Circumcision Discussion (split from FGM thread)

[Devrim]

I wouldn't say that this is completely unbelievable, but it seems a bit unlikely. FGM isn't prevalent amongst Arabs in Iraq. It is quite surprising to me.


Forced circumcision of all kinds, particularly of infants and small children, is barbaric and should be terminated.

Would you include male circumcision in this?

Devrim

[The Red Star Rising]

I wouldn't say that this is completely unbelievable, but it seems a bit unlikely. FGM isn't prevalent amongst Arabs in Iraq. It is quite surprising to me.



Would you include male circumcision in this?

Devrim
Personally I'd consider forcing males and females to circumcise to also be a violation of one's right to the control of their own body. Circumcision is a decision that the very young can't really make informed consent over.

Edited for clarification.

[Devrim]

Personally I'd consider forcing males to circumcise to also be a violation of one's right to the control of their own body. Circumcision is a decision that the very young can't really make informed consent over.

And would you advocate banning it?

Devrim

[Tim Cornelis]

I would.

[The Red Star Rising]

And would you advocate banning it?

Devrim
Forcing a child to do so? Yes.

Someone who's capable of making an informed decision about it? No, they're free to engage in whatever bodymods they want.

[Five Year Plan]

Would you include male circumcision in this?

Devrim

Why wouldn't I?

[Devrim]

I would.


Forcing a child to do so? Yes.

Someone who's capable of making an informed decision about it? No, they're free to engage in whatever bodymods they want.


Why wouldn't I?

Well apart from the fact that it doesn't do the kids any harm, and it is considered by some to have actual health benefits, don't you think that advocating the banning of circumcision in countries where there are large scale anti-muslim campaigns* is falling behind the bandwagon of the right?

Devrim

Tim lives in Holland. I don't know where the other two of you live, but I would imagine it is somewhere which has similar campaigns.

[Patrice O'neal]

Well apart from the fact that it doesn't do the kids any harm, and it is considered by some to have actual health benefits, don't you think that advocating the banning of circumcision in countries where there are large scale anti-muslim campaigns* is falling behind the bandwagon of the right?

Devrim

Tim lives in Holland. I don't know where the other two of you live, but I would imagine it is somewhere which has similar campaigns.

There are no health benefit, there is no evidence that circumcision lowers HIV/AIDS contraction.

Aslo thosands of young boys suffer botched circumcisions each year that result in life long inability to have enjoyable sex lives, a smaller number go wrong resulting in other complications, sometimes death.

Cutting a boys cock risking it going wrong is completely disgusting, even if it goes right it is disgusting, you are cutting away a childs working foreskin because of some dumb belief system written thousands of years ago.

If you don't think a child can consent to sex at that age, they damn sure can not consent to having their foreskin removed. Your stance on this is basically to tip toe around religeous ignorance, which is problematic.

Also just because a reactionary group has a stance, does not mean the left should abandon rational thinking and stop talking out about religion, the nonsense it spews and argue against the mutilation of you children who can not consent, just because their is right wing anti muslim sentiment.

If I denounced the soviet union as an Anarchist in the west was I falling behind the right wing bandwaggon or was I employing a rational anarchist analysis of something?

[Tim Cornelis]

Well apart from the fact that it doesn't do the kids any harm, and it is considered by some to have actual health benefits, don't you think that advocating the banning of circumcision in countries where there are large scale anti-muslim campaigns* is falling behind the bandwagon of the right?

Devrim

Tim lives in Holland. I don't know where the other two of you live, but I would imagine it is somewhere which has similar campaigns.

"There are no health benefits, there is no evidence that circumcision lowers HIV/AIDS contraction.

Aslo thosands of young boys suffer botched circumcisions each year that result in life long inability to have enjoyable sex lives, a smaller number go wrong resulting in other complications, sometimes death.

Cutting a boys cock risking it going wrong is completely disgusting, even if it goes right it is disgusting."

^^

This, plus removing the foreskin removes sensitivity and diminishes sexual pleasure.


Well apart from the fact that it doesn't do the kids any harm, and it is considered by some to have actual health benefits,

I don't even know what that means. Some think hitting children has emotional benefits; some think not vaccinating is.


don't you think that advocating the banning of circumcision in countries where there are large scale anti-muslim campaigns* is falling behind the bandwagon of the right?

No, it's jumping on the 'children are not the property of their parents' not-so-bandwagon. I equally oppose tattoos and piercings on children. The PVV is not opposed to circumcising men, only women.

[Patrice O'neal]

It is not thousands of fuckups a year. That is ridiculous.

You can easily find various reports of it, 30 kids in this place, 24 died in 2013 in that place, another 40 in this place, 28 kids die in this place etc etc.

These add up to huge numbers in the western world. They are probably very high in comparison in the developing world, due to lack of accesible medical facilities through large parts of it, but we can't say for sure what number due to no medical records being available or reported widely.

There are a few websites that monitor ongoing cases of it, some of the stories are terrible. Quite a few feature men who have had botched circumcisions and the impact on their life is just so sit, how anyone can force their baby to have part of its dick hacked off makes me marvel at the terrible parenting on display in 2014.

I remember asking my mum why I had a skin sock and some of the other kids didn't, she said other parents cut the skin off, it made me freak out, I couldn't believe parents could do that to their kids.

[Tim Cornelis]

Studies estimates that more than 100 baby boys die from circumcision complications each year [in the US], including from anesthesia reaction, stroke, hemorrhage, and infection. Because infant circumcision is elective, all of these deaths are avoidable.
http://www.examiner.com/article/new-study-estimates-neonatal-circumcision-death-rate-higher-than-suffocation-and-auto-accidents

Although in their teens.


South Africa’s ruling party has said enough is enough after 30 boys died over the weekend because of botched ritual circumcisions. The latest wave of deaths has doubled this year’s toll, making 2013 one of the deadliest years on record.

http://www.voanews.com/content/thirty-more-south-african-boys-die-after-botched-circumcision-ritual/1697451.html

[Patrice O'neal]

No doubt upon learning these facts Devrim will still defend male circumcisions because of some dubious need to defend certain groups "traditions".

Will you now alter your stance Devrim?

[Dagoth Ur]

Still not thousands. At best you've made an argument for a few hundred out of literally millions of successes. It's a relatively harmless procedure for what is essentially a surgery. Personally I reject the idea of circumcision being performed by someone with no medical training outside of a proper medical facility.

Really your arguments are as shitty as the phimosis argument from pro-circumcision types.


This, plus removing the foreskin removes sensitivity and diminishes sexual pleasure.
This displays a fundamental lack of understanding about how the brain forms. As an adult this is certainly true but infants brains develop based on whichever they have. The erotic connections haven't even begun to form yet.

Also this is a non-issue. Circumcised guys almost never complain about having been circumcised. It seems to be non-circumcised people who seem the most upset.

[Devrim]

Let's just see what Wiki has to say about it*:


The positions of the world's major medical organizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_association) range from considering neonatal circumcision as having no benefit and significant risks to having a modest health benefit that outweighs small risks. No major medical organization recommends either universal circumcision for all infant males (aside from the recommendations of the World Health Organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization) for parts of Africa), or banning the procedure.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#cite_note-Bolnick_2012_ch1-7) Ethical and legal questions regarding informed consent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent) and autonomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomy) have been raised over non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#cite_note-caga-anan_2011-8)[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#cite_note-pinto_2012-9) A 2009 Cochrane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochrane_Collaboration) meta-analysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis) of studies done on sexually active heterosexual men in Africa found that circumcision reduced their acquisition of HIV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV) by 38–66% over a period of 24 months.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#cite_note-siegfried_Cochrane_2009-10) The WHO recommends considering circumcision as part of a comprehensive HIV program in areas with high endemic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endemism) rates of HIV, such as sub-Saharan Africa,[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#cite_note-uthman_2010-11)[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#cite_note-WHO_HIV_2007-12) where studies have concluded it is cost-effective against HIV.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#cite_note-uthman_2010-11) Circumcision reduces the incidence of HSV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herpes_simplex_virus)-2 infections by 28%,[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#cite_note-wetmore_2010-13) and is associated with reduced oncogenic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinogenesis) HPV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_papillomavirus) prevalence[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#cite_note-hpv_prevalence-14) and a reduced risk of both UTIs and penile cancer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinoma_of_the_penis),[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#cite_note-AAP_2012-5) but routine circumcision is not justified for the prevention of those conditions.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#cite_note-lissauer_2012-2)[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#cite_note-ACS_2012-15) Studies of its potential protective effects against other sexually transmitted infections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexually_transmitted_disease) have been inconclusive. A 2010 review of literature worldwide found circumcisions performed by medical providers to have a median complication (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complication_%28medicine%29) rate of 1.5% for newborns and 6% for older children, with few instances of severe complications.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#cite_note-weiss_2010_complications-16) Bleeding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding), infection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infection) and the removal of either too much or too little foreskin are the most common complications cited.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#cite_note-weiss_2010_complications-16)[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#cite_note-AAFP_2007-17) Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#cite_note-sexual_function-18)


If you just skipped through it, read through it again carefully.


There are no health benefit, there is no evidence that circumcision lowers HIV/AIDS contraction.

The World Health Organisation thinks otherwise:


The WHO recommends considering circumcision as part of a comprehensive HIV program in areas with high endemic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endemism) rates of HIV, such as sub-Saharan Africa,[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#cite_note-uthman_2010-11)[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#cite_note-WHO_HIV_2007-12) where studies have concluded it is cost-effective against HIV.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#cite_note-uthman_2010-11) Circumcision reduces the incidence of HSV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herpes_simplex_virus)-2 infections by 28%,[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#cite_note-wetmore_2010-13) and is associated with reduced oncogenic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinogenesis) HPV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_papillomavirus) prevalence[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#cite_note-hpv_prevalence-14) and a reduced risk of both UTIs and penile cancer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinoma_of_the_penis)


Aslo thosands of young boys suffer botched circumcisions each year that result in life long inability to have enjoyable sex lives, a smaller number go wrong resulting in other complications, sometimes death.

Not according to a review of the available facts:


A 2010 review of literature worldwide found circumcisions performed by medical providers to have a median complication (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complication_%28medicine%29) rate of 1.5% for newborns and 6% for older children, with few instances of severe complications


Cutting a boys cock risking it going wrong is completely disgusting, even if it goes right it is disgusting, you are cutting away a childs working foreskin because of some dumb belief system written thousands of years ago.

Moral outrage is always a winning argument.


This, plus removing the foreskin removes sensitivity and diminishes sexual pleasure.

Again, scientists seem to disagree:


Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#cite_note-sexual_function-18)

But seriously, how would you judge this?


You can easily find various reports of it, 30 kids in this place, 24 died in 2013 in that place, another 40 in this place, 28 kids die in this place etc etc.

Well let's look at some reports of it then. Let's look at Tim's first example:


Studies estimates that more than 100 baby boys die from circumcision complications each year , including from anesthesia reaction, stroke, hemorrhage, and infection. Because infant circumcision is elective, all of these deaths are avoidable.

Did you check this Tim before posting it up. The things one the Wiki page are all from serious medical journals. They are referenced on the page. You can look up the studies. The bit you are quoting comes from some American internet site which syndicates blogs. Now the newspapers can bit a bit caviller in their reporting of science, but we don't have to worry about this hear because its not from a newspaper at all. It's from a syndicated blog. Not to worry because it does link to a study. This is what the abstract of the study says:


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

So what he is saying here is that there is no data to back up his conclusions, and where, we ask ourselves, did this eminent piece of medical research appear? Was it is the 'American Journal of Medicine' perhaps? Or maybe it was in 'The Journal of Urology'? Oh no, it is published by the 'Men's Studies Press'. Funnily enough upon asking a friend who works in medicine if this journal came up on the list of medical journal databases their hospital has access to, it wasn't there at all.

Personally I will go with the reports that said


Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#cite_note-sexual_function-18) [I]The American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision "Technical Report" (2012) addresses sexual function, sensitivity and satisfaction without qualification by age of circumcision. Sadeghi-Nejad et al. "Sexually transmitted diseases and sexual function" (2010) addresses adult circumcision and sexual function. Doyle et al. "The Impact of Male Circumcision on HIV Transmission" (2010) addresses adult circumcision and sexual function. Perera et al. "Safety and efficacy of nontherapeutic male circumcision: a systematic review" (2010) addresses adult circumcision and sexual function and satisfaction.

Of course there is always 'The Men's Studies Press' if you want an 'alternative' view.

So now we have dealt with the pseudo science, let's look at the politics behind it.

There is a racist campaign being waged against Muslims in the West. The PPV in Holland may not campaign for a ban of circumcision, but Germany is well along the road to implementing such a ban. It is a real issue there, and I am sure that if it became one in Holland the PPV would latch on to it. Like the campaigns against halal and kosher meat, these sort of campaigns can not be divorced from the environment that they take place in. While I am sure that the people on here arguing for this are not racists themselves, and those supporting them do find themselves trailing along in the wake of these racist campaigns as much as the 'Mohammed was a paedophile' brigade.

Or do you think it is all just neutral and concerned with children's rights?


No doubt upon learning these facts Devrim will still defend male circumcisions because of some dubious need to defend certain groups "traditions".

Will you now alter your stance Devrim?

No, I am not altering my stance. I think that your pseudo-scientific objection to it is nonsense, and these sort of ideas are part of a racist campaign.

I don't 'defend certain groups "traditions"'. I recogise racist campaigns when I see them.

Also, have you thought what would happen if circumcision was banned? People would just get it done to their children illegally, which I am quite sure would have an even worse effect on children's health.

Devrim

*According to Encyclopedia Britannica on scientific subjects Wiki has a similar level of acuracy to Britannica itself

[Five Year Plan]

Allow me to put it this way, Devrim. I'm a gay man who has been with guys. I've encountered circumcised men who wished they had never been circumcised. But I've never, ever encountered an uncircumcised man who wished he had been circumcised as a child.

Can you wrap your obtuse mind around why this might be the case?

[Rugged Collectivist]

Still not thousands. At best you've made an argument for a few hundred out of literally millions of successes. It's a relatively harmless procedure for what is essentially a surgery. Personally I reject the idea of circumcision being performed by someone with no medical training outside of a proper medical facility.

Really your arguments are as shitty as the phimosis argument from pro-circumcision types.


This displays a fundamental lack of understanding about how the brain forms. As an adult this is certainly true but infants brains develop based on whichever they have. The erotic connections haven't even begun to form yet.

Also this is a non-issue. Circumcised guys almost never complain about having been circumcised. It seems to be non-circumcised people who seem the most upset.

No circumcision is a "success". All are failures that reflect poorly on the ones carrying them out. Even if only one child died from a circumcision related complication every year it would be one too many, as it's a completely unnecessary procedure.

You have no evidence that circumcision doesn't reduce sexual satisfaction. People who grow their foreskin back usually claim that sex feels better afterwards. Men who complain about not being circumcised only do so because of social pressure.

[Dagoth Ur]

Yeah because complaining about being circumcised would get so ostracized. Do you read this shit before you post, because that is downright retarded. It's that circumcision has no real effect on our lives and we just really don't care. This doesn't change because a few circumcised guys bought into the nonsense about being "violated" or some other such.

I genuinely don't care either way. If I had a son I'd have them circumcised. If you don't wanna you don't have to. But let's get back to the cultural chauvinism because that's so important to the struggle of the world's worker.

[Five Year Plan]

Yeah because complaining about being circumcised would get so ostracized. Do you read this shit before you post, because that is downright retarded. It's that circumcision has no real effect on our lives and we just really don't care. This doesn't change because a few circumcised guys bought into the nonsense about being "violated" or some other such.

I genuinely don't care either way. If I had a son I'd have them circumcised. If you don't wanna you don't have to. But let's get back to the cultural chauvinism because that's so important to the struggle of the world's worker.

I think the point is that whatever "health benefit" supposedly arises from circumcision is completely lost on the circumcised men who are complaining, as well as the uncircumcised men who aren't. Maybe you can educate them with your graphs and Devrim's long revleft quotes.

By the way, why don't you advocate the amputation of arms to prevent their future infection?

[Dagoth Ur]

Now that's a creative strawman.

[Lord Testicles]

Mutilating a child's genitals is definite a no-no unless it's for medical reasons.

If you want to cut up your junk as an adult then that's fine, but to do something so unnecessary to someone who has absolutely no say or power over it is fucked up.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Yeah because complaining about being circumcised would get so ostracized. Do you read this shit before you post, because that is downright retarded. It's that circumcision has no real effect on our lives and we just really don't care. This doesn't change because a few circumcised guys bought into the nonsense about being "violated" or some other such.

Did YOU read what I wrote? The ones that are uncircumcised are the ones who are ostracized.

Are you stupid? What about the kids who die from complications. I'd say it has a huge effect on their lives. Also, speak for yourself.


I genuinely don't care either way. If I had a son I'd have them circumcised. If you don't wanna you don't have to. But let's get back to the cultural chauvinism because that's so important to the struggle of the world's worker.

And that's why it must be outlawed. Irresponsible jackasses like yourself.

Also, "cultural chauvinism"? HAHAHAHAHA. Do you think girls should get cut too? After all, that's a part of some people's culture. As we know, culture is sacred and must be protected no matter what.

[Five Year Plan]

Except that most of us don't care, remember, or have ever known different. As far as "abuses" go this is about as tame as you can get.

If you, as a circumcised person, don't care, why put up a fight against those of of us who are saying let each person decide when he or she is old enough?

[Dagoth Ur]

Did YOU read what I wrote? The ones that are uncircumcised are the ones who are ostracized.
Yeah I did where you said that circumcised men don't complain because of social pressure. Although what you just said is complete bullshit too. Nobody knows if you're circumcised or not until you get naked.


Are you stupid? What about the kids who die from complications. I'd say it has a huge effect on their lives. Also, speak for yourself.
Yeah an extremely tiny percentage. Besides you can't lose something you never had. Your logic here is the same as saying aborting a child is the same as stealing their future.


And that's why it must be outlawed. Irresponsible jackasses like yourself.
Blah blah I'm emotionally entangled in a non-issue.


Also, "cultural chauvinism"? HAHAHAHAHA. Do you think girls should get cut too? After all, that's a part of some people's culture. As we know, culture is sacred and must be protected no matter what.
Except that it isn't. Even in tribal Africa there are violent opponents of female circumcision. Whereas there are no people willing to die over male circumcision because nobody cares but cultural chauvinists who want to punish Muslims, MRAs, and other people with ridiculous priorities.

[Dagoth Ur]

If you, as a circumcised person, don't care, why put up a fight against those of of us who are saying let each person decide when he or she is old enough?
If people who are circumcised don't care then why do you?

[Five Year Plan]

If people who are circumcised don't care then why do you?

Some people who are circumcised do care, so I happen to think that it's a good idea to let each person decide for himself. Why don't you?

[Dagoth Ur]

Because I didn't choose a lot of things society foisted upon me, circumcision is way fucking low on that list. I'm more concerned with things that actually matter.

[Lord Testicles]

If people who are circumcised don't care then why do you?

Ethical mental masturbation. At the very least a couple of people die every year so it's hardly the most pressing issue in the world, maybe once humanity has learnt to stop "clinging to our masters and loving the whip" we can get down to the issue of mutilating genitals when there's no consent involved.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Yeah I did where you said that circumcised men don't complain because of social pressure. Although what you just said is complete bullshit too. Nobody knows if you're circumcised or not until you get naked.

Except I didn't say that. And people will find out. I've seen it happen. I'm not surprised that a basement dweller such as yourself is unfamiliar with the concept of gossip.


Yeah an extremely tiny percentage. Besides you can't lose something you never had. Your logic here is the same as saying aborting a child is the same as stealing their future.

Except they did have it until someone cut it off. If I cut a babies arm off would you blame them for missing it? After all, they spent their whole life without it.


Blah blah I'm emotionally entangled in a non-issue.

If you think it's such a non issue, why do you keep responding to this thread?


Except that it isn't. Even in tribal Africa there are violent opponents of female circumcision. Whereas there are no people willing to die over male circumcision because nobody cares but cultural chauvinists who want to punish Muslims, MRAs, and other people with ridiculous priorities.

Nice dodge. How do you feel about female circumcision? If anyone has ridiculous priorities it's the zealots who think cutting their kids genitals will bring them closer to God.

[Dagoth Ur]

The first post that has made any sense from the anti-circumcision crowd who apparently think tiny little bits of skin are more important than te thousands of people being killed every day. Why don't you care about the consent of murder victims? That is a much more egregious breach of consent.

Let's also just ignore the fact that almost none of us are able to exercise consent in regards to our adult lives. Unless you consider consent through coercion legitimate.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

mutilating gentiles when there's no consent involved.
Gentiles doesn't mean what you think it does.

[Rugged Collectivist]

The first post that has made any sense from the anti-circumcision crowd who apparently think tiny little bits of skin are more important than te thousands of people being killed every day. Why don't you care about the consent of murder victims? That is a much more egregious breach of consent.

Wow. This is pathetic, even for you. How mad are you right now?


Let's also just ignore the fact that almost none of us are able to exercise consent in regards to our adult lives. Unless you consider consent through coercion legitimate.

Oh cool, a non-sequitur.


So now it's about my participation in your guys' anti-circumcision thread derailment? Oh well I do apologize. I'll just let you guys circlejerk to babies foreskin.

Yes, God forbid a thread about circumcision get derailed into a discussion of circumcision.

[Five Year Plan]

So now it's about my participation in your guys' anti-circumcision thread derailment? Oh well I do apologize. I'll just let you guys circlejerk to babies foreskin.

EDIT:
lol I just realized rugged collectivist threatened me with gossip. I have no words for how lame that is. Like wow.

I think the point still stands. Why don't you want to let people decide for themselves whether they want to keep their foreskin?

[Five Year Plan]

Actually it's a thread about IS supposedly ordering female circumcision on a huge scale yet everyone here is talking about male circumcision. That's real on-topic.

Oh and now I'm mad supposedly. You're cute. :wub:
The thread is about circumcision, and how religious nutcases want to mutilate people's genitals without their consent. Talking about forced male circumcision is totally on topic.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I'm opposed to circumcision of males and females.

[Dagoth Ur]

I didn't answer it again because I already have. Consent is irrelevant to this issue. Nobody consents to being put into school, or being treated as the gender they are, but still happens and will continue to happen. You're just trying to distract from the issue that this is a non-issue.

Apparently I care more about tradition than the consent of a thing that barely has any cognitive ability at all. Oh no I'm so evil. BRB guys I gotta go kill some puppies and kittens.

[Five Year Plan]

So you think that being forced to eat your carrots is the same as being forced to have your foreskin lopped off? Wow.

It's okay Dogoth Mordor guy. Hot sex is still possible even if you are cut. Nobody is personally attacking you or your junk. We just want people to be able to choose for themselves a procedure that has no appreciable benefit, but is permanent.

[Lord Testicles]

Gentiles doesn't mean what you think it does.

Haha, I blame drink and an over reliance on auto correct. I meant genitals as opposed to non-Jews. :lol:

[Rugged Collectivist]

EDIT:
lol I just realized rugged collectivist threatened me with gossip. I have no words for how lame that is. Like wow.

I can see reading comprehension is not a point of strength for you. I said gossip was a way that someone could find out someone else was uncircumcised without seeing them naked.


Actually it's a thread about IS supposedly ordering female circumcision on a huge scale yet everyone here is talking about male circumcision. That's real on-topic.

Oh and now I'm mad supposedly. You're cute. :wub:

EDIT:
cultural-chauvinism =/= racism.

Because revleft threads are famous for their laser focus on the topic in the OP. A discussion on the morality of circumcision is absolutely relevant to a thread about a government supposedly threatening to have people circumcised. You STILL haven't shared your view on female circumcision, that beautiful, sacred religious tradition.

What, besides frustration, could explain your absurd comparison between laws against circumcision and laws against... murder?



I'm opposed to circumcision of males and females.

Finally, consistency.

[Rugged Collectivist]

I didn't answer it again because I already have. Consent is irrelevant to this issue. Nobody consents to being put into school, or being treated as the gender they are, but still happens and will continue to happen. You're just trying to distract from the issue that this is a non-issue.

Apparently I care more about tradition than the consent of a thing that barely has any cognitive ability at all. Oh no I'm so evil. BRB guys I gotta go kill some puppies and kittens.
You act like circumcision is some immutable law of nature.

"What's the point of fighting it? That shit JUST HAPPENS"

[Dagoth Ur]

@FYP: Then you'll find some point where I advocated circumcision rather than just being okay with it and not caring. I like both types of penises anyways. I'd circumcise a son if I had one simply because I would raise them in the same culture I came up in. Say what you will about this but I'm not trying to force my ways on anyone that I wouldn't be doing that to anyways (ie your child).

It was said earlier that I was making a bad comparison between the numerous ways in which children do not have consent, with the idea that most of these are not permanent. The way you are raised will have far more wide-ranging implications for your total life than having or not having a foreskin will.

And honestly acting like female and male circumcision are even on the same playing field in terms of abuse is crazy. One is done to make sure the person will never enjoy sex and make them a "perpetual virgin", the other for tradional reasons and very rarely impacts the we life of those who received it. In fact the comparison is insulting to the very real suffering of female genital mutilation victims.

[Five Year Plan]

@FYP: Then you'll find some point where I advocated circumcision rather than just being okay with it and not caring. I like both types of penises anyways. I'd circumcise a son if I had one simply because I would raise them in the same culture I came up in. Say what you will about this but I'm not trying to force my ways on anyone that I wouldn't be doing that to anyways (ie your child).

It was said earlier that I was making a bad comparison between the numerous ways in which children do not have consent, with the idea that most of these are not permanent. The way you are raised will have far more wide-ranging implications for your total life than having or not having a foreskin will.

And honestly acting like female and male circumcision are even on the same playing field in terms of abuse is crazy. One is done to make sure the person will never enjoy sex and make them a "perpetual virgin", the other for tradional reasons and very rarely impacts the we life of those who received it. In fact the comparison is insulting to the very real suffering of female genital mutilation victims.

Sounds to me like you're trying to force a tradition of genital mutilation on your son.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Fair enough. If he cares I'll apologize.
Wouldn't it be better to simply not mutilate him?

[Dagoth Ur]

Circumcising your son, when you come from an all circumcised background (ie their whole family), and when your community is mostly circumcised, is a matter of culture and social cohesion. And vise versa. You may not like that society works this way but it does.

[Rugged Collectivist]

And honestly acting like female and male circumcision are even on the same playing field in terms of abuse is crazy. One is done to make sure the person will never enjoy sex and make them a "perpetual virgin", the other for tradional reasons and very rarely impacts the we life of those who received it. In fact the comparison is insulting to the very real suffering of female genital mutilation victims.

Funny you should say this. I can't speak about the rationale of Jews and Muslims, but male circumcision, or MGM if you will, became ubiquitous in the US because the guy who invented corn flakes thought it would prevent boys from masturbating by reducing sensation in the penis. If you'll recall, this is basically the same reason it's done to women. He also advocated pouring acid on the clitoris of a newborn girl but that never caught on for some crazy reason.

Also, "it's tradition" has never, ever been a good reason to do anything.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Circumcising your son, when you come from an all circumcised background (ie their whole family), and when your community is mostly circumcised, is a matter of culture and social cohesion. And vise versa. You may not like that society works this way but it does.
That's a rather conservative argument, wouldn't you say?

[Dagoth Ur]

No I agree it is. Although there is no reason to participate in actual society. The key is to not fall into adopting these positions as dogma.

@FYP: Maybe. Who's to say there isn't a good reason to jump off a bridge? I mean if everyone else is doing it there is at least cause to hear out their case.

@RC: Yeah America is an anomoly in the regard but I was circumcised for explicitly Abrahamic reasons. Planned parenthood was started by racist eugenicists, doesn't mean abortion is a terrible practice.

[Five Year Plan]

Maybe. Who's to say there isn't a good reason to jump off a bridge? I mean if everyone else is doing it there is at least cause to hear out their case.

@RC: Yeah America is an anomoly in the regard but I was circumcised for explicitly Abrahamic reasons. Planned parenthood was started by racist eugenicists, doesn't mean abortion is a terrible practice.

I think what we're trying to explain to you is that just because your penis looks a certain way doesn't mean that your son's penis has to look that same way. Please keep that in mind if, Allah forbid, you ever have a son.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Circumcising your son, when you come from an all circumcised background (ie their whole family), and when your community is mostly circumcised, is a matter of culture and social cohesion. And vise versa. You may not like that society works this way but it does.

As it happens I come from such a family and such a community. I'd still never circumcise my son. I also come from a family where many of the members would look down on me if I dated a black person, but I never let that sway me either. Are you so spineless on every issue?

EDIT: One would think a communist wouldn't be so scared of being viewed as a pariah.

[Dagoth Ur]

Nobody in my family exerts pressure on me. If they were to try I'd cut them off, and I have. I'm a transsexual for shit's sake it's not like they were all fans of that. But I like that I actually have a little but of a culture to include my children in. That is clearly not important to you like it is to me and that's fine. I'm not going to suddenly start feeling bad about it either.

[Five Year Plan]

Nobody in my family exerts pressure on me. If they were to try I'd cut them off, and I have. I'm a transsexual for shit's sake it's not like they were all fans of that. But I like that I actually have a little but of a culture to include my children in. That is clearly not important to you like it is to me and that's fine. I'm not going to suddenly start feeling bad about it either.

Then one would think that you of all people would comprehend how important bodily autonomy would be. For shame, man.

[Rugged Collectivist]

@RC: Yeah America is an anomoly in the regard but I was circumcised for explicitly Abrahamic reasons. Planned parenthood was started by racist eugenicists, doesn't mean abortion is a terrible practice.

The difference is that there are plenty of legitimate reasons to get an abortion. The only reasons I've heard of for male circumcision are:

It's healthier (lie)

or

God told me (stupid)

[Rugged Collectivist]

Nobody in my family exerts pressure on me. If they were to try I'd cut them off, and I have. I'm a transsexual for shit's sake it's not like they were all fans of that. But I like that I actually have a little but of a culture to include my children in. That is clearly not important to you like it is to me and that's fine. I'm not going to suddenly start feeling bad about it either.
Okay. I can respect this. I would also like to immerse my kids in their culture (if they're interested, I won't force them) but I don't mind throwing the darker parts into the dustbin of history. I don't meaning forgetting them or lying about them. I mean not actively practicing them anymore. You don't have to bind your daughters feet to teach her about her Chinese heritage.

[Dagoth Ur]

I can respect that last post by you RC.


Then one would think that you of all people would comprehend how important bodily autonomy would be. For shame, man.
Being circumcised is irrelevant to my transsexuality. I don't even understand where this outrage is coming from.

[Five Year Plan]

I can respect that last post by you RC.


Being circumcised is irrelevant to my transsexuality. I don't even understand where this outrage is coming from.

If you don't see how social pressures to sculpt, modify, cut, poke, and prod your body to conform to dominant (and highly gendered) cultural expectations of "health" and "beauty," is related to both your trans-sexuality and to slicing off infant forsekins, then I don't really know what else to say.

[Rosa Partizan]

Although I wouldn't put FGM on a level with circumcision (considering that circumcision can sometimes be necessary from a medical point of view), I see both as an interference with a completely healthy body against the will of someone that is in most cases too young to object. And religion can't be more important than body autonomy.

[Patrice O'neal]

Let's just see what Wiki has to say about it*:



If you just skipped through it, read through it again carefully.



The World Health Organisation thinks otherwise:





Not according to a review of the available facts:





Moral outrage is always a winning argument.



Again, scientists seem to disagree:



But seriously, how would you judge this?



Well let's look at some reports of it then. Let's look at Tim's first example:



Did you check this Tim before posting it up. The things one the Wiki page are all from serious medical journals. They are referenced on the page. You can look up the studies. The bit you are quoting comes from some American internet site which syndicates blogs. Now the newspapers can bit a bit caviller in their reporting of science, but we don't have to worry about this hear because its not from a newspaper at all. It's from a syndicated blog. Not to worry because it does link to a study. This is what the abstract of the study says:



So what he is saying here is that there is no data to back up his conclusions, and where, we ask ourselves, did this eminent piece of medical research appear? Was it is the 'American Journal of Medicine' perhaps? Or maybe it was in 'The Journal of Urology'? Oh no, it is published by the 'Men's Studies Press'. Funnily enough upon asking a friend who works in medicine if this journal came up on the list of medical journal databases their hospital has access to, it wasn't there at all.

Personally I will go with the reports that said



Of course there is always 'The Men's Studies Press' if you want an 'alternative' view.

So now we have dealt with the pseudo science, let's look at the politics behind it.

There is a racist campaign being waged against Muslims in the West. The PPV in Holland may not campaign for a ban of circumcision, but Germany is well along the road to implementing such a ban. It is a real issue there, and I am sure that if it became one in Holland the PPV would latch on to it. Like the campaigns against halal and kosher meat, these sort of campaigns can not be divorced from the environment that they take place in. While I am sure that the people on here arguing for this are not racists themselves, and those supporting them do find themselves trailing along in the wake of these racist campaigns as much as the 'Mohammed was a paedophile' brigade.

Or do you think it is all just neutral and concerned with children's rights?



No, I am not altering my stance. I think that your pseudo-scientific objection to it is nonsense, and these sort of ideas are part of a racist campaign.

I don't 'defend certain groups "traditions"'. I recogise racist campaigns when I see them.

Also, have you thought what would happen if circumcision was banned? People would just get it done to their children illegally, which I am quite sure would have an even worse effect on children's health.

Devrim

*According to Encyclopedia Britannica on scientific subjects Wiki has a similar level of acuracy to Britannica itself

There is absoloutley no evidence that circumcision lowers rates. It's like saying white people have lower HIV percentages so therfore less melanin lowers your risk of contraction, this confuses correlation for causation.

Not one study has shown any evidence whatsoever that genital mutilation lowers HIV.

What they do is go and compare places with more circumcision with less, not taking into account access to contraception, poverty or the rates of unprotected sex and casual sex in the area, meaning they are pointless. You can find statistics on cancer and other horrible things where you can find lower rates correlating with hair colour, nationality etc.

This is not scientific eveidence.

What is fact is that kids die and have their sex lives ruined for them before they are even old enough to have one. If you support that, I don't know what to tell you.

[Devrim]

You know, I find it a bit disappointing that almost every time there is a thread about FGM it turns into a thread about male circumcision.

...
I think closing it now is probably for the best.

Thread closed.

I asked Quail to reopen this. I can see how it is a more than a bit disappointing that every tiöe there is a thread about FGM mutilation it turns into a thread about male circumcision.

There are many people on this thread who seem to be obsessed with their penises. I don't tink that that is at all the topic here though. The topic here is about what I think is a deeply racist policy being supported by those on the left. It is not either an abstract bit of leftist nonsense. There is serious discussion on banning circumcision in Germany.

I am not personally an advocate of circumcision. I am circumcised, but as I only ever had a daughter, the question of whether to do it to my child never came up. I can imagine having it done to a child, depending on where we were living, but I don't see it as necessary for its own sake.

What I would like to ask people is, rather than talking about your penises, what sort of reaction do you think there would be to the banning of male circumcision in Germany amongst the 5% of the population who are Muslims.

I think that there is a clear difference between male circumcision and FGM. FGM is designed to destroy women's sexual pleasure. Even its practitioners acknowledge this. They just happen to think that it is a good thing. Circumcised males do still have healthy sex lives. You may consider it to be of a par, but most people in the world wouldn't agree with you. So basically what do you think the results of this policy would be on the 4 million Muslims in Germany?

The first thing is that all of the issues that have been brought up about accidents during circumcisions would be amplified a thousand fold. What you are advocating would massively increase the number of young boys severely damaged during these operations. It would of course also further alienate Muslims from German society causing more divisions within the working class. Of course some German Muslims would probably feel that they had to leave the country. I wonder who would be happy with that?

Perhaps some people would think that it isn't really important and not bother having their sons circumcised. I think the number would be very few. Would that balance, in your mind, the increased number of accidents that would occur?

Of course I think that you should be totally free to advocate people not being able to circumcise their children. I don't think you should be free to propose a measure that would lead to increased suffering and more racial atagonism within society based upon what is, even you have to admit, a theory held by only a tiny minority.

Devrim

[Diirez]

By the way, why don't you advocate the amputation of arms to prevent their future infection?
Circumcision:
-Reduced HIV in heterosexual males.
-Reduces the risk of HPV (which helps women because certain strans can cause cervical cancer in women).
-Reduces the risk of other STDs, specifically syphilis and genital herpes.
-Decreased risk in penile cancer.
-Decreased risk of prostate cancer.
-Prevention of inflammation of the glans and inflammation of the glans and foreskin.
-Prevention of the inability to retract the foreskin and the inability to return the foreskin.
-Decreased risk in UTIs.



A useless piece of skin vs arm :rolleyes:

Defense of the African HIV study:
There was a study published with 19 cross-sectional studies, 5 case control studies, 3 cohort studies and 1 partner study in 2000. They adjusted their findings for other factors, the factors you claimed were missing, in their population studies. They found that HIV was 44% lower in circumcised men. The other area they looked was in high risk STD clinics and they found the adjusted relative risk was 71% lower for circumcised men.

There was then in 2003 35 observational studies with adjustments for 10 potential factors. They found that the infection rates of HIV was 42% lower in circumcised males.

Ecologic studies found that countries in Africa with only 20% or less of male circumcision had rates of HIV 7 times larger than the countries with 80% or more of men circumcised.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I really don't find the argument that most people are in favor of it to be very moving. In fact if I came in here defending fgm on the basis that a majority of people support it in a given community, nobody would buy it, so everyone with that line of defense needs to drop it already. The majority of people on this planet hold views that we can all agree are barbaric, the proliferation of these views is not a legitimate defense of them in itself and you all know that. I don't doubt that a German effort to ban the practice would have racist intentions, but holy shit there have got to be better places to fight racism in Germany than at the expense of children. There's no legitimate medical justification for the practice on a wide scale, it's a backward tradition that should be resisted for the sake of reason alone, if none of the other reasons that have been detailed here are good enough you.

I also think that the comments about people being "obsessed with their peinis" is a really childish statement to make and is really out of character for you devrim, what is it about this topic that's gotten you so upset?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

My thing is, what about the mothers involved. If at one point the baby was apart of them and their body and they made the choice to give birth, why does this 'ownership' not extend to her child's well fair and upbringing (within reason)? Which is to say, if the mother is Muslim or Jewish why could they not make a choice for the health of their child based upon spiritual/cultural considerations as well as the very real medical reasons behind such a procedure? I think Devrim brings a lot of good points with (most importantly) evidence and examples. Does a child get to decide if they need invasive surgery post-birth? No, or when they are violently ill and need to take medicine, is it wrong for mothers to force them too for their own safety? Then also there is the political considerations as Devrim mentioned as well.

[Devrim]

I also think that the comments about people being "obsessed with their peinis" is a really childish statement to make and is really out of character for you devrim, what is it about this topic that's gotten you so upset?

I'm not upset about it. It's a discussion on the Internet. I don't allow things like that to upset me. I think if you look back through the thread you can actually see many examples of people 'being obsessed'. I don't really want to go back to them though.

The reason that I think the issue is important though is because I think it is a deeply racist campaign. I am not saying that the people supporting it are racists, but they are being pulled along by the racist right.


I really don't find the argument that most people are in favor of it to be very moving. In fact if I came in here defending fgm on the basis that a majority of people support it in a given community, nobody would buy it, so everyone with that line of defense needs to drop it already.

But they are not the same in any way. Male circumcision is a harmless procedure, which may even have health benefits. The arguments that have been presented on this thread for circumcision having health benefits come from the likes of the WHO, and those against come from the likes of the 'Men's Studies Press'.

If it were FGM, I wouldn't argue that culture needs to be respected, and it should be allowed to continue. This situation is different though. Nobody thinks that it prevents men from enjoying a healthy sex life in any way whereas everyone, including its advocates thinks that FGM prevents women from enjoying a health sex life.

As I have said male circumcision is not something I advocate. It is a backward religious tradition. It could be shown to have health benefits, but that is not my real point. My point is is something which does no harm and is pretty inconsequential a reason to call for the implementation of such a racist anti-Muslim, and anti Jewish while we are on the topic, policy.

...and as I asked before what do you think the results of the implementation of this law would be?

Devrim

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I'm not upset about it. It's a discussion on the Internet. I don't allow things like that to upset me. I think if you look back through the thread you can actually see many examples of people 'being obsessed'. I don't really want to go back to them though.

The reason that I think the issue is important though is because I think it is a deeply racist campaign. I am not saying that the people supporting it are racists, but they are being pulled along by the racist right.



But they are not the same in any way. Male circumcision is a harmless procedure, which may even have health benefits. The arguments that have been presented on this thread for circumcision having health benefits come from the likes of the WHO, and those against come from the likes of the 'Men's Studies Press'.

If it were FGM, I wouldn't argue that culture needs to be respected, and it should be allowed to continue. This situation is different though. Nobody thinks that it prevents men from enjoying a healthy sex life in any way whereas everyone, including its advocates thinks that FGM prevents women from enjoying a health sex life.

As I have said male circumcision is not something I advocate. It is a backward religious tradition. It could be shown to have health benefits, but that is not my real point. My point is is something which does no harm and is pretty inconsequential a reason to call for the implementation of such a racist anti-Muslim, and anti Jewish while we are on the topic, policy.

...and as I asked before what do you think the results of the implementation of this law would be?

Devrim

I'm not familiar enough with German society or law to make a judgment on how it's implementation would look. As I said I have no doubts that there are racist intentions behind it's ban. Perhaps you will tell me that I am only dealing with a penis obsession of my own, but I can say that my circumcision causes me a great deal of distress. I'm against banning the practice all together but I am in favor of banning it for minors, the bodily autonomy of a human should not be violated in such a fashion.

Members of my own family claim that the current anti-fgm legislation in this country is anti-Somali, and probably it was to some extent, that doesn't make me feel any different towards it. I don't feel that circumcision and fgm are on the same level when it comes to living with it, but my hostility towards both come from the same feeling. The idea that anyone walks around thinking it is ok to slice a child's genitals, regardless of gender, is horrifying to take in. I always assumed that it was something people just didnt think about, but to see people actually defending it is something else entirely. But to defend it for political reasons? Come on.

[BIXX]

Now that we are talking about how some people are obsessed with their penises would it be a good time to talk about my proposal for starting a new board in "General", and it would be called something along the lines of "Penis discussion" where we could talk about thighs relating to penises. And another board, called "Clitoris discussion" where we can talk about things relating to clitorises. And idk the two board could send delegates to one another.

But seriously... This is the dumbest thread I have read ever. I am personally glad my parents had me circumcised, as every person who I've had sex with at one point has mentioned that she was glad that I was circumcised. However I don't think this is a thing that really matters, I just came here to make my joke and had too add a few lines of filler to add to the conversation to not get a warning or whatever.

[Rosa Partizan]

dd, to be honest, I prefer circumcised penises a lot over non-circumcises ones, so I understand any circumcised guy that's like "oh I love it, there's nothing bad with it", but our preferences don't change anything about the fact that you remove sth from a totally healthy part of the body that doesn't need any modification, especially when there's no final evidence that it serves some higher purposes like less risk of HIV infection etc. And even if there was final evidence, it'd still be debateable. Yeah, I know, you weren't discussing anyway :grin:

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I think I raised a good point. Considering, anti-cutting arguments as presented here seem vaguely reminiscent of anti-abortion arguments. This to me an issue of a mother having say per her body and child's well being. Someone address them. :( this is why I just poke jokes.

[Rosa Partizan]

how are there parallels? The woman herself decides, the little baby can't.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Now that we are talking about how some people are obsessed with their penises would it be a good time to talk about my proposal for starting a new board in "General", and it would be called something along the lines of "Penis discussion" where we could talk about thighs relating to penises. And another board, called "Clitoris discussion" where we can talk about things relating to clitorises. And idk the two board could send delegates to one another.

But seriously... This is the dumbest thread I have read ever. I am personally glad my parents had me circumcised, as every person who I've had sex with at one point has mentioned that she was glad that I was circumcised. However I don't think this is a thing that really matters, I just came here to make my joke and had too add a few lines of filler to add to the conversation to not get a warning or whatever.

I've never had a partner comment on it one way or another, but aesthetics absolutely play a role in the continuation of the practice, which helps illustrate how stupid the tradition itself is.

[Five Year Plan]

Circumcision:
-Reduced HIV in heterosexual males.
-Reduces the risk of HPV (which helps women because certain strans can cause cervical cancer in women).
-Reduces the risk of other STDs, specifically syphilis and genital herpes.
-Decreased risk in penile cancer.
-Decreased risk of prostate cancer.
-Prevention of inflammation of the glans and inflammation of the glans and foreskin.
-Prevention of the inability to retract the foreskin and the inability to return the foreskin.
-Decreased risk in UTIs.



A useless piece of skin vs arm :rolleyes:

Defense of the African HIV study:
There was a study published with 19 cross-sectional studies, 5 case control studies, 3 cohort studies and 1 partner study in 2000. They adjusted their findings for other factors, the factors you claimed were missing, in their population studies. They found that HIV was 44% lower in circumcised men. The other area they looked was in high risk STD clinics and they found the adjusted relative risk was 71% lower for circumcised men.

There was then in 2003 35 observational studies with adjustments for 10 potential factors. They found that the infection rates of HIV was 42% lower in circumcised males.

Ecologic studies found that countries in Africa with only 20% or less of male circumcision had rates of HIV 7 times larger than the countries with 80% or more of men circumcised.

Even if all these health stats are correct (and as others have pointed out in other threads, they are correlations, not causal relationships, which is basically just junk science), the question isn't whether engaging in a particular medical procedure reduces risk. As I said, you can amputate your arms, and that significantly reduces the risk of injury to your arms. You can cut off a person's penis, and that significantly reduces their risk (to 0) of their acquiring an STD.

The question is one of weighing the issue of bodily autonomy against supposed health benefits that couldn't be acquired in other ways. If everything you say about health benefits is true, why not let the young person choose for himself whether he wants those benefits when he is old enough to make the decision? Why have it imposed on him?

The reality is that if you waited until an appropriate age, nobody would voluntarily opt to have the procedure done. The ways you reduce the risk of STDs is to teach the importance of safe sex, not mutilating a person's body without their input.

These debates always feature pro-circumcision people trotting out statistics, but let's be honest here. The people arguing in favor of circumcision are circumcised themselves, and they are making the argument in order to justify to themselves that they didn't have their penises involuntarily mutilated when they were infants. I've never, ever encountered an uncircumcised person arguing for forced infant male circumcision in my entire life. But I do see circumcised men argue against it. I wonder why this could be the case.

You'll be disheartened to know that you are swimming against the stream, because, like the death penalty and other similarly barbaric practices, circumcision is on its way out. Most notably in countries in the Anglosphere like Australia and Canada, circumcision rates have plummeted over the past twenty years. Even in the US, which outside of the religious states of the Middle East has the highest circ rates in the world, the percentage is gradually dropping, particularly on the West coast.

[Five Year Plan]

I think I raised a good point. Considering, anti-cutting arguments as presented here seem vaguely reminiscent of anti-abortion arguments. This to me an issue of a mother having say per her body and child's well being. Someone address them. :( this is why I just poke jokes.

Yes, because fighting to protect a male's bodily autonomy regarding his reproductive anatomy sounds exactly like telling a woman she shouldn't have autonomy regarding her own reproductive anatomy. Oh, wait!!!! Oops!

[Devrim]

These debates always feature pro-circumcision people trotting out statistics, but let's be honest here. The people arguing in favor of circumcision are circumcised themselves, and they are making the argument in order to justify to themselves that they didn't have their penises involuntarily mutilated when they were infants.

I don't know if you noticed, but nobody is arguing for circumcision. What the argument is about is whether it should be banned. There is a difference between these two things. To give another example for the people who are finding this difficult, I don't argue in favour of headscarves, but I still think that the ban on certain headscarves in France is racist.

It is not an argument based on any physiological trauma, as you seem to be suggesting, and I am not an advocate of people circumcising their children. As I said before, for me it would depend on circumstance, but if I had had a boy, not a girl, and lived in the West I doubt very much I would have had it done.


I've never, ever encountered an uncircumcised person arguing for forced infant male circumcision in my entire life.

Again nobody here is arguing for forced male circumcision.


The reality is that if you waited until an appropriate age, nobody would voluntarily opt to have the procedure done.

This is a very culturally specific thing. I know people who have had it done as adults. I don't think that it is an at all uncommon thing. It might not happen very often in American, but there are parts of the world where it does happen. I wonder where?


the religious states of the Middle East

You can almost see the disdain dripping off the words, can't you?

Becoming circumcised as an adult is a serious painful operation. Knowing a few people who had it done, I wouldn't wish the procedure on anybody. What is just a minor procedure when done to a child is a serious operation when done to a man.

We could go on about your rubbishing of the WHO recommendations. I personally would rather listen to the conclusions of medical professionals rather than yourself or the 'Men's Studies Press'.

The issue though is whether you advocate racist laws against Muslims. I notice that this is a subject which you completely ignore.

Devrim

[The Feral Underclass]

Circumcision:
-Reduced HIV in heterosexual males.
-Reduces the risk of HPV (which helps women because certain strans can cause cervical cancer in women).
-Reduces the risk of other STDs, specifically syphilis and genital herpes.
-Decreased risk in penile cancer.
-Decreased risk of prostate cancer.
-Prevention of inflammation of the glans and inflammation of the glans and foreskin.
-Prevention of the inability to retract the foreskin and the inability to return the foreskin.
-Decreased risk in UTIs.

This is incredibly misleading. Studies have been done on these things, but they are not definitive by any stretch of the imagination. For example, the link between circumcision and the prevention of prostate cancer applies only to people over the age of 35 and showed only a 45% lower risk. You are basically attempting to present a series of medical risks as definitive proof that circumcision is a way for preventing these diseases. It is not.

The General Medical Council (the highest medical body in the UK) has guidelines that state "it is rarely necessary to circumcise an infant for medical reasons." (source (http://www.nocirc.org/position/bma.php)). The former head of the GMC also went on record saying that there was absolutely no ethical reason to circumcise a baby. The fact is, circumcision, while most likely being nominally effective in preventing certain diseases, does not prevent them sufficiently to make it an ethical imperative to circumcise children.

[The Feral Underclass]

I haven't read this whole debate, so forgive me if I'm repeating what others have said, but I feel that there is a very clear position on this: the body of a human being is entirely autonomous and under that persons complete domain. Any decision that affects their body can only (except in severe cases) justifiably be made by the person whose body it is. It is absolutely unjustified to circumcise someone without their informed and express permission.

[Five Year Plan]

I don't know if you noticed, but nobody is arguing for circumcision. What the argument is about is whether it should be banned. There is a difference between these two things. To give another example for the people who are finding this difficult, I don't argue in favour of headscarves, but I still think that the ban on certain headscarves in France is racist.

Let's be clear here. Nobody is arguing that circumcision should categorically be banned. What I am advocating for is that the routine forced circumcision of infants, and of other people judged legally incapable of making their own decisions about these matters, should be banned in cases where it is not clearly medically necessary. If you are 25 years old, and cant stand your foreskin anymore, I have no problems with you marching down to the clinic and insisting that you have it sliced off.


It is not an argument based on any physiological trauma, as you seem to be suggesting, and I am not an advocate of people circumcising their children. As I said before, for me it would depend on circumstance, but if I had had a boy, not a girl, and lived in the West I doubt very much I would have had it done.I am glad to hear that, though I am not sure what "circumstance" short of a clear medical necessity would steer you in the direction of having the procedure performed on an infant or small child.


This is a very culturally specific thing. I know people who have had it done as adults. I don't think that it is an at all uncommon thing. It might not happen very often in American, but there are parts of the world where it does happen. I wonder where?If an adult wants to have it done to his own body, more power to him. In cases where it isn't medically necessary, it is incredibly rare for this to happen and is almost always the result of some sort of religious conversion, which should tell you (politically) the kind of mentality medically unnecessary circumcision represents.


You can almost see the disdain dripping off the words, can't you?

Becoming circumcised as an adult is a serious painful operation. Knowing a few people who had it done, I wouldn't wish the procedure on anybody. What is just a minor procedure when done to a child is a serious operation when done to a man.

We could go on about your rubbishing of the WHO recommendations. I personally would rather listen to the conclusions of medical professionals rather than yourself or the 'Men's Studies Press'.

The issue though is whether you advocate racist laws against Muslims. I notice that this is a subject which you completely ignore.

DevrimMedical opinion is divided on the issue, so listening to them won't lead you to any specific conclusions. It's a controversial issue. As for your disgusting insinuation that there is a link between anti-feminism "men's rights," and my respect for a person's own bodily autonomy regarding their reproductive anatomy, I would just suggest that this demonstrates how desperate you've become here.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I will say that circumcision is the only item on mra platforms that is even remotely coherent, of course the way it is presented strips it of any kind of legitimacy. Its not a 'mens rights' issue, its a children's rights issue. I understand why it gets less attention than something like fgm, but honestly it would be cool if feminists could take this issue away from the mra nuts, and bring it into a rational space.

[consuming negativity]

I will say that circumcision is the only item on mra platforms that is even remotely coherent, of course the way it is presented strips it of any kind of legitimacy. Its not a 'mens rights' issue, its a children's rights issue. I understand why it gets less attention than something like fgm, but honestly it would be cool if feminists could take this issue away from the mra nuts, and bring it into a rational space.

Except the MRA platform is one of discrediting feminists, rather than one for change. The MRAs take up the anti-circumcision argument because it's more ammo to point at feminists. Feminists rarely take up the argument because there are more immediate and pressing concerns that the already-marginalized feminist movement has to deal with. Keeping thousands of people from being raped is more important than one guy needing surgery to have sex. And, funny enough, preventing rape is a more popular position than stopping circumcision. So stick your resources where they are most likely to benefit someone... feminism is not pro-circumcision so much as it is a movement that has a lot more to do than it has resources to do stuff with. If anything, men should be making movements and actually trying to get a change themselves rather than relying on the women's movement to handle it for them. But no, they'd rather attack the women's movement and just keep everybody miserable. MRAs are the worst pseudo-intellectual scum.

[Devrim]

I am glad to hear that, though I am not sure what "circumstance" short of a clear medical necessity would steer you in the direction of having the procedure performed on an infant or small child.

Basically wanting my child to have a normal sex life when they grew up. I live in the Middle East. The majority of people, whether religious or not, view being uncircumcised as being unclean.


and is almost always the result of some sort of religious conversion, which should tell you (politically) the kind of mentality medically unnecessary circumcision represents.

Again, you can really see the disdain for Middle Eastern people dripping off these words.


Medical opinion is divided on the issue, so listening to them won't lead you to any specific conclusions. It's a controversial issue.

Really? It is divided is it? You wouldn't know it from how it is being described as mutilation in this thread.


As for your disgusting insinuation that there is a link between anti-feminism "men's rights," and my respect for a person's own bodily autonomy regarding their reproductive anatomy, I would just suggest that this demonstrates how desperate you've become here.

The 'Men's Studies Press is the source of some of the 'scientific' arguments used earlier in this thread.

Yet again there is no concern whatsoever for the fact that a law of this sort would be a racist attack on millions of Muslims in Germany. If people don't really want to discuss the political dimensions of this at all, I am out of this thread. I think the point has been made.

Devrim

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Except the MRA platform is one of discrediting feminists, rather than one for change. The MRAs take up the anti-circumcision argument because it's more ammo to point at feminists. Feminists rarely take up the argument because there are more immediate and pressing concerns that the already-marginalized feminist movement has to deal with. Keeping thousands of people from being raped is more important than one guy needing surgery to have sex. And, funny enough, preventing rape is a more popular position than stopping circumcision. So stick your resources where they are most likely to benefit someone... feminism is not pro-circumcision so much as it is a movement that has a lot more to do than it has resources to do stuff with. If anything, men should be making movements and actually trying to get a change themselves rather than relying on the women's movement to handle it for them. But no, they'd rather attack the women's movement and just keep everybody miserable. MRAs are the worst pseudo-intellectual scum.

But that's my point, its a legitimate point that gets used (abused?) by them for illegitimate purposes. This is off-topic but I feel like its a way to undermine them while at the same time addressing a real issue. I'm not sure about men leading feminist projects, but a concerted children's rights campaign could be a way to reach men who are hostile to feminism due to preconceived notions maybe.

[Five Year Plan]

Basically wanting my child to have a normal sex life when they grew up. I live in the Middle East. The majority of people, whether religious or not, view being uncircumcised as being unclean.

And if your child grew up and migrated to Germany for work, he'd be shit out of luck, wouldn't he?


Again, you can really see the disdain for Middle Eastern people dripping off these words.No, it's a disdain for a practice that citizens of the United States and Middle Eastern states routinely engage in. Your attempt to imply there's some nefarious racist component to what is obviously a principled argument is pretty disgusting. But it's in keeping with how you seem to conduct yourself around the entire forum.


Really? It is divided is it? You wouldn't know it from how it is being described as mutilation in this thread.You speak as though mutilation can't by definition have some positive medical benefits. As I said, you can slice off a guy's penis, and the medical benefit is zero risk of genital-based STDs.


The 'Men's Studies Press is the source of some of the 'scientific' arguments used earlier in this thread.This is cheap guilt-by-association bullshit, and, quite frankly, I thought it was beneath you. As occasionally happens, I was wrong. It's not beneath you. I guess we're all learning a lot in this thread.


Yet again there is no concern whatsoever for the fact that a law of this sort would be a racist attack on millions of Muslims in Germany. If people don't really want to discuss the political dimensions of this at all, I am out of this thread. I think the point has been made.

DevrimYour argument that religion shouldn't be interfered with at all even in cases where non-consenting people's bodies are modified permanently is essentially a liberal one. There is no transcendent "right" not have your religion fucked with, especially when permanent modification of non-consenting people's bodies is concerned.

It's also quite amusing how you seem to be confusing race with religion. Muslims and Christians comprise every conceivable variety of race and ethnicity.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

circumcision is quite common for American Christians, both catholic and protestant. I'm not sure why they differ from Europeans in that respect, but any disdain for religion in those posts are more likely to be aimed at Christians rather than Muslims since the poster is from the US

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Yes, because fighting to protect a male's bodily autonomy regarding his reproductive anatomy sounds exactly like telling a woman she shouldn't have autonomy regarding her own reproductive anatomy. Oh, wait!!!! Oops!

Let's just not address what I've said an post some lame ass joke. That's cool.

[Five Year Plan]

Let's just not address what I've said an post some lame ass joke. That's cool.

I did address what you said. That it reads like a joke says a lot about the position of yours I was substantively addressing.

[Rafiq]

circumcision is quite common for American Christians, both catholic and protestant. I'm not sure why they differ from Europeans in that respect, but any disdain for religion in those posts are more likely to be aimed at Christians rather than Muslims since the poster is from the US

Here in the U.S., from my experience it is rather rare to hear about someone (who is male) who is not circumcised. I know I live in metro Detroit and there's a significant Muslim population but I don't live or work around them and I didn't go to school in any of the areas with a significant Muslim population.

Circumcision originated in the United States through the myth that it would lead to a decrease in male masturbation in the 19th century. Over time other justifications for male circumcision were developed, with claims that they can prevent disease and so on.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I did address what you said. That it reads like a joke says a lot about the position of yours I was substantively addressing.

No, you actually didn't. It's post like these is why I don't feel like contributing because if your not going to address my apparent idiocy in some coherent manner than why bother.

[Five Year Plan]

No, you actually didn't. It's post like these is why I don't feel like contributing because if your not going to address my apparent idiocy in some coherent manner than why bother.

Your post was only a one-liner that mentioned how opponents of routine non-medically-necessary infant circumcision supposedly were resorting to arguments used by anti-choice people. I commented that said opponents were arguing on behalf of the bodily autonomy of a living, breathing person not to have their reproductive anatomy permanently changed without their consent, in the same way that living, breathing women should not have decisions about their reproductive anatomy infringed upon.

So yeah, I addressed it, and I addressed it briefly because your point was so manifestly absurd that it didn't require any more attention than that.

[Lord Testicles]

Your post was only a one-liner that mentioned how opponents of routine non-medically-necessary infant circumcision supposedly were resorting to arguments used by anti-choice people. I commented that said opponents were arguing on behalf of the bodily autonomy of a living, breathing person not to have their reproductive anatomy permanently changed without their consent, in the same way that living, breathing women should not have decisions about their reproductive anatomy infringed upon.

So yeah, I addressed it, and I addressed it briefly because your point was so manifestly absurd that it didn't require any more attention than that.

To be fair, Vox did post some nonsense on the page before, which is what she might be referring too.


My thing is, what about the mothers involved. If at one point the baby was apart of them and their body and they made the choice to give birth, why does this 'ownership' not extend to her child's well fair and upbringing (within reason)? Which is to say, if the mother is Muslim or Jewish why could they not make a choice for the health of their child based upon spiritual/cultural considerations as well as the very real medical reasons behind such a procedure? I think Devrim brings a lot of good points with (most importantly) evidence and examples. Does a child get to decide if they need invasive surgery post-birth? No, or when they are violently ill and need to take medicine, is it wrong for mothers to force them too for their own safety? Then also there is the political considerations as Devrim mentioned as well.

[Five Year Plan]

To be fair, Vox did post some nonsense on the page before, which is what she might be referring too.

Oh, I see. Thank you. I had missed that post. She raises the general point about the fact that a parent often makes medical decisions about his or her children without those children's actual consent. As with most things, these have to be looked at on a case by case basis. For instance, if there's a physical condition that in any way might raise the possibility of circumcision improving their quality of life, then I think the prohibition I have in mind would not apply. This is different than, "they'll grow up around guys whose cocks will also be cut," which misses the point that in a society with such a prohibition, there won't be isolated progressive thinking parents sending their uncircumcised sons off to the proverbial wolves for ridicule. The argument about religious freedom is an interesting one, but it's literally impossible for a parent to force their religion on a child. They can force their child to go through various motions in present society (e.g., attend church), but that's different than permanently imposing on them a modification to their body that they have to live with regardless of their future mindset. What about the child who was circumcised by devout Muslim parents, but then grows up to be an atheist at an early age?

[Deep Sea]

What do you guys think of the "Circumcision Complex" stuff? While it is too heavily Freudian for my tastes, the idea that male circumcision has a profound psychological aspect on adult males seems obvious to me. I am also convinced it was promoted amongst ancient Jews as a way to make people artificially pious.

[consuming negativity]

Oh, I see. Thank you. I had missed that post. She raises the general point about the fact that a parent often makes medical decisions about his or her children without those children's actual consent. As with most things, these have to be looked at on a case by case basis. For instance, if there's a physical condition that in any way might raise the possibility of circumcision improving their quality of life, then I think the prohibition I have in mind would not apply. This is different than, "they'll grow up around guys whose cocks will also be cut," which misses the point that in a society with such a prohibition, there won't be isolated progressive thinking parents sending their uncircumcised sons off to the proverbial wolves for ridicule. The argument about religious freedom is an interesting one, but it's literally impossible for a parent to force their religion on a child. They can force their child to go through various motions in present society (e.g., attend church), but that's different than permanently imposing on them a modification to their body that they have to live with regardless of their future mindset. What about the child who was circumcised by devout Muslim parents, but then grows up to be an atheist at an early age?

You can be the smartest man in the world, but if you're an asshole, nobody is going to want to be in your company or listen to you talk. It is not a personal attack to think differently or arrive at different conclusions. If the level of discourse is so low here, then why don't you leave and go talk with others more like yourself?

[Five Year Plan]

You can be the smartest man in the world, but if you're an asshole, nobody is going to want to be in your company or listen to you talk. It is not a personal attack to think differently or arrive at different conclusions. If the level of discourse is so low here, then why don't you leave and go talk with others more like yourself?

Setting aside the fact that this advice is more than a little hypocritical in light of your history of assholish trolling, this is an off-topic post that really should have been left as a message on my wall, not that I take what you say seriously enough to have given it much thought.

[Lily Briscoe]

What about parents who get their kids' ears pierced? Is that also some pressing issue that demands to be addressed? It's crazy to me that so many people on here manage to get themselves so worked up over a damn foreskin. Who cares one way or the other. I thought the point about the racist campaigns was a lot more interesting.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Oh, I see. Thank you. I had missed that post. She raises the general point about the fact that a parent often makes medical decisions about his or her children without those children's actual consent. As with most things, these have to be looked at on a case by case basis. For instance, if there's a physical condition that in any way might raise the possibility of circumcision improving their quality of life, then I think the prohibition I have in mind would not apply. This is different than, "they'll grow up around guys whose cocks will also be cut," which misses the point that in a society with such a prohibition, there won't be isolated progressive thinking parents sending their uncircumcised sons off to the proverbial wolves for ridicule. The argument about religious freedom is an interesting one, but it's literally impossible for a parent to force their religion on a child. They can force their child to go through various motions in present society (e.g., attend church), but that's different than permanently imposing on them a modification to their body that they have to live with regardless of their future mindset. What about the child who was circumcised by devout Muslim parents, but then grows up to be an atheist at an early age?

Devrim also posted a shit ton of information from the WHO that I was building upon that you and others have so conveniently ignored. So, based off of this medical data if a mother believed it to be in her child's best interest based upon modern medical, cultural and spiritual considerations, does she not have say over her own child's well-being?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Setting aside the fact that this advice is more than a little hypocritical in light of your history of assholish trolling, this is an off-topic post that really should have been left as a message on my wall, not that I take what you say seriously enough to have given it much thought.

Actually s/he is saying the prick shtick is worn out. Stahp.

[Depardieu]

if bodily autonomy is so important let's perhaps start with the historical and political patriarchal control over women's bodies that is present every day of their lives and takes a much greater toll. let's talk about rape culture, heteronormativity, beauty standards, etc.

male circumcision is fucking trivial
i do find it problematic the way parents are basically coerced into doing it, but it doesnt exert long term or harmful control over anybody. it doesnt stop anybody from having a wank
the hiv argument might hold water in that mass circumcision might decrease the rate of infection, but circumcision absolutely should not and cannot substitute actual forms of protection like condoms, obviously

[Five Year Plan]

Devrim also posted a shit ton of information from the WHO that I was building upon that you and others have so conveniently ignored. So, based off of this medical data if a mother believed it to be in her child's best interest based upon modern medical, cultural and spiritual considerations, does she not have say over her own child's well-being?

And it has been pointed out repeatedly that the conclusions drawn from those statistics, and indeed the statistics themselves, have been challenged by other medical experts and professional medical bodies. If you have any interest in this issue, I advise you to consult http://www.intactamerica.org and check out the information under "resources."

Among other things the website points out a fact that many posters in this thread would do well to remember before harping on about how the male foreskin is supposedly a useless piece of tissue:

The foreskin is a normal, sensitive, functional part of the body. In infant boys, the foreskin is attached to the head of the penis (glans), protects it from urine, feces, and irritation, and keeps contaminants from entering the urinary tract. The foreskin also has an important role in sexual pleasure, due to its specialized, erogenous nerve endings and its natural gliding and lubricating functions.

For a discussion of harder scientific data, you can go to http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org and particularly their publications page at http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/publications.html


Actually s/he is saying the prick shtick is worn out. Stahp.Prick shtick? You mean like insulting people by saying they're being "pricks"? Now let me act the part you've assigned.

My unsolicited advice is for you to stick to your stand-up routine. Your political posts are quite weak, and this fit of bossy moralizing that seems to have overtaken you in the past week or so is just unbearable to witness.

[Five Year Plan]

if bodily autonomy is so important let's perhaps start with the historical and political patriarchal control over women's bodies that is present every day of their lives and takes a much greater toll. let's talk about rape culture, heteronormativity, beauty standards, etc.

male circumcision is fucking trivial
i do find it problematic the way parents are basically coerced into doing it, but it doesnt exert long term or harmful control over anybody. it doesnt stop anybody from having a wank
the hiv argument might hold water in that mass circumcision might decrease the rate of infection, but circumcision absolutely should not and cannot substitute actual forms of protection like condoms, obviously

If you think it's a trivial issue, you don't have to post in the thread or read it. There's an entire subforum devoted to the issues you seem to think aren't discussed here at all.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

And it has been pointed out repeatedly that the conclusions drawn from those statistics, and indeed the statistics themselves, have been challenged by other medical experts and professional medical bodies.

Where? You are aware this was put out by the WHO, are you not?


If you have any interest in this issue, I advise you to consult http://www.intactamerica.org and check out the information under "resources."

So, I'm supposed to believe some obviously biased link instead of neutral international health organization?


Among other things the website points out a fact that many posters in this thread would do well to remember before harping on about how the male foreskin is supposedly a useless piece of tissue:

Oh yes a shit definition and links. :rolleyes: pearls of wisdom are certain to follow you're right.


The foreskin is a normal, sensitive, functional part of the body. In infant boys, the foreskin is attached to the head of the penis (glans), protects it from urine, feces, and irritation, and keeps contaminants from entering the urinary tract.

That doesn't make sense. How is extra folds of skin which urine, fecal matter and so on could get trapped in, btw, supposed to provide this protection? That's silly, why do you think nurses hate uncut old guys? Cuz it takes longer to clean the junk and you have to be extremely thorough so as not lead to UTI.


The foreskin also has an important role in sexual pleasure, due to its specialized, erogenous nerve endings and its natural gliding and lubricating functions.

Which I'm sure for an infant of 12 months, this is really a huge concern.



For a discussion of harder scientific data, you can go to http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org and particularly their publications page at http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/publications.html

This is the equilivant of me post the link to Architects for 9/11 truth as definitive proof that 9/11 was an inside job. You do realize that don't you? Again, I find it pretty convenient how your sweeping this whole WHO data under the rug and choosing to continually ignore it. Posting links doesn't equate to a counter argument.


Prick shtick? You mean like insulting people by saying they're being "pricks"? Now let me act the part you've assigned.

My unsolicited advice is for you to stick to your stand-up routine. Your political posts are quite weak, and this fit of bossy moralizing that seems to have overtaken you in the past week or so is just unbearable to witness.

This is the same song and dance I've heard from other slack jawed idiots before you and still, to this day, it remains to be seen. I've always been bossy and yes I do have morals, have we not met? Are you not aware of my posts here? Lol

[Five Year Plan]

So, I'm supposed to believe some obviously biased link instead of neutral international health organization?

Every source has its biases and prejudices. The fact that you would call the WHO "unbiased" while I'm sure you would call the UN, its parent organization, adamantly biased against Israel shows about how much stock we should place in your ability to make principled arguments here. What's relevant isn't the bias of the source of an argument. What's relevant is the quality of the argument itself, which you can't bring yourself to address at all, and instead sink to insults and general brattiness.


That doesn't make sense. How is extra folds of skin which urine, fecal matter and so on could get trapped in, btw, supposed to provide this protection? That's silly, why do you think nurses hate uncut old guys? Cuz it takes longer to clean the junk and you have to be extremely thorough so as not lead to UTI.I'm sorry you don't understand basic physiology and how it has evolved over hundreds of thousands of years in order to perform certain basic functions. That you want to pull out of your ass some anecdote about nurses you might or might not know hardly even rises to the level of arguments I would see from architects for 9/11 truth. In fact, it's not even an argument at all.


Which I'm sure for an infant of 12 months, this is really a huge concern.lNo, sexual pleasure is a huge concern for males when they're twenty years old, not twelve months, but circumcision is forever, isn't it? In your self-entitled little rush to defend parents' "rights" to mutilate their kids, you seem to be forgetting this.

The bottom line is that I have provided you with a link to medical professionals who cite tons of peer-reviewed journals that challenge the statistics that people here have presented in support of "routine" infant circumcision. That you can't be bothered to even familiarize yourself with it before passing judgment on it shows how seriously you should be taken as a good-faith interlocutor in a debate. Would it make you feel better if I copy-pasted them into the thread? I'm sure you'd just ignore them anyway, as you already have, then go on with your dogmatic denunciations.

Please, go back to trolling. You can't seem to handle real discussions.

[Orange Juche]

I wouldn't say that this is completely unbelievable, but it seems a bit unlikely. FGM isn't prevalent amongst Arabs in Iraq. It is quite surprising to me.



Would you include male circumcision in this?

Devrim

I don't know enough about it, but I believe there are medical arguments for it (though it isn't necessary always) - although it seems wrong to do something like that unless it is necessary.

I mean, the idea that it should be allowed for religious reasons should definitely stop (there's some really orthodox Jewish traditions where the Rabbi uses his mouth somehow? :confused: And infants have gotten herpes from it, and even died from that).

Seems like it should be something based not on cultural norms or traditions but a purely medical basis and the values of bodily autonomy, I'd argue.

[GanzEgal]

My stance is that mutilations such as circumcision should be illegal for an underage person, but legal for an adult who decides about his own body.

As for the medical aspect, I recognize the right of the medical community to use surgical treatments, if no equally or superiorly effective non-surgical treatment is known. Circumcision does not qualify as a necessary surgical treatment for a condition for which no equally or superiorly effective non-surgical treatments exist. Therefore even a medical doctor would have the legal right to order a circumcision only in exceptional cases, if in any cases.