Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Twas circumcision and fringe groups that broke the internet, not those videos of your Mom   (slate.com ) divider line
    More: Sad, systematic review, marketplace of ideas, penile cancers, male sexuality, circumcisions, amputations, female genital mutilation, mutilation  
•       •       •

7990 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Sep 2013 at 5:17 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



443 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-18 03:53:40 PM  
I hear they still have some Internet out Californy way.
 
2013-09-18 04:15:30 PM  

i253.photobucket.com

 
2013-09-18 04:21:12 PM  
www.souvenirsofparis.com
Can I talk to you about my foreskin?
 
2013-09-18 04:27:24 PM  
Those idiots can lick my knob.
 
2013-09-18 04:54:16 PM  
i.imgur.com
These threads are always fun.
 
2013-09-18 05:19:00 PM  
Oh look.... he's citing studies that have already been debunked.

NEXT bullshiat artist.
 
2013-09-18 05:19:31 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-09-18 05:21:02 PM  
The author sounds circumcised.
 
2013-09-18 05:21:53 PM  
This thread would be 66 percent more pleasurable if it weren't cut short.
 
2013-09-18 05:23:37 PM  
Circumcision is only the tip of the problem.
 
2013-09-18 05:24:18 PM  
Circumsized and totally ok with it.  Plus the ole lady prefers it.

Plus my "performance" is probably better, I don't need more sensitive skin, I'd last like two minutes.
 
2013-09-18 05:24:39 PM  
FTA:  How did it come to this?

It's called "progress."
 
2013-09-18 05:26:05 PM  
He only took tips.
 
2013-09-18 05:26:45 PM  
How do I tell my wife that It really gets on my nerves when she nibbles on my foreskin?

She thinks that I like it, but honestly, I just wish that I'd thrown it away after the circumcision.
 
2013-09-18 05:27:53 PM  

blatz514: How do I tell my wife that It really gets on my nerves when she nibbles on my foreskin?

She thinks that I like it, but honestly, I just wish that I'd thrown it away after the circumcision.


WINNAR.
 
2013-09-18 05:29:51 PM  

NEPAman: The author sounds circumcised.


This.

Keep defending your parents archaic decision when you were born, author.  Whatever helps you sleep at night, buddy.
 
2013-09-18 05:32:20 PM  

Argyle82: NEPAman: The author sounds circumcised.

This.

Keep defending your parents archaic decision when you were born, author.  Whatever helps you sleep at night, buddy.


Why is it so hard for you foreskinists to accept that people really don't give a fark?
 
2013-09-18 05:32:26 PM  
id34121.securedata.net
 
2013-09-18 05:33:16 PM  
I predict this will turn out well.
 
2013-09-18 05:33:30 PM  

Kazan: Oh look.... he's citing studies that have already been debunked.

NEXT bullshiat artist.


Are you referring to specific studies he's citing, or all of them?

Or are you just trying to cast doubt on the article without going to the effort of actually making an argument?
 
2013-09-18 05:33:55 PM  
circumcision: the topic that makes men as shrill and hysterical as feminists
 
2013-09-18 05:34:13 PM  
FTFA: The Internet is supposed to be a marketplace of ideas, where human reason leads the best ideas to triumph.

Bwaaaaaaahaaaaaaahaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaa!!!  Oh ... *gasp* ... oh, my sides are aching! Great comedic find, subby!
 
2013-09-18 05:34:36 PM  

Kazan: Oh look.... he's citing studies that have already been debunked.

NEXT bullshiat artist.


Which specific studies are you referring to being "debunked", and would you like to post the evidence "debunking" them since you are making that claim?
 
2013-09-18 05:35:37 PM  
How about just leaving the damn kids penises alone whydoncha?
 
2013-09-18 05:36:02 PM  
Circumcision is like cutting off a baby's ears so that it won't have to deal with the hassle of washing behind them later in life.
 
2013-09-18 05:36:42 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Argyle82: NEPAman: The author sounds circumcised.

This.

Keep defending your parents archaic decision when you were born, author.  Whatever helps you sleep at night, buddy.

Why is it so hard for you foreskinists to accept that people really don't give a fark?


Obviously the author does give a fark.
 
2013-09-18 05:36:48 PM  
www.slate.com

Yep the article's image was appropriate.
 
2013-09-18 05:37:18 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Argyle82: NEPAman: The author sounds circumcised.

This.

Keep defending your parents archaic decision when you were born, author.  Whatever helps you sleep at night, buddy.

Why is it so hard for you foreskinists to accept that people really don't give a fark?


I've found that those that obsess over this issue typically have other problems and are just looking for something to blame it on.

/and anyone who calls circumcision "mutilation" is simply not someone you can have a rational discussion with
 
2013-09-18 05:37:54 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Circumcision is like cutting off a baby's ears so that it won't have to deal with the hassle of washing behind them later in life.


Except instead of funneling sound to your earhole, foreskin funnels diseases to your peehole?
 
2013-09-18 05:38:14 PM  
I'm finding it hard to take people seriously when they defend unnecessary surgery on newborns.
 
2013-09-18 05:38:20 PM  
I know two guys who were circumcised as adults.

They both LOVED it.
 
2013-09-18 05:38:23 PM  
Step 1 in cutting down on clutter in circumcision debate:
 Ignore any pro-circumcision author with a Jewish sounding last name.

(likewise for debate over nosejobs)
 
2013-09-18 05:38:26 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Circumcision is like cutting off a baby's ears so that it won't have to deal with the hassle of washing behind them later in life.


Yeah, no. No it's not. It's not quite as simple as you make it out to be.

As long as male circumcision is done in a manner that is humane and safe, such as under sedation or general anesthesia, I really don't have a problem with it. It should be the parents personal choice.
 
2013-09-18 05:38:31 PM  

CruJones: Circumsized and totally ok with it.  Plus the ole lady prefers it.

Plus my "performance" is probably better, I don't need more sensitive skin, I'd last like two minutes.


TMI
 
2013-09-18 05:38:37 PM  

CruJones: Circumsized and totally ok with it.  Plus the ole lady prefers it.

Plus my "performance" is probably better, I don't need more sensitive skin, I'd last like two minutes.


Well, sure, the first time. By the fourth or fifth she's too tired, anyway.
 
2013-09-18 05:39:46 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Argyle82: NEPAman: The author sounds circumcised.

This.

Keep defending your parents archaic decision when you were born, author.  Whatever helps you sleep at night, buddy.

Why is it so hard for you foreskinists to accept that people really don't give a fark?


Can't be repeated enough.

/cut
//was done as a baby and no memory of it
///don't give a flying fark
////yeah, yeah, yeah, the sex I have will never be as good as the sex you have. So you've told me for the thousandth time. I'll live.
 
2013-09-18 05:39:56 PM  

blatz514: How do I tell my wife that It really gets on my nerves when she nibbles on my foreskin?

She thinks that I like it, but honestly, I just wish that I'd thrown it away after the circumcision.


Thanks, my screen and keyboard needed a bath.
 
2013-09-18 05:40:05 PM  

Fafai: HotWingConspiracy: Argyle82: NEPAman: The author sounds circumcised.

This.

Keep defending your parents archaic decision when you were born, author.  Whatever helps you sleep at night, buddy.

Why is it so hard for you foreskinists to accept that people really don't give a fark?

Obviously the author does give a fark.


That's not what the article was about.
 
2013-09-18 05:40:49 PM  
Cosmetic surgery on infants. Sure why not?
 
2013-09-18 05:42:01 PM  

Fafai: Obviously the author does give a fark.


Actually, had you RTFA, you'd have realized it was calling out people who are using anti-abortion like guro tactics, appeals to fear, and pseudoscience to argue against circumcision, even going as far as to honestly compare it to FGM.
 
2013-09-18 05:42:16 PM  
What a strange and completely inessential article.
 
2013-09-18 05:43:41 PM  

I want your skull: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Circumcision is like cutting off a baby's ears so that it won't have to deal with the hassle of washing behind them later in life.

Except instead of funneling sound to your earhole, foreskin funnels diseases to your peehole?


Which is why the Europeans and non-Muslim/WorstKorean Asians went extinct.  STDs took them all out about 50 years ago.  If only they had circumcisions.
 
2013-09-18 05:45:02 PM  

hardinparamedic: Fafai: Obviously the author does give a fark.

Actually, had you RTFA, you'd have realized it was calling out people who are using anti-abortion like guro tactics, appeals to fear, and pseudoscience to argue against circumcision, even going as far as to honestly compare it to FGM.



It's pretty obvious though.  It's like claiming "there's crazy people at the mental hospital!" and writing a 4000 word essay about it.
 
2013-09-18 05:45:06 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Fafai: HotWingConspiracy: 

Why is it so hard for you foreskinists to accept that people really don't give a fark?

Obviously the author does give a fark.

That's not what the article was about.


I guess we just can't understand why people wouldn't give a fark that its acceptable to a large number of people to sever a piece of newborn baby.
 
2013-09-18 05:45:21 PM  
I was circumcised. I got over it.

/so will my daughter
 
2013-09-18 05:45:48 PM  
In b4 comparisons with female circumcision.
 
2013-09-18 05:47:12 PM  
As one who ended up having to undergo painful surgery to correct a stricture caused by lack of protection of the glans - I can say I am fully on the side of not having any theoretical male kids of mine circumcised.

And it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "lost sensitivity".

/author is a biased hack
 
2013-09-18 05:47:36 PM  

blatz514: How do I tell my wife that It really gets on my nerves when she nibbles on my foreskin?

She thinks that I like it, but honestly, I just wish that I'd thrown it away after the circumcision.


hahaha. gross.

As for you anti-circumcision crowd, I'll make you a deal. For every circumcision you talk people out of, I'm going to declaw 5 cats.
 
2013-09-18 05:48:04 PM  
Chicks dig the helmet not the anteater - it's a scientific fact.

dnrtfa
 
2013-09-18 05:48:05 PM  

thisisyourbrainonFark: I was circumcised. I got over it.

/so will my daughter


Window or aisle?
 
2013-09-18 05:48:59 PM  
This isn't even worth talking about.

How about you do what you're gonna do, and I do what I'm gonna do, and we not talk about it as if you have any influence on the choices I make.

Ultimately, this seems to come down to the foreskin-having guys and their girlfriends trying desperately to justify the ugliness of their penis in western society. We get it: You're self-conscious about your unattractive smeggy penis. We just don't care.
 
2013-09-18 05:49:01 PM  

thisisyourbrainonFark: I was circumcised. I got over it.

/so will my daughter


super_grass: In b4 comparisons with female circumcision.


God dammit.
 
2013-09-18 05:49:07 PM  

super_grass: In b4 comparisons with female circumcision.


lolnope

look one post up
 
2013-09-18 05:50:28 PM  
I always felt that it was up to the kid when he got older.  I guess saying:  "My body my right" is cool but saying: "my cock my tip" isn't so cool.
 
2013-09-18 05:51:14 PM  

thisisyourbrainonFark: I was circumcised. I got over it.

/so will my daughter


Ummm... Wha... But...
 
2013-09-18 05:51:15 PM  

gingerjet: HotWingConspiracy: Argyle82: NEPAman: The author sounds circumcised.

This.

Keep defending your parents archaic decision when you were born, author.  Whatever helps you sleep at night, buddy.

Why is it so hard for you foreskinists to accept that people really don't give a fark?

I've found that those that obsess over this issue typically have other problems and are just looking for something to blame it on.

/and anyone who calls circumcision "mutilation" is simply not someone you can have a rational discussion with


I can't think of a better word to use than 'mutilation' when it comes to cutting off parts of a human's body for no other reason than the Jews did it thousands of years ago to keep sand out of it....
 
2013-09-18 05:52:09 PM  

HairBolus: Step 1 in cutting down on clutter in circumcision debate:
 Ignore any pro-circumcision author with a Jewish sounding last name.

(likewise for debate over nosejobs)


Clearly you have never felt the comfort of a bedsheet made from stitched-together foreskins.
 
2013-09-18 05:52:16 PM  

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: I know two guys who were circumcised as adults.

They both LOVED it.


As soon as I can afford the procedure, I'm going to have a foreskin attached so I can get circumcised again.
 
2013-09-18 05:52:20 PM  

hardinparamedic: It should be the parents personal choice.


Is there some reason it can't be the post-pubecent male's own choice? Exactly what 7-year-olds need protection from STDs?
 
2013-09-18 05:52:45 PM  

hardinparamedic: As long as male circumcision is done in a manner that is humane and safe, such as under sedation or general anesthesia, I really don't have a problem with it. It should be the parents personal choice.


I'm just not really down with the idea of preventative genital mutilation. If the kid later wants to become circumcised in order to reap those medical benefits, that should be his choice. It's not like there's any rush, considering babies aren't having much sexual activity. Later in life the parents can have the sex talk, lay out both sides, and let him decide. Treat it like ear piercing. There's really no point in doing it until the child is of age where they're capable of asking about it.
 
2013-09-18 05:52:56 PM  

thisisyourbrainonFark: I was circumcised. I got over it.

/so will my daughter


i.imgur.com
 
2013-09-18 05:53:15 PM  

Smoking GNU: How about just leaving the damn kids penises alone whydoncha?


Because the bibble. Or tradition. Or both.

/regardless, don't really care terribly much
//still wouldn't do it to my son if I was unfortunate enough to have one, though
 
2013-09-18 05:53:48 PM  

ZeroCorpse: This isn't even worth talking about.

How about you do what you're gonna do, and I do what I'm gonna do, and we not talk about it as if you have any influence on the choices I make.

Ultimately, this seems to come down to the foreskin-having guys and their girlfriends trying desperately to justify the ugliness of their penis in western society. We get it: You're self-conscious about your unattractive smeggy penis. We just don't care.


Nope. If That were the case we'd just go get it snipped, as we are adults capable of making decisions. It's about forcing this procedure on babies.
 
2013-09-18 05:53:56 PM  

Magnanimous_J: blatz514: How do I tell my wife that It really gets on my nerves when she nibbles on my foreskin?

She thinks that I like it, but honestly, I just wish that I'd thrown it away after the circumcision.

hahaha. gross.

As for you anti-circumcision crowd, I'll make you a deal. For every circumcision you talk people out of, I'm going to declaw 5 cats.


I've been snipped. I'm good with it. I heard the joke I posted awhile ago but I had to do some searching to get it worded correctly.
 
2013-09-18 05:54:01 PM  

Fafai: HotWingConspiracy: Fafai: HotWingConspiracy: 

Why is it so hard for you foreskinists to accept that people really don't give a fark?

Obviously the author does give a fark.

That's not what the article was about.

I guess we just can't understand why people wouldn't give a fark that its acceptable to a large number of people to sever a piece of newborn baby.


Right, but you also have this notion that everyone that is circumcised is traumatized and just lying about it, no matter how many times you're told otherwise.

You could just accept it and not have any of your sons circumcised if that's your thing, but instead you act like fanatical weirdos bent on telling people how they really feel and imagining you know better.
 
2013-09-18 05:54:14 PM  

TheDirtyNacho: hardinparamedic: Fafai: Obviously the author does give a fark.

Actually, had you RTFA, you'd have realized it was calling out people who are using anti-abortion like guro tactics, appeals to fear, and pseudoscience to argue against circumcision, even going as far as to honestly compare it to FGM.


It's pretty obvious though.  It's like claiming "there's crazy people at the mental hospital!" and writing a 4000 word essay about it.


25.media.tumblr.com

"Colonics for everyone! All right! You dumbasses. I'm a mental patient. I'm *supposed* to act out!"
 
2013-09-18 05:54:17 PM  

profplump: hardinparamedic: It should be the parents personal choice.

Is there some reason it can't be the post-pubecent male's own choice? Exactly what 7-year-olds need protection from STDs?


Because it's memorable when you're an adult. You don't remember it if it's done as an infant.

I am THANKFUL that my parents made that choice for me, because now I have a beautiful, much-loved penis and I didn't have to undergo any pain to get it. At least, none that I personally remember.
 
2013-09-18 05:54:51 PM  

Mein Fuhrer I Can Walk: As one who ended up having to undergo painful surgery to correct a stricture caused by lack of protection of the glans - I can say I am fully on the side of not having any theoretical male kids of mine circumcised.


Except that meatal stenosis is a rare but known side effect of circumcision, and is most common occurring in patients who have their circumcision performed outside of a high-volume facility by someone who is not trained as a surgeon.

I'm sorry you're one of the 0.5% of people (Not 5%, but 0.5%) who had to have corrective surgery, but your anecdote does not invalidate the informed choices of parents. Circumcision is NOT mandatory, and is only done at the request of the parents.
 
2013-09-18 05:55:35 PM  

profplump: hardinparamedic: It should be the parents personal choice.

Is there some reason it can't be the post-pubecent male's own choice? Exactly what 7-year-olds need protection from STDs?


That argument always intrigued me. Foreskins are about as useful as abstinence or pulling out.
 
2013-09-18 05:55:59 PM  

Argyle82: I can't think of a better word to use than 'mutilation' when it comes to cutting off parts of a human's body for no other reason than the Jews did it thousands of years ago to keep sand out of it....


I think it was more about tribal unity.  The assumption being that you were less likely to ditch if your manhood looks different.

/same goes for most of what's in those early Old Testament books
 
2013-09-18 05:56:57 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Fafai: HotWingConspiracy: Fafai: HotWingConspiracy: 

Right, but you also have this notion that everyone that is circumcised is traumatized and just lying about it, no matter how many times you're told otherwise.

You could just accept it and not have any of your sons circumcised if that's your thing, but instead you act like fanatical weirdos bent on telling people how they really feel and imagining you know better.


Show me where I've done this.
 
2013-09-18 05:57:19 PM  

profplump: Is there some reason it can't be the post-pubecent male's own choice? Exactly what 7-year-olds need protection from STDs?


Circumcision performed as an adult requires general anesthesia, including the probability of being intubated, and has a severely painful recovery period, including the possibility of incontinence and having to relearn bladder control. Circumcision performed in the neonatal period has a very low rate of complications, can be done with procedural sedation meaning less risk to the patient, and has a rapid recovery time.

In addition, it's not just protection from STDs, 1/3 of uncircumcised children will suffer from some form of medical issue related to their foreskin.
 
2013-09-18 05:58:07 PM  

Argyle82: I can't think of a better word to use than 'mutilation' when it comes to cutting off parts of a human's body for no other reason than the Jews did it thousands of years ago to keep sand out of it....


Actually it was victorian doctors that pushed it as a way to decrease masturbation. It's a farked up practice which we barbarically perform on newborns.
 
2013-09-18 05:58:15 PM  
profplump
Is there some reason it can't be the post-pubecent male's own choice? Exactly what 7-year-olds need protection from STDs?
You haven't been reading the 'hot' teacher posts have you?
 
2013-09-18 05:58:55 PM  
Is it time for another one of these threads already?
 
2013-09-18 05:59:11 PM  

Fafai: HotWingConspiracy: Fafai: HotWingConspiracy: Fafai: HotWingConspiracy: 

Right, but you also have this notion that everyone that is circumcised is traumatized and just lying about it, no matter how many times you're told otherwise.

You could just accept it and not have any of your sons circumcised if that's your thing, but instead you act like fanatical weirdos bent on telling people how they really feel and imagining you know better.

Show me where I've done this.


You lumped yourself in with them. They're your brethren, your PR issues aren't my problem.
 
2013-09-18 05:59:13 PM  

hardinparamedic: Mein Fuhrer I Can Walk: As one who ended up having to undergo painful surgery to correct a stricture caused by lack of protection of the glans - I can say I am fully on the side of not having any theoretical male kids of mine circumcised.

Except that meatal stenosis is a rare but known side effect of circumcision, and is most common occurring in patients who have their circumcision performed outside of a high-volume facility by someone who is not trained as a surgeon.

I'm sorry you're one of the 0.5% of people (Not 5%, but 0.5%) who had to have corrective surgery, but your anecdote does not invalidate the informed choices of parents. Circumcision is NOT mandatory, and is only done at the request of the parents.


That's my point, bucko. I am never going to request it, should I sire an heir.
 
2013-09-18 05:59:54 PM  

hardinparamedic: profplump: Is there some reason it can't be the post-pubecent male's own choice? Exactly what 7-year-olds need protection from STDs?

Circumcision performed as an adult requires general anesthesia, including the probability of being intubated, and has a severely painful recovery period, including the possibility of incontinence and having to relearn bladder control. Circumcision performed in the neonatal period has a very low rate of complications, can be done with procedural sedation meaning less risk to the patient, and has a rapid recovery time.

In addition, it's not just protection from STDs, 1/3 of uncircumcised children will suffer from some form of medical issue related to their foreskin.


I lol'd at the random, self manufactured stat.... well done.

4/10
 
2013-09-18 05:59:58 PM  

hardinparamedic: profplump: Is there some reason it can't be the post-pubecent male's own choice? Exactly what 7-year-olds need protection from STDs?

Circumcision performed as an adult requires general anesthesia, including the probability of being intubated, and has a severely painful recovery period, including the possibility of incontinence and having to relearn bladder control. Circumcision performed in the neonatal period has a very low rate of complications, can be done with procedural sedation meaning less risk to the patient, and has a rapid recovery time.

In addition, it's not just protection from STDs, 1/3 of uncircumcised children will suffer from some form of medical issue related to their foreskin.


Well if they'd stop playing with it.

/okay, so that's never gonna happen.
 
2013-09-18 06:00:09 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: You could just accept it and not have any of your sons circumcised if that's your thing, but instead you act like fanatical weirdos bent on telling people how they really feel and imagining you know better.


It's like those "activists" who don't want to do the work and lose weight, so they rail on about how society should change its standard of beauty to better accommodate them.
 
2013-09-18 06:00:13 PM  

Argyle82: I can't think of a better word to use than 'mutilation' when it comes to cutting off parts of a human's body for no other reason than the Jews did it thousands of years ago


But since then we've reverse-engineered some reasons why it's beneficial to some adults, so we MUST continue doing it to all children shortly after they are born. Ignore the fact that none of the claimed benefits impact pre-pubecent children -- we have to do it to them anyway.

If you had incontrovertible evidence that surgically removing your fingernails halved your lifetime risk of skin cancer I bet you'd still have a hard time getting people to do it to infants; the reason circumcision is popular has nothing to do with any medical benefits and it's as much a lie to claim it's being done to in the US to prevent the spread of HIV as it is to claim that it reduces sensitivity.
 
2013-09-18 06:00:27 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: I'm just not really down with the idea of preventative genital mutilation. If the kid later wants to become circumcised in order to reap those medical benefits, that should be his choice. It's not like there's any rush, considering babies aren't having much sexual activity. Later in life the parents can have the sex talk, lay out both sides, and let him decide. Treat it like ear piercing. There's really no point in doing it until the child is of age where they're capable of asking about it.


First off, it's not "genital mutilation", unless you're disingenuously trying to compare it to FGM, which involves brutally removing the ability for a woman to have sexual function period.

Secondly, many of those medical benefits, including decreased chances of a UTI or Cystitis and elimination of the probability of having a phymosis or paraphymosis are bypassed in adulthood. In addition, the procedure is FAR MORE traumatic and dangerous as the child gets older, and has a higher rate of complications.
 
2013-09-18 06:00:33 PM  
And the same thing is happening with vaccination.
 
2013-09-18 06:02:11 PM  

meat0918: And the same thing is happening with vaccination.


Oh god, you just caused another 20 posts.
 
2013-09-18 06:02:20 PM  

Argyle82: I lol'd at the random, self manufactured stat.... well done.

4/10


I LOL'd at you making an ass out of yourself by calling a statistic manufactured. But since you don't believe me, let's asked the Journal of AIDS Care.
 
2013-09-18 06:02:29 PM  
hardinparamedic:

Yeah, no. No it's not. It's not quite as simple as you make it out to be.

As long as male circumcision is done in a manner that is humane and safe, such as under sedation or general anesthesia, I really don't have a problem with it. It should be the parents personal choice.


And that's the most that needs saying.
 
2013-09-18 06:02:51 PM  

ZeroCorpse: This isn't even worth talking about.

How about you do what you're gonna do, and I do what I'm gonna do, and we not talk about it as if you have any influence on the choices I make.

Ultimately, this seems to come down to the foreskin-having guys and their girlfriends trying desperately to justify the ugliness of their penis in western society. We get it: You're self-conscious about your unattractive smeggy penis. We just don't care.


This
/I hate women who are use to trunk dick, and think it's okay to pull on mine like I got excess skin to be pulled on
//That shiat hurts
 
2013-09-18 06:03:52 PM  
Possibly relevant

photos1.blogger.com
 
2013-09-18 06:03:53 PM  
I just wish both sides would stop making the other feel ashamed about their bodies. We have enough of that.
 
2013-09-18 06:04:13 PM  
 
2013-09-18 06:05:41 PM  

ZeroCorpse: Because it's memorable when you're an adult. You don't remember it if it's done as an infant.


I suspect you could be sedated so that you don't remember it as an adult either -- we seem to be able to work that out for all sorts of other surgeries.

It's also a stretch to claim that it won't be remembered -- all you know is as an adult you don't remember. But you might have really hated it for the first 4 years of your life.

Regardless, the possible existence of a memory is hardly an excuse to preclude someone the right of free choice -- if you found a sleeping person with a non-urgent medical issue (let's say head lice) would it be ethical to treat them without their consent, or would you wait until they woke up to ask them to consent?
 
2013-09-18 06:06:13 PM  

meat0918: And the same thing is happening with vaccination.


Can we just preemptively give the anti-vaxxers shots of polio and whatever else so they die and leave the rest of us alone?

\Give those same shots to the anti-circumcision nuts while you're at it.
\\And the anti-abortion crowd, and militant vegans, and...
\\\I could make a list.
 
2013-09-18 06:07:23 PM  

hardinparamedic: In addition, it's not just protection from STDs, 1/3 of uncircumcised children will suffer from some form of medical issue related to their foreskin.


That seems a bit unlikely given that huge portions of the world do not routinely circumcise children. The article doesn't make any claims on that point -- could you elaborate?
 
2013-09-18 06:07:48 PM  

profplump: Regardless, the possible existence of a memory is hardly an excuse to preclude someone the right of free choice -- if you found a sleeping person with a non-urgent medical issue (let's say head lice) would it be ethical to treat them without their consent, or would you wait until they woke up to ask them to consent?


You're comparing apples (i.e. a minor unable to even vocalize consent, but for whom a procedure has a clear benefit with a low risk of side effects or complications, which is explained to the parents who consent to it) to oranges (an adult patient who is unconscious)
 
2013-09-18 06:07:54 PM  

NEPAman: The author sounds circumcised.


Why? I'm snipped, but I'm against nonconsensual circumcision.
 
2013-09-18 06:09:09 PM  

drjekel_mrhyde: ZeroCorpse: 
/I hate women who are use to trunk dick, and think it's okay to pull on mine like I got excess skin to be pulled on
//That shiat hurts


Evidence ITT that circumcision interferes with sexual pleasure. And that's not even my angle, you just volunteered that info.
 
2013-09-18 06:09:32 PM  

hardinparamedic: I LOL'd at you making an ass out of yourself by calling a statistic manufactured. But since you don't believe me, let's asked the Journal of AIDS Care.


Let's see how that article stands up under the general rule of thumb of "ignore pro-circumcision authors with Jewish sounding names"

Review: a critical evaluation of arguments opposing male circumcision for HIV prevention in developed countries.

Morris BJ, Bailey RC, Klausner JD, Leibowitz A, Wamai RG, Waskett JH, Banerjee J, Halperin DT, Zoloth L, Weiss HA, Hankins CA.
 
2013-09-18 06:09:43 PM  

hardinparamedic: profplump: Regardless, the possible existence of a memory is hardly an excuse to preclude someone the right of free choice -- if you found a sleeping person with a non-urgent medical issue (let's say head lice) would it be ethical to treat them without their consent, or would you wait until they woke up to ask them to consent?

You're comparing apples (i.e. a minor unable to even vocalize consent, but for whom a procedure has a clear benefit with a low risk of side effects or complications, which is explained to the parents who consent to it) to oranges (an adult patient who is unconscious)


When one does suffer those "side effects or complications," they last for life, and those "benefits" suddenly become quite hard to justify at a logical level.
 
2013-09-18 06:10:03 PM  

profplump: That seems a bit unlikely given that huge portions of the world do not routinely circumcise children. The article doesn't make any claims on that point -- could you elaborate?


Critical Review of Circumcision from the Journal of AIDS Care, published in 2012.

Specifically, it mentions how anti-circumcision groups in the United States have tried to pass laws and restrict the insurance of people who choose to circumcise their children.

Hmm. Restrictions on choice of healthcare. Wonder who that sounds like.

www.indigojournal.com
 
2013-09-18 06:10:45 PM  

hardinparamedic: I really don't have a problem with it. It should be the parents personal choice.


But not the baby's.
 
2013-09-18 06:10:49 PM  
100
 
2013-09-18 06:11:43 PM  

HairBolus: Let's see how that article stands up under the general rule of thumb of "ignore pro-circumcision authors with Jewish sounding names"


Ah, open anti-semitism and racism while ignoring the content of the source cited.

Pretty classy.

MaestroJ: When one does suffer those "side effects or complications," they last for life, and those "benefits" suddenly become quite hard to justify at a logical level.


Yeah, and some people will die from an anaphylactic reaction after getting a vaccine. Most rational people don't try to get TDAP vaccines banned, however.
 
2013-09-18 06:11:57 PM  
1) If you haven't got the testicular fortitude to make tough decisions for your kid, you probably shouldn't reproduce in the first place.

2) If my circumcised wang was any more effective at providing sexual pleasure, my first orgasm probably would have killed me.
 
2013-09-18 06:12:55 PM  

jigger: But not the baby's.


Until you find out a way to give a baby the ability to understand and give informed, express consent, no. Not the baby.
 
2013-09-18 06:12:58 PM  

hardinparamedic: First off, it's not "genital mutilation", unless you're disingenuously trying to compare it to FGM, which involves brutally removing the ability for a woman to have sexual function period.


Do you disagree that genitals are involved or that circumcision "is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function" of the penis?
 
2013-09-18 06:13:16 PM  

MaestroJ: meat0918: And the same thing is happening with vaccination.

Oh god, you just caused another 20 posts.


And GMOs too.

His point about the internet not really being a marketplace of ideas where the best, most correct ones take center stage, but rather it is a place were if you get enough traffic to sites that support a specific viewpoint becomes the one most people believe; is overshadowed by his choice of topic.

He would have been better served with vaccination or GMOs or even Scientology (which has managed to push clambake.org down a few hits) as an example, but he wanted the page hits.
 
2013-09-18 06:13:26 PM  

jigger: NEPAman: The author sounds circumcised.

Why? I'm snipped, but I'm against nonconsensual circumcision.


It's kind of hard to get an okay out of a three day old baby, and if you wait, you miss out on most of the health benefits.
 
2013-09-18 06:13:45 PM  

hardinparamedic: jigger: But not the baby's.

Until you find out a way to give a baby the ability to understand and give informed, express consent, no. Not the baby.


That's why it's ok to rape babies.
 
2013-09-18 06:14:16 PM  

HairBolus: hardinparamedic: I LOL'd at you making an ass out of yourself by calling a statistic manufactured. But since you don't believe me, let's asked the Journal of AIDS Care.

Let's see how that article stands up under the general rule of thumb of "ignore pro-circumcision authors with Jewish sounding names"

Review: a critical evaluation of arguments opposing male circumcision for HIV prevention in developed countries.

Morris BJ, Bailey RC, Klausner JD, Leibowitz A, Wamai RG, Waskett JH, Banerjee J, Halperin DT, Zoloth L, Weiss HA, Hankins CA.


thumbs.dreamstime.com
 
2013-09-18 06:15:00 PM  
An old girlfriend of mine from college went the full mommy route, had 3 boys and somewhere along the way became an intactivist. Recently she decided that she wanted to go back to school to become a doctor. She is also anti vaccine as well. Normally I ignore her posts on those topics, however she seems to get smacked down on a fairly regular basis by her professors and actual doctors. Rather fun to hear her rant about how she knows better than these people.
 
2013-09-18 06:15:38 PM  

eggrolls: jigger: NEPAman: The author sounds circumcised.

Why? I'm snipped, but I'm against nonconsensual circumcision.

It's kind of hard to get an okay out of a three day old baby, and if you wait, you miss out on most of the health benefits.


Europe must be awash with diseased penis. But then again, they don't use soap.
 
2013-09-18 06:16:42 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Do you disagree that genitals are involved or that circumcision "is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function" of the penis?


Is circumcision performed without the consent of the responsible parties, and done so against the will of the other person with the express intent of removing their ability to sexually perform and ensuring the person remains a virgin because sex before marriage quite possibly would kill that girl from infection and trauma?

I love first world arrogance and exceptionalism on this topic. "MY CIRCUMCISION AT BIRTH, WHICH I DON'T EVEN REMEMBER AND WAS DONE UNDER SEDATION BY A TRAINED SURGEON, UROLOGIST, OR PEDIATRICIAN IS  EXACTLY THE SAME  AS A PREPUBESCENT GIRL BEING HELD DOWN BY THE MEN IN HER FAMILY AND HAVING HER LABIA SLICED OFF, HER CLIT SCRAPED OUT, AND HER GENTIALS FUSED SHUT EXCEPT FOR A HOLE FOR HER TO URINATE AND MENSTRATE THROUGH, AND ON HER WEDDING NIGHT HAVING HER HUSBAND USE A POCKET KNIFE TO CUT HER SCAR OPEN SO HE CAN fark HER."

So yes. People who compare FGM with circumcision done by a medical provider are disingenious at best, and a prime example of first world privilege at worse.
 
2013-09-18 06:17:01 PM  

eggrolls: 1) If you haven't got the testicular fortitude to make tough decisions for your kid, you probably shouldn't reproduce in the first place.


This assumes that yours is the only correct decision. Not cutting a piece of your son's dick off is also a conscious decision, strange as it sounds (thanks, religious tradition).
 
2013-09-18 06:17:15 PM  
Nothing like a circumcision thread. NOTHING.
 
2013-09-18 06:17:22 PM  

hardinparamedic: Yeah, and some people will die from an anaphylactic reaction after getting a vaccine. Most rational people don't try to get TDAP vaccines banned, however.


Correct, however, the foreskin has not been connected to the permanently debilitating diseases that vaccines are used to prevent. The vast majority of the world is in fact, not circumcised, yet STDs are not as prevalent in Europe or Australia like they are in the USA, yet most of them have their foreskins. It couldn't possibly because the foreskin somehow fights STDs there. Perhaps it's a sociological issue such as better sex education?
 
2013-09-18 06:17:24 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: hardinparamedic: First off, it's not "genital mutilation", unless you're disingenuously trying to compare it to FGM, which involves brutally removing the ability for a woman to have sexual function period.

Do you disagree that genitals are involved or that circumcision "is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function" of the penis?


No it's not.

It's socially accepted and most people don't care about the drawbacks, if any.
 
2013-09-18 06:17:28 PM  

jigger: That's why it's ok to rape babies.


Ah, so now I understand why you have to wear a scram bracelet, and aren't allowed within 150 feet of any elementary schools or playgrounds.
 
2013-09-18 06:18:24 PM  

hardinparamedic: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Do you disagree that genitals are involved or that circumcision "is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function" of the penis?

Is circumcision performed without the consent of the responsible parties, and done so against the will of the other person with the express intent of removing their ability to sexually perform and ensuring the person remains a virgin because sex before marriage quite possibly would kill that girl from infection and trauma?

I love first world arrogance and exceptionalism on this topic. "MY CIRCUMCISION AT BIRTH, WHICH I DON'T EVEN REMEMBER AND WAS DONE UNDER SEDATION BY A TRAINED SURGEON, UROLOGIST, OR PEDIATRICIAN IS  EXACTLY THE SAME  AS A PREPUBESCENT GIRL BEING HELD DOWN BY THE MEN IN HER FAMILY AND HAVING HER LABIA SLICED OFF, HER CLIT SCRAPED OUT, AND HER GENTIALS FUSED SHUT EXCEPT FOR A HOLE FOR HER TO URINATE AND MENSTRATE THROUGH, AND ON HER WEDDING NIGHT HAVING HER HUSBAND USE A POCKET KNIFE TO CUT HER SCAR OPEN SO HE CAN fark HER."

So yes. People who compare FGM with circumcision done by a medical provider are disingenious at best, and a prime example of first world privilege at worse.


I don't even know who you're arguing with. I'm just stating the definitions of the two words I used to describe circumcision.

If you disagree that they are apt, take it up with Merriam and Webster.
 
2013-09-18 06:18:48 PM  

MaestroJ: Correct, however, the foreskin has not been connected to the permanently debilitating diseases that vaccines are used to prevent. The vast majority of the world is in fact, not circumcised, yet STDs are not as prevalent in Europe or Australia like they are in the USA, yet most of them have their foreskins. It couldn't possibly because the foreskin somehow fights STDs there. Perhaps it's a sociological issue such as better sex education?


Really?

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/442617-overview
 
2013-09-18 06:18:56 PM  

hardinparamedic: jigger: That's why it's ok to rape babies.

Ah, so now I understand why you have to wear a scram bracelet, and aren't allowed within 150 feet of any elementary schools or playgrounds.


You're the one that said if they can't consent, that's what makes it ok.
 
2013-09-18 06:19:15 PM  

HairBolus: hardinparamedic: I LOL'd at you making an ass out of yourself by calling a statistic manufactured. But since you don't believe me, let's asked the Journal of AIDS Care.

Let's see how that article stands up under the general rule of thumb of "ignore pro-circumcision authors with Jewish sounding names"

Review: a critical evaluation of arguments opposing male circumcision for HIV prevention in developed countries.

Morris BJ, Bailey RC, Klausner JD, Leibowitz A, Wamai RG, Waskett JH, Banerjee J, Halperin DT, Zoloth L, Weiss HA, Hankins CA.


Itstimetostopposting.jpg
 
2013-09-18 06:19:19 PM  

jigger: Europe must be awash with diseased penis. But then again, they don't use soap.


My who-er of an ex moved there. So if it wasn't awash before, it is now.
 
2013-09-18 06:20:13 PM  
I didn't have the heart to circumsize my son. Nor would I pierce my infant daughters ears.  Any body modifications they can decide for themselves.
 
2013-09-18 06:20:34 PM  

jigger: eggrolls: jigger: NEPAman: The author sounds circumcised.

Why? I'm snipped, but I'm against nonconsensual circumcision.

It's kind of hard to get an okay out of a three day old baby, and if you wait, you miss out on most of the health benefits.

Europe must be awash with diseased penis. But then again, they don't use soap.


They sure as hell don't seem much cleaner,,,

http://www.avert.org/std-statistics-worldwide.htm
 
2013-09-18 06:20:55 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: I don't even know who you're arguing with. I'm just stating the definitions of the two words I used to describe circumcision.

If you disagree that they are apt, take it up with Merriam and Webster.


Actually, I think it's your own personal definition.

But no. Please, continue to BS us about "dictionary" definitions. You said something borderline offensive and ignorant of people who are victims of ACTUAL gential mutilation, and got called out on it.
 
2013-09-18 06:20:56 PM  
Don't try to portray those of us who condemn genital mutilation as extremists. The US and the Middle East are about the only countries where this unnecessary practice is so prevalent. It's a holdover from tribal days when all people had to wash with was sand. The argument that removing the foreskin reduces chances of contracting STDs is hilarious - if that's your reasoning why don't you just lop off the whole thing and reduce your chances to 0?

The author's wistful yearning for the olden days when people just quietly made the decision with their doctor to lop off a piece of their child is also silly. First, they still do exactly that, it's just becoming less common as people start wondering why they continue such an idiotic practice. Second, how many of these pro-circumcision types would be as encouraging of a family that wants to make the decision to remove all or part of their infant daughter's clitoris?

It's a needless and barbaric practice, so quit trying to make people who disagree seem like a lunatic fringe.
 
2013-09-18 06:21:07 PM  
Teatotalers! For a wee one, the fondest memory of the circumcision is the taste of alcohol: wine or scotch -- for purely medicinal purposes -- or at least hearing about it years later, unless the child's family are Musselmans. A circumcised male is usually either American, Jew or Muslim or some combination of these.

Smegma lovers on the other hand are usually from somewhere else, or were delivered by a vet.
 
2013-09-18 06:21:26 PM  

hardinparamedic: In addition, the procedure is FAR MORE traumatic and dangerous as the child gets older, and has a higher rate of complications.


Far more traumatic in what way -- what system are you using to quantify trauma?

Have you got any numbers we could use to compare the adult vs. infant rates for complications, preferably with some breakdown of the severity or types of complications and the circumstances of the procedure? Personally I haven't been able to find any good apples-to-apples comparisons; adult circumcisions performed in Africa (where they are somewhat common with the intent of HIV prevention) have a much higher rate of complications than infant circumcisions in surgical facilities in the US, but that's hardly unexpected, and I haven't had any luck finding data for adult circumcisions in surgical facilities in the US.
 
2013-09-18 06:21:30 PM  

hardinparamedic: MaestroJ: Correct, however, the foreskin has not been connected to the permanently debilitating diseases that vaccines are used to prevent. The vast majority of the world is in fact, not circumcised, yet STDs are not as prevalent in Europe or Australia like they are in the USA, yet most of them have their foreskins. It couldn't possibly because the foreskin somehow fights STDs there. Perhaps it's a sociological issue such as better sex education?

Really?

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/442617-overview


Phimoosis is not an actual "problem" unless it lasts after puberty. The foreskin is usually able to retract by the teenage years. If it doesn't, it's easily corrected through non-surgical methods.
 
2013-09-18 06:22:14 PM  

jigger: You're the one that said if they can't consent, that's what makes it ok.


images.sodahead.com 

Actually, I said unless a baby can give informed consent on medical procedures, that duty falls to the parents. 

Unless you're a republican, rape isn't a medical procedure, bucko.
 
2013-09-18 06:24:48 PM  

hardinparamedic: You're comparing apples (i.e. a minor unable to even vocalize consent, but for whom a procedure has a clear benefit with a low risk of side effects or complications, which is explained to the parents who consent to it) to oranges (an adult patient who is unconscious)


First, there's no benefit from the procedure for the child. As a sexually active adult there may be benefits but it does no good for the children when they undergo the procedure.

Second, I don't see how "patient who cannot respond and has a third party make medical decisions for them (infant)" is different than  "patient who cannot respond and has a third party make medical decisions for them (unconscious adult)". What am I missing?
 
2013-09-18 06:24:59 PM  
How many people have to believe that childhood circumcision is bad before it stops being fringe? Most of the world?
 
2013-09-18 06:25:15 PM  

Jill'sNipple: Circumcision is the same as female gential mutilation. (DERP)

Whelp. Now that we've had THAT guy speak.

profplump: Far more traumatic in what way -- what system are you using to quantify trauma?

Have you got any numbers we could use to compare the adult vs. infant rates for complications, preferably with some breakdown of the severity or types of complications and the circumstances of the procedure? Personally I haven't been able to find any good apples-to-apples comparisons; adult circumcisions performed in Africa (where they are somewhat common with the intent of HIV prevention) have a much higher rate of complications than infant circumcisions in surgical facilities in the US, but that's hardly unexpected, and I haven't had any luck finding data for adult circumcisions in surgical facilities in the US.


Far more traumatic in the sense that a child will require longer periods of pain medication, and heavier amounts of sedation and potentially general anesthesia to perform it.

I'll try to dig up some research numbers on adult versus neonatal circumcision complication numbers, since the most I know about is neonatal (which has a <1% all-complication rate, mostly related to improper wound care and infection.)
 
2013-09-18 06:26:16 PM  

hardinparamedic: Actually, I think it's your own personal definition.

But no. Please, continue to BS us about "dictionary" definitions. You said something borderline offensive and ignorant of people who are victims of ACTUAL gential mutilation, and got called out on it.


Whatever, man. I get that you have a bug up your ass about female genital mutilation, having a congenital case of sandy vagina yourself, but nowhere did I even bring it up except for this post. If I wanted to be borderline offensive and ignorant, I would've said something like "In female genital mutilation's defense, sewing up an eight-year-old's vagina and cutting off her clitoris is probably going to prevent some STDs down the line too, so it should be up to the parents to decide."
 
2013-09-18 06:26:51 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Circumcision is like cutting off a baby's ears so that it won't have to deal with the hassle of washing behind them later in life.


i1.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-09-18 06:26:53 PM  

Fafai: eggrolls: 1) If you haven't got the testicular fortitude to make tough decisions for your kid, you probably shouldn't reproduce in the first place.

This assumes that yours is the only correct decision. Not cutting a piece of your son's dick off is also a conscious decision, strange as it sounds (thanks, religious tradition).


It assumes nothing. If you read that particular sentence again, you may I didn't actually put a value on the pro or con side of the argument there - I just pointed out that parenthood requires you to make LOTS of hard decisions on your kids behalf. Thanks for determining my 'right' decision was in fact, the 'wrong' one. Good thing you didn't assume yours was the only correct decision, yes?
 
2013-09-18 06:26:58 PM  

profplump: First, there's no benefit from the procedure for the child. As a sexually active adult there may be benefits but it does no good for the children when they undergo the procedure.


Just because you keep saying that doesn't make it any more true. Let's rephrase this statement: you can't see any benefits for YOUR OWN child.

profplump: Second, I don't see how "patient who cannot respond and has a third party make medical decisions for them (infant)" is different than  "patient who cannot respond and has a third party make medical decisions for them (unconscious adult)". What am I missing?


I know you don't, or can't understand the difference between a situation which requires implied consent and informed consent.
 
2013-09-18 06:28:27 PM  

hardinparamedic: profplump: That seems a bit unlikely given that huge portions of the world do not routinely circumcise children. The article doesn't make any claims on that point -- could you elaborate?

Critical Review of Circumcision from the Journal of AIDS Care, published in 2012.


I'm not sure how that paper constitutes a response to my question about the claim of 1/3 of uncircumcised children suffering some form of harm from having a foreskin.
 
2013-09-18 06:28:32 PM  
Circumcision just gives people with sexual problems something to blame.

It's the 'it's whitey!!  and 'it's the jooooooooos!!!' of sexual inadequacy.
 
2013-09-18 06:28:48 PM  
Purposely cutting into a healthy infant is kind of creepy. Accidentally cutting a baby's fingernail too far is scary, I can't imagine doing that to some poor wee bairn's winkie.
 
2013-09-18 06:28:56 PM  
The double standard on this is pretty crazy. Some extremely well-educated female friends feel completely comfortable advocating for circumcision based entirely on aesthetics. These same friends would be horrified if some guy said he wouldn't sleep with them unless they had a little nip-and-tuck on their own undercarriage for the same reason. I think either way is insane.

/circumcised
//not that that is relevant
 
2013-09-18 06:29:46 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Whatever, man. I get that you have a bug up your ass about female genital mutilation, having a congenital case of sandy vagina yourself, but nowhere did I even bring it up except for this post. If I wanted to be borderline offensive and ignorant, I would've said something like "In female genital mutilation's defense, sewing up an eight-year-old's vagina and cutting off her clitoris is probably going to prevent some STDs down the line too, so it should be up to the parents to decide."


Hmm.

Account Created: 9/11/2013.

Gee. I wonder if you wouldn't be an alt of someone else on FARK that follows your general name scheme.

At any rate, you said something completely hyperbolic and offensive, comparing a medical procedure performed by a physician with an act of brutality, and then tried to play it off as "what the word is defined as", when it was nothing of the sort.

f.kulfoto.com
 
2013-09-18 06:29:52 PM  
Any guy who says "smegma lovers" seriously must puke at the thought of a vagina and is 100 percent gay to the point they don't even want a little bit of retractable skin to interfere with access to the sweet, sweet cock head even for a fraction of a second.

NTTAWWT but you pretty much confirm that the hysterics aren't just coming from the one side.
 
2013-09-18 06:29:59 PM  

hardinparamedic: Far more traumatic in the sense that a child will require longer periods of pain medication, and heavier amounts of sedation and potentially general anesthesia to perform it.


We don't give infants pain medication or heavy sedation, but since we have no way to measure pain objectively -- only by patient self-reporting -- that doesn't seem like a reliable statistic to compare between adults and infants.
 
2013-09-18 06:30:14 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: hardinparamedic: Actually, I think it's your own personal definition.

But no. Please, continue to BS us about "dictionary" definitions. You said something borderline offensive and ignorant of people who are victims of ACTUAL gential mutilation, and got called out on it.

Whatever, man. I get that you have a bug up your ass about female genital mutilation, having a congenital case of sandy vagina yourself, but nowhere did I even bring it up except for this post. If I wanted to be borderline offensive and ignorant, I would've said something like "In female genital mutilation's defense, sewing up an eight-year-old's vagina and cutting off her clitoris is probably going to prevent some STDs down the line too, so it should be up to the parents to decide."


It's too extreme, and doesn't have a history of acceptance in the US. Not to mention it's something that middle easterners do to women, so it's an automatic taboo.
 
2013-09-18 06:31:38 PM  

Jill'sNipple: The double standard on this is pretty crazy. Some extremely well-educated female friends feel completely comfortable advocating for circumcision based entirely on aesthetics. These same friends would be horrified if some guy said he wouldn't sleep with them unless they had a little nip-and-tuck on their own undercarriage for the same reason. I think either way is insane.


There is no "Double Standard". Someone who would honestly compare male circumcision done by a healthcare provider in a clinical setting with ritual female gential mutilation either has no idea what they're talking about, at all, or is trying to use an emotional argument and the horrors of FGM to further their cause dishonestly.
 
2013-09-18 06:33:16 PM  
profplump: We don't give infants pain medication or heavy sedation, but since we have no way to measure pain objectively -- only by patient self-reporting -- that doesn't seem like a reliable statistic to compare between adults and infants.

What are you even talking about?

And yes, in a clinical in-patient setting, a person getting a circumcision as a neonate will get, at the very least, EMLA cream, and in an actual childrens hospital will get versed and Fentanyl.
 
2013-09-18 06:34:01 PM  

hardinparamedic: I know you don't, or can't understand the difference between a situation which requires implied consent and informed consent.


I know there's a legal difference; in our legal system children aren't people and don't have rights. So my argument has nothing to do with what is legal -- clearly parents are allowed to make this decision under current law.

I'm asking about the ethical basis for such a distinction. Why is one person who temporarily cannot communicate subject to the will of others with respect to medical care while another temporarily non-communicative person would be left untreated until they could express their will (or there was some urgent need)?
 
2013-09-18 06:35:42 PM  
HIstorically, some regions did a female circumcision that was just the removal of the clitoral hood so the clitoral bud had no skin covering it. I can't imagine having such a sensitive area not having any protection. Like having your eyelid permanently rolled inside out.
 
2013-09-18 06:36:16 PM  

profplump: hardinparamedic: I know you don't, or can't understand the difference between a situation which requires implied consent and informed consent.

I know there's a legal difference; in our legal system children aren't people and don't have rights. So my argument has nothing to do with what is legal -- clearly parents are allowed to make this decision under current law.

I'm asking about the ethical basis for such a distinction. Why is one person who temporarily cannot communicate subject to the will of others with respect to medical care while another temporarily non-communicative person would be left untreated until they could express their will (or there was some urgent need)?


BUT FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION!!!!!!
 
2013-09-18 06:36:51 PM  

hardinparamedic: What are you even talking about?

And yes, in a clinical in-patient setting, a person getting a circumcision as a neonate will get, at the very least, EMLA cream, and in an actual childrens hospital will get versed and Fentanyl.


Sorry, I was unclear in that sentence. I restructured it after I started and didn't proofread carefully enough.

I didn't mean we don't give any pain relief to infants, I just meant that the dosage for the infant procedure is strictly anticipatory (we assume there will be some pain and provide some treatment without any feedback) while the dosage for the adult procedure is guided by patient feedback (we treat the actual pain as reported by the patient).
 
2013-09-18 06:36:52 PM  

Abox: Circumcision just gives people with sexual problems something to blame.

It's the 'it's whitey!!  and 'it's the jooooooooos!!!' of sexual inadequacy.


Look upthread. "It's the jooooooooos!!!" has been covered.
 
2013-09-18 06:37:10 PM  

hardinparamedic: Jill'sNipple: Circumcision is the same as female gential mutilation. (DERP)

Whelp. Now that we've had THAT guy speak.

profplump: Far more traumatic in what way -- what system are you using to quantify trauma?

Have you got any numbers we could use to compare the adult vs. infant rates for complications, preferably with some breakdown of the severity or types of complications and the circumstances of the procedure? Personally I haven't been able to find any good apples-to-apples comparisons; adult circumcisions performed in Africa (where they are somewhat common with the intent of HIV prevention) have a much higher rate of complications than infant circumcisions in surgical facilities in the US, but that's hardly unexpected, and I haven't had any luck finding data for adult circumcisions in surgical facilities in the US.

Far more traumatic in the sense that a child will require longer periods of pain medication, and heavier amounts of sedation and potentially general anesthesia to perform it.

I'll try to dig up some research numbers on adult versus neonatal circumcision complication numbers, since the most I know about is neonatal (which has a <1% all-complication rate, mostly related to improper wound care and infection.)


I did not say it's the same effect for males or females. Don't misquote me. And, if you're going to insert fake quotes and attribute them to me, at least spell them right.
 
2013-09-18 06:38:21 PM  

FunkOut: HIstorically, some regions did a female circumcision that was just the removal of the clitoral hood so the clitoral bud had no skin covering it. I can't imagine having such a sensitive area not having any protection. Like having your eyelid permanently rolled inside out.


Clearly there's a disconnect in this thread. Some people are talking about removing a small piece of skin around the genitals while others are thinking of putting it through a lawnmower.

/ it keeps gunk from building up, which is probably the main benefit in the modern age
 
2013-09-18 06:39:08 PM  

profplump: I'm asking about the ethical basis for such a distinction. Why is one person who temporarily cannot communicate subject to the will of others with respect to medical care while another temporarily non-communicative person would be left untreated until they could express their will (or there was some urgent need)?


Because in your example, you used an adult patient with lice who was sleeping. This is a person who has the ability to understand information, and make an informed self-determination (in theory) on his course of treatment on a matter which does not either eminently endanger his life, OR takes away his ability to do the aformentioned act of self-determination. 

Comparing this to a child which has not even developed enough to understand the risk versus benefit, let alone vocalize it, our legal system recognizes that the parents are the best proxy determinants in this situation, with the intention of the best outcome for that child in mind.

It's their decision. We can argue about the "ethical ramifications" of cosmetics and the fact you're angry that someone "took your foreskin" down the road, but the simple fact of the matter is that the parents are the best ones able to make that decision when given all the information.
 
2013-09-18 06:39:14 PM  

Abox: Circumcision just gives people with sexual problems something to blame.

It's the 'it's whitey!!  and 'it's the jooooooooos!!!' of sexual inadequacy.


I guess it's easy for me to blame it, since what happened to me doesn't seem to happen to people who aren't cut.
 
2013-09-18 06:40:17 PM  

hardinparamedic: At any rate, you said something completely hyperbolic and offensive, comparing a medical procedure performed by a physician with an act of brutality, and then tried to play it off as "what the word is defined as", when it was nothing of the sort.


I can't control the fact that you're offended by the actual meanings that words have.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, since you're so emotional that it makes debate rather pointless.
 
2013-09-18 06:41:56 PM  

Jill'sNipple: I did not say it's the same effect for males or females. Don't misquote me. And, if you're going to insert fake quotes and attribute them to me, at least spell them right.


Really?

i.imgur.com
i.imgur.com 
And I attributed DERP to you. You said DERP. Derp got attributed.
 
2013-09-18 06:43:16 PM  

hardinparamedic: profplump: I'm asking about the ethical basis for such a distinction. Why is one person who temporarily cannot communicate subject to the will of others with respect to medical care while another temporarily non-communicative person would be left untreated until they could express their will (or there was some urgent need)?

Because in your example, you used an adult patient with lice who was sleeping. This is a person who has the ability to understand information, and make an informed self-determination (in theory) on his course of treatment on a matter which does not either eminently endanger his life, OR takes away his ability to do the aformentioned act of self-determination. 

Comparing this to a child which has not even developed enough to understand the risk versus benefit, let alone vocalize it, our legal system recognizes that the parents are the best proxy determinants in this situation, with the intention of the best outcome for that child in mind.

It's their decision. We can argue about the "ethical ramifications" of cosmetics and the fact you're angry that someone "took your foreskin" down the road, but the simple fact of the matter is that the parents are the best ones able to make that decision when given all the information.


Yet I see what happened to me, and I can say with a great deal of confidence on a medical and logical standpoint that my parents' conclusion was not correct. They and my doctor earnestly believed it was in my interests, but my years of blood and my future of sexual inadequacy is what counts here.

I don't blame them, I can't. They thought they were doing the right thing. In their mind, what happened to me was worth it. I don't believe the years of physical pain I had, and the two years of skin stretching and regeneration, for the mere sake of functionality, was worth lowering a chance of a UTI. I'd take a UTI any day over this. But sometimes, you simply have to deal with the cards you're given.

I'm lucky to have a sound and healthy mind, others like me haven't been so lucky. It didn't take long for me to find other men like me, or even those who were worse off.
 
2013-09-18 06:43:26 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: I can't control the fact that you're offended by the actual meanings that words have.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, since you're so emotional that it makes debate rather pointless.


I guess reality has a bias against you, since we're going with "actual meanings that words have".
 
2013-09-18 06:44:00 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Do you disagree that genitals are involved or that circumcision "is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function" of the penis?


How is the function altered in a negative way?  It still gets erect.  It still gets sensitive.  As for aesthetics, that's in the eye of the beholder.  Personally, excess foreskin looks nasty to me.


Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Circumcision is like cutting off a baby's ears so that it won't have to deal with the hassle of washing behind them later in life.


What you describe is ear castration, not circumcision.  But hey, disingenuous comparisons are fair game, huh?


hardinparamedic: Account Created: 9/11/2013. Gee. I wonder if you wouldn't be an alt of someone else on FARK that follows your general name scheme.


Yeah, I smell an alt or an overeager new troll.  Thanks for pointing that out.
 
2013-09-18 06:45:48 PM  

MaestroJ: Yet I see what happened to me, and I can say with a great deal of confidence on a medical and logical standpoint that my parents' conclusion was not correct. They and my doctor earnestly believed it was in my interests, but my years of blood and my future of sexual inadequacy is what counts here.

I don't blame them, I can't. They thought they were doing the right thing. In their mind, what happened to me was worth it. I don't believe the years of physical pain I had, and the two years of skin stretching and regeneration, for the mere sake of functionality, was worth lowering a chance of a UTI. I'd take a UTI any day over this. But sometimes, you simply have to deal with the cards you're given.

I'm lucky to have a sound and healthy mind, others like me haven't been so lucky. It didn't take long for me to find other men like me, or even those who were worse off.


What happened to you is horrible. I'm sorry that you had to deal with that. However, as I pointed out before, seeking to ban a procedure that has earnest and demonstrated benefits because complications happen in half of less than one percent (with actual rate of complications lasting over the life of a person less than that) of the procedure is the same as trying to ban vaccination beacause one in one million doses will cause a life-threatening reaction that could lead to life-long disability down the road.
 
2013-09-18 06:46:14 PM  
Anti-circumcision? What a bunch of smegheads.

uktv.co.uk
 
2013-09-18 06:47:09 PM  
One of the best names for an advocacy group. Ever.
s15.postimg.org
Oh, and the doctors up here in Canada don't recommend it. Even the Jewish and Moslem ones.
Its only "devout" people wanting to get brownie points for the afterlife that have it done.to their kids
 
2013-09-18 06:48:07 PM  
It's insensitive to call the mutilation of genitals "genital mutilation" because it isn't the exact same as an entirely different type of genital mutilation. Instead, lets call it Super Amazing Babby Penis Slicing-Off Courtesy.
 
2013-09-18 06:48:12 PM  

hardinparamedic: Because in your example, you used an adult patient with lice who was sleeping. This is a person who has the ability to understand information, and make an informed self-determination (in theory) on his course of treatment on a matter which does not either eminently endanger his life, OR takes away his ability to do the aformentioned act of self-determination. 

Comparing this to a child which has not even developed enough to understand the risk versus benefit, let alone vocalize it, our legal system recognizes that the parents are the best proxy determinants in this situation, with the intention of the best outcome for that child in mind.


You're ignoring the basis of my argument -- that we could just wait until the now-infant was no longer a child and could speak and reason. There is no eminent threat to the infant's health, and no benefit from the surgery at least until they are sexually active, so there's no reason for the parents to make this decision now, rather than letting the post-pubecent male make his own choice later.
 
2013-09-18 06:49:42 PM  
hardinparamedic:
What happened to you is horrible. I'm sorry that you had to deal with that. However, as I pointed out before, seeking to ban a procedure that has earnest and demonstrated benefits because complications happen in half of less than one percent (with actual rate of complications lasting over the life of a person less than that) of the procedure is the same as trying to ban vaccination beacause one in one million doses will cause a life-threatening reaction that could lead to life-long disability down the road.

It's not quite the same here. The "problems" associated with not circumcising don't hold a candle to the diseases that vaccinations prevent. Nearly every issue associated with circumcision is preventable or easily treatable. Polio or other diseases though are not. No other nation in the western world has our circumcision rates, yet they are sexually healthier than us, nor do they have the array of foreskin side effects that our nation seems to be so afraid of. You yourself mentioned less than one percent - the same rates are those for people who are not circumcised, and again, their issues are preventable, not like those of what happened to me.
 
2013-09-18 06:51:02 PM  

MaestroJ: hardinparamedic:
What happened to you is horrible. I'm sorry that you had to deal with that. However, as I pointed out before, seeking to ban a procedure that has earnest and demonstrated benefits because complications happen in half of less than one percent (with actual rate of complications lasting over the life of a person less than that) of the procedure is the same as trying to ban vaccination beacause one in one million doses will cause a life-threatening reaction that could lead to life-long disability down the road.

It's not quite the same here. The "problems" associated with not circumcising don't hold a candle to the diseases that vaccinations prevent. Nearly every issue associated with circumcision is preventable or easily treatable. Polio or other diseases though are not. No other nation in the western world has our circumcision rates, yet they are sexually healthier than us, nor do they have the array of foreskin side effects that our nation seems to be so afraid of. You yourself mentioned less than one percent - the same rates are those for people who are not circumcised, and again, their issues are preventable, not like those of what happened to me.


Correction, too late too notice: Should read "Nearly every issue associated with foreskins"
 
2013-09-18 06:51:42 PM  

hardinparamedic: our legal system recognizes that the parents are the best proxy determinants in this situation


It does; again I'm not arguing that it doesn't. I'm arguing that maybe it shouldn't for exactly the same reasons we don't use a proxy determinant for unconscious adults who aren't in need of immediate medical care.

More fundamentally I'm arguing that being legal and traditional accepted are not sufficient to make an action "right".
 
2013-09-18 06:51:43 PM  

profplump: You're ignoring the basis of my argument -- that we could just wait until the now-infant was no longer a child and could speak and reason. There is no eminent threat to the infant's health, and no benefit from the surgery at least until they are sexually active, so there's no reason for the parents to make this decision now, rather than letting the post-pubecent male make his own choice later.


No, I'm addressing the basis of the argument you're making, namely continuing to argue that there is no benefit to circumcision during infancy, and that the only benefit made by circumcision becomes apparent in adulthood.

As I said before: You can repeat that statement as many times as you want, it does not make it true. There actually ARE benefits to circumcision that are discussed at the time the parents decide, as well as negatives and possible complications. 

At that point and time, it is THEIR decision to wait till adulthood (Or medical necessity), or go ahead and perform the procedure.

You're making arguments from your own personal feelings on the matter. I get that. And I also understand that circumcision is less necessary in the first world than in the third. But you're refusing to see the point that this is not something "forced" without consent.
 
2013-09-18 06:52:16 PM  

MaestroJ: Abox: Circumcision just gives people with sexual problems something to blame.

It's the 'it's whitey!!  and 'it's the jooooooooos!!!' of sexual inadequacy.

I guess it's easy for me to blame it, since what happened to me doesn't seem to happen to people who aren't cut.


Yep.  Just like once in a while a white guy or a Jew is actually to blame.
 
2013-09-18 06:53:20 PM  

hardinparamedic: is the same as trying to ban vaccination


Vaccinations help children while they are still children. Circumcisions do not.
 
2013-09-18 06:53:48 PM  

Abox: MaestroJ: Abox: Circumcision just gives people with sexual problems something to blame.

It's the 'it's whitey!!  and 'it's the jooooooooos!!!' of sexual inadequacy.

I guess it's easy for me to blame it, since what happened to me doesn't seem to happen to people who aren't cut.

Yep.  Just like once in a while a white guy or a Jew is actually to blame.


Seems to happen a lot more than once in a while, though. It didn't take me long to find others like me. Really, I think I'd take a UTI any day over this. Sure, UTIs suck. But, so does a bleeding dick whenever I felt "excited." Know how much middle school sucked?
 
2013-09-18 06:53:55 PM  

Fafai: It's insensitive to call the mutilation of genitals "genital mutilation" because it isn't the exact same as an entirely different type of genital mutilation. Instead, lets call it Super Amazing Babby Penis Slicing-Off Courtesy.


Only if we can openly call you a moron. Is that okay?

profplump: More fundamentally I'm arguing that being legal and traditional accepted are not sufficient to make an action "right".


So who should make a decision at that point and time for something that is far less painful, traumatic, and costly on that neonate? Should we appoint a guardian ad litem? Maybe have a bench judge for circumcision court? (We could televise it)

Again. I understand your personal feelings on this matter and where you're coming from. But it's their choice.
 
2013-09-18 06:54:25 PM  

hardinparamedic: No, I'm addressing the basis of the argument you're making, namely continuing to argue that there is no benefit to circumcision during infancy, and that the only benefit made by circumcision becomes apparent in adulthood.

As I said before: You can repeat that statement as many times as you want, it does not make it true. There actually ARE benefits to circumcision that are discussed at the time the parents decide, as well as negatives and possible complications.


What benefits? The article talks about reducing HIV transmission, and to a lesser degree other STDs. What are the benefits to infants?
 
2013-09-18 06:56:17 PM  

profplump: Vaccinations help children while they are still children. Circumcisions do not.


[Citation Needed, you keep repeating that.]
 
2013-09-18 06:56:22 PM  
All I need to know is that uncut cocks look disgusting and I would never stick one in my mouth.  Up my ass MAYBE, but only if I didn't see it beforehand.

Cut cocks, on the other hand, are sexy as hell.
 
2013-09-18 06:56:42 PM  

super_grass: FunkOut: HIstorically, some regions did a female circumcision that was just the removal of the clitoral hood so the clitoral bud had no skin covering it. I can't imagine having such a sensitive area not having any protection. Like having your eyelid permanently rolled inside out.

Clearly there's a disconnect in this thread. Some people are talking about removing a small piece of skin around the genitals while others are thinking of putting it through a lawnmower.

/ it keeps gunk from building up, which is probably the main benefit in the modern age


Hot showers and dental work are the crowning achievements of the modern era.
 
2013-09-18 06:56:51 PM  
The author of the article does have a point. It is interesting how the internet, which should connect us to a variety of cultures, viewpoints, and facts, is so misleading. We should be able to use the internet to find level headed information about controversial topics. Instead groups with an interest in promoting an agenda are able to spread misinformation faster than any urban legend ever could a few decades ago. If I want to find out about circumcision or vaccinations or corn syrup or some other controversy then I can look online and search for information only to be told whatever Google thinks I want to hear (or whatever the people who buy page ranks want me to hear).

We could address this. This is the same sort of pick-and-choose fact selection that makes people say things like, "they've never found transitional fossils," in 2013. It's probably bad for society.

Or we can have repetitive threads about the value of foreskin until Armageddon.

/I've never cared about the circumcision debate
 
2013-09-18 06:59:45 PM  

hardinparamedic: So who should make a decision at that point and time for something that is far less painful, traumatic, and costly on that neonate?


First I'd question how you're determining the procedure is "less painful" or "less traumatic". That's frequently claimed in this discussion but I'm not aware of any way to measure the amount of pain any person feels, let alone an infant.

Second, it's not clear to me that the benefit of "it's better if you do it sooner" is sufficient to overcome the harm of "we take the choice away from you". I can see why people would disagree with me here; it's certainly not a clear call. But you could make the same argument about a temporarily unconscious adult, and in such cases we almost always error on the side of waiting for them to express their will, even if it will make future treatment somewhat more complicated.
 
2013-09-18 07:00:23 PM  
If circumcision didn't have any historical precedent or social inertia and were invented today; the person who came up with it and suggested it should be done to a majority of male infants would be locked up.
 
2013-09-18 07:00:27 PM  

hardinparamedic: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: I don't even know who you're arguing with. I'm just stating the definitions of the two words I used to describe circumcision.

If you disagree that they are apt, take it up with Merriam and Webster.

Actually, I think it's your own personal definition.

But no. Please, continue to BS us about "dictionary" definitions. You said something borderline offensive and ignorant of people who are victims of ACTUAL gential mutilation, and got called out on it.


www.blogcdn.com
 
2013-09-18 07:00:57 PM  

hardinparamedic: profplump: Vaccinations help children while they are still children. Circumcisions do not.

[Citation Needed, you keep repeating that.]


You keep claiming that they do. As far as I can tell the article related to this thread does not support that claim, nor have you provided any related evidence.
 
2013-09-18 07:02:38 PM  

radarlove: All I need to know is that uncut cocks look disgusting and I would never stick one in my mouth.  Up my ass MAYBE, but only if I didn't see it beforehand.

Cut cocks, on the other hand, are sexy as hell.


Men's genitals are no good unless they have been surgically modified? Humans genetics says they're supposed to look a certain way.
 
2013-09-18 07:04:02 PM  

profplump: hardinparamedic: profplump: Vaccinations help children while they are still children. Circumcisions do not.

[Citation Needed, you keep repeating that.]

You keep claiming that they do. As far as I can tell the article related to this thread does not support that claim, nor have you provided any related evidence.


Um, top left, first page, right under the word "ABSTRACT" then lower right on same page under "Conclusion"
 
2013-09-18 07:10:15 PM  

Underwater Bystander: The author of the article does have a point. It is interesting how the internet, which should connect us to a variety of cultures, viewpoints, and facts, is so misleading. We should be able to use the internet to find level headed information about controversial topics. Instead groups with an interest in promoting an agenda are able to spread misinformation faster than any urban legend ever could a few decades ago.


The article itself is pushing an agenda under the guise of criticizing its opponents: "As both a personal and public health matter, circumcision is clearly in men's best interest [...] Intactivists, in short, are winning the online battle. Is it only a matter of time until they win the greater war?" It sets up a strawman of the anti-circumcision argument, leaving out the most important aspect - agency over one's body and personal rights - in an attempt to persuade the reader that the argument has already been decided, describing those he disagrees with as a "vitriolic mob," with "strange fixations" who perpetuate an "angry, victimized orthodoxy." It's a pretty hypocritical article, because it's not written as an objective look at the situation.

It's written explicitly to promote his ideology and marginalize another, all the while decrying how others do the same.
 
2013-09-18 07:10:29 PM  

FunkOut: radarlove: All I need to know is that uncut cocks look disgusting and I would never stick one in my mouth.  Up my ass MAYBE, but only if I didn't see it beforehand.

Cut cocks, on the other hand, are sexy as hell.

Men's genitals are no good unless they have been surgically modified? Humans genetics says they're supposed to look a certain way.


Appearance is very much a cultural thing, and even the AAP states that the decision to circumcise should NOT be based on the asthetic appearance, but rather the parent's feeling that benefit outweighs the risk.
 
2013-09-18 07:15:06 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Circumcision is like cutting off a baby's ears so that it won't have to deal with the hassle of washing behind them later in life.


I left my kids intact when I learned that there is NO anesthetic used during the procedure. They said the child would forget the pain. Maybe. But I would not.
No other argument was necessary after that, and no argument could change my mind.
Still think I did the right thing. That is no proper introduction to the world. I don't care who you are.
Care is needed when operating zippers though, or you're in for some uncomfortable calls from school nurses.
 
2013-09-18 07:16:44 PM  
Efforts to ban circumcision have failed big time. A federal judge made san fransisco remove a measure to ban circumcision off a ballot because it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

Now that these bigoted, anti-religious troglodytes have no legal way to stifle religious freedom, they have resorted nazi style tactics to further their hatred towards Jews and Christians.

If you have a problem with people exercising their religious freedom, GO FARK YOURSELF!

If you have been circumcised and you resent it, go see a shrink and tell the scum who shamed you to go FARK THEMSELVES!!!

/Didn't capitalize san fransisco because I felt like it.
//Off to the desert to for long weekend of hunting
///At lest rock don't bleed or twitch funny when you hit them hard.
 
2013-09-18 07:17:16 PM  

dstrick44: I left my kids intact when I learned that there is NO anesthetic used during the procedure. They said the child would forget the pain. Maybe. But I would not.


Wait, what?

Where were your kids born at? I ask because I want to avoid going there.
 
2013-09-18 07:19:13 PM  

hardinparamedic: Fafai: It's insensitive to call the mutilation of genitals "genital mutilation" because it isn't the exact same as an entirely different type of genital mutilation. Instead, lets call it Super Amazing Babby Penis Slicing-Off Courtesy.

Only if we can openly call you a moron. Is that okay?


Ha ha, you sure told me! ...But sure, please call me whatever you like if it means you'll stop pulling the FGM ISN'T THE SAME broken record routine on people who never even hinted at any such thing in the first place.

/Why do you have such a hard-on for the pained tears of little baby boys?
//I don't actually believe you do, just thought I'd try your debating style
///you disingenuous twat
 
2013-09-18 07:22:36 PM  

Boojum2k: Um, top left, first page, right under the word "ABSTRACT" then lower right on same page under "Conclusion"


That study doesn't show the benefit of circumcision in reducing UTIs. It does cite other studies which show increased rates of pediatric UTIs in uncircumcized males, which I don't content. But it does not recommend circumcision as a preventative measure for UTIs, and neither does the National Institute of Health:

"Circumcision to reduce the risk to 0.18%, up to 10 times in the first 6 months. Recommendation for routine circumcision is controversial not supported by the existing evidence."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3063462/
 
2013-09-18 07:23:13 PM  

profplump: don't content.


Don't contend.
 
2013-09-18 07:23:31 PM  
m.memegen.com


le sorry for le meme, but it remains le true.
 
2013-09-18 07:23:48 PM  

FunkOut: radarlove: All I need to know is that uncut cocks look disgusting and I would never stick one in my mouth.  Up my ass MAYBE, but only if I didn't see it beforehand.

Cut cocks, on the other hand, are sexy as hell.

Men's genitals are no good unless they have been surgically modified? Humans genetics says they're supposed to look a certain way.


Well no, it could also mean that intact foreskin hasn't selected out because it's often lopped off in infancy.  Like how bad vision hasn't selected out because we invented a tool to make it succeed.
 
2013-09-18 07:26:27 PM  

FunkOut: radarlove: All I need to know is that uncut cocks look disgusting and I would never stick one in my mouth.  Up my ass MAYBE, but only if I didn't see it beforehand.

Cut cocks, on the other hand, are sexy as hell.

Men's genitals are no good unless they have been surgically modified? Humans genetics says they're supposed to look a certain way.


What the fark do I care what human genetics says? I say it looks ugly and won't touch it.  Many others feel the same way.  Some do not.  Some people even have foreskin fetishes.  Genetics says the balls are way more important but almost nobody has a ball fetish.  Go fig.
 
2013-09-18 07:26:27 PM  

Fafai: Ha ha, you sure told me! ...But sure, please call me whatever you like if it means you'll stop pulling the FGM ISN'T THE SAME broken record routine on people who never even hinted at any such thing in the first place.

/Why do you have such a hard-on for the pained tears of little baby boys?
//I don't actually believe you do, just thought I'd try your debating style
///you disingenuous twat


Oh please. Enlighten us. Tell us uninformed masses how it's the same.

Also, it's one of the tactics of the anti-circumcision crowd. Please don't pretend like it isn't. It's even been done by others in this thread.
 
2013-09-18 07:28:23 PM  

Abox: FunkOut: radarlove: All I need to know is that uncut cocks look disgusting and I would never stick one in my mouth.  Up my ass MAYBE, but only if I didn't see it beforehand.

Cut cocks, on the other hand, are sexy as hell.

Men's genitals are no good unless they have been surgically modified? Humans genetics says they're supposed to look a certain way.

Well no, it could also mean that intact foreskin hasn't selected out because it's often lopped off in infancy.  Like how bad vision hasn't selected out because we invented a tool to make it succeed.


You can tell this is a valid argument by all those Swedish dudes who evolved cut cocks. Think I'll go get it snipped tomorrow.
 
2013-09-18 07:28:26 PM  

profplump: Boojum2k: Um, top left, first page, right under the word "ABSTRACT" then lower right on same page under "Conclusion"

That study doesn't show the benefit of circumcision in reducing UTIs. It does cite other studies which show increased rates of pediatric UTIs in uncircumcized males, which I don't content. But it does not recommend circumcision as a preventative measure for UTIs, and neither does the National Institute of Health:

"Circumcision to reduce the risk to 0.18%, up to 10 times in the first 6 months. Recommendation for routine circumcision is controversial not supported by the existing evidence."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3063462/


Yeah it does, right under "conclusion."
And your linked study also mentions benefits on circumcision to prevent UTIs. Right after your quote. Funny how you have trouble reading words that don't support your stance. Took multiple attempts for hardinparamedic and then me to point out the part you skipped on the very first page.
 
2013-09-18 07:28:37 PM  

FunkOut: radarlove: All I need to know is that uncut cocks look disgusting and I would never stick one in my mouth.  Up my ass MAYBE, but only if I didn't see it beforehand.

Cut cocks, on the other hand, are sexy as hell.

Men's genitals are no good unless they have been surgically modified? Humans genetics says they're supposed to look a certain way.


Primate ancestors used to have spines, and we still have wisdom teeth and appendixes. Humans ancestors lost their barbed penises due to evolution, and the loss of sensitivity meant that the copulated for long durations, and bonded emotional more. This in turn is theorized as to what got early humans to become more emotionally close, and in turn develop language, cooperation, and ultimately; civilization.  In conclusion;
images.didioffendyou.com
 
2013-09-18 07:28:47 PM  
No ! Parents who cute baby can't love theme
 
2013-09-18 07:29:27 PM  

Fafai: Abox: FunkOut: radarlove: All I need to know is that uncut cocks look disgusting and I would never stick one in my mouth.  Up my ass MAYBE, but only if I didn't see it beforehand.

Cut cocks, on the other hand, are sexy as hell.

Men's genitals are no good unless they have been surgically modified? Humans genetics says they're supposed to look a certain way.

Well no, it could also mean that intact foreskin hasn't selected out because it's often lopped off in infancy.  Like how bad vision hasn't selected out because we invented a tool to make it succeed.

You can tell this is a valid argument by all those Swedish dudes who evolved cut cocks. Think I'll go get it snipped tomorrow.


Holy shiat you have no idea how long evolution takes, huh?
 
2013-09-18 07:32:13 PM  

hardinparamedic: Fafai: Ha ha, you sure told me! ...But sure, please call me whatever you like if it means you'll stop pulling the FGM ISN'T THE SAME broken record routine on people who never even hinted at any such thing in the first place.

/Why do you have such a hard-on for the pained tears of little baby boys?
//I don't actually believe you do, just thought I'd try your debating style
///you disingenuous twat

Oh please. Enlighten us. Tell us uninformed masses how it's the same.
Also, it's one of the tactics of the anti-circumcision crowd. Please don't pretend like it isn't. It's even been done by others in this thread.


You're delusional. Look at you, ready to slap that straw an argument onto anyone who disagrees in any capacity. I even specifically said it's not the same thing up thread.
 
2013-09-18 07:35:23 PM  
Bunch of dicks in this thread.
 
2013-09-18 07:36:31 PM  

radarlove: Fafai: Abox: FunkOut: radarlove: 
Well no, it could also mean that intact foreskin hasn't selected out because it's often lopped off in infancy.  Like how bad vision hasn't selected out because we invented a tool to make it succeed.

You can tell this is a valid argument by all those Swedish dudes who evolved cut cocks. Think I'll go get it snipped tomorrow.

Holy shiat you have no idea how long evolution takes, huh?


Abox is the one who seems to be saying it might have happened by now it it weren't for circumcision/glasses, and I was ridiculing that.
 
2013-09-18 07:36:50 PM  

hardinparamedic: MaestroJ: Correct, however, the foreskin has not been connected to the permanently debilitating diseases that vaccines are used to prevent. The vast majority of the world is in fact, not circumcised, yet STDs are not as prevalent in Europe or Australia like they are in the USA, yet most of them have their foreskins. It couldn't possibly because the foreskin somehow fights STDs there. Perhaps it's a sociological issue such as better sex education?

Really?

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/442617-overview


From your link, only 1% of males over age 17 have an unretractable foreskin. Meanwhile, the complication rate from circumcisions seems to be about 1.5% (from Wikipedia, which provides its source). So the math doesn't work out there for you.

The benefits and risks for circumcision are minimal. It's really a wash (haha!). There's no NEED to circumcise every boy, especially since we as a nation started doing so to keep boys from whacking off (and it didn't even work). Just let your kid decide when he's old enough to understand what's going on.
 
2013-09-18 07:38:27 PM  

Fafai: You're delusional. Look at you, ready to slap that straw an argument onto anyone who disagrees in any capacity. I even specifically said it's not the same thing up thread.


The only time I mentioned it in regards to you was here.

You actually brought up FGM for the first time in this post, in which you stated that it was similar.
 
2013-09-18 07:40:01 PM  
A study comes out tomorrow stating that removing the tip of a baby's nose will reduce prostate cancer risks by 80% later in life.

There will be permanent scarring, but the nose will still be functional. Do you circumcise your baby's nose?
 
2013-09-18 07:40:40 PM  

hardinparamedic: Argyle82: I lol'd at the random, self manufactured stat.... well done.

4/10

I LOL'd at you making an ass out of yourself by calling a statistic manufactured. But since you don't believe me, let's asked the Journal of AIDS Care.


I'm sorry, I missed the part in the research written by Jewish doctors that cutting off a part of the body is good for you.  Can you summarize the part where it says, as you claim, that 1/3rd of men with foreskin (which, by the way, most of the world has their foreskin), will have "medical problems" because of having said foreskin?

Also, it's somewhat disturbing that you're so gung-ho about cutting babies.  You seem genuinely excited about the procedure.  You've posted in this thread like 30 times, citing some random, non-related studies, because, because AIDS IN AFRICA!!!!

Is everything ok?
 
2013-09-18 07:42:26 PM  

Argyle82: in the research written by Jewish doctors


Labeled now as "Bigot"
 
2013-09-18 07:43:24 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: There's no NEED to circumcise every boy, especially since we as a nation started doing so to keep boys from whacking off (and it didn't even work). Just let your kid decide when he's old enough to understand what's going on.


No one has said there is a NEED to circumcise every boy. What people have said is that it should be a decision left to parents after getting both the pros and the cons of doing so.

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: A study comes out tomorrow stating that removing the tip of a baby's nose will reduce prostate cancer risks by 80% later in life.

There will be permanent scarring, but the nose will still be functional. Do you circumcise your baby's nose?


Except that circumcision doesn't remove the "tip" of the penis. It removes the retractable foreskin surrounding the tip. A more apt way to troll would be "removing the skin around the tip of the nose".

I live with my mom. When shall we expect your grandiose appearance in politics threads, le trole.
 
2013-09-18 07:43:33 PM  

Fafai: radarlove: Fafai: Abox: FunkOut: radarlove:
Well no, it could also mean that intact foreskin hasn't selected out because it's often lopped off in infancy.  Like how bad vision hasn't selected out because we invented a tool to make it succeed.

You can tell this is a valid argument by all those Swedish dudes who evolved cut cocks. Think I'll go get it snipped tomorrow.

Holy shiat you have no idea how long evolution takes, huh?

Abox is the one who seems to be saying it might have happened by now it it weren't for circumcision/glasses, and I was ridiculing that.


Just countering the point that "humans genetics says they're supposed to look a certain way".  Human genetics says there's a foreskin.  It also says we have the brains and the thumbs to make tools to change things we don't like...like blurry vision and, for some, foreskin. But even if some people were born without it and that was preferred, foreskin wouldn't necessarily select out since there's circumcision.
 
2013-09-18 07:44:06 PM  

12349876: I want your skull: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Circumcision is like cutting off a baby's ears so that it won't have to deal with the hassle of washing behind them later in life.

Except instead of funneling sound to your earhole, foreskin funnels diseases to your peehole?

Which is why the Europeans and non-Muslim/WorstKorean Asians went extinct.  STDs took them all out about 50 years ago.  If only they had circumcisions.


Yep, because diseases don't gain any advantage by not killing their host.  All STDs lead to immediate death.

\See how that feels?
 
2013-09-18 07:44:30 PM  

hardinparamedic: Fafai: You're delusional. Look at you, ready to slap that straw an argument onto anyone who disagrees in any capacity. I even specifically said it's not the same thing up thread.

The only time I mentioned it in regards to you was here.

You actually brought up FGM for the first time in this post, in which you stated that it was similar.


That was my impression of you frothing at the mouth about FGM where it wasn't warranted, like you tried to do with Jill's Nipples and at least one other poster (the person I quoted there in my all caps post about you being insane).

I'm done with you. You're farking crazy or you're trolling. I'm going with the former. Get help. Learn what words mean.
 
2013-09-18 07:45:11 PM  

Fafai: radarlove: Fafai: Abox: FunkOut: radarlove: 
Well no, it could also mean that intact foreskin hasn't selected out because it's often lopped off in infancy.  Like how bad vision hasn't selected out because we invented a tool to make it succeed.

You can tell this is a valid argument by all those Swedish dudes who evolved cut cocks. Think I'll go get it snipped tomorrow.

Holy shiat you have no idea how long evolution takes, huh?

Abox is the one who seems to be saying it might have happened by now it it weren't for circumcision/glasses, and I was ridiculing that.


I think I misread both of you...but kinda don't care.  This thread is seriously lacking in pictures or engorged, ruddy, circumcised penises oozing pearly white jizz, so I think it's probably time to abandon it.

For much like the legendary foreskin, this thread has outlived its usefulness.
 
2013-09-18 07:45:41 PM  

hardinparamedic: Except that circumcision doesn't remove the "tip" of the penis. It removes the retractable foreskin surrounding the tip. A more apt way to troll would be "removing the skin around the tip of the nose".


That works fine also. Would you remove the skin around the tip of the nose of your son, leaving permanent scarring, in order to lessen the risk of prostate cancer later in adulthood? Why or why not?
 
2013-09-18 07:46:59 PM  

Argyle82: I'm sorry, I missed the part in the research written by Jewish doctors that cutting off a part of the body is good for you.  Can you summarize the part where it says, as you claim, that 1/3rd of men with foreskin (which, by the way, most of the world has their foreskin), will have "medical problems" because of having said foreskin?


Oh, this one is good. Please demonstrate that any of the authors in those studies have been influenced by Judaism (or are even Jewish), and you're totally not being anti-semitic and/or racist by using stereotypes attached to their names to infer that?

Argyle82: Also, it's somewhat disturbing that you're so gung-ho about cutting babies.


Actually, I've said repeatedly it should be an informed decision made by parents of that child, in conjunction with their doctor. Please quote where I've been "gung ho" about it.

Argyle82: You seem genuinely excited about the procedure.  You've posted in this thread like 30 times, citing some random, non-related studies, because, because AIDS IN AFRICA!!!!


I enjoy pointing out pseudoscience on the internet, and have nothing better to do than enjoy my Redd's Apple Ale and argue with a pedantic troll like yourself tonight.
 
2013-09-18 07:49:41 PM  

Fafai: I'm done with you. You're farking crazy or you're trolling. I'm going with the former. Get help. Learn what words mean.


media.tumblr.com

Yes. Because I point out my position with actual research and position statements by medical groups, and refuse to address stupidity seriously, I'm "crazy or trolling".

i.imgur.com
 
2013-09-18 07:50:13 PM  

hardinparamedic: Jill'sNipple: I did not say it's the same effect for males or females. Don't misquote me. And, if you're going to insert fake quotes and attribute them to me, at least spell them right.

Really?

[i.imgur.com image 850x138]
[i.imgur.com image 850x182] 
And I attributed DERP to you. You said DERP. Derp got attributed.


Critical reading not your strength? I've traveled in the MENA region. I know what the difference is. I oppose genital mutilation for either sex, and never said the harmful effects were the same. Is that too murky for you? Or do you want to make more fake quotes and flag them with my name?
 
2013-09-18 07:50:24 PM  

hardinparamedic: argue with a pedantic troll


You're projecting so hard this thread just went into CinemaScope.
 
2013-09-18 07:52:23 PM  

Jill'sNipple: I oppose genital mutilation for either sex, and never said the harmful effects were the same. Is that too murky for you? Or do you want to make more fake quotes and flag them with my name?


Circumcision is not gential mutilation. It IS, however, a medical procedure done with the intent of decreasing the chance of STDs and UTI, decreasing the chance of complications of having a foreskin, and NOT done to prevent someone from having sex. The other is done with the express intent and purpose of mutilating and eliminating the ability for the female to have sex.

It's not the same, even by the most remote attempt to make it such.
 
2013-09-18 07:53:05 PM  

Boojum2k: Argyle82: in the research written by Jewish doctors

Labeled now as "Bigot"


Really?

Repeated from HairBolus
Let's see how that article stands up under the general rule of thumb of "ignore pro-circumcision authors with Jewish sounding names"

Review: a critical evaluation of arguments opposing male circumcision for HIV prevention in developed countries.

Morris BJ, Bailey RC, Klausner JD, Leibowitz A, Wamai RG, Waskett JH, Banerjee J, Halperin DT, Zoloth L, Weiss HA, Hankins CA.
 
2013-09-18 07:53:10 PM  
If dentists could remove wisdom teeth in early childhood with less complications than waiting until the teen years, would any of you anti-circumcision people protest saying that the decision should wait til the teen years so the kid could make an informed decision? After all, many people would not have problems if their wisdom teeth were allowed to come in. They are removed for convenience, and to prevent the possibility of having a more serious surgery later on. Researchers are looking for a way to prevent wisdom teeth from even starting, so I'm not pulling the possibility out of thin air.
I'm one of the lucky ones who never had wisdom teeth.
 
2013-09-18 07:53:28 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: You're projecting so hard this thread just went into CinemaScope.


Says the person who made an account seven days ago, and who's name follows the exact same syntax as other, well known political thread trolls on FARK.
 
2013-09-18 07:54:54 PM  

Jill'sNipple: I oppose genital mutilation for either sex


Which is cool of you, but the thread is about circumcision, not genital mutilation.
 
2013-09-18 07:55:01 PM  

Argyle82: Labeled now as "Bigot"

Really?

Repeated from HairBolus
Let's see how that article stands up under the general rule of thumb of "ignore pro-circumcision authors with Jewish sounding names"

Review: a critical evaluation of arguments opposing male circumcision for HIV prevention in developed countries.

Morris BJ, Bailey RC, Klausner JD, Leibowitz A, Wamai RG, Waskett JH, Banerjee J, Halperin DT, Zoloth L, Weiss HA, Hankins CA.


Please demonstrate that each individual person is both Jewish, and that their Jewish faith influenced their findings on that research study.

Otherwise, it's pretty safe to call you a bigot considering you're using anti-semitistic "Jewish Conspiracy" talking points.
 
2013-09-18 07:55:20 PM  

hardinparamedic: Says the person who made an account seven days ago, and who's name follows the exact same syntax as other, well known political thread trolls on FARK.


You must have a pretty low opinion of Fark and its community if it's unthinkable that somebody new would sign up.
 
2013-09-18 07:56:30 PM  

Argyle82: Really?


Yep, along with the other one.
 
2013-09-18 07:56:40 PM  

DocTravesty: 12349876: I want your skull: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Circumcision is like cutting off a baby's ears so that it won't have to deal with the hassle of washing behind them later in life.

Except instead of funneling sound to your earhole, foreskin funnels diseases to your peehole?

Which is why the Europeans and non-Muslim/WorstKorean Asians went extinct.  STDs took them all out about 50 years ago.  If only they had circumcisions.

Yep, because diseases don't gain any advantage by not killing their host.  All STDs lead to immediate death.

\See how that feels?


You also forgot to mention that he absolutely destroyed the argument (which nobody is making) that 100% of all people with foreskin die of an STD. I didn't respond to it because it was so ridiculous.

/Also, I really don't care
//Just killing time at the end of work
 
2013-09-18 07:57:18 PM  

hardinparamedic: Argyle82: I'm sorry, I missed the part in the research written by Jewish doctors that cutting off a part of the body is good for you.  Can you summarize the part where it says, as you claim, that 1/3rd of men with foreskin (which, by the way, most of the world has their foreskin), will have "medical problems" because of having said foreskin?

Oh, this one is good. Please demonstrate that any of the authors in those studies have been influenced by Judaism (or are even Jewish), and you're totally not being anti-semitic and/or racist by using stereotypes attached to their names to infer that?

Argyle82: Also, it's somewhat disturbing that you're so gung-ho about cutting babies.

Actually, I've said repeatedly it should be an informed decision made by parents of that child, in conjunction with their doctor. Please quote where I've been "gung ho" about it.

Argyle82: You seem genuinely excited about the procedure.  You've posted in this thread like 30 times, citing some random, non-related studies, because, because AIDS IN AFRICA!!!!

I enjoy pointing out pseudoscience on the internet, and have nothing better to do than enjoy my Redd's Apple Ale and argue with a pedantic troll like yourself tonight.


Nope, not being anti-Semitic at all.  If you know anything about linguistics, you'll easily be able to determine which last names are more likely to be Jewish.

If you're Jewish, you're more likely to conduct/make up research that supports your outdated religious ritual, to defend it.  Just as if you're circumcised, you're more likely to try to defend it.  It's human nature to be illogical to justify your being and your ways.

But yeah, cool man, have fun drinking by yourself and defending cutting off baby skin.  glhf.
f5, f5, f5, f5, f5 wheeeeee
 
2013-09-18 07:58:05 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: You must have a pretty low opinion of Fark and its community if it's unthinkable that somebody new would sign up.


On the contrary. I've been around long enough to know when someone doth protest too much about being new after saying something blatantly trolling.
 
2013-09-18 07:59:03 PM  

MarkEC: If dentists could remove wisdom teeth in early childhood with less complications than waiting until the teen years, would any of you anti-circumcision people protest saying that the decision should wait til the teen years so the kid could make an informed decision? After all, many people would not have problems if their wisdom teeth were allowed to come in. They are removed for convenience, and to prevent the possibility of having a more serious surgery later on. Researchers are looking for a way to prevent wisdom teeth from even starting, so I'm not pulling the possibility out of thin air.
I'm one of the lucky ones who never had wisdom teeth.


I think you're comparing apples to oranges here. By their very nature, wisdom teeth don't come until later in life. Wisdom teeth for that matter aren't removed if it's seen not to cause a problem. Foreskin is a normal part of anatomy that rarely has any problems with it, and are easily corrected through non-surgical measures, so, I'm having difficulty finding the similarities in your hypothetical circumstance.
 
2013-09-18 08:00:11 PM  

Argyle82: If you're Jewish, you're more likely to conduct/make up research


Yep, bigot through and through.
 
2013-09-18 08:00:18 PM  
hardinparamedic:Circumcision is not gential mutilation. It IS, however, a medical procedure done with the intent of decreasing the chance of STDs and UTI because we've managed to rationalise it after our daddy's daddy started doing it.
 
2013-09-18 08:00:30 PM  

Argyle82: Nope, not being anti-Semitic at all.  If you know anything about linguistics, you'll easily be able to determine which last names are more likely to be Jewish.

If you're Jewish, you're more likely to conduct/make up research that supports your outdated religious ritual, to defend it.  Just as if you're circumcised, you're more likely to try to defend it.  It's human nature to be illogical to justify your being and your ways.


Yep. You're not being bigoted and anti-semetic at all.

All those jews just "stick together" because their names "sound jewish", and they all falsify research to "justify" their "rituals". 

Oh, you do know that being "Jewish" doesn't make someone a member of the Jewish faith, nor does it make them apt to "lie" for other Jews, right? I mean, you MIGHT sound like a bigot if you tried to promote that idea, so I can see where that silly notion might come from.
 
2013-09-18 08:01:48 PM  

Boojum2k: Argyle82: Really?

Yep, along with the other one.


You have a list of favorite female fark posters on your bio.  Just stop being creepy, capt. save-a-ho
 
2013-09-18 08:02:43 PM  

hardinparamedic: On the contrary. I've been around long enough to know when someone doth protest too much about being new after saying something blatantly trolling.


Clearly one post addressing it is an excessive amount of protest.

In any case, I'm done responding to you and reading your posts. You clearly have some issues, and I don't want to be an enabler.
 
2013-09-18 08:02:56 PM  

hardinparamedic: Argyle82: Nope, not being anti-Semitic at all.  If you know anything about linguistics, you'll easily be able to determine which last names are more likely to be Jewish.

If you're Jewish, you're more likely to conduct/make up research that supports your outdated religious ritual, to defend it.  Just as if you're circumcised, you're more likely to try to defend it.  It's human nature to be illogical to justify your being and your ways.

Yep. You're not being bigoted and anti-semetic at all.

All those jews just "stick together" because their names "sound jewish", and they all falsify research to "justify" their "rituals". 

Oh, you do know that being "Jewish" doesn't make someone a member of the Jewish faith, nor does it make them apt to "lie" for other Jews, right? I mean, you MIGHT sound like a bigot if you tried to promote that idea, so I can see where that silly notion might come from.


Get help.  Bye.
 
2013-09-18 08:04:38 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: hardinparamedic: Says the person who made an account seven days ago, and who's name follows the exact same syntax as other, well known political thread trolls on FARK.

You must have a pretty low opinion of Fark and its community if it's unthinkable that somebody new would sign up.


Okay the fact that you don't have a low opinion of Fark and its members actually lends credence to the argument that you might be new here.
 
2013-09-18 08:05:03 PM  
Why is it that I seem to be the most emotionally stable person on this page... yet by all accounts I should be the most distraught? And this is including the people on "my side"
 
2013-09-18 08:05:26 PM  

Argyle82: You have a list of favorite female fark posters on your bio.


Yep, from a long time back, from long nights on TFD. I also keep the beer/coffee list for those I disagreed with and argued with but I respect. Your profile shows a given name that may or may not be made up, a crap map, and a reminder when I look that you are, in fact, a bigot. An insecure one at that.
 
2013-09-18 08:06:57 PM  

MaestroJ: Why is it that I seem to be the most emotionally stable person on this page... yet by all accounts I should be the most distraught? And this is including the people on "my side"


Because the idea of "emotional stability" many people seem to be demonstrating is "Why won't you just agree with my argument!".

Really, you shouldn't be inferring someone who just got done telling us how Jews all are more likely to lie and "cover" for each other is "emotionally stable"
 
2013-09-18 08:07:29 PM  
This was a fun thread.
 
2013-09-18 08:07:57 PM  

MaestroJ: Why is it that I seem to be the most emotionally stable person on this page... yet by all accounts I should be the most distraught? And this is including the people on "my side"


Personal bias. You've actually been a bit histrionic, really, but since to you that's normal you project that out, and since others don't share your experiences you feel like you are the stable one.
 
2013-09-18 08:09:20 PM  

FunkOut: Purposely cutting into a healthy infant is kind of creepy. Accidentally cutting a baby's fingernail too far is scary, I can't imagine doing that to some poor wee bairn's winkie.


Wish my mom had thought like that.
 
2013-09-18 08:09:51 PM  

hardinparamedic: Jill'sNipple: I oppose genital mutilation for either sex, and never said the harmful effects were the same. Is that too murky for you? Or do you want to make more fake quotes and flag them with my name?

Circumcision is not gential mutilation. It IS, however, a medical procedure done with the intent of decreasing the chance of STDs and UTI, decreasing the chance of complications of having a foreskin, and NOT done to prevent someone from having sex. The other is done with the express intent and purpose of mutilating and eliminating the ability for the female to have sex.

It's not the same, even by the most remote attempt to make it such.


Look, you're welcome to get all sexually excited about this issue, misquote folks and troll the hell out of this thread, but WOULD YOU PLEASE START SPELLING 'GENITAL' CORRECTLY? I should have known that someone who's too stupid to learn how to clean his own penis without cutting part of it off would also be too stupid to spell the basic terms pertaining to what is apparently your favorite topic.
 
2013-09-18 08:10:52 PM  

Boojum2k: MaestroJ: Why is it that I seem to be the most emotionally stable person on this page... yet by all accounts I should be the most distraught? And this is including the people on "my side"

Personal bias. You've actually been a bit histrionic, really, but since to you that's normal you project that out, and since others don't share your experiences you feel like you are the stable one.


Perhaps I was dramatic in one admittedly, though, I was indeed telling the truth when referring to a bloody puberty and medical procedure. Must admit yes, I got more emotional than I probably should have.

I am finding some of the actual biting vitriol here, on both sides, very confusing though. I'll try to sound less dramatic in the future, however.
 
2013-09-18 08:11:23 PM  

Shostie: This was a fun thread.


I know, right? The fact a pro-circumcision lobby exists makes my farking skin crawl.

/Would rather suck on an uncut dick
//Picked a guy with good dick hygene
 
2013-09-18 08:12:05 PM  

Argyle82: hardinparamedic: Argyle82: Nope, not being anti-Semitic at all.  If you know anything about linguistics, you'll easily be able to determine which last names are more likely to be Jewish.

If you're Jewish, you're more likely to conduct/make up research that supports your outdated religious ritual, to defend it.  Just as if you're circumcised, you're more likely to try to defend it.  It's human nature to be illogical to justify your being and your ways.

Yep. You're not being bigoted and anti-semetic at all.

All those jews just "stick together" because their names "sound jewish", and they all falsify research to "justify" their "rituals". 

Oh, you do know that being "Jewish" doesn't make someone a member of the Jewish faith, nor does it make them apt to "lie" for other Jews, right? I mean, you MIGHT sound like a bigot if you tried to promote that idea, so I can see where that silly notion might come from.

Get help.  Bye.


He's right, you know.  You look like a real asshole right now.
 
2013-09-18 08:15:23 PM  

MaestroJ: Boojum2k: MaestroJ: Why is it that I seem to be the most emotionally stable person on this page... yet by all accounts I should be the most distraught? And this is including the people on "my side"

Personal bias. You've actually been a bit histrionic, really, but since to you that's normal you project that out, and since others don't share your experiences you feel like you are the stable one.

Perhaps I was dramatic in one admittedly, though, I was indeed telling the truth when referring to a bloody puberty and medical procedure. Must admit yes, I got more emotional than I probably should have.

I am finding some of the actual biting vitriol here, on both sides, very confusing though. I'll try to sound less dramatic in the future, however.


You've had a personally traumatic experience related to the topic, though extremely rare, it would be surprising if you didn't have an emotional reaction.
 
2013-09-18 08:15:34 PM  
FTFA: "None of intactivists' cornerstone beliefs are based in reality or science; rather, they're founded in lore."

So Dr. Noonien Soong gave Lore the emotion chip and Data got a foreskin. I see.


Don't ask how I came up with this, I'm not even a Trekkie.
 
2013-09-18 08:16:25 PM  

Quinsisdos: Shostie: This was a fun thread.

I know, right? The fact a pro-circumcision lobby exists makes my farking skin crawl.

/Would rather suck on an uncut dick
//Picked a guy with good dick hygene


How many did you go through before finding the clean guy? Or did you just get lucky?
 
2013-09-18 08:16:38 PM  

Boojum2k: Argyle82: You have a list of favorite female fark posters on your bio.

Yep, from a long time back, from long nights on TFD. I also keep the beer/coffee list for those I disagreed with and argued with but I respect. Your profile shows a given name that may or may not be made up, a crap map, and a reminder when I look that you are, in fact, a bigot. An insecure one at that.


You're right, I'm a huge bigot, because I believe that;
Americans will defend American ways.
Jews will defend Jewish ways.
Muslims will defend Muslim ways
Athiests will defend Atheist ways
Hindus will defend Hindu ways
Christians will defend Christain ways
Mongolians will defend Mongolian ways
Djiboutis will defend Djibouti ways
Finnish will defend Finland ways,

etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum.
 
2013-09-18 08:17:55 PM  

Boojum2k: MaestroJ: Boojum2k: MaestroJ: Why is it that I seem to be the most emotionally stable person on this page... yet by all accounts I should be the most distraught? And this is including the people on "my side"

Personal bias. You've actually been a bit histrionic, really, but since to you that's normal you project that out, and since others don't share your experiences you feel like you are the stable one.

Perhaps I was dramatic in one admittedly, though, I was indeed telling the truth when referring to a bloody puberty and medical procedure. Must admit yes, I got more emotional than I probably should have.

I am finding some of the actual biting vitriol here, on both sides, very confusing though. I'll try to sound less dramatic in the future, however.

You've had a personally traumatic experience related to the topic, though extremely rare, it would be surprising if you didn't have an emotional reaction.


I did have the "emotional" time in the early 20s. I'm 27 now, made peace with my folks and with the fact I'm likely not going to get a partner. I think the one thing that ever does get to me is if someone confronts me with the idea that I don't exist.
 
2013-09-18 08:18:22 PM  

Jill'sNipple: Look, you're welcome to get all sexually excited about this issue, misquote folks and troll the hell out of this thread, but WOULD YOU PLEASE START SPELLING 'GENITAL' CORRECTLY? I should have known that someone who's too stupid to learn how to clean his own penis without cutting part of it off would also be too stupid to spell the basic terms pertaining to what is apparently your favorite topic.


Well, at least we know that iphone autocorrect transposing the I in genital makes you froth at the mouth.

Had I actually any desire to troll you (Which you seem to be doing yourself, since you're ignoring the substance of the post to nit-pick at spelling errors), at least I know how to set off pedantic OCD attacks of impotent rage upon the internet from this point forward.

Also, how would I have any control over whether I was circumcised or not? I'm curious how your insult has any bearing on this discussion?
 
2013-09-18 08:18:24 PM  

hardinparamedic: Mike Chewbacca: There's no NEED to circumcise every boy, especially since we as a nation started doing so to keep boys from whacking off (and it didn't even work). Just let your kid decide when he's old enough to understand what's going on.

No one has said there is a NEED to circumcise every boy. What people have said is that it should be a decision left to parents after getting both the pros and the cons of doing so.


OR, since we've all already agreed that the benefits (and risks) are slim, especially for virgin males, why don't we just let the actual owner of the penis make the decision?
 
2013-09-18 08:18:40 PM  

Argyle82: You're right, I'm a huge bigot, because I believe that If you're Jewish, you're more likely to conduct/make up research that supports your outdated religious ritual, to defend it.


FTFY with your own statement.
 
2013-09-18 08:20:03 PM  

Boojum2k: How many did you go through before finding the clean guy? Or did you just get lucky?


First time was the charm. Then again, I live in a sensible country.
 
2013-09-18 08:20:09 PM  

Argyle82: Jews will defend Jewish ways.


You've yet to demonstrate any of those authors were Jewish, or are of Jewish descent. That's the hillarious thing here, despite claiming otherwise based on their names.

For someone who's NOT a bigot, you sure are going a long way to justify using racial and ethnic stereotypes about Jews.
 
2013-09-18 08:21:45 PM  

Boojum2k: Quinsisdos: Shostie: This was a fun thread.

I know, right? The fact a pro-circumcision lobby exists makes my farking skin crawl.

/Would rather suck on an uncut dick
//Picked a guy with good dick hygene

How many did you go through before finding the clean guy? Or did you just get lucky?


I was actually about to ask that.

I envision it went something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6eTTaY1a6M

/probably nsfw
 
2013-09-18 08:22:45 PM  

Shostie: Boojum2k: Quinsisdos: Shostie: This was a fun thread.

I know, right? The fact a pro-circumcision lobby exists makes my farking skin crawl.

/Would rather suck on an uncut dick
//Picked a guy with good dick hygene

How many did you go through before finding the clean guy? Or did you just get lucky?

I was actually about to ask that.

I envision it went something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6eTTaY1a6M

/probably nsfw


One of the best movies of all times. You sir, are an Officer and a Gentleman.
 
2013-09-18 08:23:10 PM  

Argyle82: Boojum2k: Argyle82: You have a list of favorite female fark posters on your bio.

Yep, from a long time back, from long nights on TFD. I also keep the beer/coffee list for those I disagreed with and argued with but I respect. Your profile shows a given name that may or may not be made up, a crap map, and a reminder when I look that you are, in fact, a bigot. An insecure one at that.

You're right, I'm a huge bigot, because I believe that;
Americans will defend American ways.
Jews will defend Jewish ways.
Muslims will defend Muslim ways
Athiests will defend Atheist ways
Hindus will defend Hindu ways
Christians will defend Christain ways
Mongolians will defend Mongolian ways
Djiboutis will defend Djibouti ways
Finnish will defend Finland ways,

etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum.


I'm trying to give the impression of a clear, calm, rational tone:

You're not helping people like me.

If you're going to criticize someone, do so as an individual. Don't categorize entire groups, and don't do it in the name of a cause you believe in. Trust me, when it comes to any debate, you won't only hurt your own argument, you'll hurt others who may have legitimate points, and you'll only make it last longer.
 
2013-09-18 08:24:16 PM  

Quinsisdos: Boojum2k: How many did you go through before finding the clean guy? Or did you just get lucky?

First time was the charm. Then again, I live in a sensible country.


I've lived in the UK, sensible is not the word I would use to describe it, even in comparison to the U.S.
Maybe compared to Russia.
 
2013-09-18 08:25:11 PM  
Man, I need more popcorn for this thread.
 
2013-09-18 08:26:04 PM  

RedPhoenix122: Man, I need more popcorn for this thread.


Made beef stir fry through the whole thing. Sliced the red pepper only to find mold on the inside. Just onions for the vegetable.
 
2013-09-18 08:26:11 PM  

RedPhoenix122: Man, I need more popcorn for this thread.


Did you get the kind with cheese on it?
 
2013-09-18 08:27:07 PM  
Meh. If the foreskin is harmfull, we should let nature take its course until we evolve to no longer have them.
 
2013-09-18 08:27:16 PM  

MaestroJ: RedPhoenix122: Man, I need more popcorn for this thread.

Made beef stir fry through the whole thing. Sliced the red pepper only to find mold on the inside. Just onions for the vegetable.


Still sounds good.
 
2013-09-18 08:28:18 PM  

Boojum2k: RedPhoenix122: Man, I need more popcorn for this thread.

Did you get the kind with cheese on it?


Nah, I save that for the politics tab.

/to go with the whine

img.gawkerassets.com
 
2013-09-18 08:28:26 PM  

MaestroJ: Made beef stir fry through the whole thing. Sliced the red pepper only to find mold on the inside. Just onions for the vegetable.


Meh. I had a peanut butter sandwich. Was a bit nutty with a little bit of jelly along the edges.

Boojum2k: Did you get the kind with cheese on it?


Yellow Liquid. AND, as an added bonus, it's non-dairy.
 
2013-09-18 08:29:10 PM  

MaestroJ: RedPhoenix122: Man, I need more popcorn for this thread.

Made beef stir fry through the whole thing. Sliced the red pepper only to find mold on the inside. Just onions for the vegetable.


Ahhhhh, veggie smeg.
 
2013-09-18 08:29:55 PM  

FunkOut: radarlove: All I need to know is that uncut cocks look disgusting and I would never stick one in my mouth.  Up my ass MAYBE, but only if I didn't see it beforehand.

Cut cocks, on the other hand, are sexy as hell.

Men's genitals are no good unless they have been surgically modified? Humans genetics says they're supposed to look a certain way.


human genes do a lot of things that we don't care for or are no longer biologically relevant.    At this point foreskin is vestigial.   You can take it or leave it, up to your style preferences.
 
2013-09-18 08:33:05 PM  

dbaggins: human genes do a lot of things that we don't care for or are no longer biologically relevant.    At this point foreskin is vestigial.   You can take it or leave it, up to your style preferences.


There are noted sexual functions to the foreskin. It is indeed not required to have sex, but it does have use. The problem with "leave it," is that it can't really come back, and the negative effects are for life. The possible problems with "take it" are not observed to cause any problems worldwide, and they're easily preventable.
 
2013-09-18 08:34:32 PM  

Jill'sNipple: The double standard on this is pretty crazy. Some extremely well-educated female friends feel completely comfortable advocating for circumcision based entirely on aesthetics. These same friends would be horrified if some guy said he wouldn't sleep with them unless they had a little nip-and-tuck on their own undercarriage for the same reason. I think either way is insane.

/circumcised
//not that that is relevant


Except that FGM isn't a "little nip-and-tuck on their own undercarriage."

First world people comparisons to third world problems.  There is no comparison between male circumcision and FGM, at all.  None.  Stop even thinking there is.

That being said, why the hell can't we just leave our kid's genitals alone?  As long as they can eliminate waste and there's no immediate health issues, let it be until the kid is 18 and makes their own decisions.
 
2013-09-18 08:36:28 PM  
We don't circumcise. We just do a scrotum tuck.

No one wants to see a wrinkly ball-sack.

Especially freshly shorn.
 
2013-09-18 08:41:39 PM  
Re: mutilation. Maybe that's a strong word - but - name one piece of a baby that parents can choose to have cut off, besides the foreskin, that wouldn't be termed mutilation. Ear lobes? Nipples? Anyone?

Am I entitled to tattoo a list of my child's allergies on them in the hope of averting a fatal allergic reaction?

I don't think a parent has the right to irrevocably change their child physically just because they're a parent.
 
2013-09-18 08:42:27 PM  

dbaggins: FunkOut: radarlove: All I need to know is that uncut cocks look disgusting and I would never stick one in my mouth.  Up my ass MAYBE, but only if I didn't see it beforehand.

Cut cocks, on the other hand, are sexy as hell.

Men's genitals are no good unless they have been surgically modified? Humans genetics says they're supposed to look a certain way.

human genes do a lot of things that we don't care for or are no longer biologically relevant.    At this point foreskin is vestigial.   You can take it or leave it, up to your style preferences.


You mean I could have had this tail REMOVED?!?!?!
 
2013-09-18 08:44:31 PM  
I just thought of something.  Is the headline supposed to be a play on, "T'was beauty killed the beast," spoken so famously by our hero, Jack Black in King Kong?
 
2013-09-18 08:49:14 PM  

gnosis301: I just thought of something.  Is the headline supposed to be a play on, "T'was beauty killed the beast," spoken so famously by our hero, Jack Black in King Kong?


I think the internet wouldn't know what to do if Jack Black read this headline. Remember when Rick Astley himself Rick Rolled the USA in the Thanksgiving Day Parade? Rick Rolling went to a standstill.
 
2013-09-18 08:52:27 PM  

MaestroJ: I think the internet wouldn't know what to do if Jack Black read this headline. Remember when Rick Astley himself Rick Rolled the USA in the Thanksgiving Day Parade? Rick Rolling went to a standstill.


You know what I was just thinking?  It's a shame Brutal Legend sucked after the metal spider fight.  That game could've been more awesome than it was.  I wanna play Psychonauts.
 
2013-09-18 08:53:28 PM  

EmmaLou: Jill'sNipple: The double standard on this is pretty crazy. Some extremely well-educated female friends feel completely comfortable advocating for circumcision based entirely on aesthetics. These same friends would be horrified if some guy said he wouldn't sleep with them unless they had a little nip-and-tuck on their own undercarriage for the same reason. I think either way is insane.

/circumcised
//not that that is relevant

Except that FGM isn't a "little nip-and-tuck on their own undercarriage."

First world people comparisons to third world problems.  There is no comparison between male circumcision and FGM, at all.  None.  Stop even thinking there is.

That being said, why the hell can't we just leave our kid's genitals alone?  As long as they can eliminate waste and there's no immediate health issues, let it be until the kid is 18 and makes their own decisions.


No, I don't think we're disagreeing here - I should have clarified. I was actually roughly equating cosmetic vaginoplasty with male circumcision - if the decisions were made by the adults themselves. However an adult wants to alter his or her genitals, fine, whatever. But I was talking about societal pressures connected with whittling on our genitalia, and the disparity in attitudes toward it.

They shouldn't cut on children, period.
 
2013-09-18 08:57:54 PM  

hardinparamedic: Also, how would I have any control over whether I was circumcised or not?


It is possible to be circumcised as an adult. Uncut converts to Judaism and Islam do it, or guys who have something wrong with the foreskin, or people who just like the look.

I don't feel bitter about my parents having my foreskin removed, it never stopped me from experiencing pleasure (and the Jewish chicks preferred it). Apparently in Baltimore in the early '60s it was routinely done. But it might have been more ethical to wait till I was older to decide for myself.

My father wasn't circumcised; it wasn't routine where he was born, I don't think he was born in a city. He said the doctor said it was a routine procedure and he said "Okay." His subservience to Authority Figures usually bugged me, except in this case: I never knew the difference and like I said it never stopped me from enjoying my penis.

I do prefer the circumcised look, but I don't think I would have decided to get it done until after I'd had my wisdom teeth slowly removed with pliers, a chisel and a butter knife (or so it felt).
 
2013-09-18 09:01:38 PM  

dbaggins: FunkOut: radarlove: All I need to know is that uncut cocks look disgusting and I would never stick one in my mouth.  Up my ass MAYBE, but only if I didn't see it beforehand.

Cut cocks, on the other hand, are sexy as hell.

Men's genitals are no good unless they have been surgically modified? Humans genetics says they're supposed to look a certain way.

human genes do a lot of things that we don't care for or are no longer biologically relevant.    At this point foreskin is vestigial.   You can take it or leave it, up to your style preferences.


With only about a hundred dead babies per year, in the U.S., from botched circumcision.

A small price to pay for style, I'm sure...
 
2013-09-18 09:04:47 PM  

weltallica: [m.memegen.com image 491x512]


le sorry for le meme, but it remains le true.


Le "Popular Opinion Bear" strikes again.
 
2013-09-18 09:12:44 PM  

PunGent: dbaggins: FunkOut: radarlove: All I need to know is that uncut cocks look disgusting and I would never stick one in my mouth.  Up my ass MAYBE, but only if I didn't see it beforehand.

Cut cocks, on the other hand, are sexy as hell.

Men's genitals are no good unless they have been surgically modified? Humans genetics says they're supposed to look a certain way.

human genes do a lot of things that we don't care for or are no longer biologically relevant.    At this point foreskin is vestigial.   You can take it or leave it, up to your style preferences.

With only about a hundred dead babies per year, in the U.S., from botched circumcision.

A small price to pay for style, I'm sure...



I'm curious about your source. A quick Google only turns up biased websites (the "Intaction" movement) and a mommy blog full of conjecture and "we think/can assume"
 
2013-09-18 09:17:03 PM  

eggrolls: 1) If you haven't got the testicular fortitude to make tough decisions for your kid, you probably shouldn't reproduce in the first place.

2) If my circumcised wang was any more effective at providing sexual pleasure, my first orgasm probably would have killed me.


THIS
 
2013-09-18 09:17:48 PM  

maelstrom0370: PunGent: dbaggins: FunkOut: radarlove: All I need to know is that uncut cocks look disgusting and I would never stick one in my mouth.  Up my ass MAYBE, but only if I didn't see it beforehand.

Cut cocks, on the other hand, are sexy as hell.

Men's genitals are no good unless they have been surgically modified? Humans genetics says they're supposed to look a certain way.

human genes do a lot of things that we don't care for or are no longer biologically relevant.    At this point foreskin is vestigial.   You can take it or leave it, up to your style preferences.

With only about a hundred dead babies per year, in the U.S., from botched circumcision.

A small price to pay for style, I'm sure...


I'm curious about your source. A quick Google only turns up biased websites (the "Intaction" movement) and a mommy blog full of conjecture and "we think/can assume"


There are a lot of conjecture websites. I don't know if I am considered reliable but I would be considered one of the few "unlucky" ones to put it lightly. But, when it comes to possible harm to human beings, I don't like being considered a number.

Unlike a lot of "intactivists," I have no desire to put some kind of federal law in place to ban circumcision, but instead I promote education of what it's like to live the sexual life I've got. I feel that's far more educational and productive than a lot of the conjectures and wildly confusing comparisons a lot of people are making.
 
2013-09-18 09:30:21 PM  
For the folks mentioning Africa:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlsUg0sdAtE

the South Africa study by the numbers:
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html

For those of you still arguing that MGM is a non issue because FGM exists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98f3IavuEgQ

For those of you saying the prepuce has no purpose, doesn't matter, or "funnels disease into your peehole" like one moron posted, watch this (medical-grade nsfw material) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_dzeDvx2QA


And before any of this information should come the staple pro-choice mantra: my body, my decision.
 
2013-09-18 09:31:21 PM  

Moonlightfox: For the folks mentioning Africa:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlsUg0sdAtE

the South Africa study by the numbers:
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html

For those of you still arguing that MGM is a non issue because FGM exists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98f3IavuEgQ

For those of you saying the prepuce has no purpose, doesn't matter, or "funnels disease into your peehole" like one moron posted, watch this (medical-grade nsfw material) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_dzeDvx2QA


And before any of this information should come the staple pro-choice mantra: my body, my decision.


Doesn't circumcision give people a false sense of protection and encourages to forego condoms?
 
2013-09-18 09:31:31 PM  
Two eight year old boys were in the hospital sharing a room.
First boy: What are you here for?
Second boy: Getting my tonsils out.
First boy: Oh, that's not so bad, I had that done...all the ice cream and hello you can eat!
Second boy: What are you here for?
First boy: Circumcision
Second boy: Holy shiat!!! I had that done when I was first born...couldn't walk for a year!!
 
2013-09-18 09:31:52 PM  
Summary of events in a Fark circumcision thread:

The normal uncircumcised male - "Well, I'm glad I'm not cut"
The normal circumcised male     - "Well, I'm glad I'm cut"
A normal woman                         - "I have a preference for this style, because I've been with guys that have it"

The circumcised with a sexual dysfunction - "It's because they mutilated my penis!"
A woman that's dated a guy with a sexual dysfunction - "It's because they mutilated his penis!"

The racist crazy - "it's a Jewish conspiracy, I don't want to be like those dirty <insert racial slur here>"
The pure crazy - "It's the same as cutting off his whole penis! just like with a women in Africa! How could you do this to a child with no choice! Here's some crazy websites, sign up for my 9/11 truth meeting while you're visiting."

The troll  - "I went on the pure crazy website and I'm going to use those stats as a basis for argument, also how could you to this to your kids!"
 
2013-09-18 09:42:22 PM  

super_grass: Doesn't circumcision give people a false sense of protection and encourages to forego condoms?


No, that's religion.
 
2013-09-18 09:42:33 PM  
I am not going into my thoughts on circumcision itself.

The point of the article is how the Internet gets flooded with false facts, exuberantly exaggerated stories, made up statistics, and fake counter-studies in order to add to the confusion. The Internet has made it so murky to find the truth and get legitimate questions to answers that it keeps fueling the debate.

Personally, I think the study needs to be done with more factors being considered to clarify once and for all whether it's really needed or not. I see both sides, and even have questions myself. It doesn't matter for me though as I had no choice as most men in the US, and I can't have kids of my own so it's not a decision I will ever have to make.
 
2013-09-18 09:54:32 PM  

Moonlightfox: "funnels disease into your peehole" like one moron posted


Aww, look, someone's mad. Normally I would just say my work here is done and move along, but I feel like I should point out that I was responding to that idiotic statement that circumcision is the equivalent of cutting off a baby's ears so they wouldn't have to wash behind them. I was f*cking with you intactivists while pointing out the stupidity of alt boy's claim.

I got a couple bites from it, so meh, it was semi successful. In the future, please feel free to get upset with anything I say. Your tears are delicious.
 
2013-09-18 09:56:00 PM  
Pretty simple, really.
They're white males doing it, so Slate and the ilk are going to be against it.
 
2013-09-18 10:10:04 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Circumcision is like cutting off a baby's ears so that it won't have to deal with the hassle of washing behind them later in life.


Personally I think any guy who calls circumcision "genital mutilation" or equates it to female genital mutilation ought to have their penis cut off of, as a way of helping them understand the difference.
 
2013-09-18 10:10:39 PM  

Moonlightfox: For those of you still arguing that MGM is a non issue because FGM exists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98f3IavuEgQ


No one in this post claimed "Male Genital Mutilation" isn't a thing. Or that it never happens in certain cultures. (Orthodox Judaism, for example)

What they did point out that NEITHER Male Genital Mutilation NOR Female Genital Mutilation is comparable to medical circumcision performed by a licensed physician in a medical facility in either motive or procedure.

pedobearapproved: Summary of events in a Fark circumcision thread:

The normal uncircumcised male - "Well, I'm glad I'm not cut"
The normal circumcised male     - "Well, I'm glad I'm cut"
A normal woman                         - "I have a preference for this style, because I've been with guys that have it"

The circumcised with a sexual dysfunction - "It's because they mutilated my penis!"
A woman that's dated a guy with a sexual dysfunction - "It's because they mutilated his penis!"

The racist crazy - "it's a Jewish conspiracy, I don't want to be like those dirty <insert racial slur here>"
The pure crazy - "It's the same as cutting off his whole penis! just like with a women in Africa! How could you do this to a child with no choice! Here's some crazy websites, sign up for my 9/11 truth meeting while you're visiting."

The troll  - "I went on the pure crazy website and I'm going to use those stats as a basis for argument, also how could you to this to your kids!"


images.wikia.com
 
2013-09-18 10:14:27 PM  

ciberido: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Circumcision is like cutting off a baby's ears so that it won't have to deal with the hassle of washing behind them later in life.

Personally I think any guy who calls circumcision "genital mutilation" or equates it to female genital mutilation ought to have their penis cut off of, as a way of helping them understand the difference.


That's an interesting philosophy. I hope you find someone in this thread who has done so.
 
2013-09-18 10:19:55 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: That's an interesting philosophy. I hope you find someone in this thread who has done so.


Is misread the earlier post's "or" for an "and," so I suppose I did call circumcision genital mutilation, but in no way equated it to female genital mutilation.
 
2013-09-18 10:31:01 PM  

hardinparamedic: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Do you disagree that genitals are involved or that circumcision "is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function" of the penis?

Is circumcision performed without the consent of the responsible parties, and done so against the will of the other person with the express intent of removing their ability to sexually perform and ensuring the person remains a virgin because sex before marriage quite possibly would kill that girl from infection and trauma?

I love first world arrogance and exceptionalism on this topic. "MY CIRCUMCISION AT BIRTH, WHICH I DON'T EVEN REMEMBER AND WAS DONE UNDER SEDATION BY A TRAINED SURGEON, UROLOGIST, OR PEDIATRICIAN IS  EXACTLY THE SAME  AS A PREPUBESCENT GIRL BEING HELD DOWN BY THE MEN IN HER FAMILY AND HAVING HER LABIA SLICED OFF, HER CLIT SCRAPED OUT, AND HER GENTIALS FUSED SHUT EXCEPT FOR A HOLE FOR HER TO URINATE AND MENSTRATE THROUGH, AND ON HER WEDDING NIGHT HAVING HER HUSBAND USE A POCKET KNIFE TO CUT HER SCAR OPEN SO HE CAN fark HER."

So yes. People who compare FGM with circumcision done by a medical provider are disingenious at best, and a prime example of first world privilege at worse.


technically, I think it's usually the women that do it to the girls, whatever difference that makes.

And you've irritated me in other threads, but you are beacon of sanity amongst lunatics here. Keep fighting the good fight for science vs woo.
 
2013-09-18 10:41:27 PM  

Jill'sNipple: They shouldn't cut on children, period.


buh.  mountain from mole hills.       I'm cut, so is my dad, grand dads weren't, most of my cousins are uncut.  Health-wise the extended family seems to come out a little easier with being cut from our small unscientific census.  So, my sisters had the kids circumcised.   The pediatrician in the bunch did the deeper literature dive and decided to do so as well with her boy.    The data is not really overwhelming unless you live in an HIV dense setting.

Contrary to most polemics, guys with foreskins do not have healthier cocks. Clinical data is gigantic on the topic.  Really.   stack up the column of morbidity for the two groups and it's in favor or circumcision. That includes the guys that have complications. Foreskin guys get complications as well.  Tight urethra affects both groups at about the same rate with different root pathology.

It seems condoms and foreskin are a tricky combo, and condoms are a fact of life for realistic sexual adults for the foreseeable future.   Of my uncut friends that can manage to talk about this kind of topic, 2 find ejaculation with a condom either impossible, or painful, the other 2 seem to have no issues at all.

Once you are monogamous and she enjoys your cock and you treat your pecker in a manner appropriate for cut or uncut the difference is negligible.   For that period(s) in a man's life where he is with new partners condoms are not optional.  Our genes, and "nature" could care less about condoms.  In fact, natural selection is actively hostile to safe sex.
 
2013-09-18 11:02:26 PM  

hardinparamedic: profplump: We don't give infants pain medication or heavy sedation, but since we have no way to measure pain objectively -- only by patient self-reporting -- that doesn't seem like a reliable statistic to compare between adults and infants.

What are you even talking about?

And yes, in a clinical in-patient setting, a person getting a circumcision as a neonate will get, at the very least, EMLA cream, and in an actual childrens hospital will get versed and Fentanyl.


Lolwut? As an actual RN in an actual NICU in an actual children's hospital, how full of shiat can one person possibly be? You truly think a newborn gets fentanyl and versed for a circumcision? Try 24 hours of Tylenol, some emla, and maybe a nerve block depending on the obstetrician.
 
2013-09-18 11:10:30 PM  
It's just like when we realized dirty hands were making us sick, we started cutting them off...
Or when dirty teeth were killing us... Pull 'em out!
 
2013-09-18 11:12:17 PM  

monstour: It's just like when we realized dirty hands were making us sick, we started cutting them off...
Or when dirty teeth were killing us... Pull 'em out!


Exaggerations like this get us nowhere.
 
2013-09-18 11:16:24 PM  

surrybee: Lolwut? As an actual RN in an actual NICU in an actual children's hospital, how full of shiat can one person possibly be? You truly think a newborn gets fentanyl and versed for a circumcision? Try 24 hours of Tylenol, some emla, and maybe a nerve block depending on the obstetrician.


And as someone who ALSO works in a Level 4 Surgical NICU which has urology and general surgery fellows performing circumcisions, they do get versed and fentanyl, per our facility's pain control policy for procedures.

Anyone outside of the neonatal period, per our facility policy, either ends up in a starlight room (semi-surgical area where conscious sedation procedures are performed) or in an OR.

Also, "actual RN"? I'm curious if you're pointing out your qualifications, or if you're trying to make a subtle insult there.
 
2013-09-18 11:18:24 PM  

MaestroJ: monstour: It's just like when we realized dirty hands were making us sick, we started cutting them off...
Or when dirty teeth were killing us... Pull 'em out!

Exaggerations like this get us nowhere.


sorry, i guess a know a few dudes who got cut later in life, and probably would have preferred having their teeth pulled...
 
2013-09-18 11:22:53 PM  

monstour: MaestroJ: monstour: It's just like when we realized dirty hands were making us sick, we started cutting them off...
Or when dirty teeth were killing us... Pull 'em out!

Exaggerations like this get us nowhere.

sorry, i guess a know a few dudes who got cut later in life, and probably would have preferred having their teeth pulled...


monstour: MaestroJ: monstour: It's just like when we realized dirty hands were making us sick, we started cutting them off...
Or when dirty teeth were killing us... Pull 'em out!

Exaggerations like this get us nowhere.

sorry, i guess a know a few dudes who got cut later in life, and probably would have preferred having their teeth pulled...


you know, instead of brushing them twice a day
 
2013-09-18 11:26:58 PM  
 
2013-09-18 11:28:17 PM  

hardinparamedic: surrybee: Lolwut? As an actual RN in an actual NICU in an actual children's hospital, how full of shiat can one person possibly be? You truly think a newborn gets fentanyl and versed for a circumcision? Try 24 hours of Tylenol, some emla, and maybe a nerve block depending on the obstetrician.

And as someone who ALSO works in a Level 4 Surgical NICU which has urology and general surgery fellows performing circumcisions, they do get versed and fentanyl, per our facility's pain control policy for procedures.

Anyone outside of the neonatal period, per our facility policy, either ends up in a starlight room (semi-surgical area where conscious sedation procedures are performed) or in an OR.

Also, "actual RN"? I'm curious if you're pointing out your qualifications, or if you're trying to make a subtle insult there.


Really? You give versed and fentanyl for circumcisions? So your non-nicu patients...they get this level of pain management as well? I truly find that hard to believe. If all your nicu patients get fentanyl and versed prior to circumcision, then congratulations on being far far ahead of the curve. The simple fact is that the vast majority of infants who are circumcised do not receive that kind of pain relief.
 
2013-09-18 11:30:13 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-09-18 11:40:05 PM  
Serious question:  is this like a truther thing?

One theory of 9/11 trutherism is that it attracts people because it's imitation activism:  it allows truthers to see themselves as serious freedom-fighting activist Rage Against The Machiners, but with the comfort of focusing on a compartmentalized issue that doesn't require them to volunteer at a soup kitchen or do anything other than Photoshop red arrows on JPEGs and label them "squibs."

Is this the same for the anti-circumcision crowd?  They can get pretty frothy and incensed about the issue, and even go so far as to organize a ballot initiative now and then, but in the end it's just this isolated thing they can say they stand for, without the emotional obligation of getting incensed about a real thing like poverty.
 
2013-09-18 11:42:33 PM  

surrybee: You give versed and fentanyl for circumcisions?


Our facility is attempting to attain magnet status, so they're pretty progressive and aggressive in their pain control protocols and policies, and much of the pain control policies and standing orders in place are Nurse and Mid-level driven. In NICU and PICU patients, their threshold to administer is pretty low since these patients have concurrent issues. (We don't do well babies/regular OB, period.)

Surgery has a policy that if they're getting a circ (we regularly see kids 2-3 years old who are getting them due to continual UTI or other issues), they do it in general surgery or starlight. They'll snow them, drop an LMA, and keep them snowed through the procedure.

EMLA, if USED CORRECTLY, can provide some pretty powerful pain control (I've seen ER fellows and attendings use it on I&Ds for cutaneous abscesses)

surrybee: The simple fact is that the vast majority of infants who are circumcised do not receive that kind of pain relief.


No, you're absolutely right. I'm sure as a NICU RN, you have the problem working with older neonatologists with the prevailing belief that premies/newborn infants don't feel pain. One of our sister facilities that handles the high risk OB/Delivery deals with this issue all the time - we will see patients on high frequency oscillatory ventilation who are taching away at 180/190 and the doctors still won't order pain control.

I personally think that if you're circumcising a newborn child, you should do so in a manner that the child feels absolutely nothing. It shouldn't be done at home, or in a pediatrician's office. (I've actually seen two patients almost die in the last four years from botched circumcisions and uncontrolled hemorrhage.)
 
2013-09-19 12:08:47 AM  

hardinparamedic: surrybee: You give versed and fentanyl for circumcisions?

Our facility is attempting to attain magnet status, so they're pretty progressive and aggressive in their pain control protocols and policies, and much of the pain control policies and standing orders in place are Nurse and Mid-level driven. In NICU and PICU patients, their threshold to administer is pretty low since these patients have concurrent issues. (We don't do well babies/regular OB, period.)

Surgery has a policy that if they're getting a circ (we regularly see kids 2-3 years old who are getting them due to continual UTI or other issues), they do it in general surgery or starlight. They'll snow them, drop an LMA, and keep them snowed through the procedure.

EMLA, if USED CORRECTLY, can provide some pretty powerful pain control (I've seen ER fellows and attendings use it on I&Ds for cutaneous abscesses)

surrybee: The simple fact is that the vast majority of infants who are circumcised do not receive that kind of pain relief.

No, you're absolutely right. I'm sure as a NICU RN, you have the problem working with older neonatologists with the prevailing belief that premies/newborn infants don't feel pain. One of our sister facilities that handles the high risk OB/Delivery deals with this issue all the time - we will see patients on high frequency oscillatory ventilation who are taching away at 180/190 and the doctors still won't order pain control.

I personally think that if you're circumcising a newborn child, you should do so in a manner that the child feels absolutely nothing. It shouldn't be done at home, or in a pediatrician's office. (I've actually seen two patients almost die in the last four years from botched circumcisions and uncontrolled hemorrhage.)


What my neonatologists do or don't believe about pain control is irrevelent (but your assumption is completely wrong). Our neonatologists aren't surgeons and don't perform circumcision.

Back on topic, how do you make a baby feel absolutely nothing? The procedure is painful. The recovery is painful. Unless you're going to snow a baby for a few days, it just can't be done.
 
2013-09-19 12:10:16 AM  
hardinparamedic: It shouldn't be done at home, or in a pediatrician's office. (I've actually seen two patients almost die in the last four years from botched circumcisions and uncontrolled hemorrhage.)

What's the general rule on hospitals and religious circumcisions?  Will they allow an outside mohel to perform one within a surgical area?  I've only ever been to one bris and it was in someone's home.

I'm pretty sure Manischewitz causes more pain than it blocks, though.  Seriously, why traumatize the kid twice?
 
2013-09-19 12:13:54 AM  

surrybee: how do you make a baby feel absolutely nothing?


By subjecting it to forty years of pointless, soul-crushing wage slavery in a world where out ideals consistently run contrary to our reality.

And booze.
 
2013-09-19 12:16:36 AM  

radarlove: surrybee: how do you make a baby feel absolutely nothing?

By subjecting it to forty years of pointless, soul-crushing wage slavery in a world where out ideals consistently run contrary to our reality.

And booze.


Well played.
 
2013-09-19 12:21:16 AM  

Xcott: Is this the same for the anti-circumcision crowd? They can get pretty frothy and incensed about the issue, and even go so far as to organize a ballot initiative now and then, but in the end it's just this isolated thing they can say they stand for, without the emotional obligation of getting incensed about a real thing like poverty.


I don't believe that a fertilized egg is a fully realized person, and as such I support the right of women to have abortions, but I understand the position of the pro-life crowd. They truly believe that any fertilized egg is now a new, functioning human being, and as such treat abortion as murder. They are incensed about a real, important thing in their minds: the murder of children. Poverty is a terrible thing, but they're thinking in terms of murder, which is a more important issue to them personally.

In the same way, anti-circumcision advocates tend to see circumcision as a mutilation of a child unable to give consent, done by parents for reasons that are ultimately unjustified or unwarranted. At best it is a meaningless exercise with relatively minor health improvements, and at worst causes lifelong medical issues. There is a real "emotional obligation" here. I don't think that parts of a child's anatomy should be amputated for aesthetic reasons or potential medical complications. I wouldn't clip the skin of a child's nose to potentially lessen the risk of prostate cancer. I wouldn't cut off a child's earlobes to potentially reduce its chance of heart disease. And I wouldn't permanently scar a baby's penis to potentially reduce its chance at contracting an STD.

It's a real thing to us. It's tantamount to child abuse. If you wait until the child is old enough to have an understanding of the risks and rewards inherent in the operation, by all means let that child make the decision for themselves. If you're a thirty year-old man who wants the procedure for whatever reason, knock yourself out. I just can't in good faith pretend to not be incensed that parents take amputation and mutilation of their children so casually and with so little respect for their child as its own individual, instead of their own property to do with as they want.
 
2013-09-19 12:37:25 AM  

Xcott: Serious question:  is this like a truther thing?

One theory of 9/11 trutherism is that it attracts people because it's imitation activism:  it allows truthers to see themselves as serious freedom-fighting activist Rage Against The Machiners, but with the comfort of focusing on a compartmentalized issue that doesn't require them to volunteer at a soup kitchen or do anything other than Photoshop red arrows on JPEGs and label them "squibs."

Is this the same for the anti-circumcision crowd?  They can get pretty frothy and incensed about the issue, and even go so far as to organize a ballot initiative now and then, but in the end it's just this isolated thing they can say they stand for, without the emotional obligation of getting incensed about a real thing like poverty.


Well, as you can see in the thread, it can stir emotions up. It got mine for a second on the previous page I'll admit. That is an interesting theory. Sometimes though, a legit cause doesn't necessarily call for marching or pouring money into something. Sometimes, all it takes is discussion and education.

Do I feel this is a legit cause? I do. I don't feel that trying to get something on a ballot will help it by any means, and as we've seen it just made people look insane (and really, I'll say openly that a large group on "my side" are out of their flippin' minds with the things they say).

I feel instead a story like mine is much more productive and educational than the sensationalism that people bring up. Reality's far more useful than the assumptions and characterizations people on both sides make. Half the time I see the stuff that the "intactivist" crowd says, I want to scream at them that they're not helping. But, that's not helped me really all that much. So, I just do my best to talk.

But I'll admit as the previous page shows, I have gotten worked up if it's more or less inferred that my story doesn't exist or doesn't matter.
 
2013-09-19 12:37:39 AM  
I haven't read all the comments, but has anyone yet pointed out that's it's not medically necessary? In fact if you have a boy, and you're on welfare they won't pay for it because it's an option, and not even recommended.
 
2013-09-19 12:52:58 AM  

haolegirl: I haven't read all the comments, but has anyone yet pointed out that's it's not medically necessary? In fact if you have a boy, and you're on welfare they won't pay for it because it's an option, and not even recommended.


It just clicked for me why there are so many uncut black guys...
 
2013-09-19 12:53:50 AM  
Why do people keep comparing the most invasive type of female circumcision with the least invasive type of male circumcision?

Yall do realize there's more than one type of both male and female circumcision, right?
 
2013-09-19 01:02:46 AM  

haolegirl: I haven't read all the comments, but has anyone yet pointed out that's it's not medically necessary? In fact if you have a boy, and you're on welfare they won't pay for it because it's an option, and not even recommended.


Actually, a large part of the problem in the USA is that Medicare pays for infant circumcision in 32 states. Back when the program was started, it was all 50. Although Medicaid wasn't meant to pay for unnecessary procedures, nobody seemed to get the memo on this one.

Insurance coverage  for circumcision was dropped from California's policy about 30 years ago, a few more in the 90s, and about a dozen since the turn of the century. In these states, nowadays doctors just get away with soliciting more money from expectant parents to circumcise the kid, and can then sometimes further profit by selling the discarded foreskins to tissue banks.
 
2013-09-19 01:03:24 AM  
Ah, fark, I meant Medicaid.
 
2013-09-19 01:07:33 AM  
No way did we have our son circ'd when he was a baby. No religious reason to, and I didn't want him in pain. I also don't find uncircumcised penises to be  aesthetically less attractive than cut, even though his dad is cut.  Instead, over time, we taught him to be clean and use condoms. He's grown now, and if he ever wants to get circumcised, he can make the choice himself. He's never intimated that he wants to have it done, but it should be a personal, adult decision. Easy-peasy.

/2 cents
 
2013-09-19 01:10:17 AM  

surrybee: hardinparamedic: surrybee: You give versed and fentanyl for circumcisions?

Our facility is attempting to attain magnet status, so they're pretty progressive and aggressive in their pain control protocols and policies, and much of the pain control policies and standing orders in place are Nurse and Mid-level driven. In NICU and PICU patients, their threshold to administer is pretty low since these patients have concurrent issues. (We don't do well babies/regular OB, period.)

Surgery has a policy that if they're getting a circ (we regularly see kids 2-3 years old who are getting them due to continual UTI or other issues), they do it in general surgery or starlight. They'll snow them, drop an LMA, and keep them snowed through the procedure.

EMLA, if USED CORRECTLY, can provide some pretty powerful pain control (I've seen ER fellows and attendings use it on I&Ds for cutaneous abscesses)

surrybee: The simple fact is that the vast majority of infants who are circumcised do not receive that kind of pain relief.

No, you're absolutely right. I'm sure as a NICU RN, you have the problem working with older neonatologists with the prevailing belief that premies/newborn infants don't feel pain. One of our sister facilities that handles the high risk OB/Delivery deals with this issue all the time - we will see patients on high frequency oscillatory ventilation who are taching away at 180/190 and the doctors still won't order pain control.

I personally think that if you're circumcising a newborn child, you should do so in a manner that the child feels absolutely nothing. It shouldn't be done at home, or in a pediatrician's office. (I've actually seen two patients almost die in the last four years from botched circumcisions and uncontrolled hemorrhage.)

What my neonatologists do or don't believe about pain control is irrevelent (but your assumption is completely wrong). Our neonatologists aren't surgeons and don't perform circumcision.

Back on topic, how do you make a baby f ...


OK, so I just started at the end and am reading backward through the comments here, so I may be missing something. How is it you two are able to objectively discuss an act of unnecessary surgery on a patient?
 
2013-09-19 01:15:10 AM  
Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque:
In the same way, anti-circumcision advocates tend to see circumcision as a mutilation of a child unable to give consent, done by parents for reasons that are ultimately unjustified or unwarranted. At best it is a meaningless exercise with relatively minor health improvements, and at worst causes lifelong medical issues. There is a real "emotional obligation" here. I don't think that parts of a child's anatomy should be amputated for aesthetic reasons or potential medical complications. I wouldn't clip the skin of a child's nose to potentially lessen the risk of prostate cancer. I wouldn't cut off a child's earlobes to potentially reduce its chance of heart disease. And I wouldn't permanently scar a baby's penis to potentially reduce its chance at contracting an STD.

It's a real thing to us. It's tantamount to child abuse. If you wait until the child is old enough to have an understanding of the risks and rewards inherent in the operation, by all means let that child make the decision for themselves. If you're a thirty year-old man who wants the procedure for whatever reason, knock yourself out. I just can't in good faith pretend ...


I understand your point of view, but tell us how you feel about things like this:

i.imgur.com
or this:
i.imgur.com
or this:
i.imgur.com

or ear/lip stretching in Africa, and so on?

Granted many of those start at around 4 or 5 years old, may involve less (or greater) pain and some involve gradual changes; but children that age are no more capable of real informed consent than a baby, in fact they can say 'no' but are still put through the procedures. And except for the ear piercing these are far more 'mutilating' than circumcision, which in the vast majority of cases causes no dysfunction. (Some have told me it improves function, if you know what I mean, but that is of course anecdotal evidence)

Because obviously you're more qualified to make decisions for other children's parents than they are.
 
2013-09-19 01:16:30 AM  

cyberspacedout: haolegirl: I haven't read all the comments, but has anyone yet pointed out that's it's not medically necessary? In fact if you have a boy, and you're on welfare they won't pay for it because it's an option, and not even recommended.

Actually, a large part of the problem in the USA is that Medicare pays for infant circumcision in 32 states. Back when the program was started, it was all 50. Although Medicaid wasn't meant to pay for unnecessary procedures, nobody seemed to get the memo on this one.

Insurance coverage  for circumcision was dropped from California's policy about 30 years ago, a few more in the 90s, and about a dozen since the turn of the century. In these states, nowadays doctors just get away with soliciting more money from expectant parents to circumcise the kid, and can then sometimes further profit by selling the discarded foreskins to tissue banks.


This was were i was going with that thought. It's nothing but a money making scheme within the medical community, and it's been prevalent for so long that people believe it's for the good of the baby. If you have a baby girl, as you potty train her you teach her the proper way to wipe. If you have a boy, let him decide on cosmetic surgery for his penis and in the meantime, teach him proper hygiene.

Having said that...I would imagine little boys with circumcised dads would wonder why they look different.
 
2013-09-19 01:37:16 AM  

haolegirl: Having said that...I would imagine little boys with circumcised dads would wonder why they look different.


It's more that a father might be concerned or even jealous that his own penis is different from his son's. I've met a few fathers who had looked into foreskin restoration for this very reason.
 
2013-09-19 01:41:22 AM  

hardinparamedic: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Circumcision is like cutting off a baby's ears so that it won't have to deal with the hassle of washing behind them later in life.

Yeah, no. No it's not. It's not quite as simple as you make it out to be.

As long as male circumcision is done in a manner that is humane and safe, such as under sedation or general anesthesia, I really don't have a problem with it. It should be the parents personal choice.


Actually, it should be the child's choice, like getting a tat or piercing or other body modifications at 18. You want to clip your junk at 18, sign the waiver and hack away with my blessing.

But infants aren't capable of consent, and their parents are their stewards, not their owners.
 
2013-09-19 02:14:35 AM  

cyberspacedout: haolegirl: Having said that...I would imagine little boys with circumcised dads would wonder why they look different.

It's more that a father might be concerned or even jealous that his own penis is different from his son's. I've met a few fathers who had looked into foreskin restoration for this very reason.


Really? I know it can be done with some success, but I never would have thought this would be an issue father/son.
 
2013-09-19 03:33:48 AM  

Danger Avoid Death: FTFA: The Internet is supposed to be a marketplace of ideas, where human reason leads the best ideas to triumph.

Bwaaaaaaahaaaaaaahaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaa!!!  Oh ... *gasp* ... oh, my sides are aching! Great comedic find, subby!


I'm beginning to think he's serious....
 
2013-09-19 03:39:12 AM  

ciberido: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Circumcision is like cutting off a baby's ears so that it won't have to deal with the hassle of washing behind them later in life.

Personally I think any guy who calls circumcision "genital mutilation" or equates it to female genital mutilation ought to have their penis cut off of, as a way of helping them understand the difference.


Of course you do.
 
2013-09-19 03:41:42 AM  

haolegirl: cyberspacedout: haolegirl: Having said that...I would imagine little boys with circumcised dads would wonder why they look different.

It's more that a father might be concerned or even jealous that his own penis is different from his son's. I've met a few fathers who had looked into foreskin restoration for this very reason.

Really? I know it can be done with some success, but I never would have thought this would be an issue father/son.


Well, you were asking if the kid would be self-conscious about the difference from his father. If anything, it's sometimes the other way around, which makes a bit more sense when you think about it. I would presume that most children don't care about the appearance of their parents' genitalia.

And foreskin restoration can be done with a good deal of success; it's just not exactly something you hear much about in public conversation.
 
2013-09-19 04:20:40 AM  

cyberspacedout: haolegirl: cyberspacedout: haolegirl: Having said that...I would imagine little boys with circumcised dads would wonder why they look different.

It's more that a father might be concerned or even jealous that his own penis is different from his son's. I've met a few fathers who had looked into foreskin restoration for this very reason.

Really? I know it can be done with some success, but I never would have thought this would be an issue father/son.

Well, you were asking if the kid would be self-conscious about the difference from his father. If anything, it's sometimes the other way around, which makes a bit more sense when you think about it. I would presume that most children don't care about the appearance of their parents' genitalia.

And foreskin restoration can be done with a good deal of success; it's just not exactly something you hear much about in public conversation.


Lol, good thing for Fark! And idk...i only have girls, but the little bit of potty training experience I have with boys was always "send him with dad", I ASSuMEd boys would look and wonder why they look different from dad (again I assumed dad would already know why)
 
2013-09-19 07:24:53 AM  

cyberspacedout: surrybee: hardinparamedic: surrybee: You give versed and fentanyl for circumcisions?

Our facility is attempting to attain magnet status, so they're pretty progressive and aggressive in their pain control protocols and policies, and much of the pain control policies and standing orders in place are Nurse and Mid-level driven. In NICU and PICU patients, their threshold to administer is pretty low since these patients have concurrent issues. (We don't do well babies/regular OB, period.)

Surgery has a policy that if they're getting a circ (we regularly see kids 2-3 years old who are getting them due to continual UTI or other issues), they do it in general surgery or starlight. They'll snow them, drop an LMA, and keep them snowed through the procedure.

EMLA, if USED CORRECTLY, can provide some pretty powerful pain control (I've seen ER fellows and attendings use it on I&Ds for cutaneous abscesses)

surrybee: The simple fact is that the vast majority of infants who are circumcised do not receive that kind of pain relief.

No, you're absolutely right. I'm sure as a NICU RN, you have the problem working with older neonatologists with the prevailing belief that premies/newborn infants don't feel pain. One of our sister facilities that handles the high risk OB/Delivery deals with this issue all the time - we will see patients on high frequency oscillatory ventilation who are taching away at 180/190 and the doctors still won't order pain control.

I personally think that if you're circumcising a newborn child, you should do so in a manner that the child feels absolutely nothing. It shouldn't be done at home, or in a pediatrician's office. (I've actually seen two patients almost die in the last four years from botched circumcisions and uncontrolled hemorrhage.)

What my neonatologists do or don't believe about pain control is irrevelent (but your assumption is completely wrong). Our neonatologists aren't surgeons and don't perform circumcision.

Back on topic, how do you mak ...

 
2013-09-19 07:33:09 AM  
cyberspacedout:
OK, so I just started at the end and am reading backward through the comments here, so I may be missing something. How is it you two are able to objectively discuss an act of unnecessary surgery on a patient?

You should start at the beginning and work your way to the end. Short version: I'm a NICU nurse. I'm 100% opposed to circumcision. I refuse to assist with the procedure. Hardinparamedic here has spent the thread spewing pro-circ nonsense. He got to a particular doozy (suggesting infants are given adequate pain control) and I responded. He responded to me with a giant off topic wall, I responded briefly addressing only the topic at hand.

Staying civil is a better way to get your point across than angry hyperbole and personal attacks, so I stay civil.
 
hej
2013-09-19 07:40:26 AM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Circumcision is like cutting off a baby's ears so that it won't have to deal with the hassle of washing behind them later in life.


It's more like when my parents had my tonsils removed.
 
2013-09-19 07:45:17 AM  

surrybee: You should start at the beginning and work your way to the end. Short version: I'm a NICU nurse. I'm 100% opposed to circumcision. I refuse to assist with the procedure. Hardinparamedic here has spent the thread spewing pro-circ nonsense. He got to a particular doozy (suggesting infants are given adequate pain control) and I responded. He responded to me with a giant off topic wall, I responded briefly addressing only the topic at hand.

Staying civil is a better way to get your point across than angry hyperbole and personal attacks, so I stay civil.


applause.gif
 
2013-09-19 07:55:01 AM  

super_grass: profplump: hardinparamedic: It should be the parents personal choice.

Is there some reason it can't be the post-pubecent male's own choice? Exactly what 7-year-olds need protection from STDs?

That argument always intrigued me. Foreskins are about as useful as abstinence or pulling out.


And yet, the statistics claim otherwise. This is one of those Freakonomics-level things, where as far as we can tell, there should be no difference: no mechanism to make any kind of difference. But the numbers persist.
 
2013-09-19 08:39:22 AM  

Millennium: super_grass: profplump: hardinparamedic: It should be the parents personal choice.

Is there some reason it can't be the post-pubecent male's own choice? Exactly what 7-year-olds need protection from STDs?

That argument always intrigued me. Foreskins are about as useful as abstinence or pulling out.

And yet, the statistics claim otherwise. This is one of those Freakonomics-level things, where as far as we can tell, there should be no difference: no mechanism to make any kind of difference. But the numbers persist.


Nobody ever mentions the culture of adult men who choose to get circumsized in developing African countries versus ones that don't get circumsized.
 
2013-09-19 09:48:50 AM  

Shakin_Haitian: Millennium: super_grass: profplump: hardinparamedic: It should be the parents personal choice.

Is there some reason it can't be the post-pubecent male's own choice? Exactly what 7-year-olds need protection from STDs?

That argument always intrigued me. Foreskins are about as useful as abstinence or pulling out.

And yet, the statistics claim otherwise. This is one of those Freakonomics-level things, where as far as we can tell, there should be no difference: no mechanism to make any kind of difference. But the numbers persist.

Nobody ever mentions the culture of adult men who choose to get circumsized in developing African countries versus ones that don't get circumsized.


Controlling for cultural differences removes some of the difference, it is true. But even when you control for those behaviors, a significant correlation remains. No one yet knows why.
 
2013-09-19 11:07:26 AM  

Moonlightfox: For the folks mentioning Africa:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlsUg0sdAtE

the South Africa study by the numbers:
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html

For those of you still arguing that MGM is a non issue because FGM exists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98f3IavuEgQ

For those of you saying the prepuce has no purpose, doesn't matter, or "funnels disease into your peehole" like one moron posted, watch this (medical-grade nsfw material) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_dzeDvx2QA


And before any of this information should come the staple pro-choice mantra: my body, my decision.


hardinparamedicgives peer-reviewed study after peer-reviewed study. You give . . . three youtube videos and a site that presents no evidence of its own, just a poor critique of an actual, case-control, randomized study. The site's main critique seems to be that the people in the study were not a random sample of the population. At worst, if this were true, then this would mean that male circumcision was effective among a subset of the population. It would not necessarily imply that it was ineffective among the rest of the population.

What actual information are you planning to provide parents facing this choice? I'm talking peer-reviewed journal articles, not blogs or youtube videos.
 
2013-09-19 11:17:44 AM  

surrybee: cyberspacedout:
OK, so I just started at the end and am reading backward through the comments here, so I may be missing something. How is it you two are able to objectively discuss an act of unnecessary surgery on a patient?

You should start at the beginning and work your way to the end. Short version: I'm a NICU nurse. I'm 100% opposed to circumcision. I refuse to assist with the procedure. Hardinparamedic here has spent the thread spewing pro-circ nonsense. He got to a particular doozy (suggesting infants are given adequate pain control) and I responded. He responded to me with a giant off topic wall, I responded briefly addressing only the topic at hand.

Staying civil is a better way to get your point across than angry hyperbole and personal attacks, so I stay civil.


Thanks for your posts, by the way. It's interesting hearing the differences in practice from hospital to hospital.

But I think I'll defend Hardinparamedic a bit. He/she has not spent the thread spewing pro-circ nonsense." He/she has spent the thread linking to peer-review studies indicating the benefits of circumcision (lowered risks of STDs), the fact that uncircumsized boys and have problems with their foreskins (1/3, IIRC). The closest he/she has come to a rant was about someone who clearly tried to lump male circumcision with FGM.

Would you have any anti-circumcision peer-reviewed studies to cite? Or can you provide more information about why you are 100% opposed to circumcision (I'm assuming you mean infant circumcision without any clear medical indication, of course)?
 
2013-09-19 11:21:55 AM  

maelstrom0370: PunGent: dbaggins: FunkOut: radarlove: All I need to know is that uncut cocks look disgusting and I would never stick one in my mouth.  Up my ass MAYBE, but only if I didn't see it beforehand.

Cut cocks, on the other hand, are sexy as hell.

Men's genitals are no good unless they have been surgically modified? Humans genetics says they're supposed to look a certain way.

human genes do a lot of things that we don't care for or are no longer biologically relevant.    At this point foreskin is vestigial.   You can take it or leave it, up to your style preferences.

With only about a hundred dead babies per year, in the U.S., from botched circumcision.

A small price to pay for style, I'm sure...


I'm curious about your source. A quick Google only turns up biased websites (the "Intaction" movement) and a mommy blog full of conjecture and "we think/can assume"


http://www.mensstudies.com/content/b64n267w47m333x0/?p=886c0b2db93c4 62 0a7ac9ea4cc58ae3e&pi=5
 
2013-09-19 11:22:42 AM  
If it's good enough for Ronald Reagan, it's good enough for me.
 
2013-09-19 11:24:18 AM  

surrybee: cyberspacedout:
OK, so I just started at the end and am reading backward through the comments here, so I may be missing something. How is it you two are able to objectively discuss an act of unnecessary surgery on a patient?

You should start at the beginning and work your way to the end. Short version: I'm a NICU nurse. I'm 100% opposed to circumcision. I refuse to assist with the procedure. Hardinparamedic here has spent the thread spewing pro-circ nonsense. He got to a particular doozy (suggesting infants are given adequate pain control) and I responded. He responded to me with a giant off topic wall, I responded briefly addressing only the topic at hand.

Staying civil is a better way to get your point across than angry hyperbole and personal attacks, so I stay civil.



Actually, he responded to you quite eloquently. Earlier upthread, you pointed out that you were an "actual RN", suggesting he was talking out of his ass, and he responded by pointing out he was also an RN. A NICU RN, to be exact. Then, when that failed, you scoffed at the idea that his hospital provided pain meds for infants. He provided the necessary information to back up his claim. I'm not sure where you see this as off topic, but good on you for being FARK obteuse!
It's great that you're anti-circ, just as it's fine that others are pro-circ. From this thread alone, it seems there's as many medical pros/cons for one as there are the other.
Also, equating the safe and surgical (in this case, "surgical" is meant to imply by a professional in a safe, sterile environment) removal of a vestigal piece of skin to mutilation of any sort is just hyperbolic and histrionic.
 
2013-09-19 11:25:28 AM  

Argyle82: gingerjet: HotWingConspiracy: Argyle82: NEPAman: The author sounds circumcised.

This.

Keep defending your parents archaic decision when you were born, author.  Whatever helps you sleep at night, buddy.

Why is it so hard for you foreskinists to accept that people really don't give a fark?

I've found that those that obsess over this issue typically have other problems and are just looking for something to blame it on.

/and anyone who calls circumcision "mutilation" is simply not someone you can have a rational discussion with

I can't think of a better word to use than 'mutilation' when it comes to cutting off parts of a human's body for no other reason than the Jews did it thousands of years ago to keep sand out of it....


I don't agree with much of what those ancient monotheistic inbreds did, but having had this happen...I can see their point.
 
2013-09-19 11:25:43 AM  

dbaggins: Jill'sNipple: They shouldn't cut on children, period.

buh.  mountain from mole hills.       I'm cut, so is my dad, grand dads weren't, most of my cousins are uncut.  Health-wise the extended family seems to come out a little easier with being cut from our small unscientific census.  So, my sisters had the kids circumcised.   The pediatrician in the bunch did the deeper literature dive and decided to do so as well with her boy.    The data is not really overwhelming unless you live in an HIV dense setting.

Contrary to most polemics, guys with foreskins do not have healthier cocks. Clinical data is gigantic on the topic.  Really.   stack up the column of morbidity for the two groups and it's in favor or circumcision. That includes the guys that have complications. Foreskin guys get complications as well.  Tight urethra affects both groups at about the same rate with different root pathology.


You mean the clinical data where doctors aren't required to report the babies they kill with botched circumcisions?
Might want to revisit that decision for any future boy children...just saying.

http://www.mensstudies.com/content/b64n267w47m333x0/?p=886c0b2db93c4 62 0a7ac9ea4cc58ae3e&pi=5
 
2013-09-19 11:26:53 AM  

draypresct: surrybee: cyberspacedout:
OK, so I just started at the end and am reading backward through the comments here, so I may be missing something. How is it you two are able to objectively discuss an act of unnecessary surgery on a patient?

You should start at the beginning and work your way to the end. Short version: I'm a NICU nurse. I'm 100% opposed to circumcision. I refuse to assist with the procedure. Hardinparamedic here has spent the thread spewing pro-circ nonsense. He got to a particular doozy (suggesting infants are given adequate pain control) and I responded. He responded to me with a giant off topic wall, I responded briefly addressing only the topic at hand.

Staying civil is a better way to get your point across than angry hyperbole and personal attacks, so I stay civil.

Thanks for your posts, by the way. It's interesting hearing the differences in practice from hospital to hospital.

But I think I'll defend Hardinparamedic a bit. He/she has not spent the thread spewing pro-circ nonsense." He/she has spent the thread linking to peer-review studies indicating the benefits of circumcision (lowered risks of STDs), the fact that uncircumsized boys and have problems with their foreskins (1/3, IIRC). The closest he/she has come to a rant was about someone who clearly tried to lump male circumcision with FGM.

Would you have any anti-circumcision peer-reviewed studies to cite? Or can you provide more information about why you are 100% opposed to circumcision (I'm assuming you mean infant circumcision without any clear medical indication, of course)?


Best I could find:  http://www.mensstudies.com/content/b64n267w47m333x0/?p=886c0b2db93c46 2 0a7ac9ea4cc58ae3e&pi=5

I'll have to dig into the methodology a bit, if I get time later.
 
2013-09-19 11:27:36 AM  

PunGent: maelstrom0370: PunGent: dbaggins: FunkOut: radarlove: All I need to know is that uncut cocks look disgusting and I would never stick one in my mouth.  Up my ass MAYBE, but only if I didn't see it beforehand.

Cut cocks, on the other hand, are sexy as hell.

Men's genitals are no good unless they have been surgically modified? Humans genetics says they're supposed to look a certain way.

human genes do a lot of things that we don't care for or are no longer biologically relevant.    At this point foreskin is vestigial.   You can take it or leave it, up to your style preferences.

With only about a hundred dead babies per year, in the U.S., from botched circumcision.

A small price to pay for style, I'm sure...


I'm curious about your source. A quick Google only turns up biased websites (the "Intaction" movement) and a mommy blog full of conjecture and "we think/can assume"

http://www.mensstudies.com/content/b64n267w47m333x0/?p=886c0b2db93c4 62 0a7ac9ea4cc58ae3e&pi=5



FTFA: Circumcision-related mortality rates are not known with certainty; this study estimates the scale of this problem

Gotcha! So you had no more luck than I did in finding actual numbers. Thanks! Just checking :)
 
2013-09-19 11:54:10 AM  

maelstrom0370: he responded by pointing out he was also an RN. A NICU RN, to be exact


Critical Care Paramedic for a NICU transport team. I'm in RN school for my Paramedic to BSN bridge.

I just want to point that out so no one can say I'm falsifying qualifications.

But thank you for saying that.
 
2013-09-19 12:00:35 PM  
I think the hardest part for this group to accept is that their life sucks because they suck, not because they were circumsized.   How nice it would be if we could forever blame everything on our parents and not take responsibility.
 
2013-09-19 12:01:08 PM  
draypresct: The closest he/she has come to a rant was about someone who clearly tried to lump male circumcision with FGM.

I believe you are talking about me and a post I made where I specifically said "not the exact same" and "entirely different." If you aren't talking about me, please show me who lumped them together. So far as I can see, no one has done so in this thread.

Simply calling it what it is (genital mutilation, as severing a part of someone's body IS mutilation just as the foreskin is a part of your genitals) doesn't mean we're equating the severity of the two practises, kind of like how an aircraft carrier and a tricycle can both be called vehicles, despite not being the same.

Circumcision fits the literal definition of the term "genital mutilation" whether you want it to or not. You don't get to claim monopoly over words that accurately describe practises of differing cruelty/ severity.

Littering and rape can both be called "unlawful" accurately. It's not a zero sum game.
 
2013-09-19 12:10:36 PM  

PunGent: Would you have any anti-circumcision peer-reviewed studies to cite? Or can you provide more information about why you are 100% opposed to circumcision (I'm assuming you mean infant circumcision without any clear medical indication, of course)?

Best I could find: http://www.mensstudies.com/content/b64n267w47m333x0/?p=886c0b2db93c46 2 0a7ac9ea4cc58ae3e&pi=5

I'll have to dig into the methodology a bit, if I get time later.



That's an interesting source (Thymos - Journal of Boyhood Studies, published by Men's Studies Press). I had never heard of it before.

Founded in 1992, the Men's Studies Press (MSP) is a small independent publisher dedicated to the dissemination and promotion of men's studies scholars' work.

"THYMOS is committed to being international in scope and will solicit manuscripts from a variety of disciplines, including sociology, developmental psychology, sexology, psychoanalytic studies, ethnography and ethnology, history and historiography, cultural studies, literature, philosophy, pedagogy, and clinical and community health-care practice."



That's an interesting range of topics for one journal to publish in. They must be well-funded to keep editors on staff with expertise in so many unrelated areas.

I don't have an account with them, and I'm not really willing to spend $15 on this - when you do look into the methodology, could you post a few of the relevant paragraphs? What data source, how did they determine that circumcision was the cause of death, funding source(s)?
 
2013-09-19 12:23:06 PM  

Fafai: Simply calling it what it is (genital mutilation, as severing a part of someone's body IS mutilation just as the foreskin is a part of your genitals) doesn't mean we're equating the severity of the two practises, kind of like how an aircraft carrier and a tricycle can both be called vehicles, despite not being the same.


Out of curiosity (not meant to pick any kind of fight, really), do you refer to ALL procedures where some part of the human body is removed as "mutilation" in general conversation?  Like, appendectomies, amputations, etc?  I mean, I don't, but I guess they'd qualify and I'm wondering if you use the term universally or just for select things.
 
2013-09-19 12:29:29 PM  

Relatively Obscure: Fafai: Simply calling it what it is (genital mutilation, as severing a part of someone's body IS mutilation just as the foreskin is a part of your genitals) doesn't mean we're equating the severity of the two practises, kind of like how an aircraft carrier and a tricycle can both be called vehicles, despite not being the same.

Out of curiosity (not meant to pick any kind of fight, really), do you refer to ALL procedures where some part of the human body is removed as "mutilation" in general conversation?  Like, appendectomies, amputations, etc?  I mean, I don't, but I guess they'd qualify and I'm wondering if you use the term universally or just for select things.


I use it for procedures that are done unnecessarily against the participant's will.
 
2013-09-19 12:34:36 PM  
I always go back to this hypothetical but I never get a response:

Let's say doctors figured out a way to remove your wisdom teeth soon after birth.  It required a small incision that would heal within a week.  Get the procedure done and your child will never have to worry about compacted or shifting teeth caused by their wisdom teeth.

Or let's say your child was born with an extra non-working finger and doctors wanted to remove it while your child was an infant so that it would heal and look normal.  Ahhh!  Manus Mutilation!  (really?...)

What parent in their right mind wouldn't have this done?

The foreskin is about as useful to the modern human body as wisdom teeth and appendixes.  Their potential cause for issue outweighs their usefulness.  I had my boy snipped and I now no longer have to worry about his penile health. I'm a parent.  I've got enough to worry about.  That's just one less thing.
 
2013-09-19 12:44:34 PM  

Fafai: Relatively Obscure: Fafai: Simply calling it what it is (genital mutilation, as severing a part of someone's body IS mutilation just as the foreskin is a part of your genitals) doesn't mean we're equating the severity of the two practises, kind of like how an aircraft carrier and a tricycle can both be called vehicles, despite not being the same.

Out of curiosity (not meant to pick any kind of fight, really), do you refer to ALL procedures where some part of the human body is removed as "mutilation" in general conversation?  Like, appendectomies, amputations, etc?  I mean, I don't, but I guess they'd qualify and I'm wondering if you use the term universally or just for select things.

I use it for procedures that are done unnecessarily against the participant's will.


Well, as has been posted, there are medical benefits, so circumcision is neither unnecessary or necessary, it is a benficial option. So by your definition, not mutilation. Thanks!
 
2013-09-19 12:45:03 PM  

Relatively Obscure: Out of curiosity (not meant to pick any kind of fight, really), do you refer to ALL procedures where some part of the human body is removed as "mutilation" in general conversation? Like, appendectomies, amputations, etc?


Actually, the anti-circumcision crowd occasionally refers to circumcision as an "amputation."

Maybe they all had prehensile foreskins.  I hear that Lord Nelson lost his foreskin in the Battle of Trafalgar.
 
2013-09-19 12:46:08 PM  

PunGent: Best I could find: http://www.mensstudies.com/content/b64n267w47m333x0/?p=886c0b2db93c46 2 0a7ac9ea4cc58ae3e&pi=5

I'll have to dig into the methodology a bit, if I get time later.


Whoa there, pardner:  there's a mensstudies.com?
 
2013-09-19 12:49:15 PM  

Fafai: Relatively Obscure: Fafai: Simply calling it what it is (genital mutilation, as severing a part of someone's body IS mutilation just as the foreskin is a part of your genitals) doesn't mean we're equating the severity of the two practises, kind of like how an aircraft carrier and a tricycle can both be called vehicles, despite not being the same.

Out of curiosity (not meant to pick any kind of fight, really), do you refer to ALL procedures where some part of the human body is removed as "mutilation" in general conversation?  Like, appendectomies, amputations, etc?  I mean, I don't, but I guess they'd qualify and I'm wondering if you use the term universally or just for select things.

I use it for procedures that are done unnecessarily against the participant's will.


And you know this how? I mean, we've broken down into semantics here. Why assume you know the will of a newborn any more than the pro-circ crowd? We had our son's tonsils and adenoids out two years ago when he was 5. He didn't really get a vote in that. Nothing life-threatening, really. He'd had a couple bouts of strep and the doctor suggested it. According to what we read, he could have just as easily grown up fine and dandy with them but we thought why bother putting him through strep over and over. Not that that was a given either but it was a possibility. I suppose we could have waited until he was older and let him decide, but we figured, as his parents, we know what's best for him right now. (That whole "We're 100% responsible for his care and well-being for the next 11 years, at least" thing)
I know it's fun to use the word "mutilation" as it makes a mundane practice seem so brutal, violent and horrific. It's a cheap scare tactic, but, whatevs, yo!
"Meat is Murder!"
"Abortion is Murder!"
"Circumcision is Mutilation!"
I guess it looks good on a sign.
 
2013-09-19 12:54:59 PM  

hardinparamedic: maelstrom0370: he responded by pointing out he was also an RN. A NICU RN, to be exact

Critical Care Paramedic for a NICU transport team. I'm in RN school for my Paramedic to BSN bridge.

I just want to point that out so no one can say I'm falsifying qualifications.

But thank you for saying that.



Sorry, should have scolled further back before posting. I'm a Banquet Manager, though (the guy who makes sure your neice's wedding reception goes off without a hitch) so you coulda been a brain surgeon for all I know :)
 
2013-09-19 01:06:36 PM  

Fafai: Relatively Obscure: Fafai: Simply calling it what it is (genital mutilation, as severing a part of someone's body IS mutilation just as the foreskin is a part of your genitals) doesn't mean we're equating the severity of the two practises, kind of like how an aircraft carrier and a tricycle can both be called vehicles, despite not being the same.

Out of curiosity (not meant to pick any kind of fight, really), do you refer to ALL procedures where some part of the human body is removed as "mutilation" in general conversation?  Like, appendectomies, amputations, etc?  I mean, I don't, but I guess they'd qualify and I'm wondering if you use the term universally or just for select things.

I use it for procedures that are done unnecessarily against the participant's will.


Okay, but is any of that part of the "literal definition" that was seemingly being discussed?  What about self-mutilation?
 
2013-09-19 01:07:53 PM  
Anyway, no matter.  I think it's nap time for me.  I was just curious why the term seems to be used here because it's "literally" true and not for other areas where it's "literally" true.
 
2013-09-19 01:08:16 PM  
How do we truly know a baby doesn't WANT a blade taken to its dick? Considering this, the only sensible answer is to cut its dick with a blade.

Preventing the chances of a baby from contracting STIs is unecessary, unless you plan on pimping him out to his pedophile uncle.

As for other risks, circumcision also has its own risks. Chopping up babies makes no sense.

I'd love to keep this up but quoting and typing on this device is a pain. I'll just end this by saying the majority of people who still do this to their kids are affiliated with religions that historically practised it, and the origins of the procedure are abhorrent. All this medical benefit nonsense came after the fact so that people could continue feeling good about their own Penises. the benefits dont make sense because babies dont have sex. it's all tradition/cosmetic and that is no reason to be slicing up infants.
 
2013-09-19 01:20:01 PM  

maelstrom0370: PunGent: maelstrom0370: PunGent: dbaggins: FunkOut: radarlove: All I need to know is that uncut cocks look disgusting and I would never stick one in my mouth.  Up my ass MAYBE, but only if I didn't see it beforehand.

Cut cocks, on the other hand, are sexy as hell.

Men's genitals are no good unless they have been surgically modified? Humans genetics says they're supposed to look a certain way.

human genes do a lot of things that we don't care for or are no longer biologically relevant.    At this point foreskin is vestigial.   You can take it or leave it, up to your style preferences.

With only about a hundred dead babies per year, in the U.S., from botched circumcision.

A small price to pay for style, I'm sure...


I'm curious about your source. A quick Google only turns up biased websites (the "Intaction" movement) and a mommy blog full of conjecture and "we think/can assume"

http://www.mensstudies.com/content/b64n267w47m333x0/?p=886c0b2db93c4 62 0a7ac9ea4cc58ae3e&pi=5


FTFA: Circumcision-related mortality rates are not known with certainty; this study estimates the scale of this problem

Gotcha! So you had no more luck than I did in finding actual numbers. Thanks! Just checking :)


You DO understand doctors aren't required to report circumcision mortality, right?

Best you're EVER going to get is an estimate, until you convince doctors to give up the info...until then, safest presumption is they've got something to hide.

That's true of ANY profession, not just doctors, by the way...
Cops withholding stats on brutality complaints?  You bet there's a problem.
 
2013-09-19 01:21:45 PM  

Fafai: Chopping up babies makes no sense.


Removing a foreskin == "chopping up babies."

How about ear tubes?  Is that baby shish kebab?

Actually, it's worth asking about ear tubes.  Ear tubes are also "unnecessary" surgery, although it lowers the rate of future ear infections; ear tubes also constitute "mutilation" by the anti-circ definition that includes pretty much anything up to fingernail clipping; and there's enough uncertainty about side effects to the ear drum that anti-tube advocates could spin the same claims about hearing that anti-circ advocates spin about sexual pleasure.   So how do anti-circ advocates view ear tubes for 2-year-olds?

Regarding will, how do we know a baby doesn't want circumcision?  I guess we can ask the baby in adulthood.  I, for example, can now say as an adult that I don't mind having been circumcised, and that it was probably a good idea.  Does that count?   I generally approve of everything my parents did for my health, and I don't have a hang-up about the possibility of something happening to my dick without my conscious approval when I was an infant.
 
2013-09-19 01:21:56 PM  

draypresct: PunGent: Would you have any anti-circumcision peer-reviewed studies to cite? Or can you provide more information about why you are 100% opposed to circumcision (I'm assuming you mean infant circumcision without any clear medical indication, of course)?

Best I could find: http://www.mensstudies.com/content/b64n267w47m333x0/?p=886c0b2db93c46 2 0a7ac9ea4cc58ae3e&pi=5

I'll have to dig into the methodology a bit, if I get time later.


That's an interesting source (Thymos - Journal of Boyhood Studies, published by Men's Studies Press). I had never heard of it before.

Founded in 1992, the Men's Studies Press (MSP) is a small independent publisher dedicated to the dissemination and promotion of men's studies scholars' work.

"THYMOS is committed to being international in scope and will solicit manuscripts from a variety of disciplines, including sociology, developmental psychology, sexology, psychoanalytic studies, ethnography and ethnology, history and historiography, cultural studies, literature, philosophy, pedagogy, and clinical and community health-care practice."


That's an interesting range of topics for one journal to publish in. They must be well-funded to keep editors on staff with expertise in so many unrelated areas.

I don't have an account with them, and I'm not really willing to spend $15 on this - when you do look into the methodology, could you post a few of the relevant paragraphs? What data source, how did they determine that circumcision was the cause of death, funding source(s)?


Yeah, I'll keep digging...I'm not really interested in spending $15 to win an internet argument, either  :)
 
2013-09-19 01:27:22 PM  

Xcott: Fafai: Chopping up babies makes no sense.

Removing a foreskin == "chopping up babies."

How about ear tubes?  Is that baby shish kebab?

Actually, it's worth asking about ear tubes.  Ear tubes are also "unnecessary" surgery, although it lowers the rate of future ear infections; ear tubes also constitute "mutilation" by the anti-circ definition that includes pretty much anything up to fingernail clipping; and there's enough uncertainty about side effects to the ear drum that anti-tube advocates could spin the same claims about hearing that anti-circ advocates spin about sexual pleasure.   So how do anti-circ advocates view ear tubes for 2-year-olds?

Regarding will, how do we know a baby doesn't want circumcision?  I guess we can ask the baby in adulthood.  I, for example, can now say as an adult that I don't mind having been circumcised, and that it was probably a good idea.  Does that count?   I generally approve of everything my parents did for my health, and I don't have a hang-up about the possibility of something happening to my dick without my conscious approval when I was an infant.


If something DOES go wrong, better call Saul:

http://www.thecircumcisionlawyer.com/FAQs.aspx

You know there's problems with a "routine" procedure if there's lawyers making a living suing the guys doing it.
 
2013-09-19 01:29:23 PM  

PunGent: You DO understand doctors aren't required to report circumcision mortality, right?


Serious tinfoil thinking there. So if an infant dies while being circumcised, they get a mulligan? The parents are told nothing, no cause of death on the certificate, nothing?

Bullshiat.
 
2013-09-19 01:30:55 PM  

Fafai: I'll just end this by saying the majority of people who still do this to their kids are affiliated with religions that historically practised it, and the origins of the procedure are abhorrent. All this medical benefit nonsense came after the fact so that people could continue feeling good about their own Penises. the benefits dont make sense because babies dont have sex. it's all tradition/cosmetic and that is no reason to be slicing up infants.

So, based on the definition of the word "majority", it's safe to assume that both my father and I could be inculded in that number? Neither of us have any religious affiliations and, to be perfectly honest, we (My wife and I) had our son circumsized on a purely aesthetic basis.

PunGent: You DO understand doctors aren't required to report circumcision mortality, right?

Best you're EVER going to get is an estimate, until you convince doctors to give up the info...until then, safest presumption is they've got something to hide.

That's true of ANY profession, not just doctors, by the way...
Cops withholding stats on brutality complaints?  You bet there's a problem.



And YOU understand that if we're going to base our arguments strictly off conjecture, I can find as many studies claiming that no infant deaths occur as a result of circumcision and that the medical benefits FAR outweigh the disadvantages.

"Though I have no actual proof, I can surmise that 97.2% of circumcisions result in larger than average penis growth"
See how that works?
 
2013-09-19 01:34:04 PM  

maelstrom0370: Fafai: I'll just end this by saying the majority of people who still do this to their kids are affiliated with religions that historically practised it, and the origins of the procedure are abhorrent. All this medical benefit nonsense came after the fact so that people could continue feeling good about their own Penises. the benefits dont make sense because babies dont have sex. it's all tradition/cosmetic and that is no reason to be slicing up infants.

So, based on the definition of the word "majority", it's safe to assume that both my father and I could be inculded in that number? Neither of us have any religious affiliations and, to be perfectly honest, we (My wife and I) had our son circumsized on a purely aesthetic basis.

PunGent: You DO understand doctors aren't required to report circumcision mortality, right?

Best you're EVER going to get is an estimate, until you convince doctors to give up the info...until then, safest presumption is they've got something to hide.

That's true of ANY profession, not just doctors, by the way...
Cops withholding stats on brutality complaints?  You bet there's a problem.


And YOU understand that if we're going to base our arguments strictly off conjecture, I can find as many studies claiming that no infant deaths occur as a result of circumcision and that the medical benefits FAR outweigh the disadvantages.

"Though I have no actual proof, I can surmise that 97.2% of circumcisions result in larger than average penis growth"
See how that works?

  Honestly, no.

The burden is on those proposing the operation to show that it's helpful, on average.

Now, find ONE reputable study that says no infant deaths occur as a result of circumcision.
Just one, and I'll concede the argument.

I'll wait :)
 
2013-09-19 01:39:06 PM  

PunGent: The burden is on those proposing the operation to show that it's helpful, on average.

How so? It seems there's just as much burden (if not more, given that statistical fact that more people choose circumcision) to prove that's it's NOT helpful.

Now, find ONE reputable study that says no infant deaths occur as a result of circumcision.
Just one, and I'll concede the argument.

I will, just as soon as you can find me a study NOT based on conjecture, speculation and guess work.

I'll wait :) Me too :)
 
2013-09-19 01:45:21 PM  

PunGent: The burden is on those proposing the operation to show that it's helpful, on average.


Done already, in this thread.

PunGent: Now, find ONE reputable study that says no infant deaths occur as a result of circumcision.


And now you descend deeper into conspiracy theorist territory. No reputable study has shown any deaths at all, it's not listed in any CDC or similar site I've checked, and the only counter references are back to the unsourced study from your previous link, that you're unwilling to defend anymore.
 
2013-09-19 02:03:10 PM  

pedobearapproved: Summary of events in a Fark circumcision thread:

The normal uncircumcised male - "Well, I'm glad I'm not cut"
The normal circumcised male     - "Well, I'm glad I'm cut"
A normal woman                         - "I have a preference for this style, because I've been with guys that have it"


I'm a 30-year old married female.  Husband is cut.  I have been with both kinds of guys (before marriage, obviously).  I don't have a preference. However, if my husband and I have sons, I don't want them to be circumcised.  I enjoy the way my husband's body looks but I'm not going to subject any future sons to circumcision.  I feel it is my choice.  If the kid grows up and wants to undergo circumcision, then he can have it done when he's old enough to make that decision.

That being said, I hold my tongue when my SIL tells me she had her son (my nephew) circumcised.  My opinion doesn't matter.  It isn't my kid.  The parents have a choice and you  have to respect their decisions.

Just my 2 cents.
 
2013-09-19 02:09:33 PM  

draypresct: surrybee: cyberspacedout:
OK, so I just started at the end and am reading backward through the comments here, so I may be missing something. How is it you two are able to objectively discuss an act of unnecessary surgery on a patient?

You should start at the beginning and work your way to the end. Short version: I'm a NICU nurse. I'm 100% opposed to circumcision. I refuse to assist with the procedure. Hardinparamedic here has spent the thread spewing pro-circ nonsense. He got to a particular doozy (suggesting infants are given adequate pain control) and I responded. He responded to me with a giant off topic wall, I responded briefly addressing only the topic at hand.

Staying civil is a better way to get your point across than angry hyperbole and personal attacks, so I stay civil.

Thanks for your posts, by the way. It's interesting hearing the differences in practice from hospital to hospital.

But I think I'll defend Hardinparamedic a bit. He/she has not spent the thread spewing pro-circ nonsense." He/she has spent the thread linking to peer-review studies indicating the benefits of circumcision (lowered risks of STDs), the fact that uncircumsized boys and have problems with their foreskins (1/3, IIRC). The closest he/she has come to a rant was about someone who clearly tried to lump male circumcision with FGM.

Would you have any anti-circumcision peer-reviewed studies to cite? Or can you provide more information about why you are 100% opposed to circumcision (I'm assuming you mean infant circumcision without any clear medical indication, of course)?


I'm 100% opposed to infant circumcision without any clear medical indication. Do I really need to explain why? It's cosmetic surgery performed on an infant. I'm my son's guardian, not his owner. His penis, his choice. If he really wants his foreskin removed, I'll be happy to pay for it when he can weigh the pros and cons and make his own decision.

The other pro-circ nonsense:

-lowered risk of STDs. Studies have gone both ways. I don't have a link but there was a study done by the Navy that showed no correlation between circumcision and decreased STDs. Even if the Africa studies don't suffer from investigator bias, or other issues, which I believe they likely do, they fail to account for why Europe, with far lower circumcision rates, also have far lower STD rates than the US. They were also cut short. In short, the Africa studies are interesting but fail to prove anything. The most they do is point out the need for further studies. And you know what's more effective at preventing the spread of HIV and is widely and very cheaply available in the US? Condoms.

-the FGM hyperbole. I'm not saying FGM isn't horrid, but not all FGM is as he describes. A symbolic pricking of the female genitals is also termed FGM and illegal in this country. Why do we refuse to allow the symbolic pin prick of a female baby's genitalia, but we have no problem with the symbolic removal of functional tissue on a male baby? It's hypocrisy. (I'm obviously not saying we should allow FGM. We shouldn't allow either male or female symbolic genital cutting.)

-1/3 of uncircumcised boys don't have foreskin-related issues. I've never read a number nearly that high. I have read many studies about complications in uncircumcised infants and toddlers because of their foreskins. None of them spell out how many parents were wrongly taught to retract the foreskin to clean under it. It's this retraction that allows bacteria in and causes UTIs. It's this retraction that tears the frenulum and causes pain and infection in the tissue. I'd love to see a study done that separates the two.

That's all I've got for now. My son has awoken from his nap and is calling for me. No doubt he's having some kind of foreskin problem.
 
2013-09-19 02:49:09 PM  

surrybee: A symbolic pricking of the female genitals is also termed FGM and illegal in this country.


I think this may be one of my favorite parts of this whole argument.

Intactivists: Circumcision is EXACTLY like FGM!!
The Rest of the World: No, not it's not and you're kind of a douche for suggesting it.
Intactivists: Yes it is!! See how they both share the same definition?
The Rest of the World: So it's a semantic argument you're after?
Intacitivists: What!? I never said it was like THAT kind of FGM. I meant it was more like THIS kind of FGM. Ya know, the other kind, the kind that's being proposed to hopefully meet the symbolic function in order to get certain cultures to stop using the Really! Bad! Kind! Think of the children!! Why do you hate children!?
http://www.prowomanprolife.ca/2010/05/12/the-gentler-side-of-female- ge nital-mutilation/
FTFA:
"Some physicians ... advocate only pricking or incising the clitoral skin as sufficient to satisfy cultural requirements. This is no more of an alteration than ear piercing. ...[T]he ritual nick suggested by some pediatricians is not physically harmful and is much less extensive than routine newborn male genital cutting. There is reason to believe that offering such a compromise may build trust between hospitals and immigrant communities, save some girls from undergoing disfiguring and life-threatening procedures in their native countries and play a role in the eventual eradication of FGC."
I should note this recommendation is currently illegal in the U.S.


Does this mean I advocate Type IV FGM? Not even close. The entire process sickens me but, at the very least, it sounds like someone's trying to move towards ending it entirely. Sorry, but trying to compare circumcision to ANY type of FGM is sick, stupid and entirely hyperbolic.
 
2013-09-19 04:36:27 PM  

Boojum2k: PunGent: The burden is on those proposing the operation to show that it's helpful, on average.

Done already, in this thread.

PunGent: Now, find ONE reputable study that says no infant deaths occur as a result of circumcision.

And now you descend deeper into conspiracy theorist territory. No reputable study has shown any deaths at all, it's not listed in any CDC or similar site I've checked, and the only counter references are back to the unsourced study from your previous link, that you're unwilling to defend anymore.


Because doctors don't have to report them as such.

A lawyer buddy of mine worked insurance defense for a VERY hard-nose firm here in Boston.

The only cases they'd settle?

Botched circumcisions.  The photo evidence was farking stomach-turning...he doesn't do that kind of work any more.

"It never happens" is just flat-out bullshiat.
 
2013-09-19 04:37:24 PM  

maelstrom0370: PunGent: The burden is on those proposing the operation to show that it's helpful, on average. How so? It seems there's just as much burden (if not more, given that statistical fact that more people choose circumcision) to prove that's it's NOT helpful.

Now, find ONE reputable study that says no infant deaths occur as a result of circumcision.
Just one, and I'll concede the argument.
I will, just as soon as you can find me a study NOT based on conjecture, speculation and guess work.

I'll wait :) Me too :)


Burden's on the proponents of the procedure to show it doesn't actually, you know, kill people.
 
2013-09-19 04:40:35 PM  

Boojum2k: PunGent: The burden is on those proposing the operation to show that it's helpful, on average.

Done already, in this thread.

PunGent: Now, find ONE reputable study that says no infant deaths occur as a result of circumcision.

And now you descend deeper into conspiracy theorist territory. No reputable study has shown any deaths at all, it's not listed in any CDC or similar site I've checked, and the only counter references are back to the unsourced study from your previous link, that you're unwilling to defend anymore.


Funny you should mention the CDC.  I guess you conveniently overlooked this quote:

"While CDC has not yet determined if male circumcision should be recommended for any population..."
(emphasis mine)

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/research/malecircumcision/recommen da tions.html

Guess they're in on the "conspiracy"  :)
 
2013-09-19 04:47:30 PM  

PunGent: lawyer buddy of mine


So FOAF is your source? No credible evidence, just somebody whose existence we should take on faith?

PunGent: Guess they're in on the "conspiracy"


They have not yet produced a recommendation, and that's the best you've got? Dude, first rule of holes, learn it.

Come back when you have a shred of actual evidence, a sourced peer-reviewed study showing deaths from circumcisions, an actual conclusion by the CDC, anything.
 
2013-09-19 04:54:23 PM  

surrybee: I'm 100% opposed to infant circumcision without any clear medical indication. Do I really need to explain why? It's cosmetic surgery performed on an infant. I'm my son's guardian, not his owner. His penis, his choice. If he really wants his foreskin removed, I'll be happy to pay for it when he can weigh the pros and cons and make his own decision.

The other pro-circ nonsense:

-lowered risk of STDs. Studies have gone both ways. I don't have a link but there was a study done by the Navy that showed no correlation between circumcision and decreased STDs. Even if the Africa studies don't suffer from investigator bias, or other issues, which I believe they likely do, they fail to account for why Europe, with far lower circumcision rates, also have far lower STD rates than the US.


I don't remember studies going both ways in this thread. So far, despite a number of anti-circumcision Farkers, the only peer-review studies from medical literature that have been posted have all indicated lower risks from STDs. As for comparing Europe v. US, well, there are number of confounding factors as I'm sure you're aware already (insurance, for example).

They were also cut short.
My inner 12-year-old LOL'd.

In short, the Africa studies are interesting but fail to prove anything. The most they do is point out the need for further studies.
Why does a randomized trial in Africa fail to prove anything?

And you know what's more effective at preventing the spread of HIV and is widely and very cheaply available in the US? Condoms.
Yay condoms, I'm all for condoms. The thing is, I don't mind 2 levels of protection - like seatbelts + air bags. Don't the studies conducted in the US and Europe show that, despite the wide availability of condoms, circumcision is still protective?

-the FGM hyperbole. I'm not saying FGM isn't horrid, but not all FGM is as he describes. A symbolic pricking of the female genitals is also termed FGM and illegal in this country. Why do we refuse to allow the symbolic pin prick of a female baby's genitalia, but we have no problem with the symbolic removal of functional tissue on a male baby? It's hypocrisy. (I'm obviously not saying we should allow FGM. We shouldn't allow either male or female symbolic genital cutting.)
If we are all (including  Fafai) against FGM, and can all agree that it's pointless and not at all the same as male circumcision, then perhaps both sides of this debate could agree that it's not relevent to the topic at hand and stop bringing it up when discussing male circumcision in first-world countries?

-1/3 of uncircumcised boys don't have foreskin-related issues. I've never read a number nearly that high. I have read many studies about complications in uncircumcised infants and toddlers because of their foreskins. None of them spell out how many parents were wrongly taught to retract the foreskin to clean under it. It's this retraction that allows bacteria in and causes UTIs. It's this retraction that tears the frenulum and causes p ...
Hardinparamedic referenced peer-review literature. You've actually suggested a mechanism for why this can happen (I was taught, way back in the dark ages when I was a new parent, that you're supposed to retract & clean - you're saying that's changed?). He brought this up in response to some comments that there were complications associated with circumcision. The adverse effects of non-circumcision may be to some degree preventable; this doesn't alter the fact that they exist. The next step is to assess the frequency of the risks on both sides - that's what the medical literature shows, using statistics. Maybe there's some literature that shows education v. circumcision v. control?

That's all I've got for now. My son has awoken from his nap and is calling for me. No doubt he's having some kind of foreskin problem.
Nope - he's suffering from a lack of sarcasm. Do you think you can help him with that? :)
 
2013-09-19 05:08:45 PM  

surrybee: cyberspacedout:
OK, so I just started at the end and am reading backward through the comments here, so I may be missing something. How is it you two are able to objectively discuss an act of unnecessary surgery on a patient?

You should start at the beginning and work your way to the end. Short version: I'm a NICU nurse. I'm 100% opposed to circumcision. I refuse to assist with the procedure. Hardinparamedic here has spent the thread spewing pro-circ nonsense. He got to a particular doozy (suggesting infants are given adequate pain control) and I responded. He responded to me with a giant off topic wall, I responded briefly addressing only the topic at hand.

Staying civil is a better way to get your point across than angry hyperbole and personal attacks, so I stay civil.


Ah, sorry for misinterpreting your role in the discussion; I really should have looked at the earlier posts.

I'm just always flabbergasted to see medical professionals in this country talking about infant circumcision so calmly - but then, there are still pediatricians and other MDs who push it. I know an RN who works at a local hospital, has heard doctors talking parents into having this done, and he of course couldn't do anything about it.
 
2013-09-19 05:10:58 PM  

cyberspacedout: I know an RN who works at a local hospital, has heard doctors talking parents into having this done, and he of course couldn't do anything about it.


He could go back to medical school and become a doctor.
 
2013-09-19 05:13:31 PM  

PunGent: Burden's on the proponents of the procedure to show it doesn't actually, you know, kill people.


The traditional "Moving of the Goalposts" Am I being trolled? If so, I'm flattered but I should point out that I'm happily married.
welcometofark.jpg

Anywhoo...You initially stated that circumcision kills "about 100 babies per year" (I'm probably paraphrasing) so I asked what your source was. I had done a quick Google search and could only come up with biased sites and a mommy blog that contained, as it turns out, some of the same material you cited as a source. In checking your source, I discovered it's entirely based on conjecture and guess work. Since you have yet to cite any actual facts to back your theory up, I have no need to prove mine other than "cuz I said so!" Can you prove to me circumcision DOES kill newborns?
As for bringing your "lawyer friend" in as anything other than anecdotal, you DO realize lawyers will sue ANYone for ANYthing, right? I mean, that's kinda their job. Well, the sleazy "Better Call Saul" types, anyways. Wasn't there a story about a grown, healthy man who sued (and won, I believe) his parents and the doctor who'd performed his circumcision? Way to totes not abuse the legal system, there! Instead of seeking mental help for a lfe spent obsessing over a ring of skin smaller than a wedding band, lets SUE! Also, why would there need to be lawyers specifically for this type of thing? Wouldn't it fall under "medical malpractice"? Well, with so many lawyers at work today, I guess if you can't find work, you invent work
 
2013-09-19 05:15:36 PM  
draypresct:


I'm not able to quote what you said about the FGM comparison, but THANK YOU. The only people who brought up FEMALE mutilation are the circ crowd at the mere mention of circumcision being genital mutilation. The only reason we are even talking about female mutilation is because hardinparamedic tried straw manning everyone with it when they were making no such comparison to begin with.

To the poster who was asking about my definitions before they took a nap, you're right. Mutilation does imply harm. That is what we believe and that is why we use it.
 
2013-09-19 05:17:17 PM  

cyberspacedout: I'm just always flabbergasted to see medical professionals in this country talking about infant circumcision so calmly -


And here the rest of us are just as (if not more) flabbergasted to watch the anti-circ crowd rabidly (and with a straight face) compare circumcision to FGM.
 
2013-09-19 05:21:24 PM  
Fafai: The only people who brought up FEMALE mutilation are the circ crowd at the mere mention of circumcision being genital mutilation. The only reason we are even talking about female mutilation is because hardinparamedic tried straw manning everyone with it when they were making no such comparison to begin with.

While he may have been the first one to physically type FGM in this thread, it was actually the article that brought it up first. It did so to point out how the more rabid Intactivists like to comapre the two as if they're somehow equal.
 
2013-09-19 05:23:11 PM  

Fafai: The only people who brought up FEMALE mutilation


were the anti-circ crowd, starting with Jill'sNipple and then yourself. And then it was appropriately slapped down, and you went on the defensive and stayed there.

Fafai: That is what we believe


Belief does not make something a fact.
 
2013-09-19 05:30:42 PM  
Xcott:

Regarding will,  how do we know a baby doesn't want circumcision?I guess we can ask the baby in adulthood.  I, for example, can now say as an adult that I don't mind having been circumcised, and that it was probably a good idea.  Does that count?   I generally approve of everything my parents did for my health, and I don't have a hang-up about the possibility of something happening to my dick without my conscious approval when I was an infant.

You mean besides the blood and tears and screaming? That you are  cutting off a part of his dick should clue you in on whether he wants that to happen or not. Just because you don't remember yours, doesn't mean it was all smiles and sunshine. There's an almost 100 percent chance the baby does not want this to happen. Frankly I can't believe how people can't grasp this.

This is the premise for my entire argument. You wait until they're old enough to decide. It seems odd to me that you seem to think shooting first and asking question later counts. It doesn't. Why would you cut the penis and  then retroactively ask if it was ok? Afraid he might make a different decision than the one you want for him? Would that hurt your feelings?
 
2013-09-19 05:42:00 PM  

Fafai: You mean besides the blood and tears and screaming? That you are cutting off a part of his dick shoving a steel spike into his arm should clue you in on whether he wants that to happen or not.


Should we stop vaccinating too, Ms McCarthy?
 
2013-09-19 05:44:43 PM  

maelstrom0370: cyberspacedout: I'm just always flabbergasted to see medical professionals in this country talking about infant circumcision so calmly -

And here the rest of us are just as (if not more) flabbergasted to watch the anti-circ crowd rabidly (and with a straight face) compare circumcision to FGM.


I know. It's like they don't even realize that FGM happens thousands and thousands of miles away in Africa.
 
2013-09-19 05:47:00 PM  

insertsnarkyusername: An old girlfriend of mine from college went the full mommy route, had 3 boys and somewhere along the way became an intactivist. Recently she decided that she wanted to go back to school to become a doctor. She is also anti vaccine as well. Normally I ignore her posts on those topics, however she seems to get smacked down on a fairly regular basis by her professors and actual doctors. Rather fun to hear her rant about how she knows better than these people.


She should be expelled. She's going to be in a position where she's going to have an opportunity to destroy peoples' lives with her stupidity, and she should be stopped now.
 
2013-09-19 05:47:24 PM  

maelstrom0370: Fafai: You mean besides the blood and tears and screaming? That you are cutting off a part of his dick shoving a steel spike into his arm should clue you in on whether he wants that to happen or not.

Should we stop vaccinating too, Ms McCarthy?


No. That has an immediate benefit to both the baby and humanity as a whole.
 
2013-09-19 05:51:01 PM  
...it also doesn't permanently alter his body.
 
2013-09-19 05:51:44 PM  

Boojum2k: Fafai: The only people who brought up FEMALE mutilation

were the anti-circ crowd, starting with Jill'sNipple and then yourself. And then it was appropriately slapped down, and you went on the defensive and stayed there.
Fafai: That is what we believe

Belief does not make something a fact.


I wouldn't say you have done a good job of slapping down anyone. I haven't seen a good reason, in this thread or elsewhere, to allow parents to whittle on their children's genitals without it being medically necessary. Give me a good reason. I haven't seen it.
 
2013-09-19 05:57:29 PM  

Jill'sNipple: I wouldn't say you have done a good job of slapping down anyone. I haven't seen a good reason, in this thread or elsewhere, to allow parents to whittle on their children's genitals without it being medically necessary. Give me a good reason. I haven't seen it.


As soon as you produce a good reason NOT to. Aside from a "study" based soley on conjecture, your own personal aesthetic or some rabid and hyperbolic comparison to ACTUAL mutilation (we're talking the implied meaning, here. Semantic arguments are SO yesterday)

P.S.- The "slapping down" he was referring to was the insane comparison of circumcision to FGM. I don't think he thinks he won the internet or anything.
 
2013-09-19 05:57:50 PM  

Jill'sNipple: I wouldn't say you have done a good job of slapping down anyone.


It's the extra foreskin protecting your face :)

As hardinparamedic posted earlier:
http://www.cmaj.ca/content/early/2012/07/09/cmaj.111372.full.pdf

Now, you may have refused to look, but the information was presented in this thread. Like others, you may refuse to read it and thus keep claiming you haven't "seen a good reason" but it's still there.
 
2013-09-19 05:59:40 PM  

FunkOut: radarlove: All I need to know is that uncut cocks look disgusting and I would never stick one in my mouth.  Up my ass MAYBE, but only if I didn't see it beforehand.

Cut cocks, on the other hand, are sexy as hell.

Men's genitals are no good unless they have been surgically modified? Humans genetics says they're supposed to look a certain way.


Human genetics gave us teeth that are capable of rotting out and killing us unless we use entirely "unnatural" constructs like toothbrushes, floss and mouthwash.

Your argument is essentially creationism. And creationism is bullshiat.
 
2013-09-19 06:01:12 PM  

Fafai: ...it also doesn't permanently alter his body.


I dunno. Some of those scars last a long time.
 
2013-09-19 06:02:30 PM  

maelstrom0370: I don't think he thinks he won the internet or anything.


Nope, won't even take credit for the course of the thread, any info I've posted was mentioned first by other Farkers, I just repeated it when folks were ignoring it. I didn't really have a strong opinion on this one way or the other until reading through the thread, and decided hardinparamedic was putting out good information, and a bunch of loons (not including one person with a very personal though extremely rare reason for disliking the procedure) were attacking him and other supporters.
 
2013-09-19 06:03:57 PM  

maelstrom0370: Fafai: ...it also doesn't permanently alter his body.

I dunno. Some of those scars last a long time.


Pretty sure it alters the body to be more resistant to specific diseases. As does circumcision in a different manner.
 
2013-09-19 06:04:34 PM  

maelstrom0370: Jill'sNipple: I wouldn't say you have done a good job of slapping down anyone. I haven't seen a good reason, in this thread or elsewhere, to allow parents to whittle on their children's genitals without it being medically necessary. Give me a good reason. I haven't seen it.

As soon as you produce a good reason NOT to. Aside from a "study" based soley on conjecture, your own personal aesthetic or some rabid and hyperbolic comparison to ACTUAL mutilation (we're talking the implied meaning, here. Semantic arguments are SO yesterday)

P.S.- The "slapping down" he was referring to was the insane comparison of circumcision to FGM. I don't think he thinks he won the internet or anything.


Ok, I'll bite. As I mentioned before, I've traveled some in the MENA region, where genital cutting/mutilation is practiced widely. I've talked to women who had it done. And what none of you seem to realize is that the mutilation/cutting (yes, I do prefer the term 'mutilation,' both for males and females) ranges widely for females. I'm opposed to any degree of genital cutting. But it ranges from radically removing most or all of the female external genitalia to only a ceremonial that probably doesn't even scar.

The point is that FGM ranges from a cut that is far less traumatic than male circumcision to something that is far worse. My position is, why the obsession with cutting on babies' genitals? I do it all together into the same category: mutilation. There's no reason for it. If an adult male decides he'd like to get rid of part of his penis, good for him. But keep your hands off the babies.

Again, my question: why are you so obsessed with cutting on babies' genitals?
 
2013-09-19 06:06:35 PM  

Boojum2k: maelstrom0370: I don't think he thinks he won the internet or anything.

Nope, won't even take credit for the course of the thread, any info I've posted was mentioned first by other Farkers, I just repeated it when folks were ignoring it. I didn't really have a strong opinion on this one way or the other until reading through the thread, and decided hardinparamedic was putting out good information, and a bunch of loons (not including one person with a very personal though extremely rare reason for disliking the procedure) were attacking him and other supporters.



Really had no opinion one way or the other and I rarely last this long (That's what she said!) in an argument. I couldn't resist when I saw how mouth-foamy the opposition was.
 
2013-09-19 06:08:28 PM  

maelstrom0370: I couldn't resist when I saw how mouth-foamy the opposition was.


Yep. And when they resort to statements like this:
Jill'sNipple:  why are you so obsessed with cutting on babies' genitals?

It's obvious what kind of obsessive conspiracy whackos they are. Which are fun to smack around, but unlikely to come to sanity.
 
2013-09-19 06:11:08 PM  

Boojum2k: maelstrom0370: Fafai: ...it also doesn't permanently alter his body.

I dunno. Some of those scars last a long time.

Pretty sure it alters the body to be more resistant to specific diseases. As does circumcision in a different manner.


That's why I said "immediate benefit." You guys are just nitpicking now. Worse, insinuating anti-vaccine is anything like anti-circ sounds a lot like the FGM comparisons you decry. You know, the comparisons no one in here made.

And if you do think anyone made those comparisons, show me. I'll apologize for not being observant. But you won't find those comparisons from me so you can skip my posts to save time. Or scrutinize and twist them if you want. Should be fun.
 
2013-09-19 06:13:39 PM  

Fafai: You guys are just nitpicking now


It's ironic when you guys get snippy.
 
2013-09-19 06:18:25 PM  
Jill'sNipple: The point is that FGM ranges from a cut that is far less traumatic than male circumcision to something that is far worse. My position is, why the obsession with cutting on babies' genitals? I do it all together into the same category: mutilation. There's no reason for it. If an adult male decides he'd like to get rid of part of his penis, good for him. But keep your hands off the babies.


I'll bite back. When circumcision started getting compared to FGM in this thread, it was to Type 1 FGM. The worst, most heinous and horrendous kind. To say that it wasn't would make you a liar. Once that got slapped down as being the tippy-top of Douche Mountain, people started pulling back, much like you just did. "Well, I didn't really mean that kind. I was talking about one of the other kinds, you know, because definitions."

Again, my question: why are you so obsessed with cutting on babies' genitals?

Aaaand yet another hyperbolic comparison. Yes, anyone whose pro-circ out there is just a big ol' baby butcherin' pedophile! It's arguments like this that make it hard to take you seriously.
Why are YOU so obsessed with a miniscule piece of vestigal skin? Seeing as a circumcized penis is still the norm (and the majority), are you hoping to make your son's teenage years that much more awkward? Why do you hate your future teenage son?
 
2013-09-19 06:19:16 PM  

Boojum2k: Fafai: You guys are just nitpicking now

It's ironic when you guys get snippy.


it's not that ironic. Some of us might get snipped later if we so decide. We aren't opposed to the procedure itself.

Nice play on words though ;)    ...funny'd
 
2013-09-19 06:20:26 PM  
Fafai: You guys are just nitpicking now.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA.......HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....Oh, wait. You were serious, weren't you?
 
2013-09-19 06:21:24 PM  
Maelstrom, can you show me where that comparison happened? I think I missed it.
 
2013-09-19 06:23:00 PM  

Fafai: Maelstrom, can you show me where that comparison happened? I think I missed it.


Which comparison would that be, Fafai?
 
2013-09-19 06:25:52 PM  

maelstrom0370: Fafai: You guys are just nitpicking now.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA.......HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....Oh, wait. You were serious, weren't you?


I am serious yes. If I was nitpicking, it's because people forced my hand by twisting my words and saying I was making bogus comparisons to FGM. My nitpicking was damage control.

On the other hand, your "Oh-HO! But vaccines DO change the body!" is just grasping at straws.
 
2013-09-19 06:28:35 PM  

maelstrom0370: Fafai: Maelstrom, can you show me where that comparison happened? I think I missed it.

Which comparison would that be, Fafai?


the type 1 FGM you just mentioned. If I honestly missed it I will concede there may be some confirmation bias going on on my part. Or at least ignoring dumbasses.
 
2013-09-19 06:35:41 PM  
Globally speaking, I don't think circumcision is the majority. Any basic info site will tell you it's one in three at most. The circumcision rates are steadily dropping, in fact. I'd say it's due to people progressing and becoming more enlightened, Especially considering the majority still doing this are religious (Muslim or Jew).
 
2013-09-19 06:36:36 PM  

Fafai: Maelstrom, can you show me where that comparison happened? I think I missed it.



Jill'sNipple: Second, how many of these pro-circumcision types would be as encouraging of a family that wants to make the decision to remove all or part of their infant daughter's clitoris?

 
2013-09-19 06:38:39 PM  

maelstrom0370: Jill'sNipple: The point is that FGM ranges from a cut that is far less traumatic than male circumcision to something that is far worse. My position is, why the obsession with cutting on babies' genitals? I do it all together into the same category: mutilation. There's no reason for it. If an adult male decides he'd like to get rid of part of his penis, good for him. But keep your hands off the babies.


I'll bite back. When circumcision started getting compared to FGM in this thread, it was to Type 1 FGM. The worst, most heinous and horrendous kind. To say that it wasn't would make you a liar. Once that got slapped down as being the tippy-top of Douche Mountain, people started pulling back, much like you just did. "Well, I didn't really mean that kind. I was talking about one of the other kinds, you know, because definitions."

Again, my question: why are you so obsessed with cutting on babies' genitals?

Aaaand yet another hyperbolic comparison. Yes, anyone whose pro-circ out there is just a big ol' baby butcherin' pedophile! It's arguments like this that make it hard to take you seriously.
Why are YOU so obsessed with a miniscule piece of vestigal skin? Seeing as a circumcized penis is still the norm (and the majority), are you hoping to make your son's teenage years that much more awkward? Why do you hate your future teenage son?


It's the norm for the US. Hardly the norm in any other part of the developed - and most of the undeveloped - world. That's not an argument.

Here's what you should probably say: "Genital cutting, at least on males, is the norm to me because I am a parochial North American who inherited an outdated, unnecessary, possibly pretty traumatic custom from our Judeo-christian culture, and I've never second-guessed it, and I've never wondered why we do it, and (apparently) I've never looked outside of the norms of the US, because I think it's the norm everywhere. So, basically, I probably shouldn't be commenting on topics in which to date I have shown remarkably little interest."
 
2013-09-19 06:39:36 PM  
The hilarious part of all of this is that the article- while clearly written by someone who was pro-circ but backed that position up with facts- was not primarily about the subject of circumcision so much as the anti-circ movement being one of the most successful and prolific groups of anti-fact, poorly-sourced-statistic-quoting trolls on the internet to date, and ones who will bring up not-at-all-equivalent practices like FGM to try to scare you into siding with them.

And fark if this thread didn't prove him entirely right on all counts.

If you cannot find reliable science to support your position, science is not conspiring against you.
 
2013-09-19 06:40:14 PM  

Boojum2k: Fafai: Maelstrom, can you show me where that comparison happened? I think I missed it.


Jill'sNipple: Second, how many of these pro-circumcision types would be as encouraging of a family that wants to make the decision to remove all or part of their infant daughter's clitoris?


You got me. Hardinparamedic, I'm sorry I accused you of bringing this up first.
 
2013-09-19 06:42:27 PM  

Anonymous Bosch: And fark if this thread didn't prove him entirely right on all counts.


Yep. I haven't seen one pro-circ, or even neutral but friendly position expressed without some degree of rational backing. From the anti crowd we've seen FGM!1!, The Joooos!, secret doctor conspiracies, and accusations of pedophilia.

It's fairly obvious which group attracts the loons and which attracts reasonable people.
 
2013-09-19 06:43:46 PM  

Fafai: You got me.


I'll note you haven't done this, and while I disagree with your stance as expressed, you have not been one of the extremists. Some issues with your semantics, but you haven't gone batshiat like so many on your side have.
 
2013-09-19 06:46:40 PM  

Boojum2k: Anonymous Bosch: And fark if this thread didn't prove him entirely right on all counts.

Yep. I haven't seen one pro-circ, or even neutral but friendly position expressed without some degree of rational backing. From the anti crowd we've seen FGM!1!, The Joooos!, secret doctor conspiracies, and accusations of pedophilia.

It's fairly obvious which group attracts the loons and which attracts reasonable people.


I wouldn't go that far. You don't see much shaming of circumcised penises themselves in contrast to the smegma/anteater/snake wearing a turtleneck/lol you have to clean your dick with a q-tip jokes.There's some serious hate for uncut penises out there and yes it is irrational and comes from psychological insecurity to hate on the body 's natural form.
 
2013-09-19 06:49:57 PM  

Fafai: You don't see much shaming of circumcised penises themselves in contrast to the smegma/anteater/snake wearing a turtleneck/lol you have to clean your dick with a q-tip jokes.


That's pretty much Fark. I don't see an aesthetic problem with an uncut penis at all personally. But yeah, there have been a few of those jokes in this thread, fair enough. Still doesn't quite balance the anti crowd nuttiness though, particularly the Jew and doctor conspiracy statements.
 
2013-09-19 06:51:16 PM  

Boojum2k: Fafai: You got me.

I'll note you haven't done this, and while I disagree with your stance as expressed, you have not been one of the extremists. Some issues with your semantics, but you haven't gone batshiat like so many on your side have.


Thanks, Boojum! Gonna cut out while we're here on this high note before things get ugly again. Peace.
 
2013-09-19 06:57:33 PM  

Fafai: Boojum2k: Fafai: You got me.

I'll note you haven't done this, and while I disagree with your stance as expressed, you have not been one of the extremists. Some issues with your semantics, but you haven't gone batshiat like so many on your side have.

Thanks, Boojum! Gonna cut out while we're here on this high note before things get ugly again. Peace.


lulz
 
2013-09-19 06:59:29 PM  

Boojum2k: Anonymous Bosch: And fark if this thread didn't prove him entirely right on all counts.

Yep. I haven't seen one pro-circ, or even neutral but friendly position expressed without some degree of rational backing. From the anti crowd we've seen FGM!1!, The Joooos!, secret doctor conspiracies, and accusations of pedophilia.

It's fairly obvious which group attracts the loons and which attracts reasonable people.


Actually, a number of people (including myself) had said that there's a small risk to doing the procedure and a small risk to not doing the procedure, so since it's all about a wash, why not just let the dick owner decide himself when he's an adult? Especially since a huge benefit of circumcision is the reduce rate of STD transmission (although as others have pointed out, Europe has a lower circumcision rate AND a lower STD rate so maybe Africa just sucks all around) and most children don't need to worry about that.
 
2013-09-19 07:02:19 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: why not just let the dick owner decide himself when he's an adult?


Because, as noted, a lot of the health benefits do extend through childhood. So leave it to parent's choice, and if they choose not to, then the guy can decide for himself later.

Mike Chewbacca: Europe has a lower circumcision rate AND a lower STD rate


http://www.avert.org/std-statistics-worldwide.htm
Not so much.
 
2013-09-19 07:14:39 PM  

Fafai: the type 1 FGM you just mentioned. If I honestly missed it I will concede there may be some confirmation bias going on on my part. Or at least ignoring dumbasses.

Well, TFA for starters. Then there's:
Jill'sNipple: Don't try to portray those of us who condemn genital mutilation as extremists.


And:

Jill'sNipple: I oppose genital mutilation for either sex

And:
Fafai: It's insensitive to call the mutilation of genitals "genital mutilation" because it isn't the exact same as an entirely different type of genital mutilation. Instead, lets call it Super Amazing Babby Penis Slicing-Off Courtesy.


Ahhhh! I see what you ddi there! Clever girl ;) In my search of the thread, I found that you are, technically, correct. Which, by the way, is all that really matters. You and Jill inferred FGM but never really bothered to clarify your position until everyone told you what tools you were being. Well played, sir, well played. By calling it simply "Genital Mutilation" (I know, I know, it's the textbook definition and all that), you get the reader to infer Female Genital Mutilation which, of course, everyone views as absolutely heinous. Then, when normal people start screaming about it, you can step back and say "Whaaaat? Why, I never!"
Hooowee! There's a lot I need to learn about internet arguing! :)
 
2013-09-19 07:20:50 PM  
With all of this going back and forth on whether circumcision is mutilation, it's surprising nobody looked up the definition:

mu·ti·late
mu·ti·lat·edmu·ti·lat·ingmu·ti·lates  1.To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.2.To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue.  3.To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

Circumcision doesn't deprive a person of an essential part, cripple them, or render them imperfect.  Therefore it is not mutilation.  By definition.
 
2013-09-19 07:23:45 PM  

Jill'sNipple: Here's what you should probably say: "Genital cutting, at least on males, is the norm to me because I am a parochial North American who inherited an outdated, unnecessary, possibly pretty traumatic custom from our Judeo-christian culture, and I've never second-guessed it, and I've never wondered why we do it, and (apparently) I've never looked outside of the norms of the US, because I think it's the norm everywhere. So, basically, I probably shouldn't be commenting on topics in which ...



Sorry, I live in the US, as does my son and he most likely will continue to do so through his teenage years. Now, if we lived somewhere outside of the US, I'd say your argument has merit. Also, if you live outside the US, your argument has merit. If I lived outside the US when my son was born, I'd probably consider leaving him un-snipped due to that being the norm. I'm not sure how I, or my father, were influenced by our religious upbringing when neither of us had one. I really haven't questioned it, much like I don't question other useless and petty that happen throughout my life. Somethings just are. I didn't realize "Fight the Power" and "Damn the Man" spread as far as circumcision. Please excuse my sheepleness.
 
2013-09-19 07:25:26 PM  
Fafai:

Oh, all right! You've actually been quite fun to banter with. And in hindsight, my "vaccination" copmparison was a bit weak.
 
2013-09-19 07:32:09 PM  
maelstrom0370:
Fafai: It's insensitive to call the mutilation of genitals "genital mutilation" because it isn't the exact same as an entirely different type of genital mutilation. Instead, lets call it Super Amazing Babby Penis Slicing-Off Courtesy.

Ahhhh! I see what you ddi there! Clever girl ;) In my search of the thread, I found that you are, technically, correct. Which, by the way, is all that really matters. You and Jill inferred FGM but never really bothered to clarify your position until everyone told you what tools you were being. Well played, sir, well played. By calling it simply "Genital Mutilation" (I know, I know, it's the textbook definition and all that), you get the reader to infer Female Genital Mutilation which, of course, everyone views as absolutely heinous. Then, when normal people start screaming about it, you can step back and say "Whaaaat? Why, I never!"

Hooowee! There's a lot I need to learn about internet arguing! :)


I can honestly tell you, no word of a lie, swear on my mother's life that I view circumcision as mutilation regardless of what other people do to girls in other parts of the world. You can go ahead and guess at my motivations all you want (like the time hardinparamedic tried to call me homophobic for claiming redheads experience discrimination and harassment--seriously ...which is insane because I myself am bisexual and have had sex with gay men) but the fact remains I never mentioned it until hardinparamedic started sounded like a broken record about it.

People need to stop with this either/ or attitude and quit claiming to know people's real meanings behind what they say.

/ok seriously going to bed now. Good nite.
 
2013-09-19 07:37:27 PM  

Fafai: People need to stop with this either/ or attitude and quit claiming to know people's real meanings behind what they say.


Point taken. I'll blame it on too much FARK lurking and very little stamina (that's what she said!) for a sustained internet argument. You and I can differ on our feelings towards circumcision (I really had no opinion one way or the other, though to call it mutilation seems a bit scare tactic to me) and that's ok!
 
2013-09-19 07:59:23 PM  

Boojum2k: Because, as noted, a lot of the health benefits do extend through childhood.


Still doesn't sound like a substitute for soap to me. One's a lot less permanent, for one thing, and that is actually quite important.

maelstrom0370: I'm not sure how I, or my father, were influenced by our religious upbringing when neither of us had one. I really haven't questioned it, much like I don't question other useless and petty that happen throughout my life.


More like you were influenced by  other people'sreligious beliefs, the whole circumcision movement being popularised by a puritanical upsurge against the eeeviiil masturbation. As we know, it didn't work, but it helped it gain acceptance and with alarming rapidity became tradition, so yay, I guess.
 
2013-09-19 08:07:45 PM  

Barumpapumpum: Still doesn't sound like a substitute for soap to me.


Soap can actually cause a UTI, if not thoroughly rinsed away, and does not prevent them near as well.
 

Barumpapumpum: the whole circumcision movement being popularised by a puritanical upsurge against the eeeviiil masturbation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#Modern_times
Not so much.
 
2013-09-19 08:07:56 PM  

Barumpapumpum: More like you were influenced by  other people'sreligious beliefs, the whole circumcision movement being popularised by a puritanical upsurge against the eeeviiil masturbation. As we know, it didn't work, but it helped it gain acceptance and with alarming rapidity became tradition, so yay, I guess.


Whatevs. The head of my penis is exposed and yours (I assume) is not.
Assuming equal hygiene practices, one of us takes about five seconds longer in the shower. Yay us!
There seems to be an equal amount of pros and cons to both sides of the debate.
Much like abortion and gay marriage: Don't want one, don't get (your son) one.
 
2013-09-19 08:17:37 PM  

Fafai: Boojum2k: Fafai: Maelstrom, can you show me where that comparison happened? I think I missed it.


Jill'sNipple: Second, how many of these pro-circumcision types would be as encouraging of a family that wants to make the decision to remove all or part of their infant daughter's clitoris?

You got me. Hardinparamedic, I'm sorry I accused you of bringing this up first.


I disagree with your position on this topic, but I have a hell of a lot of respect for you for saying that.
 
2013-09-19 09:28:08 PM  

Boojum2k: Because, as noted, a lot of the health benefits do extend through childhood. So leave it to parent's choice, and if they choose not to, then the guy can decide for himself later.


Well yeah, that's kind of the point isn't it?  If they choose not to, the guy can decide for himself.
 
2013-09-19 09:29:25 PM  

kim jong-un: Well yeah, that's kind of the point isn't it?


And they can decide in favor, too. With good reasons.
 
2013-09-19 09:35:30 PM  

wicked_sprite: With all of this going back and forth on whether circumcision is mutilation, it's surprising nobody looked up the definition:

mu·ti·late
mu·ti·lat·ed,  mu·ti·lat·ing,  mu·ti·lates  1.To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.2.To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue.  3.To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

Circumcision doesn't deprive a person of an essential part, cripple them, or render them imperfect.  Therefore it is not mutilation.  By definition.


The word "imperfect" is a bit vauge, since it may imply personal opinion, but #2 there is a bit more objective. Different dictionaries will give you different definitions, but most do seem to imply some sort of involuntary disfigurement.

The most common modern usage of the word implies violence and resulting physical harm. Proponents of circumcision tend to deny there's any harm in what they're doing. Who knows, maybe they're right? Ask a newborn if he's been harmed by circumcision, and he's not gonna say "yes" or give his perspective on the matter.
 
2013-09-19 09:37:39 PM  
Or should I say, voluntary disfigurement of another. Damn, I need to start hitting Preview.
 
2013-09-19 10:10:04 PM  
If most circumcised men are happy to be circumcised, that's great.  Not all are happy though, and I and I think most intact men would consider their genitals imperfect if they had to be circumcised.  I'd pay a year's salary rather than be circumcised.  It's not a huge amount of skin, but it makes a big difference.

Why can't we let everyone decide for themselves whether or not they wants parts removed from their genitals?  It's not like it can't wait.  There are only two countries in the world where more than 50% of newborn boys are circumcised - Israel and (probably) the USA.  Other countries circumcise, but later in life, usually anywhere from around seven years old to puberty or adolescence.

If our son wants to be circumcised when he's 18 (16 if he knows what he's doing), I'll pay for it and help him find a good surgeon.  Until then, he stays intact.  His body - his decision.  If he wants to be circumcised later, it's easy to fix - safer, less painful, and better cosmetic results.  If we'd had him circumcised, and he wanted to be intact, it's a problem.
 
2013-09-20 12:45:56 AM  

maelstrom0370: Fafai: the type 1 FGM you just mentioned. If I honestly missed it I will concede there may be some confirmation bias going on on my part. Or at least ignoring dumbasses.

Well, TFA for starters. Then there's:
Jill'sNipple: Don't try to portray those of us who condemn genital mutilation as extremists.

And:
Jill'sNipple: I oppose genital mutilation for either sex

And:
Fafai: It's insensitive to call the mutilation of genitals "genital mutilation" because it isn't the exact same as an entirely different type of genital mutilation. Instead, lets call it Super Amazing Babby Penis Slicing-Off Courtesy.

Ahhhh! I see what you ddi there! Clever girl ;) In my search of the thread, I found that you are, technically, correct. Which, by the way, is all that really matters. You and Jill inferred FGM but never really bothered to clarify your position until everyone told you what tools you were being. Well played, sir, well played. By calling it simply "Genital Mutilation" (I know, I know, it's the textbook definition and all that), you get the reader to infer Female Genital Mutilation which, of course, everyone views as absolutely heinous. Then, when normal people start screaming about it, you can step back and say "Whaaaat? Why, I never!"
Hooowee! There's a lot I need to learn about internet arguing! :)


Infer =/= Imply
Genital mutilation = Genital mutilation
 
Displayed 443 of 443 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report