If Mort Divine ruled the world

[CiG]

Sadly I must agree with CIG here

Backhanded compliments are cool.

Do you want me to tell you what you should and shouldn't do with your kids? Oh wait you don't have kids yet you want to tell other people about theirs.

Because this has devolved to utter stupidity at this point that one can't even understand that circumcision should be a choice one makes when you're able to consent to changes with your body.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

It is your opinion that the consequences are negative, it is not a fact. And you're supposed to be the model of a healthy sexual individual?

Do you want me to tell you what you should and shouldn't do with your kids? Oh wait you don't have kids yet you want to tell other people about theirs.

There are obviously different standards between a parent and child than between an adult and another adult.

I'm cut bro, I'm clearly a posterchild of the effects of sexual mutilation. Anecdotally, I have never had pleasurable physical sensation in upper glans penis other than a tiny strip of frenulum that remained after circumcision. You can find many reports of similar from men that were cut; usually done for reasons like phimosis, so it's not like there's a lot of choice, but there's still a significant loss in sensation.

Last I heard you knocked up your insane ex-wife like an idiot and were bitching about child support payments. Did daddy come home and start making big decisions, or is daddy just regretful that he was too uninvolved to prevent his ex from mutilating his son?

 

[Vilden]

Backhanded compliments are cool.

Lol I ment "sadly" as in I'm depressed over alot of peoples stance on the matter here, and you were one of the few reasonable ones. Not in the "I would rather not agree with you but I do" kind of way. Sorry if it was unclear.

 

[CiG]

I was just messing around, it made me laugh though.

 

[Einherjar86]

Just to be clear, because I feel like this may have gotten lost in this clusterfuck of a discussion:

I don't feel like I have enough information one way or another when it comes to circumcising a male child. All I know is the information I've read in the past, and what I've verified based on web searches. I haven't consulted any doctors about this or looked any deeper into the matter. I've only been providing information associated with the CDC, WHO, etc. (which I don't simply take for granted). No one else provided any kind of data on widespread negative effects or risks of circumcision, when it is performed by a health professional (which it overwhelmingly is in the U.S.).

I simply object to the simplicity of the example when debating something like male privilege vs. female privilege. The concept of bodily autonomy raises many questions for me, such as what constitutes a "complete body" and when the sense of the body begins (many theorists would say that our sense of the body as a gestalt doesn't begin until much later in life, after circumcision is performed on infants - meaning that circumcised adults don't experience their bodies as somehow lacking, or incomplete).

I'm not convinced that circumcision constitutes an example of female privilege, or that it makes the point that women enjoy more privileges in our country today. Maybe this can direct the discussion back to the original topic...

 

[SentinelSlain]

Absent important political influence from religious groups in the future I don't see male or female circumcision lasting all that long. I remember being about 14 and going through the rights and wrongs of male circumcision myself. It was, at certain points, in certain parts of the world, done specifically to desensitize the penis and seeing that as desirable is obviously a kind of anti male sexuality point of view.

 

[CiG]

Just to clarify; I never provided any information pertaining to health pros/cons of circumcision because it wasn't really my point. It's not really debatable that circumcision can have some health benefits. It can and does.

I just don't think the negatives are outweighed by the positives. It would also be very hard for a circumcised male to judge how they feel about their bodies in my opinion, because they never experienced the choice to begin with. It's not really possible for a man to experience both being circumcised and uncircumcised unless you leave their genitals alone while they're a baby.

America is the only western nation where circumcision is normalised, it's surely worth considering this. Also for anybody that cares, the overwhelming majority of feminists are against male circumcision and intactivism makes up a decent chunk of the feminist movement, I find it interesting is all.

 

[Einherjar86]

I just don't think the negatives are outweighed by the positives. It would also be very hard for a circumcised male to judge how they feel about their bodies in my opinion, because they never experienced the choice to begin with. It's not really possible for a man to experience both being circumcised and uncircumcised unless you leave their genitals alone while they're a baby.

America is the only western nation where circumcision is normalised, it's surely worth considering this. Also for anybody that cares, the overwhelming majority of feminists are against male circumcision and intactivism makes up a decent chunk of the feminist movement, I find it interesting is all.

Then by way of apology, I'll just say that I understand your point about allowing the choice vs. foreclosing it. And I think you make a good point that removing the responsibility of that choice has an effect on how males experience their bodies. I would have to add to this, however, that this occurs all the time in other respects with infants and young children. Many choices are taken out of their hands in the name of public and personal health, one being vaccines and immunizations. Additionally, many very young children have body parts or tissues removed for health reasons. Currently, in the U.S., there is a general consensus among doctors (that is backed by the CDC and WHO) that male circumcision has health benefits that outweigh risks; and to be honest, I'm still foggy on what the risks actually are. But of course, general consensus in medicine has been misguided in the past, so I'm fine admitting that this attitude could change over the next hundred years. Unfortunately, I'm not a doctor, nor do I feel capable of assessing this issue confidently beyond soliciting some medical perspectives.

Ultimately, I'm having trouble reconciling this with female privilege. The opportunity to experience one's body as a whole isn't necessarily more valuable than concerns of public and private health, or even more valuable than other cultural traditions (if we're going with the "uncivilized" tack). I can't agree with this because, the way I see, there are more factors operating in this scenario than simply the right (or privilege) to a "complete body."

 

[CiG]

Apology accepted, though it wasn't needed.

Honestly just Google search "botched circumcisions" but beware, it's fairly horrific stuff.

I would have to add to this, however, that this occurs all the time in other respects with infants and young children. Many choices are taken out of their hands in the name of public and personal health, one being vaccines and immunizations.

Point taken, of course. I suppose I just wouldn't think circumcision is on the same level with vaccines and immunisations. Most of the studies I see merely suggest that babies are circumcised because fathers prefer their sons look like them.

Health concerns seem to be quite low on the list of reasons for circumcising. Unless anybody can show me something else?

It may be hard for Americans to truly understand this topic, in the same way non-Americans often can't understand why gun rights are such a controversial issue. Here it's just a given that you don't circumcise, for the most part. Same in England.

 

[CiG]

This is also something any/everybody might want to check out.

http://www.circinfo.org/USA_deaths.html

 

[Einherjar86]

Cultural ideology is a bitch.

Most botched circumcisions appear to happen outside the U.S., from what I can tell, and by unlicensed or poorly educated practitioners. The vast majority of circumcisions in America occur in hospitals and are administered by health professionals.

This is also something any/everybody might want to check out.

http://www.circinfo.org/USA_deaths.html

This is worth looking into. But also take note of the total number of circumcisions performed each year. In 2011, for example, 1.1 million circumcisions were performed; even granting more than one hundred deaths related to circumcision, pushing 175 let's say, the percentage comes out to something like .016%. And considering the amount of competing factors, including anesthesia, you can't necessarily reduce the cause of death to circumcision.

Finally, a cursory glance suggests that circumcision is dwindling as a practice here in the U.S. Seems to have gone down significantly even since 2011, and apparently is practiced more in rural areas than in urban areas.

So, I learned something. Still don't buy this as an example of female privilege though.

 

[CiG]

Keep in mind that link only deals with circumcision-related deaths. I think the negative aspects of circumcision would be amplified if we also included non-fatal complications. Add to that the fact that the benefits are rather small and achievable via other not-so-permanent methods.

Most botched circumcisions appear to happen outside the U.S., from what I can tell, and by unlicensed or poorly educated practitioners. The vast majority of circumcisions in America occur in hospitals and are administered by health professionals.

Fair point.

Still don't buy this as an example of female privilege though.

Consider it a case of male disadvantage then.

Finally, a cursory glance suggests that circumcision is dwindling as a practice here in the U.S. Seems to have gone down significantly even since 2011, and apparently is practiced more in rural areas than in urban areas.

Glad to hear it! Considering how the politically left tends to swell in more urban areas, it could be that this is an achievement of the activist left, if it's true, kudos.

 

[CiG]

By the way, you should be glad that the only right I believe women have and men don't in the west is dwindling slowly but surely into non-existence. Few more years and my argument eats itself.

 

[Dak]

I think one right that women have that men don't is to have a say in what happens to a jointly created baby/fetus/etc. If a woman wants to keep a baby that the father does not want, in the current socioeconomic/legal environment, the father shouldnt bear responsibility for a choice that wasn't his.

 

[-CC-]

Then by way of apology, I'll just say that I understand your point about allowing the choice vs. foreclosing it. \

Foreclosing...a foreskin debate. Heh. Hehehe

 

[Satanstoenail]

 

[CiG]

Metzitzah B'Peh is fucking disgusting.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Funny how much higher is my tolerance for Saw movies than for conversations about circum...whatever.

As well as my tolerance for *any fucking other topic* with political implications. By a quick glance at this page, it appears that there are enough good samaritans concerned about this issue that justice has a promising chance of eventually being served, whatever that justice might entail. Seeing as how I have no further "skin" in this game, however, I prefer to leave the details for others to work out.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think one right that women have that men don't is to have a say in what happens to a jointly created baby/fetus/etc. If a woman wants to keep a baby that the father does not want, in the current socioeconomic/legal environment, the father shouldnt bear responsibility for a choice that wasn't his.

I think this is probably an easier topic to debate than circumcision. Not sure how I feel, deserves to be critiqued more.

I realize that my radical academic side is going to show, but when I think of disadvantages for women in modern society I think primarily of cultural expectations that have serious consequences on how women "succeed" in the workplace. In short, there is still a very strong tendency in this country to see ambitious men as good role models, hard workers, successful, etc., while we tend to perceive ambitious women as incorrigible shrews, "nasty women," bad mothers, etc.

I'm sure that plenty of people will roll their eyes at this, but I think these kinds of cultural perceptions are as damaging as legal matters; they're just damaging in different ways. Women can certainly be successful in the workplace - to a point, and as long as they make certain concessions. So, to phrase this differently, a woman cannot be both a good mother and ambitious, or hard-working and kind. In more extreme cases, careers preclude families, politeness precludes promotion...

Many of these examples will be rejected as character attributes that can be altered, whereas legality is at play no matter what the characters involved are like (for the most part). But when it comes to issues of financial success and independence, I think that men have the (not so clear) advantage.

 

[CiG]

That's not so radical or disagreeable, I don't think.

I think that's a cultural perception that is disintegrating rapidly though.

I think one right that women have that men don't is to have a say in what happens to a jointly created baby/fetus/etc. If a woman wants to keep a baby that the father does not want, in the current socioeconomic/legal environment, the father shouldnt bear responsibility for a choice that wasn't his.

I think this position depends entirely upon ones position in regards to abortion, as in whether you think abortion should even be filed under choice.

But assuming you're pro-abortion, I think it's still quite an easy discussion to have. Any time a man puts his penis inside of a woman, fundamentally he has made the choice to gamble on becoming a father.

I've noticed a lot lately that the basic fact that having sex presupposes the chance of pregnancy is basically forgotten by people. There really is no such thing as a surprise pregnancy if you really drill down to the act, unless of course you're so badly educated you don't know how babies are made.

So in my opinion, the man and woman do choose whether they have a child or not by having sex in the first place. After that, it's hard to argue that the man should have a say in whether an abortion is conducted if one takes the position that it's her body her choice.

This all becomes moot if both people are anti-abortion though and thus goes back to the choice being equal because both people know pre-sex that sex is the act of choosing to gamble on parenthood.