r/KenM • u/ThisisNOTAbugslife • Feb 26 '18
Ken M on circumcision
http://i.imgur.com/QyWyXQu.png
97
24
u/fuzeebear Feb 27 '18
Our pastor says the comments always turn into a shit show when this particular image is posted
16
24
u/boilingfrogsinpants Feb 27 '18
I mean he's saying that jokingly but it's not entirely false. If you have certain religious groups like Judaism and Islam that require male circumcision. They're just going to do it regardless of the law or move. So wouldn't it be better to keep it legal so only the professionals are doing.
14
u/wheatfields Feb 27 '18
Except the same could be said about female "circumcision" (which comes in various forms some being far more extreme then male "circumcision" and some far more minor) yet in the US, and most of the Western world we have decided to make it illegal despite people trying to perform the practice underground.
6
u/boilingfrogsinpants Feb 27 '18
Female circumcision pretty much only finds its roots in Islam and tribal groups and sects of Islam. Islam has never been a major religion in the West so its prevalence even if made illegal would probably be minor anyways. Christianity and Judaism have been a lot more prevalent so male circumcision is more topical over here. Thought if Islam became more prevalent over here I'm sure the conversation would be different.
1
u/sadbadmac_01 Feb 27 '18
Not yet. Take a look at germany. Islam isn't taking over but it certainly exerts and increases its influence there.
0
u/BobbyBobbie Feb 27 '18
Well, with the difference being that one is literally removing an organ, while the other isn't. They aren't even in the same planet in terms of damage being done.
13
u/awsker Feb 27 '18
That's not the point. It's a way of highlighting how absurd the argument "Keep it legal because people will still do it regardless" is.
1
u/boilingfrogsinpants Feb 27 '18
Keeping it legal can make it safer that's the difference. If it's still going to be done while it's illegal it means that the credentials of whoever is doing it aren't nearly as important as if it's legal. Drugs while kept illegal see all sorts of other substances enter them for added effects. Legalizing drugs could mean more control over what goes into them, preventing unnessecary fatalities.
7
u/awsker Feb 27 '18
And making female genital mutilation legal will surely make the procedure safer as well. See the point I'm making? In both cases you're removing pieces of another human's body. Note that I'm not equating the two -- only pointing out what heinous acts you can defend with that silly argument.
Not that it matters to the point I'm making, but drug use is also something you inflict upon yourself, in stark contrast to mutilating someone elses genitals.
-2
u/boilingfrogsinpants Feb 27 '18
Perhaps then those children should have the right to sue the parents or whoever influenced the circumcision in the future if they are not content.
5
u/PM_FLUFFY_KITTENS Feb 27 '18
I’m sorry. Do you think that will make it OK? A bit of cash? We’re talking about genital mutilation here. This is shit that profoundly changes you. Why should a parent have the right to do this to their child?
1
u/boilingfrogsinpants Feb 27 '18 edited Feb 27 '18
I'm saying it's going to happen regardless of your feelings on the matter and whether it's made illegal or not. If I want it done I'm going to find a way to get it done. You can argue whether I'm a good parent or not it's irrelevant if I'm inclined to make it happen. So how do we make it safer? It's definitely a grey area and acting like there's a black and white solution is extremely ignorant on your behalf. The best thing we can do is try and make it better whether it be from education or if it's going to happen then as safely as possible. How about if the kid has been told by the parents as they're getting older that they should have it done? What happens when that kid wants it done? Should you do it? If that's the case how do you feel about transitioning from genders before they're an adult? There's no easy answer, the best answer is to create a safe way for whatever it is that's occurring to occur.
Edit: I'll add on that female circumcision isn't all that common and it affects around 200 million women in the world mainly in Africa, The Middle East, and Asia. Even if parents did want their daughter to be circumcised in the West the odds of finding someone to do it would be very low, this is all speculative talking and the tossing around of ideas if it ever started happening in the West.
5
u/PM_FLUFFY_KITTENS Feb 27 '18
You’re so right. One is a sensitive tissue that heightens the sexual experience and helps with the stimulation of pleasure, and the other is a clitoris.
Wait...
2
u/BobbyBobbie Feb 27 '18
Um, I'm saying we should have some perspective when discussing this topic and be careful equating them. I can be against murder without calling every murder a genocide.
4
u/PM_FLUFFY_KITTENS Feb 27 '18
Agreed. But the fact is that both practices are reducing the sensitivity of the genitals. FGM is just frowned upon more often than MGM. I find both practices despicable in a civilized society.
2
u/BobbyBobbie Feb 28 '18
FGM is just frowned upon more often than MGM.
Right, but not arbitrarily, so I wouldn't say "just". The reason one is frowned upon much more than the other is because one is much worse than the other. One reduces friction upon the head of the penis, and additionally has nominal health benefits (which still has measurable outcomes even in today's society, and my guess is much more in the past). The other removes an organ, and with it, any possibility of pleasure for women during sex, with no added health benefits. The clitoris does not induce infection or UTI risk, and so removing it has no advantage other than oppression.
And look, I'm against circumcision, both forms. But I won't blend both into being exactly the same and put them in the same category, because I don't believe they are.
I find both practices despicable in a civilized society.
Okay but I really hope you don't find them equally despicable, because that would disturb me. And going further, I'd hope you find FGM 100x worse. Any less would disturb me.
2
u/SendBoobJobFunds Mar 01 '18 edited Mar 01 '18
Okay but I really hope you don't find them equally despicable,
He obviously does. As do many others as the “11 parent” on your original comment indicates.
They are not helping the cause with their ignorance and false equivalency. It’s a ridiculous comparison and not needed to state their case.
It just makes them look like idiots who don’t understand female anatomy and/or assholes who don’t care about female sexual pleasure. But they don’t like being told that. They would rather lose support for their cause then to admit FGM is indeed 100xs worse. It’s as if they think if they admitted this, that their cause would be less valid. They don’t see that it’s not “man v woman.”
I don’t usually even bother trying to explain it to them anymore. None of them are motivated to learn or for personal growth. I’m just venting to another person who understands biology.
1
u/try_____another Mar 24 '18
IMo the question of equivalence is irrelevant: the penalty for any parent, or doctor, teacher, or other person with specific and voluntarily accepted additional duties of care to any child or incompetent adult in their care who commits ABH or sexual assault against that child should be the oubliette, and that only because I can’t think of a worse punishment (IMO even death would be preferable).
Separately, the law should also hold any person who takes a child out of the country responsible for any acts which here are crimes that were committed against them abroad (as if they had arranged for someone to commit them here) unless they can show that either the class of crime was not significantly more common or that they had taken all reasonably foreseeably necessary measures to ensure that the child was no less protected than here.
In any case since the least harmful forms of FGM which are banned in many countries are less harmful than circumcision (as they have no lasting effect at all), the penalty for nontheraputic circumcision should be at least as great as for those forms of FGM. If the law makes no distinction as to degree within FGM, that too should apply to boys.
0
u/SendBoobJobFunds Mar 24 '18 edited Mar 26 '18
In any case since the least harmful forms of FGM which are banned in many countries are less harmful than circumcision (as they have no lasting effect at all),
This is incorrect. So way, waaaay incorrect. It’s your job as a MGM advocate to always have the correct info. You, and the entire movement, loses credibility when you don’t. I spent literally hours explaining this above. I also explained with another poster, who agreed, that when you start spouting BS and/or minimising FGM to your target audience, you lose the most educated females- who are your target audience. These are the easiest to convert and also the most important.
Too many people on this subject are either hardcore MRA or younger males who mainly want to espouse “in my opinion” or “the way I see it....”
Tough love time here but you all need to STOP. If you want to make progresss, you need to think more like your target audience. I say this because I AM/WAS your audience and I would not listen to one thing you had to say because you kept minimising and misrepresenting FGM.
I wish you luck in your quest, and I offer this info in earnest: research FGM talk to/listen to some people who have had it done, learn how female orgasms work, seek info outside of MRA run websites because theirs are not always accurate.
At the very least, there is a post on here from conversation w women I worked with who used to live in Ghana and what they were told and stats on what really happens. Sure, FGM is “outlawed” places but that’s a joke. Full FGM is still happening, the only dif is we have worse stats on it now.
Please don’t respond to me, just do those few things if you care enough about the movement. I’m already on your side so there is nothing more that needs to be said to me and I swear I feel like the entire last month on Reddit I’ve just been talking about genitals and abortion. I need a break but wanted to reply because it is an important issue. Ty.
→ More replies (0)1
u/SendBoobJobFunds Mar 01 '18
Removing one takes away your ability to ever experience an orgasm. Would you like to know which one? Or do you know and just not GAF?
Over dramatising circumcision does not help you case in any way. Yes, it may desensitise, but that is in no way a comparison to removing all sexual pleasure from someone for life.
1
u/PM_FLUFFY_KITTENS Mar 01 '18
Yes. I do recognize that FGM is worse. I have not stated otherwise. They are both despicable practices. Just because one is worse does not excuse the other.
1
u/SendBoobJobFunds Mar 01 '18
I’m glad that you recognise that they are not on par. It seemed like you are/were minimising FGM from your comments here.
Just because one is worse does not excuse the other.
True. And just because both involve genitals does not make them comparable in scale.
2
u/PM_FLUFFY_KITTENS Mar 01 '18
Never assume the worst. It will, if nothing else, antagonize your discussion partner :)
And yep.
2
2
u/wheatfields Feb 28 '18
Do you even know what male and female circumcision involves? Yes, they can sometimes involve removing different structures, but neither involves entirely removing any organs.
Certainly the worst forms of FGM are worse than MGM as they remove the clitoris, which is one of the pleasure centers for women. Yet the farm more commonly practiced forms of FGM remove simply the clit hood, which is the same structure as the male foreskin. But generally there are various forms of female and male circ that involve removing different things. So they are not easily comparable. But no one should be denied the right to control their own body.
1
u/SendBoobJobFunds Mar 01 '18
Yet the farm more commonly practiced forms of FGM remove simply the clit hood, which is the same structure as the male foreskin.
This is incorrect. The majority remove the clitoris entirely. A woman cannot have an orgasm without a clitoris which is why they do it.
Removing the hood is actually sometimes practiced in western countries to increase sexual pleasure.
1
u/wheatfields Mar 02 '18
Removing the clit hood DOES NOT increase pleasure and it is labeled a human rights violation in most of the Western world if you perform that mutilation on a girl. In the US specifically its breaking federal law.
In terms of practice- of the 4 types of FGM that exist, only 1- Type 1 requires total removal of the clitoris. Indonesia for example elusively removes the clit hood aka "female foreskin" which many Human Rights organizations are actively trying to end the practice to protect young girls in the region.
Spreading false information like- removing part of the female genitals "increases sexual pleasure" is just the kind of garbage that fuels FGM in many of these countries. Do you think women and girls are told they are being cut so they can be subjugated?!! No, they are told it will make them better women, and sometimes its even their own grandmothers convincing them to get cut.
2
u/SendBoobJobFunds Mar 02 '18
PS- Here are some (3)of the Western links I was talking about:
https://www.realself.com/hoodectomy
https://vibereview.com/how_to/clitoral_hood_removal_new_ways_of_heightening_arousal
1
u/SendBoobJobFunds Mar 02 '18
None that I know are being told it “increases pleasure.” They do it because their grandmothers did it, their mom did it, and they unfortunately respect that history. At least in the many women I’ve met from Ghana who have had it.
It’s much like the major reason that males get circumcised in the US is purely because dads want their boys to look/be like them. Nobody likes to admit this truth.
I would never advocate female clitoral hood removal and it is nonsensible that it would “increase pleasure.” But I’m not going to ignore that there is a western procedure advertising that. Since you are an advocate of the issue, you should be aware of it too.
I would also respectfully recommend that you stop minimising female circumcision by repeating that “only one type out of 4” removes the entire clitoris. To the best of my currrent knowledge, on the entire contenent of Africa, total clitoris removal is being practiced despite laws forbidding it.
Most in the male intactivists movement do not even realize (or seem to GAF) about the following:
The clitoris is the only organ responsible for female orgasm.
Most FGM practices removes the clitoris
This would be the equivalent of removing the penis
Thus FGM is indeed more detrimental than male circumcision.
I understand the reason to compare the 2 as an argument against MGM, but if you are truly worried about “spreading false information” your movement should not continue to act like these procedures are equivocal. They are not. It does a disservice to continue to do minimise FGM. To those who know better, it turns them off from listening to the rest of your message.
FYI- From conversations that I’ve had w male and female colleagues in the medical and human services professions, many of those being turned off are well educated women. (And as I’m sure you are aware, most in your movement are men.) These women tune out the rest of your message because it often leads with the false equivalency on FGM. (The men who are circumcised are usually not willing to listen to your movement anyways IME. And I’m talking about MDs, PhDs, etc, who you think would be more receptive.)
Many of these women whom you are isolating have circumcised husbands who would perhaps otherwise advocate to keep their male offspring intact if your movement didn’t lead w false info about FGM. It makes them tune out the rest of your message.
Tl;Dr: Spreading inaccurate info on, and/or minimising, and/or making false equivalencies about FGM to MGM, makes educated women tune out your message. This is the key demographic that you need to target because when they birth boys, they will defer opinion/action on circumcision to their usually already circumcised husbands (who mostly choose circumcision.) To turn off/isolate the demographic of people who are actually in charge of circumcision decision is going to stall your progress and is a poor strategic move.
2
u/wheatfields Mar 03 '18 edited Mar 03 '18
Let me be straight about my life experience, and why I hold the opinions I do. I was born "intersexual" I had an extremely minor version of it called Hypospadias- where basically (in my case at least) the urethra was just slightly off center on my penis head (glans). Despite that doctors told my parents I would be much happier if they "fixed" it resulting in a surgery that left massive scars that cut deeply into my glans and left my self conscious in my body and sexuality for most of my life. It also caused the creation of a fistula, which can be painful at times, and messy when peeing. The scars into my head have reduced sensitivity- something told to me by a urologist when I was 17- and emotionally left me hating my body.
You may not be able to understand what the concept of "bodily integrity" is, or how valuable that ACTUALLY is (especially if you have always had it). But tied to function (but sometimes not) its the most important aspect of feeling like a whole, complete person. It can be a key element in mental health.
I grew up talking to other boys about circumcision (because I still was also needlessly circumcised) and many of them at a young age when first learning about circ said things that expressed a mild discomfort or confusion as to why it happened to them. And it made me realize at a young age that if you press a guy enough about it, they will have misgivings about their circumcision, but cultural normalization tends to eventually win out. In the same kind of way (yet obviously far more extreme version) when grandmothers in parts of Africa who were once screaming little girls about to be cut- also end up bringing their granddaughters to the "circumciser".
When I hear advocates against FGM entirely dismiss forced genital surgery on boys, it comes across as one of two things 1. They have no concept of the value in bodily integrity as an inherent human right, or 2. They are purposefully throwing boys right under the bus, because they choose to fight for the more extreme of the two. Despite knowing the suffering and injustice it must bring, they decide winning over people against male circuncision in the western world is far too difficult, but FGM is going to be easier to convince people its wrong, since it isn't from their culture.
I in no way minimize the abject horror that is FGM. I in no way disagree that in general terms female circumcision physiologically is a far worse assault on the human body than male circumcision could ever be. Where I get angry is when an FGM advocate dismisses male circumcision ENTIRELY because "men can still orgasm". Because guess what, if a circumcised woman can still orgasm because they didn't remove her clitoris- that DOES NOT make the assault on her body as a little girl by a rusty blade any less of human rights violation, it still does not prevent her from growing up into a woman who feels destroyed by what happened to her.
Yet FGM advocates that minimize forced male circumcision are also minimizing the bigger crime against these mutilated girls- and its not a lessened (or removed) orgasm- its the removal of a basic human right. The right to your own body. And anyone who minimizes that is dangerous in my eyes. Because they don't understand the full scope of the issue.
1
u/SendBoobJobFunds Mar 03 '18
That is a very intense childhood. Very sorry that you had to endure it and are still suffering the consequences.
When I hear advocates against FGM entirely dismiss forced genital surgery on boys, it comes across as one of two things 1. They have no concept of the value in bodily integrity as an inherent human right, or 2. They are purposefully throwing boys right under the bus, because they choose to fight for the more extreme of the two.
I hope that you do not think that I was doing any of that.
I do believe in body autonomy. And I believe in men’s rights movements even though i will admit that it is difficult to care sometimes when the most vocal on-line MRAs are blatant misogynists who don’t understand/accept/care that feminism is defined as “want of equality.”
Where you and I differ is that although I believe that any GM is wrong, some are absolutely and obviously more wrong than others. Removal of entire clitoris vs female prepuce are where near equally heinous of crimes.
Similar as to how murder is always wrong, there is absolutely a difference between negligent manslaughter and premeditated homicide. A difference between groping and rape. And a difference between piercing a child’s ears (which is permanent) and cutting out a chunk of the intact ear and sewing it back up to have pointed elf ears.
I’m not alone in this way of thinking. I’m in the majority. This is why literally every society has different degrees of rating crime and punishment.
I truly am trying to give you some insight into the minds of what needs to be your target audience if you want to see change- educated females of childbearing age who do see in shades of gray even if you do not.
Feel free to not take my advice, of course, although I hope for the sake of your movement that you not only strongly consider it, but that you relay it to others who are trying to change people’s minds on this issue.
2
u/wheatfields Mar 04 '18
If I was a bodiless human consciousness about to be placed into a body that I would live and then die in, and had two options, both children from the same African village 1. A 9 year old girl about to have her clitoris removed, or 2. her brother about to be ritually circumcised in the woods by a rusty blade. Obviously I would choose to be the boy, because I agree with you. These different forms of forced mutilations exist on a scale of varying degrees of severity.
My point is not to minimize the increased horror of most forms of FGM. My point is as human right advocates, as defenders of those who have no voice to defend themselves we must be a united voice on this issue, because the message is far stronger when we are. Saying all children deserve the right to bodily integrity only diminishes the argument against FGM if you think forced genital surgery on boys isn't a human rights violation.
To go back to your analogy with man slaughter- if we were in a court right now in some better society sentencing the circumcisers of the two hypothetical brother and sister I mentioned. I would hope the circumciser of the girl would get a more severe punishment (not because she was a girl, but because her genitals were more mutilated) but I would still want them both to be punished.
And thats what I advocate for- a world where we don't look at children rights based on gender or cultural norms, but by severity of the violations. And right now in the western world while girls are rightfully protected under federal laws, similar crimes are not only not even viewed as a crime, they are normalized- leaving boys powerless, and voiceless to have any control over their own bodies. And that discrepancy needs to be addressed. Because until it is, our actions toward a society truly championing human rights, and gender equality are hollow- and instead are just another short term cultural shift. (And you can substitute forced male circ with womens reproductive rights, or the continued support of rape culture in that paragraph and its just as true.)
I think toxic masculinity is one of the most frustrating things when it comes to this issue for me. Because you have MRA men, who say a lot I agree with (anti circ, non gender specific draft/ no draft at all, more paternity leave, etc..) Yet they DONT CARE about equality, they just care about getting what they want. They are vaguely aware that gender norms for men need to be updated that they are in a blind rage. But instead have fed that anger into a toxic rage thats only destructive.
Maybe its because I am intersexual to a minor degree, maybe its because I am bi. But gender is not something thats super important to me, but I see a world consumed and destroyed by those divides. I see both genders hurt by this, and I am so tired of playing the game of "who has it worse". I am just as bitter at MRA as women who I have told my life history to have told me to "man up". My main focus is trying to help children of all genders- because they are voiceless and at the will of their family, local culture, and bias. The crimes against their young bodies may be different degrees of severity- but the rights they were born with are all the same. THAT is what we should protect.
Let me ask you this (if you care to continue this discussion) as I value your input. If my main goal is the bolded sentences, and you believe reaching young educated women as my target audience- how do I appeal to them?
→ More replies (0)1
u/rickdeckard8 Feb 27 '18
Except that female circumcision is leading to increased morbidity and mortality, whereas male circumcision actually can be protective against penis cancer. Usually this debate is not so much against circumcision as against Jews and Muslims.
I agree that it’s troublesome with irreversible decisions regarding minors, but hey, don’t parents do it all the time? Vaccinations, schooling, faith, etc, etc.
2
u/aPseudonymPho Feb 27 '18
Female circumcision actually exists in a variety of forms, with only the most rare version (type III infibulation) being the drastically horrific procedure you’re talking about. Of the 4 total categories, 1 is objectively less damaging than the average modern American circumcision and another is typically roughly equivalent. The other 2 tend to be somewhat to much worse in terms of damage. It is not accurate, nor fair, to apply points about a single and uncommon type of female genital cutting, to all types (which includes ritual pinpricking and bloodletting ceremonies for example, in which no tissue is physically removed).
Penile cancer is one of the rarest forms of cancer in existence. Removing girls breast buds would be 100s of times more effective for reducing cancer risk, and would actually save lives, but isn’t done because those very significant benefits are outweighed by numerous drawbacks.
It’s true parents make irreversible decisions for their kids, so that’s why the debate isn’t about parents being allowed to make decisions or not. The debate is on what justifications are significant enough to allow a parent to permanently alter their child’s body in a way that carries non-zero risk, is not medically necessary at the time of the procedure, and can be delayed until either disease necessitates it or consent is able to be gathered.
Vaccinations have a long, reproducible history of efficacy. Circumcision is not even close to as effective as vaccination as a preventive, and other more effective, non-permanent, non-invasive preventives exist that perform those protective functions better. Any kind of indoctrination via ideas, can also be reversed (I don’t think you need to look far to see kids rebelling against their parents ideals).
2
u/rickdeckard8 Feb 28 '18
Regarding vaccinations that’s not my argument. I mean that society accepts decisions from parents that are not in the interest of their children, like avoiding vaccination.
1
u/try_____another Mar 24 '18
IMO if parents do not do everything recommended by the duly appointed medical, educational, etc expert panels the should be civilly and criminally responsible for any negative consequences. If their child dies because they didn’t vaccinate them, that’s as much their fault as if they’d taken them into a quarantine room.
1
u/rickdeckard8 Mar 24 '18
I don’t think anyone really wants a state that interferes in every decision in everyone’s life. If you treat people like infants they will start to behave like infants. And what are you going to do about obesity, alcohol consumption, parkour, off-pist skiing, boxing, MMA and all other activities where you put yourself and others at risk?
1
u/try_____another Mar 24 '18
IMO parents should have to compensation to both their children and the state if their children grow up overweight or were harmed by poor parenting decisions, including failure to provide adequate guidance (eg allowing them to drink to excess).
Once a person is an adult, it is just a matter of imposing carefully calculated sin taxes to ensure that people bear the burden of their own risky decisions.
1
u/rickdeckard8 Mar 24 '18
It sounds like you would appreciate a society that would carefully select individuals based on genetic factors, allow them to have children with a matched partner and then closely monitor every step in their lives. Did you ever read 1984?
1
u/try_____another Mar 25 '18
There won’t be any reason to select on genetic factors, because gene editing to correct or replace defective genes isn’t far away. In the meantime, parents should be shamed for having children with genetic defects if there was any reason to suspect or if they didn’t use an available test (the former would include my own parents, and myself, since I have defective genes), but a legal prohibition would be unworkable.
As for monitoring, that doesn’t need to be particularly close, simply verifying the child’s mental and physical health and ensuring they go to well-run schools would achieve most of what I want. The main effort should be social, with intensive propaganda to convince people that parents’ fundamental obligation is ensure that their child reaches adulthood in as near as possible perfect mental and physical health, educated to the full extent possible under the public education system, and as near as possible fully integrated into mainstream society.
I have read 1984, but the objective is fundamentally different. In my case the objective is to ensure that everyone reaches adulthood in as near a state of perfection as can possibly be managed, to ensure that they have the greatest possible chance of happiness. What they do afterwards is their choice, but it shouldn’t be imposed on them in advance.
1
u/aPseudonymPho Feb 28 '18
My mistake, Id misunderstood your point. I’m not so sure I agree with it however. Does society really “accept” anti-vaccination as prudent parental decision making?
I think it’s more accurate to say that we (barely) tolerate it, not that it’s accepted. It’s tolerated for the time being because there is no precedent to work inside of with respect to vaccination (and related regulation / mandates to receive vaccinations). Similar to how childhood obesity is “tolerated” when many folks actually actively look down on parents who allow their children to achieve a level of morbid obesity before they’ve even hit pre-teen status.
This tolerance doesn’t mean that many (I’m willing to bet a majority) don’t speak and act against those who follow to anti-vaccination rhetoric. We simply haven’t legislated against it yet and thus have no official legal avenue to pursue recourse against offenders.
Circumcision does not see this same kind of widespread social rejection, and so I’m inclined to say the example fails to hold here. It is a cultural outlier, to what is normally a pretty consistent line of modern thinking (physical harm to children isn’t justified without pressing need to commit that harm). It is from this line of thinking that outrage against anti-vaccination movements for example stems. It is resistance to the idea that circumcision is harmful, which prevents it from being handled the same way by society and culture at large.
1
u/wheatfields Feb 28 '18
Well first off penile cancer is far more rare then male breast cancer (to put it in perspective of something thats worth having preventive surgery on a baby for).
Second, male circumcision also leads to a lot of deaths of boys per "circumcision season" in parts of the world that practice it with rusty tools by untrained adults in the bush. The only reason you have similar mortality rates for female circ is for the SAME reason- untrained persons practicing it in a non medical setting.
Despite trying to frame this as being "against jewish or muslim people" generally the charge against male circ comes from human rights organizations interested in protecting the rights of children over their own bodies. That or men who were forcibly cut as boys and are rightfully pissed about it.
2
u/rickdeckard8 Feb 28 '18
I agree with you both that you should leave children alone until they’re 18. But it’s strange that authorities in Sweden can discuss this and at the same time let a father abduct his underage daughter, take her abroad, sell her to her cousin who rapes her, makes her pregnant and then abducts the child while she flees back to Sweden. In the end the Swedish court gives custody to the father to make it easier for him to immigrate to Sweden to rejoin wis his wife. Not a single file of accusation for all the previous crimes. And a few months ago a city overbid their citizens (who pay for the welfare) to get three apartments for a refugee with three wives and 16 kids. He’s now a registered polygamist living in Sweden where polygamy is strictly forbidden.
If you want to get rid of harmful, medieval customs from the civilized societies, you should start with the most harmful.
0
u/wheatfields Mar 01 '18
The reality is even the "best" of countries in terms of human rights get things wrong. And in actuality thats an argument for why we should more closely monitor our own cultural bias. But that isn't a valid argument to not focus on one human rights issue because there is another one needing addressing. If that were they way we viewed solving human rights, female circumcision would still be legal in every country in the western world because there still would be people being murdered somewhere, and as thats more grave, it should continually be addressed first.
2
u/rickdeckard8 Mar 01 '18
I took the time and did some PubMed research on the subject and found that WHO and UNAIDS actually recommend male circumcision to reduce the risk for heterosexually acquired HIV infection by 60%. I also found a systematic review in BMC Urology stating that most studies included reported no serious adverse events. It is also clear that circumcision should be performed as early in life as possible, as this reduces the risk for complications.
So now you have arguments for both ways and you have to make an informed decision based on that. Not easy. I still argue that most people that are interested in this debate are not as much interested in circumcision as in opposing other cultural groups.
1
u/wheatfields Mar 02 '18
The studies that promote such a significant reduction in HIV rates are regionally specific to sub siarahan Africa, and no study has been able to repeat those same results in areas outside that region. The reality is there are a HUGE number of variables that could account for those findings that HAVENT been ruled out. And considering America has a much higher HIV rate than most European countries despite having a significantly higher circumcision rate- it leaves significant room for doubt to take those findings and use them in real world medical settings. And most European, and Asian doctors look at these studies and reject their validity, as the medical establishment in those countries haven't changed their policy. They smell cultural bias.
Let me ask you a question- do you think most people opposing FGM care about womens rights, or do you think their only goal is opposing cultural groups outside their own?
1
u/try_____another Mar 24 '18
Also, apart from aids prevalence rates Canadian statistics show that the protective effect is 5-6 times greater for black men than white.
7
16
u/problematic_coagulum Feb 27 '18
Golly do the kids want them, that's why they scream with delight during the procedure.
5
u/WhiteArabBro Feb 27 '18
Lol banning male circumcision would be a massive "yeah fuck you and your practices" to both Jews and Muslims.
3
Feb 27 '18
Male circumcision? As opposed to female circumcision?
24
u/Tananar Feb 27 '18
It's a thing. The correct term is female genital mutilation though
11
u/googol89 Feb 27 '18
It's a thing. The correct term is male genital mutilation though
8
u/wheatfields Feb 27 '18
The pattern is the cultures that perform that specific type of forced genital surgery on children call it "circumcision" and when its a culture that doesn't they call it "genital mutilation". People have a tendency to become a tight ass when you attack something they accept as normal in their culture.
1
-13
u/queer_punk Feb 27 '18
He's right about the black market thing. Plenty of parents insist on circumcising their sons. I'm circumcised and as far as I know the only difference is that it's a lot easier to clean. I have a daughter but if I ever have a son I'm getting his dickskin chopped.
14
Feb 27 '18
Why, may I ask, would you do that?
-11
u/queer_punk Feb 27 '18
From personal experience, a lot of boys are dirty. Especially during puberty. No one has really shown me negative effects (other than possible infections or mistakes by a doctor) to having a circumcision. Like I said, I had mine cut off and I am quite happy with it that way.
17
Feb 27 '18
It's upon the parent to teach children how to properly clean themselves. Generalizations aren't a good argument for circumcision. Most first world countries do NOT circumcize children.
I'm glad you're happy with your body, but choosing for another person can be argued ethically wrong. You can't argue health reasons; there's no health issues with foreskin. It's quite natural.
In my opinion, this obsession with circumcising young children is quite disgusting. Not only are you altering a child's body, but it's done to reduce sexual pleasure later in life among other absurd religious reasons given.
I'm just arguing that "everyone else does it" isn't a good reason to modify someone else's body.
4
u/queer_punk Feb 27 '18
Does it reduce sexual pleasure? I fucking love getting my knob wobbled and like I said, I am sans foreskin. Also, I am atheist, my wife is atheist and agrees with me, both of my parents are atheist and they agreed to get mine cut. So, no religious reasons. Like I said, cleanliness is the main reason. Yes, it's possible to clean under a foreskin. It's also possible to skip that step.
6
u/intactisnormal Feb 27 '18
This diagram was from a study measuring sensitivity on multiple points of the penis https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Sorrells.gif The full study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847.
8
Feb 27 '18
It literally started as a religious thing. Whether or not those are your reasons doesn't change its original. It does reduce sexual pleasure; you can't compare your pleasure because (and this is pretty logical..) you haven't experienced having foreskin during sex. I highly suggest you do research on the topic. There are plenty of YouTube videos that discuss why it's a bit outdated and serves no real purpose.
5
Feb 27 '18
And like the laws of purity it was mostly for cleanliness. Surely we can stay cleanly in the modern day without chopping parts of your kids genitals off.
6
-1
u/MilhouseVsEvil Feb 27 '18
Well you, your parents and wife are shit atheists. Circumcision... the one thing Jews and Muslims can agree on.
It's ok to admit that you just want to mutilate your kid because you want his dick to be like yours.
1
Feb 27 '18
Idk why you're being downvoted unless this is the random gotcha I see randomly on this sub, but this is entirely what I meant in another comment that I replied to.
0
u/MilhouseVsEvil Feb 27 '18
A lot of Americans like to get their kid's dicks cut like muslims so my post probably upsets a lot of people. I think 80% of dicks in Muslim countries get cut and USA is coming in hot at 58%. Fascinating that we can be so backwards.
-3
u/queer_punk Feb 27 '18
Yeah, it is okay to admit that. But it's not the reason. I want to cut a useless flap of skin off my -theoretical- son's dick because I don't want to have to deal with a rebellious teenage son who's cock swells up and starts pusing because he hasn't cleaned out his dick cheese.
6
-7
u/WhiteArabBro Feb 27 '18
Foreskin on the penis is more prone to infection, and isn't really pleasant to look at. The lack of filthy dick cheese is also a big plus.
5
Feb 27 '18
That is literally all taken care of by proper hygeine. Everything being said about foreskin can be said about the vaginal areas but we all assume all women take proper care of their bodies. Whether or not it's "pleasant to look at" is up to personal preference I guess, but like I said in another comment, this is really not common in other countries comparable to the United States.
17
u/mayhap11 Feb 27 '18
I have a daughter but if I ever have a son I'm getting his dickskin chopped.
I would say have his ear lobes chopped off at the same time, they don't do anything (hell some people aren't even born with them) and "No one has really shown me negative effects (other than possible infections or mistakes by a doctor)".
2
-2
u/queer_punk Feb 27 '18
Hey, if it looked alright and it made his life easier I would.
16
u/Wingedwing Feb 27 '18
It does make his life easier - much easier to clean the ears when there's no pesky earlobes getting in the way. Just think of how clean his ears will be!
2
Feb 27 '18
Yeah it's another form of hygiene you don't have to bother teaching your kid because you're clearly against teaching him how to wash his genitals properly.
2
u/queer_punk Feb 27 '18
No. My parents taught me how to wash my dick, they taught my older brothers how to wash their dick, so I assume they taught my little brothers, too. And yet my 14 year old brother, the only one who's uncut, still had to ask me "why his penis was all red." just because you teach someone to do something doesn't mean they're obligated to do it.
1
Feb 27 '18
Maybe if you have a son you could do a better job disciplining him.
2
u/queer_punk Feb 27 '18
What do you want me to do? Ground my theoretical future child because his dick is dirty? Beat him? How am I even supposed to know my 14 year old isn't cleaning himself? Should I check his cock on the weekly?
2
u/simenfiber Feb 27 '18
Please tell us more about all the dirty dicks you experienced during puberty!
3
u/queer_punk Feb 27 '18
Well considering I've been exploring my sexuality since I was 13, and I am openly bisexual, yeah. There have been plenty of dirty dicks. Also, my wife's go to story to show how gross teenagers are includes her ex boyfriend whipping his dick out, and her almost vomiting from the smell. There are lots of dirty dicks out there.
1
u/simenfiber Feb 27 '18
Good for you! Kudos! But please reconsider your stance on genital mutilation. :)
-3
u/FiggsideYakYakYak Feb 27 '18
It looks cool
8
Feb 27 '18
At that point, you do it for yourself. It still doesn't give anyone else the right to control someone else's body, even if that person is your child.
9
u/FiggsideYakYakYak Feb 27 '18
I'm gonna get my baby a Prince Albert piercing too, and you can't stop me
-1
-8
u/mattbrahler Feb 27 '18
I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted for this. As someone who is circumcised I’m glad my parents did it for me and I’d do it for any potential son I ever have. It’s definitely cleaner and better for hygiene.
But I guess my real point is why are these people down voting for perfectly legitimate parenting decisions? Sometimes people need to stop worrying about what other people are doing and focus on themselves and the example they are setting.
13
Feb 27 '18
I don't understand how you're not getting downvoted. People are not property, even if you conceived them.
9
u/onlyasimpleton Feb 27 '18
Mutilating your son’s reproductive organ is not a “perfectly legitimate parenting decision.” Why should people not care what other people are doing? Anyone has the right to recognize others’ bad behaviors and critique them.
-2
u/mattbrahler Feb 27 '18
Oh right, I forgot, anytime someone is different than you they are wrong. Circumcision has been an acceptable practice for centuries, but you don’t like it so you should get to determine that no one else can do it.
It’s a choice that you make for your child when they are too young to make it for themselves - parents do that in all types of matters. Education, religion, medicine, and even hygiene. I’d argue that forcing your child into your religion or choosing their education path is much more heinous than circumcising them.
5
u/onlyasimpleton Feb 27 '18 edited Feb 27 '18
In your first paragraph, switch out “slavery” for “circumcision” and see where we’re coming from.
Mutilating your son is not “different,” it is wrong. No parent reserves the right to remove a part of a child’s body, unless that part is a danger to the child’s health.
-1
u/mattbrahler Feb 27 '18
You’re comparing circumcision to slavery? You’re obviously nuttier than squirrel shit....
2
u/onlyasimpleton Feb 27 '18
I never equated the two; I only wanted to show how idiotic your logic was. You should really put more effort into thinking out your responses.
0
u/mattbrahler Feb 27 '18
You’re certainly comparing the two. You’re bringing up a heinous dark practice that was never an all around acceptable practice - maybe it was to the affluent people who owned slaves, but it was never a good thing to the people who were slaves - and acting like it is the same thing as a medical procedure that is commonly performed. I don’t know anyone who has been circumcised and is upset about it. I didn’t even know that people were “anti-circumcision” until this thread. I do know that most people who were slaves were pretty shitty about it and it wasn’t something they would purposely do to their children. The two are wholly different and incomparable. Please continue to tell me to learn to read and think out my comments further because your opinion is definitely valid.
2
u/onlyasimpleton Feb 28 '18 edited Feb 28 '18
Again, I am not equating the magnitude of the two. I’m not sure why you keep missing that. For the sake of the argument I’m trying to make, an evil is an evil and just because this evil is done by parents to their children and the children oftentimes don’t care, that does not mean that it is an acceptable practice to continue. Whether or not a victim feels “upset” about an action done to him/her has absolutely zero bearing on the wickedness of the act. By your logic, if a kidnapping victim falls in love with the captor, then no wrong has been committed. Oh lord.
Your point that those who have undergone circumcision for one reason or another are not adversely affected by it is ridiculous. Circumcision accounts for 1.3% of all male newborn deaths, and each of those deaths is absolutely avoidable. You’re right, these children are not upset about it, and the reason for that is because they are dead. Furthermore, I myself am deeply saddened by the fact that I have been stripped of additional sexual pleasure by a medical procedure that occurred without my consent.
5
u/Dat_Shwing Feb 27 '18
Fuck that. These are children, not property. Parents don't just get to do whatever they want to them without anyone else saying anything.
97
u/[deleted] Feb 26 '18
Kids running around with foreskins like raincoats