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 443
    More: Sad, systematic review, marketplace of ideas, penile cancers, male sexuality, circumcisions, amputations, female genital mutilation, mutilation  
•       •       •

7976 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Sep 2013 at 5:17 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



443 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
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!!!!!!
 
Displayed 50 of 443 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report