If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Baroque]

How anyone can defend male circumcision on infants is beyond me. Why not do some more mutilation for "health (religious/cultural) reasons" while we're at it. Maybe removing the appendix on all children?
...

Health is certainly a good reason. As far as religious/cultural well how about piercings and tattoos? Also it's really up to the parents how they want their child to be. The infant has no opinion or say on the matter, or any matter, they're an infant. It's more dangerous and painful for them to get it done later in life.

 

[Serjeant Grumbles]

There are preventative reasons for removing foreskin

What preventative reasons are those? Preventing masturbation, and the ensuing blindness, insanity, hairy palms, and various other maladies that come with it? That's how circumcision became commonplace in America. Doctors have been coming up with new reasons for it ever since the original justification ceased to make sense.

Also it's really up to the parents how they want their child to be.

So, if the parents want a girl because they already have several boys, should they be able to have sexual reassignment surgery performed on their male infant? After all, it's their property to with as they will, apparently.

 

[Dak]

If preventing masturbation was the reason for circumcision, that's a war that was lost before it started I'm sure.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

So, if the parents want a girl because they already have several boys, should they be able to have sexual reassignment surgery performed on their male infant? After all, it's their property to with as they will, apparently.

Nah they'll just sell him to planned parenthood.

 

[Einherjar86]

What preventative reasons are those? Preventing masturbation, and the ensuing blindness, insanity, hairy palms, and various other maladies that come with it? That's how circumcision became commonplace in America. Doctors have been coming up with new reasons for it ever since the original justification ceased to make sense.

Removing the foreskin supposedly decreases the risk of infection, including sexually transmitted diseases. I've also read that circumcised males tend to have lower UTI rates.

 

[Dak]

Removing the foreskin supposedly decreases the risk of infection, including sexually transmitted diseases. I've also read that circumcised males tend to have lower UTI rates.

I wouldn't be surprised if a correlation, if it exists, of decreased STD rates and circumcised males was mediated by decreased rates of risky sexual behavior.

 

[Einherjar86]

Me neither. Just repeating what I've read.

 

[CiG]

The cringe is real.

It's more dangerous and painful for them to get it done later in life.

Fucking Hell please do some research before you spread this drivel...

 

[Einherjar86]

CIG, I don't think you really know any more about this than anybody else here. We've all done "research," as far as reading various studies and articles go. Most health professionals generally agree that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks.

 

[CiG]

Going by what you guys are commenting it seems like you've not actually done any research beyond finding things that reinforce your ambivalence toward the subject.

To claim that it's more painful when you're an adult demonstrates nothing but ignorance on the subject.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm just commenting on the statistics regarding health benefits. There aren't any competing data there, beyond Dak's observation that there can be alternative reasons for those statistics. But the correlation still stands.

If there is any substance to that correlation, then I'd say a little pain early in life is desirable over lifelong illness later.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I'm just commenting on the statistics regarding health benefits. There aren't any competing data there, beyond Dak's observation that there can be alternative reasons for those statistics. But the correlation still stands.

If there is any substance to that correlation, then I'd say a little pain early in life is desirable over lifelong illness later.

lmao, what lifelong illness do uncircumcised men suffer from? afaik most studies showing any health benefits of circumcision are extremely mild at best.

 

[CiG]

By that logic, would you support removing the breast buds of girls as they put them at much higher risk than a foreskin does?

 

[Einherjar86]

STDs are lifelong.

 

[CiG]

Anyway, since this only started up again because Vilden commented, I'm in favour of dropping this subject entirely. I definitely think this was the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen you state on UM. The mental gymnastics are fucking top shelf stuff.

Women are oppressed because parents aren't allowed to mutilate their genitals but they can do so to boys. Damn male privilege.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

STDs are lifelong.

Condoms are cheap and don't permanently mutilate male genitalia.

 

[Einherjar86]

You guys are a trip and a half.

You know what's great? You can all choose not to circumcise your male children if you want. Isn't that great? They have the right to enjoy what CIG calls "bodily autonomy." You don't have to make them get circumcised! It's awesome, how many rights and freedoms we have in the West. Parents can choose not to circumcise their child - or... or, if they believe there are health benefits to doing so, they can have their child circumcised. It's amazing the amount of freedom we have in this country.

But you're right, clearly the government doesn't care about bodily autonomy for men at all if it allows such freedoms to be exercised. Christ, you'll warp a topic into Gordian knots if it makes you feel better about your political convictions. You're a whole new brand of social justice: "Foreskins for munchkins!"

 

[CiG]

You're the only one doing the warping here.

You're entirely focused on what the parents are allowed to do and clearly aren't considering the child.

That's a cute slogan, maybe I'd prefer something like "bodily autonomy for the defenseless."

 

[HamburgerBoy]

So, to reiterate, you're OK with female circumcision (even if it is only the removal of the clitoral hood to be analogous to male circumcision) as long as the parents *believe* there are health benefits?

The only reason male circumcision is so prominent in America is because 1) fundamentalist Christian ancestors and 2) doctors push it on the parents strongly immediately after birth (in part because they get kickbacks for selling foreskin to make women's cosmetics). They take it at the doctor's word that there are health benefits, but most of them are incredibly mild at best (we're talking barely within statistical significance) for a surgery that will affect a person permanently, cutting most of the nerves required to feel sexual pleasure.

 

[Einherjar86]

So, to reiterate, you're OK with female circumcision (even if it is only the removal of the clitoral hood to be analogous to male circumcision) as long as the parents *believe* there are health benefits?

No, because female circumcision is illegal based on medical evidence. Male circumcision isn't. But nice try genius.

I'll be honest, I don't feel informed enough about it one way or another. Based on things I've read, which were confirmed by quick online searches today, there are health benefits to circumcising a male child. But I just asked my wife for shits and giggles, and we both admitted that neither of us really know enough about it to say one way or another whether we would do it.

I never warped anything. I merely suggested that there is data to oppose whatever health risks you're saying exist (which I'm still uncertain what they are, exactly).

But more importantly, I think it's a stupid and pointless topic when trying to discuss something like male privilege vs. female privilege. There's nothing tactile here, you have no argument and, what's worse, no evidence. You're simply regurgitating the phrase "bodily autonomy" over and over again like it's a fucking mantra.

I'm done with this debate, it has done nothing and has proven nothing (except that CIG is bad at coming up with examples for female privilege - a better one would have been all the money that goes into breast cancer research).