shots. Nothing like when he came out of the womb. Nothing like anything he’d done yet. It was a deep cry — totally from pain. It was evident through his entire body... I just can’t state enough how painful it was seeing my tiny, little son screaming...Terrified doesn’t even describe it. I kid you not I would have paid almost any amount of money for the guarantee that my son wouldn’t have to go through what he had just gone through.
--Bobby Earle
-
Thanks.
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcThXtF59Ei5w7Z2KirePmQO7bKLLlMmkYsUgY6-egQlz3Nv9AkTR6tbdQ)
-
The American Academy of Pediatrics says the benefits outweigh the risks.
Now that may not be proof positive, but it's certainly a reasonable and non-frivolous medical basis for choosing to circumcise children.
Writing off everyone who finds medical evidence as looney and or interested in the dollars/culture whatever is not a reasoned rebuttal. It's conspiracy theory 101 - expanding the conspiracy to include everyone who challenges your beliefs.
-
The American Academy of Pediatrics says the benefits outweigh the risks.
This is just a re-statement of the fact that a large contingent of Americans are bonkers in this area. No other country recommend routine neonatal circumcision and most proscribe it.
By AAP's own numbers, the incidence of penile cancer is 0.58 cases in 100,000 in the United States, where circumcision is common, and 0.82 case in 100,000 in Denmark, where circumcision is rare (on a technical level it seems reasonable to assume the difference may be due to constant risk of cells becoming cancerous, while there are more skin cells in an intact vs. mutilated penis) Only in a pro-mutilation reality distortion field would this be interpreted as evidence that we should perform surgery on all baby boys. Yet that AAP suggest that when they cite penile cancer prevention as a benefit.
-
Zahc, I assumed you didn't agree with the AAP's analysis - the fact that panels of expert physicians came up with it is strong evidence that it's reasonable for parents to disagree with you, is what I'm saying.
Note that you immediately included doctors as part of the looney group to discredit their research.
-
I agree that parents are regularly misinformed and misled by the medical establishment. Usually, parents still deserve some blame because I still observe that cultural factors are at play...I have seen anti-vaxxers who think fluoridation is a communist conspiracy become instant true believers in American medicine as soon as doing so supports their coping-daddy syndrome. I suppose in these cases we have more a case of the medical establishment enabling or egging them on.
Assigning blame is only of passive interest anyway. Pointing out the insanity does not work and just make people discard psychological baggage and change their mind. History shows that genital mutilation persists in populations where it becomes established, period. There is no convincing the proponents otherwise whether those proponents are individual or corporate. The only way it stops is for intact baby boys to grow into intact men, at which point they realize that none of the parts are "extra tissue" and they decide, when they have kids, to take the whole baby home.
Luckily, it's not just some guy on a web forum who see through the AAP's BS.
ABSTRACT
The American Academy of Pediatrics recently released its new Technical Report and Policy Statement on male circumcision, concluding that current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks. The technical report is based on the scrutiny of a large number of complex scientific articles. Therefore, while striving for objectivity, the conclusions drawn by the 8 task force members reflect what these individual physicians perceived as trustworthy evidence. Seen from the outside, cultural bias reflecting the normality of nontherapeutic male circumcision in the United States seems obvious, and the report’s conclusions are different from those reached by physicians in other parts of the Western world, including Europe, Canada, and Australia. In this commentary, a different view is presented by non–US-based physicians and representatives of general medical associations and societies for pediatrics, pediatric surgery, and pediatric urology in Northern Europe. To these authors, only 1 of the arguments put forward by the American Academy of Pediatrics has some theoretical relevance in relation to infant male circumcision; namely, the possible protection against urinary tract infections in infant boys, which can easily be treated with antibiotics without tissue loss. The other claimed health benefits, including protection against HIV/AIDS, genital herpes, genital warts, and penile cancer, are questionable, weak, and likely to have little public health relevance in a Western context, and they do not represent compelling reasons for surgery before boys are old enough to decide for themselves.
AUTHORS: Morten Frisch, MD, PhD,a Yves Aigrain, MD, PhD,b Vidmantas Barauskas, MD, PhD,c Ragnar Bjarnason, MD, PhD,d Su-Anna Boddy, MD,e Piotr Czauderna, MD, PhD,f Robert P.E. de Gier, MD,g Tom P.V.M. de Jong, MD, PhD,h Günter Fasching, MD,i Willem Fetter, MD, PhD,j Manfred Gahr, MD,k Christian Graugaard, MD, PhD,l Gorm Greisen, MD, PhD,m Anna Gunnarsdottir, MD, PhD,n Wolfram Hartmann, MD,o Petr Havranek, MD, PhD,p Rowena Hitchcock, MD,q Simon Huddart, MD,r Staffan Janson, MD, PhD,s Poul Jaszczak, MD, PhD,t Christoph Kupferschmid, MD,u Tuija Lahdes-Vasama, MD,v Harry Lindahl, MD, PhD,w Noni MacDonald, MD,x Trond Markestad, MD,y Matis Märtson, MD, PhD,z Solveig Marianne Nordhov, MD, PhD,aa Heikki Pälve, MD, PhD,bb Aigars Petersons, MD, PhD,cc Feargal Quinn, MD,dd Niels Qvist, MD, PhD,ee Thrainn Rosmundsson, MD,ff Harri Saxen, MD, PhD,gg Olle Söder, MD, PhD,hh Maximilian Stehr, MD, PhD,ii Volker C.H. von Loewenich, MD,jj Johan Wallander, MD, PhD,kk and Rene Wijnen, MD, PhDll
aDepartment of Epidemiology Research, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen and Center for Sexology Research, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark; bDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, Hôpital Necker Enfants Malades, Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France; cLithuanian Society of Paediatric Surgeons, Kaunas, Lithuania; dDepartment of Pediatrics, Landspitali University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland; eChildren’s Surgical Forum of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, United Kingdom; fPolish Association of Pediatric Surgeons, Gdansk, Poland; gWorking Group for Pediatric Urology, Dutch Urological Association, Utrecht, Netherlands; hDepartments of Pediatric Urology, University Children’s Hospitals UMC Utrecht and AMC Amsterdam, Netherlands; iAustrian Society of Pediatric and Adolescent Surgery, Klagenfurt, Austria; jPaediatric Association of the Netherlands, Utrecht, Netherlands; kGerman Academy of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Berlin, Germany; lCenter for Sexology Research, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark; mDepartment of Pediatrics, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark; nDepartments of Pediatric Surgery, Landspitali University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland, and Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden; oGerman Association of Pediatricians, Cologne, Germany; pDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, Thomayer Hospital, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic; qBritish Association of Paediatric Urologists, London, United Kingdom; (Continued on last page)
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896.full.pdf+html
-
Zahc,
Whatever the validity of your position, you argue it very poorly. You come across as a wild eyed zealot rather than someone with a rational, considered opinion.
Just thought you might not realize it.
-
--Nancy Cohen
--Melissa Morrison
--Bobby Earle
From my personal observations they are FAR more upset about being strapped to the board and not allowed to nurse on momma's boob than they are with anything happening to their weiner. The hardly notice the operation, mostly thanks to the novocain, but also because it just doesn't bother them all that much.
-
Zahc,
Whatever the validity of your position, you argue it very poorly. You come across as a wild eyed zealot rather than someone with a rational, considered opinion.
Just thought you might not realize it.
If he doesn't realize that by now (given that this is probably the 4th time we've been down this path in the last few years) he's willfully ignorant.
-
Risk of yeast infectionis not so much to the male as it is to the females. Given then way sex works, the risks of a UTI are much greater in females then males. Hence, my comment on Leviticus, etc.
However, much like Religion, schooling, and other early life choices; those decisions are left to the parents of the children and not the state. Zahc is free to not circumcise his sons as he sees fit, while I have chosen to have my son circumcised. He will (and does) have plenty of reasons to be angry with the decisions I have made for him while growing up, yet I know I will not be the perfect parent, but just good enough.
-
This is a very simplistic understanding of risk.
False. Increased risk is increased risk.
-
Observation:
Very long thread about a issue that has been cut short.
We charge $ 240 for a circumcision. We don't see very many complications at all. We offer it because our patients ask for it.
Given the origin of the practice and who introduced it to the USA, you'd think you'd get 10% off.
-
Observation:
Very long thread about a issue that has been cut short.
Given the origin of the practice and who introduced it to the USA, you'd think you'd get 10% off.
I thought everyone who got one got about 10% off?
-
Given the origin of the practice and who introduced it to the USA, you'd think you'd get 10% off.
Eh? I don't see the connection.
-
From my personal observations they are FAR more upset about being strapped to the board and not allowed to nurse on momma's boob than they are with anything happening to their weiner. The hardly notice the operation, mostly thanks to the novocain, but also because it just doesn't bother them all that much.
The heel stick blood draw they do to newborns in the hospital (is that the jaundice test? I always forget) is very very very upsetting to the youngsters. I guess that means we tortured our kids by letting those money grubbing bastards at the hospital do it.
-
Zahc,
Whatever the validity of your position, you argue it very poorly. You come across as a wild eyed zealot rather than someone with a rational, considered opinion.
Just thought you might not realize it.
"Come across as a" or "is a" would be a good question.
-
The heel stick blood draw they do to newborns in the hospital (is that the jaundice test? I always forget)
http://www.babysfirsttest.org/newborn-screening/states Depending on the state, it is a whole host of genetic and other conditions that are screened for at birth with the heel stick. The Feds have a core list of 31 conditions recommended for screening, but the states are free to come up with their own list.