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  
•       •       •

7975 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Sep 2013 at 5:17 PM (44 weeks 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
 
2013-09-19 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.
 
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