Just a random redditor trying to denounce the severity of MGM

[–]DiamondDiggler 211 points212 points213 points 6 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mr-X1 155 points156 points157 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]SvGamerevocator 79 points80 points81 points 6 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BurningOrangeHeaven 44 points45 points46 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thwip6230 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CSArchi 14 points15 points16 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Men-Are-Human 12 points13 points14 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]CSArchi 10 points11 points12 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Men-Are-Human 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 29 points30 points31 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mcchanical 12 points13 points14 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rahsoft 13 points14 points15 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The most baffling thing is, women have absolutely no bone in this fight. There's just no reason feminists should oppose men's right movement against infant circumcisions.

The fact they are so actively engaging in the argument proves that feminism is fueled by hatred.

Several things

They will cite religion, especially Islam and feminist seem to have a bit of a hard on for it . Don't know why because we( the community) don't want them and we wont get involved with Muslim women who do( single women who have nothing else in their lives)
they will cite that for girls its cultural, but I can tell you religion( Islam ) has been involved especially for my wife.
they will tell you that FGM is brutal , cuts that take so much away, whilst for boys is nothing. well there are several grades to fgm and with great shame you can find clinics in london that will do it for adult women.
Most importantly I believe its the issue of victimhood. when its girls only its we are the victims, give us more money and power and rights. when you demand equality of law to gender you take away their power.
just like so many movements and especially one that is in the news at the moment when these organisations get what they want, they won't disband because they don't want to give up the money and power. Feminism is a spent force in argument but still excise fear , shame and stigma to others who wont give them want they want. Ive just had a Redditor decide that my opinion on the riots and looting didnt count because I post in this sub reddit. this is the fallback position for people who have no counter arguement

[–]Geeekus 18 points19 points20 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -25 points-24 points-23 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 16 points17 points18 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Geeekus 11 points12 points13 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]intactisnormal 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]honeybear003 11 points12 points13 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Look, I understand it's easy to do this kind of lumping guilt-by-association, but bodily autonomy is a fundamental principle of feminist thought. If you see some random women on the internet going "ew" about uncircumcised dicks but also mentioning feminism later, these people aren't representative of the movement, they're just neoliberal people cherry-picking from 2nd-wave feminism when it benefits them, and these people are much maligned and a source of endless frustration for serious, involved, and critically-thinking feminists.

I've never known a single actual, irl feminist who didn't oppose genital mutilation of children--full stop. I've known tons, I've worked with them, and I'm one of them (and a man).

I've experienced a lot of Christians being massive hateful assholes and using their religion as justification for it, but I'm capable of discerning between cherry-picking from an ideology to support your own personal prejudices and what Christ actually said.

All people should enjoy the same fundamental rights. That's the actual core of feminism. I literally first began to fully understand the ways our culture and society oppress, repress, and harm men from feminist women, who were saying "look at these ridiculous double standards and inequality that come out of these archaic gender norms, it's super harmful to everyone, none of this benefits anyone. Men suffer from untold psychological damage from the often violent social conditioning they receive, resulting in higher rates of PTSD, addiction, and suicide".

It's an endless source of frustration for us that you can't see we fundamentally agree, because enough very squeaky wheels on the internet have managed to convince people that feminism = misandry, because they're just misandrist and use feminist talking points as justification, and they're extremely fucking vocal about it much like homophobic Christians.

This shit isn't good for anyone. We can, and should be working together.

[–]rahsoft 18 points19 points20 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]spaghettbaguett 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]killcat 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Franckenberry 301 points302 points303 points 6 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]fat_over_lean 144 points145 points146 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]rahsoft 57 points58 points59 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheMasterSword60 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jamesonsfriend1 41 points42 points43 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]40moreyears 77 points78 points79 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Robertcoupe 33 points34 points35 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Franckenberry 23 points24 points25 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dog_Lawyer_DDS 22 points23 points24 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]AwesomeSkywhale 18 points19 points20 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]LStat07 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Doireallyneedaurl 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cantersoft 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Doireallyneedaurl 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mr-X1 16 points17 points18 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Empress_Rach 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tofuandbeer 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Franckenberry 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -26 points-25 points-24 points 6 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]SkyOminous 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]LadyKnight151 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It served as a way for the Israelites to physically signify their devotion to God and their status as the chosen people of God when seen by those of other nations. It was a It isn't necessary any more since Jesus gives salvation to all. The New Testament makes it very clear that we are not meant to circumcise

Galatians 5:1-6

1It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

2Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. 6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

Galatians 6:11-13

11 See what large letters I use as I write to you with my own hand!

12 Those who want to impress people by means of the flesh are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ. 13 Not even those who are circumcised keep the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your circumcision in the flesh.

Titus 1:10-11

10 For there are many rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception, especially those of the circumcision group.11 They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain.

1 Corinthians 7:17

17 Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. 18 Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts. 20 Each person should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.

Acts 15: 1-10

Acts 15:1-10 New International Version (NIV) The Council at Jerusalem 15 Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3 The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.

5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”

6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]LadyKnight151 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Franckenberry 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -11 points-10 points-9 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LadyKnight151 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sounds like you're the one who doesn't know God:

Galatians 5:1-6

1It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

2Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. 6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

Galatians 6:11-13

11 See what large letters I use as I write to you with my own hand!

12 Those who want to impress people by means of the flesh are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ. 13 Not even those who are circumcised keep the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your circumcision in the flesh.

Titus 1:10-11

10 For there are many rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception, especially those of the circumcision group.11 They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain.

1 Corinthians 7:17

17 Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. 18 Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts. 20 Each person should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.

Acts 15: 1-10

Acts 15:1-10 New International Version (NIV) The Council at Jerusalem 15 Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3 The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.

5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”

6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?

[–]MBV-09-C 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Imagine following an entity that you can't prove exists, because someone told you that you would go to a terrible place, if you didn't, as a kid. A place that you also can't prove exists, because your only frame of reference is a millennia old book from back when people thought an eclipse was the end of the world, and that everything orbited us, and the guy that passes a plate around for money every week. On top of this, adding in that one of those things the entity supposedly asks for from you, through the words of ancient dead people or your holy storyteller of choice, is that you must cut off parts of baby dicks.

Now let me ask you something. If I told you that you HAD to cut up baby dicks and if you refused I'd lock you in my basement and waterboard you regularly forever, wouldn't you think that's an insane demand? Then why are you pretending it's a totally reasonable and acceptable request just because someone told you the invisible man said so?

I normally don't care what religious people do with their beliefs but idiots like you need to learn that your beliefs don't give you the right to harm other people's freedoms, even your own kids. They're living, breathing, human infants, not a wobbly barstools or a Wendy's baconator you don't want the tomato on, damn.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MBV-09-C 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Certainly-Not-A-Bot-[S] 47 points48 points49 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cyb3rd31ic_Citiz3n 36 points37 points38 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]40moreyears 27 points28 points29 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rahsoft 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lucius_Martius 74 points75 points76 points 6 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]Moronic-Simpleton 20 points21 points22 points 6 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]rahsoft 9 points10 points11 points 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]18Apollo18 10 points11 points12 points 6 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

Male Circumcision is just as damaging as removing the clitoris, the labia minora and labia majora

The glans penis (head) is not a sexual erogenous zone. It only has pain, pressure and temperature nerves. It does not contain fine touch tactile nerve. The foreskin, frenulum and ridged band like the ciltoris and labia do contain fine touch receptors.

Male circumcision is extremely severe removing the 3 most sensitive parts of the penis and 1/2 of penile tissue. It is linked to frequently orgasm difficulties in men and pain and discomfort in their female partners l. It can also causes the meatus to shrink which at worst can making urination difficult and painful and at minimum cause weak urine stream and longer time to empty the bladder.

The foreskin, frenulum, and ridged band are the 3 most sensitive parts of the penis and all contains fine touch receptors such as Meissner's corpuscles, Epidermal Merkel nerve endings and Pacinian corpuscles. The glans penis does not and it's not a primary erogenous zone. It's made to sense the foreskin gliding across it but that's it.

The foreskin provides gliding action reducing friction and the need for lubrication. It's also provide plesure to not only the man and but also his partner.

The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis.The most sensitive location on the circumcised penis is the circumcision scar on the ventral surface. Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision were more sensitive than the most sensitive location on the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.

The glans penis is primarily innervated by free nerve endings and has primarily protopathic sensitivity. Protopathic sensitivity refers to cruder, poorly localized feelings (including pain, some temperature sensations and certain perceptions of mechanical contact). In the glans penis, encapsulated end-organs are sparse, and found mainly along the glans corona and the frenulum. The only portion of the body with less fine-touch discrimination than the glans penis is the heel of the foot. In contrast, the male prepuce ridged band at the mucocutaneous junction has a high concentration of encapsulated receptors. The innervation difference between the protopathic sensitivity of the glans penis and the corpuscular receptor-rich ridged band of the prepuce is part of the normal complement of penile erogenous tissue. In females, the glans clitoris and the inner plate of the prepuce have corpuscular receptors on their oppositional surfaces. Merkel cells mediate tactile sensations, and are found in glabrous skin ; they have been reported in the clitoris and can be identified in the male prepuce.

Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.

Circumcision vs Intact sensitivity diagram (NSFW)

Free nerve endings, Meissner's corpuscles and Pacinian corpuscles are present in the human male foreskin and exhibit characteristic staining patterns.

Epidermal Merkel nerve endings, Meissner corpuscles, and other types of mechanoreceptors typically found in primate glabrous skin (lip or digit) are not present in the glans penis

The mean length of prepuce in this sample was 6.4 cm (range 4.8-9.2) and covered 93% of the mean penile shaft (6.9 cm). Ten prepuces were as long as or longer than the shaft of the penis to which they belonged; three of them were > 10% longer than the shaft and glans combined. 51% of the length of the mean adult penile shaft, or more from nearly half the penises. CONCLUSION: CIRCUMCISION REMOVES MORE THAN HALF OF TOTAL PENILE SKIN

In conclusion, circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the penis and decreases the fine‐touch pressure sensitivity of glans penis. The most sensitive regions in the uncircumcised penis are those parts ablated by circumcision. When compared to the most sensitive area of the circumcised penis, several locations on the uncircumcised penis (the rim of the preputial orifice, dorsal and ventral, the frenulum near the ridged band, and the frenulum at the muco‐cutaneous junction) that are missing from the circumcised penis were significantly more sensitive.

Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in their female partners, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment.

During intercourse the loose skin of the intact penis slides up and down the shaft of the penis, stimulating the glans and the sensitive erogenous receptors of the foreskin itself. On the outstroke the glans is partially or completely engulfed by the foreskin. This is known as the `gliding mechanism.' The gliding mechanism is Nature's intended mechanism of intercourse. As such, it contributes greatly to sexual pleasure. Also, since more of the loose skin of the penis remains inside the vagina, the woman's natural lubrication is not drawn out to evaporate to a great extent, which makes sex easier without using artificial lubricants.The prepuce is a highly innervated and vascularized genital structure. It is entirely lined with the peripenic muscle sheet. Specialized ecoptic sebaceous glans on the inner preputial surface produce natural emollients and lubricants necessary for normal sexual function. The primary orgasmic triggers are found in the preputial orifice and frenulum. When unfolded, the prepuce is large enough to cover the length and circumference of the erect penis and acts as a natural sheath through which the shaft glides during coitus. Only the presence and functions of the prepuce allow for physiologically normal coitus to occur as designed by nature.

The analysis sample consisted of 1059 uncircumcised and 310 circumcised men. For the glans penis, circumcised men reported decreased sexual pleasure and lower orgasm intensity. They also stated more effort was required to achieve orgasm, and a higher percentage of them experienced unusual sensations (burning, prickling, itching, or tingling and numbness of the glans penis).For the penile shaft a higher percentage of circumcised men described discomfort and pain, numbness and unusual sensations.In comparison to men circumcised before puberty, men circumcised during adolescence or later indicated less sexual pleasure at the glans penis, and a higher percentage of them reported discomfort or pain and unusual sensations at the penile shaft.

Circumcision removes the natural protection against meatal stenosis and, possibly, other USDs as well.

In meatal stenosis the meatus, or opening at the tip of the penis, becomes narrower. Meatal stenosis is almost exclusively found in males who have been circumcised. Symptoms include the following: Pain or burning while urinating, Sudden urges to urinate, Having to urinate often, A small, narrow, very fast urinary stream, A urinary flow that sprays (usually upward) or is difficult to aim, Trouble with fully emptying the bladder, A drop of blood at the tip of the penis after urinating

[+]tr3bjockey -8 points-7 points-6 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]intactisnormal 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]assassinator1014 -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]rahsoft -14 points-13 points-12 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]18Apollo18 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]rahsoft -7 points-6 points-5 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]18Apollo18 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Here's the text summary if you want to read it

The glans penis (head) is not a sexual erogenous zone. It only has pain, pressure and temperature nerves. It does not contain fine touch tactile nerve. The foreskin, frenulum and ridged band like the ciltoris and labia do contain fine touch receptors.

Male circumcision is extremely severe removing the 3 most sensitive parts of the penis and 1/2 of penile tissue. It is linked to frequently orgasm difficulties in men and pain and discomfort in their female partners l. It can also causes the meatus to shrink which at worst can making urination difficult and painful and at minimum cause weak urine stream and longer time to empty the bladder.

The foreskin, frenulum, and ridged band are the 3 most sensitive parts of the penis and all contains fine touch receptors such as Meissner's corpuscles, Epidermal Merkel nerve endings and Pacinian corpuscles. The glans penis does not and it's not a primary erogenous zone. It's made to sense the foreskin gliding across it but that's it.

The foreskin provides gliding action reducing friction and the need for lubrication. It's also provide plesure to not only the man and but also his partner.

just leave the summary and remove the underlined linked text

its over kil

Just writing down random nonsense doesn't mean shit. Hence why I linked scientific studies for all the information I provided

[+]rahsoft -6 points-5 points-4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lucius_Martius 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Moronic-Simpleton 10 points11 points12 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Doesn't seem so

[FGM has no benefits and can cause lifelong health and psychological consequences. Immediately following the procedure, girls are at risk for severe pain, shock, bleeding, bacterial infection, and injury to nearby tissue. In the long term, girls and women who have suffered this procedure are at risk for recurrent bladder and urinary tract infections, cysts, infertility, and complications during childbirth. In some cases, FGM can be lethal. In addition to physical consequences from FGM, there are also psychological and social consequences. These same consequences are not seen in male circumcision.

Additionally, FGM is most often a tool to control female sexuality. This is not the case for male circumcision. FGM is recognized globally as a human rights violation that according to the WHO “reflects deep-rooted inequality between the sexes, and constitutes an extreme form of discrimination against women.”](https://www.theahafoundation.org/female-genital-mutilation-frequently-asked-questions/)

[–]exForeignLegionnaire 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ciderglove 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]exForeignLegionnaire 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Ciderglove 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Str0gan0ff 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]spaghettbaguett 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rahsoft 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lucius_Martius 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Daedalus1811 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lucius_Martius 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I though it had been tolerated then ruled unconstitutional by a court

It had been tolerated in the sense that it rarely went to court since it was mostly performed by private practitioners and there was no specific law explicitly allowing or disallowing it (like with FGM), so it was not investigated by the police on their own. In every case where it was brought to court however, judges always ruled against circumcision.

There are two rulings against it under additional circumstances from 2004 and 2007, and a pretty clear case from 2012 that categorized it as "Körperverletzung" since there is no more specific crime that fits it better. This ruling made it clear that under present and past German law, circumcision had always been illegal.

That case led to a huge public debate of whether it should fall under religious freedom to mutilate a child (ridiculous) and the subsequent explicit legalization of the practice for these purposes (horrifying).

See the section about German law on this Wikipedia page for sources. I can't find anything international so you'll have to pipe it through google-translate or something.

[–]rahsoft 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]GhoulRamen5 points 6 years ago [recovered] (56 children) | Copy Link

The hygiene argument is the worst they can give. It's like US completely forget the rest of the planet exists, specifically Europe. As a European who's lived whole life in Europe, not a single boy or man around me ever complained about the "extra skin". It's not an "extra", it's supposed to be there. They all also seem to clean it just fine and never have any issues or complaints. If the hygiene was so bad to manage, it would be a thing in EU too, but clearly isn't.

I guess we should start plucking our nails out too, because they can get too long, ingrown or break in painful ways, instead of just, you know, taking fucking care of them.

Leave little boys' skin alone you dipshits.

[–]assassinator1014 -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (55 children) | Copy Link

[–]thwip62 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]assassinator1014 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]thwip62 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]assassinator1014 -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]thwip62 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]assassinator1014 -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]thwip62 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Like gods? Did I say anything that could remotely be construed as such? You're talking nonsense. By your own admission, though, cutting off parts of the penis is detrimental. How detrimental is irrelevant, the so-called "benefits" aren't nearly enough to justify it. You talk of HIV reduction. Contracting this virus via sex is something adults have to concern themselves with, not children, so even if I gave male genital cutting any credit for reducing the spread of HIV, I still wouldn't say it's okay to do it to babies. Cancer of the penis? Well, penile cancer is so rare that statiscially speaking, a man should be more worried about breast cancer than penile cancer. Anecdotally, no man I've ever known has had breast or penile cancer (at least not openly)

Phimosis can usually be fixed other ways. It certainly isn't such a probably that it warrants surgery on babies.

> In addition, female lovers of circumcised men have lower rates of cervical cancer, herpes, trichomonas, chlamydida, bacterial vaginosis, and human papillomavirus infection (HPV, genial warts).

And for this, babies should be put through a painful procedure? Bullshit. Anyway, the last time I checked, there was a vaccination for HPV.

[–]assassinator1014 -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]thwip626 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

There are many studies that show if we were to stop circumcisions at birth, than the risk of STI’s would skyrocket. I’m for the safety of the public.

I'm guessing you're American, /u/assassinator1014 . Well, most people in most countries don't cut their sons, and they're fine. You want to look outside your bubble. There isn't some STI epidemic here in Europe. Or in most of Asia. Or South America.

If baby's don’t have it done, then no one would do it when they are older.

If, despite these supposed "benefits", most grown men wouldn't willingly undergo this procedure, then that speaks volumes, doesn't it? The choice was presumably taken from you, so you don't want anyone else to have a choice, right?

It’s best to do it as baby’s because it won’t affect them.

Nonsense. Of course it can affect them. There are several things that could go wrong during this procedure. And it's "babies".

Quit your “But the baby’s” bullshit.

Why don't you quit your "CUT THE BABIES!" bullshit?

It’s not killing them,

Well, since you mention it, a lot of babies actually do end up dead from having their penises cut.

but if they don’t do it then they have a greater chance of killing someone else.

Wow.... Killing someone?! You're an idiot. Either that, or you're on a wind-up. I hope it's the latter.

[+]GhoulRamen1 points 6 years ago [recovered] (12 children) | Copy Link

There is nothing to "deal with" lmao. You don't "deal" with something that was never in the way of anything. In fact with this "extra" skin you get/keep more natural lube instead of having to buy it. Because the skin keeps it lubricated instead of drying out whenever you whip it out.

That is a massive difference if you ask me. Especially to women. Nobody likes painful sex and having to run to a store to buy something you should be able to produce naturally.

[–]assassinator1014 -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[+]GhoulRamen1 points 6 years ago* [recovered] (10 children) | Copy Link

So does a penis and it should. If it doesn't then it's not good for the woman either. Even if the woman is wet, she is still coming in contact with something dry and entering dry does not feel good no matter how wet she is. We can tell you're dry, it's not good at all. It hurts. We're not your lubricant.

Besides sex, how do you masturbate if you depend on women to lubricate you? I'm honestly curious... It works with sex, but what do you do on your own?

An uncut man, as he should be, produces his own lubricant. The precum. The "extra" skin makes it easier to stay lubricated as long as possible as it's not in contact with air so it doesn't dry as fast as it would it it was cut and exposed. Because it doesn't dry as fast it also builds up and gets more wet, unlike if you expose it and let it dry.

[–]assassinator1014 -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[+]GhoulRamen1 points 6 years ago* [recovered] (8 children) | Copy Link

It's like I need to remind you there's a whole world outside of US and that US men and women aren't only ones on the planet.

"any man" you mean US man. Not any man. My boyfriend is perfectly capable of masturbating without any kind of lubricant. Same goes for handjob, if doesn't need to involve oral. It's actually sad you think you need to invest in lube to masturbate.

"Most women" including this article are also US women. Not "most" women. Rest of the countries mentioned are also some uneducated shitholes while good majority of information is still about US. A place where people also think it's their right not to wear a mask during a pandemic so they can rightfully and freely infect and kill the elderly. Amazing source of information.

Women should generally have no voice in whether a man should be cut or uncut. As they don't have a penis, therefore their deafult position should be either uncut or not have a voice at all. The fact that you as a man think female opinion on this matter is relevant saddens me.

There are no hygiene benefits. For the man or the woman. If a man is an unhygienic pig, he will get an infection cut or uncut. It doesn't matter.

All of these reasons are aesthetic excuses and a bunch of logical fallacies. They're not actual medical evidence.

It's not about being a "god". It's about protecting a baby from unnecessary pain caused by some cosmetic surgery without his consent. If you think a teenager shouldn't get a nose job or a boob job at 14, then why should an infant get his penis mutilated? You're supposed to protect a baby and take care of it, not mutilate it.

I have a son and as a mother I cannot understand what kind of parent does this to their child knowingly and willingly. If someone did this to my son I would have murder tendencies and feel my son was mutilated. Because that is exactly what that is.

[–]assassinator1014 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Well i only think that because of only ever masturbated once. And I’m talking about the U.S because that’s where people practice circumcision. I don’t care if you aren’t U.S.

Your argument seems to be more of an attack on the U.S. And while I agree women shouldn’t be the deciding factor, it’s nice to know a lot of women, I guess I have to specify now, in the U.S like circumcised penises.

Hygiene benefits aren’t the problem, it’s the 30-40% reduced risk of STI’s and UTI’s.

The baby doesn’t experience pain, you realize that right? And boob jobs typically don’t have health benefits, whereas circumcisions do. And cool you don’t like your son being circumcised, whatever. That’s your belief.

Also, “There aren’t any scientific studies that show that removing the foreskin will negatively affect sexual function, sexual satisfaction, or sensitivity (despite what you may come across online or overheard). For example, this 2013 systematic review published in the Asian Journal of Andrology analyzed all of the studies that observed whether or not circumcision impacted male sexual functions. Out of the ten studies the researchers identified, which encompassed a total of 9317 circumcised and 9423 uncircumcised men, there were no significant differences in sexual desire, premature ejaculation, ejaculation latency time (the amount of time it takes until orgasm), erectile dysfunctions, and orgasm difficulties.”

[+]GhoulRamen1 points 6 years ago [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

There is no such thing as "30-40%" reduced risk of STI and UTIs. If it was that would be globally know and not just some random online excuse for circumcision. If you think a lack of skin on the penis prevents STDs from happening, you lack common sense on top of medical evidence. I won't even bother to get further into this as it isn't a good excuse to do it regardless.

The baby doesn't feel pain? You mean they lack language and strength to scream in your face that you just mutilated their genitalia? I can't believe you actually think this... What do you think the procedure looks like? That they just casually lay there and laugh while it's done? No, they cry in agony.

Every human being that's healthy and has a functioning body and brain feels pain.

It's a fucking baby. It doesn't need to be circumcised to prevent STD because it's an infant that doesn't do sexual activities. It doesn't need it for hygiene reasons because parents should properly wash him in the first place and then teach him how to do it himself when time comes.

Just because there is some low chance that he might get STD or have bad hygiene in 15+ years, doesn't mean you should fuck up his genitals as soon as he's born.

The fact that that is the reason to do it is absolutely horrifying. Who the fuck looks at a baby and thinks how their future sex life might be? That's pedophilic and wrong. It's no one's business. They can get circumcised later on in life when they can give consent to it because they want it or medically require it.

There is no valid reason to do this upon birth besides a medical one which rarely ever happens.

In conclusion: It's fucked up and unnecessary. You have no good reason to do this.

[–]assassinator1014 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]intactisnormal 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]assassinator1014 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]intactisnormal 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]assassinator1014 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]intactisnormal 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

“Male circumcision decreases penile sensitivity as measured in a large cohort”

“circumcised men reported decreased sexual pleasure and lower orgasm intensity. They also stated more effort was required to achieve orgasm, and a higher percentage of them experienced unusual sensations (burning, prickling, itching, or tingling and numbness of the glans penis). For the penile shaft a higher percentage of circumcised men described discomfort and pain, numbness and unusual sensations. In comparison to men circumcised before puberty, men circumcised during adolescence or later indicated less sexual pleasure at the glans penis, and a higher percentage of them reported discomfort or pain and unusual sensations at the penile shaft.”

“This study confirms the importance of the foreskin for penile sensitivity, overall sexual satisfaction, and penile functioning. Furthermore, this study shows that a higher percentage of circumcised men experience discomfort or pain and unusual sensations as compared with the uncircumcised population. Before circumcision without medical indication, adult men, and parents considering circumcision of their sons, should be informed of the importance of the foreskin in male sexuality.”

[–]assassinator1014 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]intactisnormal 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (26 children) | Copy Link

Yes there will be some remnants of your foreskin, as seen on this diagram.

But, first you ignore a study showing that a large amount of sensitive tissue is removed. And claimed no effect on sex.

Then second you ignore a study showing effect on sex with comparison between uncircumcised and circumcised, with your personal anecdote without comparison.

notably HIV.

“The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1,231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298.” That originates from the CDC.

A terrible statistic. Especially when circumcision is not effective prevention and condoms must be used regardless.

And we can look at the real world results: “The African findings are also not in line with the fact that the United States combines a high prevalence of STDs and HIV infections with a high percentage of routine circumcisions. The situation in most European countries is precisely the reverse: low circumcision rates combined with low HIV and STD rates. Therefore, other factors seem to play a more important role in the spread of HIV than circumcision status. This finding also suggests that there are alternative, less intrusive, and more effective ways of preventing HIV than circumcision, such as consistent use of condoms, safe-sex programs, easy access to antiretroviral drugs, and clean needle programs."

cancer of the penis.

“Decreased penile cancer risk: [Number needed to circumcise] = 900 – 322,000” to prevent a single case of penile cancer.

A horrendous statistic.

balanitis

“Balanitis can occur at any age. It affects approximately 1 in every 25 boys and 1 in 30 uncircumcised males during their life. ... When boys reach approximately the age of 5 years, the foreskin becomes easy to retract, and the risk of balanitis falls.”

phimosis

"An estimated 0.8% to 1.6% of boys will require circumcision before puberty, most commonly to treat phimosis. The first-line medical treatment of phimosis involves applying a topical steroid twice a day to the foreskin, accompanied by gentle traction. This therapy ... allow[s] the foreskin to become retractable in 80% of treated cases, thus usually avoiding the need for circumcision."

cervical cancer

Cervical cancer is from HPV which has a vaccine. Which is so effective that (turning to news) "Australia could become first country to eradicate cervical cancer. Free vaccine program in schools leads to big drop in rates."

herpes, trichomonas, chlamydida, bacterial vaginosis, and human papillomavirus infection (HPV, genial warts).”

It's called a condom and safe sex.

Circumcision is not effective prevention for any STI. Condoms must be used regardless.

And STIs are not relevant to newborns or children. So the decision can go to the informed patient himself later in life.

As you seem to want to discuss, the standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity.

The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well:

Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority of substitute decision makers is not absolute. In most jurisdictions, authority is limited only to interventions deemed to be medically necessary. In cases in which medical necessity is not established or a proposed treatment is based on personal preference, interventions should be deferred until the individual concerned is able to make their own choices. With newborn circumcision, medical necessity has not been clearly established.

http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision

To override someone's body autonomy rights the standard is medical necessity. Without necessity the decision goes to the patient themself, later in life. Circumcision is very far from being medically necessary.

And we have more studies on pleasure, this time including effect on women:

“Male circumcision and sexual function in men and women: a survey-based, cross-sectional study in Denmark”

"Results: Circumcised men...were more likely to report frequent orgasm difficulties after adjustment for potential confounding factors, and women with circumcised spouses more often reported incomplete sexual needs fulfilment and frequent sexual function difficulties overall, notably orgasm difficulties and dyspareunia."

“Conclusion: Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment. Thorough examination of these matters in areas where male circumcision is more common is warranted.’

[–]assassinator1014 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]intactisnormal1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I like how you dropped all claims of health benefits. Let's not forget all that.

And how you skipped over the medical ethics. Which is key.

However, one 2012 study found that there was not enough scientific evidence in some previous research to suggest that circumcision affects sexual function. The study concluded that circumcision has no negative long-term impact on sexual function.

Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. Period. That's something fundamental about science that everyone needs to know.

And this is one of the ideas behind medical ethics. There doesn't need to be evidence of harm. There needs to be medical necessity to intervene on someone else's body.

And on to the study itself. First this isn’t a study. At all. Like wow. So your link has it all wrong to begin with.

This is a criticism of this study “Male circumcision and sexual function in men and women: a survey-based, cross-sectional study in Denmark” from Frisch which I’ve already given.

Here's the original author Frisch's response:

“Morris et al. express concern over possible overfitting in our logistic regression ... However ... models with adjustment only for age provided odds ratios (ORs) similar to those obtained in the fully adjusted model, suggesting that this is mostly a theoretical concern.”

“Next, Morris et al. suggest that we should have corrected for multiple testing even though such statistical manoeuvres are, at best, unnecessary and, at worst, deleterious to sound statistical inference in most epidemiological studies.”

“Morris et al. also claim that prevalence ratios would have been more appropriate measures of association than ORs. However, despite Morris et al.’s firm statement to the contrary, there is nothing inherently inappropriate about using ORs in cross-sectional studies, even in situations with common outcomes.”

“Morris et al. should be commended for their creative attempt to dismiss the higher prevalence of frequent dyspareunia in women with circumcised (12%) than uncircumcised (4%) spouses (ORs between 4.17 and 9.00). They suggest that Danish women with circumcised spouses may be so psychologically troubled by the shape of their spouse’s penis that it might result in painful intercourse. A more plausible explanation would be that reduced penile sensitivity may raise the need among some circumcised men for more vigorous and, to some women, painful stimulation during intercourse in their pursuit of orgasm.”

Also notable is Morris's alignments. Frisch notes:

“Two of the authors, Morris and Waskett, both internationally recognized circumcision activists, forget to declare their conflicts of interest.”

“Morris ... argues that neonatal male circumcision ‘should be made compulsory’ and that ‘any parents not wanting their child circumcised really need good talking to’.”

A 2016 study

Ah the Bossio study, I know it well.

The Result of the Bossio study is "The foreskin of intact men was more sensitive to tactile stimulation than the other penile sites". Then the bizarre Conclusion is "this study challenges past research suggesting that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the adult penis”, which doesn’t make sense when their own data and results showed the foreskin was the most sensitive part to warmth and touch.

Why is there a contradicting Result and Conclusion? They based the Result on tactile and warmth threshold, and the Conclusion included tactile pain and heat pain to say the foreskin isn't the most sensitive across stimuli. Two pain metrics are terrible to measure sexual pleasure. I don’t know about you but I’m aiming for sexual pleasure, not pain. Either way, their own data clearly shows the foreskin is more sensitive to tactile and warmth.

If you look at Brian Earp’s review of this study, he reproduces their study Figure C that clearly shows the foreskin is the most sensitive part to warmth detection (lower bar is more sensitive), and Figure A that clearly shows the foreskin is the most sensitive part to tactile detection. Directly from the study: “Tactile thresholds at the foreskin (intact men) were significantly lower (more sensitive) than all [other] genital testing sites”.

When questioned in professional letters (which I can link), Bossio admitted to relying on the wording “failed to consistently replicate the findings by Sorrells et al across stimuli” (emphasis added by Bossio). So, the conclusion has word play to say across stimuli by including the pain measurements. That is misleading at best.

At the end of it, the Bossio study's own data and results found that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis to touch and warmth. Her study is the perfect example of how you have really read the details.

[–]assassinator10141 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]intactisnormal1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And I literally provided that evidence. Literally.

But you literally did not provide evidence. Literally. You presented a ~~study~~ critique on one study. Looking back, it wasn't even absence of evidence even though it was worded that way, it was only a critique on an actual study. And of course I gave the original authors refutation of his points.

You have this mixed up. I gave evidence, you did not.

And if you look at my other replies

Lol I'm not tracking down your other replies and constructing your argument for you. If you want to discuss with me, then you have to discuss with me.

bunch of dumbasses

Ad-hominem fallacy.

So let's see the evidence I gave you:

1) The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) Study #1.

2) To walk through that and anatomy, I gave Dr. Guest's presentation on the anatomy of the forekin

3) Then I gave you the study “Male circumcision decreases penile sensitivity as measured in a large cohort” Study #2.

4) Then referred back to the study in #1 to show the large amount of area removed.

5) Gave you all the medical statistics and how terrible they are.

6) Gave you the medical ethics, that state medical necessity is needed to intervene on someone else's body.

7) Gave you the study “Male circumcision and sexual function in men and women: a survey-based, cross-sectional study in Denmark” Study #3.

8) Gave you the author's refutations of the critique you posted.

9) Elaborated on what the Bossio study actually says, which shows the foreskin is indeed the most sensitive to tactile and warmth thresholds. Study #4.

And you say I didn't give you evidence.

Here's even more. Study #5.

“The effect of male circumcision on sexuality”

“CONCLUSION: There was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings.”

And I’m not kidding about medical ethics. There doesn't need to be evidence of harm. There needs to be medical necessity to intervene on someone else's body. Say it with me, medical necessity and evidence of that.

[–]assassinator10141 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]intactisnormal1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So this was written by Brian Morris.

Did you notice the previous ~~study~~ critique that you linked that tried to say 'no evidence' was also Brian Morris?

Do you notice a trend with Brian Morris? He is known to spam pro-circumcision articles. This has been noted in the medical community.

I didn't include it, but Frisch (the previous original author) also noted that in his refutation: “Like in critical letters to the editor following other recent studies that failed to support their agenda, Morris et al. air a series of harsh criticisms against our study. As seen, however, the points raised are not well founded. It seems that the main purpose, as with prior letters, is to be able in future writings to refer to our study as an ‘outlier study’ or one that has been ‘debunked’, ‘rejected by credible researchers’ or ‘shown wrong in subsequent proper statistical analysis’. This in spite of the fact that our study was carried out using conventional epidemiological and statistical methods, underwent peer-review and was published in an international top-ranking epidemiology journal.”

Getting to the article, first do you notice their conflict of interest?

“The first author is a member of the Circumcision Academy of Australia, a not‐for‐profit, government registered, medical association that provides evidence‐based information on male circumcision to parents, practitioners and others, as well as contact details of doctors who perform the procedure. The second author is an editor for http://CircFacts.org. The third author provided advice and supported the legal help to University of Washington for the patenting of a circumcision device.”

That’s quite a list of pro-circumcision!

When you read this you’ll notice for sexual function he relies on self citing his own previous paper: ”Does male circumcision affect sexual function, sensitivity, or satisfaction? A systematic review”

Given the self citing and obvious repetition, criticism of his previous work applies here too:

Morris’s paper has been criticized here by Bossio: "Morris and Krieger reported that the “higher-quality” studies revealed no signiﬁcant differences in sexual function ... as a function of circumcision status."

"In contrast, 10 of the 13 studies deemed “lower-quality” by the rating scale employed showed sexual functioning impairment based on circumcision status in one or more of the same domains. Morris and Krieger do not report the results of this review collapsed across study quality. The conclusion they draw - that circumcision has no impact on sexual functioning, sensitivity, or sexual satisfaction - does not necessarily line up with the information presented in their review, which is mixed. However, it is important to note that their article is a review of the literature and not a meta-analysis, thus, no statistical analyses of the data have been performed; instead, the article presents the authors’ interpretation of trends."

Morris's filter was, as Bossio says, his interpretation of trends. Because it was not a meta-analysis. So it's highly dependent on what Morris thinks and wants to use as sources.

Further to this, his review was also critiqued here by Boyle as self citing: “By selectively citing Morris’ own non-peer-reviewed letters and opinion pieces purporting to show flaws in studies reporting evidence of negative effects of circumcision, and by failing adequately to account for replies to these letters by the authors of the original research (and others), Morris and Krieger give an incomplete and misleading account of the available literature. Consequently, Morris and Krieger reach an implausible conclusion that is inconsistent with what is known about the anatomy and functions of the penile foreskin, and the likely effects of its surgical removal.”

We do know that the foreskin is erogenous tissue though. “This diagram was from a study measuring sensitivity on multiple points of the penis” (Here’s the full study.)

But even then I can pull apart Brian Morris’s paper.

First he talks about organizations from around the world and their positions. I can link multiple country's medical organizations positions if you'd like, it just gets long. Spoiler: not a single medical organization in the world recommends newborn circumcision and many are against it.

Then he talks about UTIs. We know:

“It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics.

Then he talks about complications. But even the AAP (the most pro circ organization, but still does not even recommend it) admits the complication rate is unknown:

The AAP wrote: The true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown, in part due to differing definitions of “complication” and differing standards for determining the timing of when a complication has occurred (ie, early or late). Adding to the confusion is the comingling of “early” complications, such as bleeding or infection, with “late” complications such as adhesions and meatal stenosis.”

Then he talks about sexual function and pleasure. Let’s look at his sources:

Source 119: Is his own work I talked about above! So yup all the criticisms of it apply. And in his discusssion he relies heavily on this, his own self cited work.

Source 120: Is a paper from Tian. And guess who Tian uses as references? That’s right, 5/6 of Tian’s references are Brian Morris. So this is just a circular self cite.

Source 121: Is a paper from Yang on premature ejaculation, which is not sexual pleasure.

Source 122: Seems to rely heavily on two HIV studies with a survey tacked on at the end. Those had many issues which we can cover separately if you’d like, but is best summarized by: "it is either the case that Sub-Saharan Africans “are having the best sexual experiences on the planet” or the surveys used to assess sexual outcome variables in these studies were insensitive and flawed.“

Then he talks about HIV. But we know:

“The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1,231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298.” And circumcision is not effective prevention, condoms must be used regardless.

Then he talks about other STIs. But we know that circumcision is not effective prevention, and that only safe sex and condom use is.

Then he talks about penile cancer. But we know:

“Decreased penile cancer risk: [Number needed to circumcise] = 900 – 322,000” to prevent a single case of penile cancer.

And don’t forget about Morris’s trend of spamming pro circumcision articles (which has been noted in the medical community), conflict of interest, and circular self citing.

Here's a take on the subject you might like. Dr. Guest says: “When we are confronted with conflicting biased evidence I think it's important to say what’s the most reasonable conclusion? So I ask you does removing all of that sensitive nerve tissue from the penis, do you think that's more likely to increase sexual pleasure? Or do you think removing all that sensitive neural tissue from the penis is more likely to decrease sexual pleasure? Based on everything we know about neuroanatomy and the nervous systems what would you guess is more likely. I’m going to say decreased sexual pleasure.”

[–]assassinator10141 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]intactisnormal0 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

LMAO at his point I'm just gonna call you out. You've been googling your position from the start and spam dumping links. I've dissected them all. You're not even making your own arguments, or participating in discussion, you're just relying on spam dumping and conveniently ignoring my addressals and dissections of them. It's so obvious. You're not even in this discussion. I even gave you a list of what we've gone over a couple replies ago lol and it was ignored.

May I remind you that the burden of proof is for medical necessity. That’s basic medical ethics.

You’re trying to demand proof of harm, which is backwards. Proof is required for medical necessity. Otherwise the decision goes to the patient themself.

Perhaps some histology will help you:

“The glans penis is primarily innervated by free nerve endings and has primarily protopathic sensitivity [43]. Protopathic sensitivity refers to cruder, poorly localized feelings (including pain, some temperature sensations and certain perceptions of mechanical contact) [44]. In the glans penis, encapsulated end-organs are sparse, and found mainly along the glans corona and the frenulum [43]. The only portion of the body with less fine-touch discrimination than the glans penis is the heel of the foot [45]. In contrast, the male prepuce ridged band [on the foreskin] (Fig. 7) at the mucocutaneous junction has a high concentration of encapsulated receptors [46]. The innervation difference between the protopathic sensitivity of the glans penis and the corpuscular receptor-rich ridged band of the prepuce is part of the normal complement of penile erogenous tissue.”

[–]assassinator10141 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]intactisnormal1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I’m making my own argument just fine. You are just fucking stupid.

Seeing that you just resorted to an attack, your argument is terrible lol.

Your parents own you.

Medical ethics are quite clear. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well:

Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority of substitute decision makers is not absolute. In most jurisdictions, authority is limited only to interventions deemed to be medically necessary. In cases in which medical necessity is not established or a proposed treatment is based on personal preference, interventions should be deferred until the individual concerned is able to make their own choices. With newborn circumcision, medical necessity has not been clearly established.

http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision

To override someone's body autonomy rights the standard is medical necessity. Without necessity the decision goes to the patient themself, later in life. Circumcision is very far from being medically necessary.

Plus the parents don't own the child. You can't give the child a tattoo. You can't modify the child however they want. For a baby girl they can't modify get genitals. If they don't feed the child a proper diet child protective services will come and take the child away. Likewise you have to educate your child. You can't beat your child. Some places are even discussing whether or not spanking should be allowed. Etc, etc, etc. Parents do not have free reign over their child.

If they didn’t, you would never have gotten any shots

Vaccinations protect against diseases that children are commonly exposed to. These diseases are typically airborne and exposure can not be prevented. The highly contagious nature of these diseases means that someone could easily become infected. There is also no alternative prevention for infection, short of living in a literal bubble.

Let's also look at the severity of these diseases. Vaccines protect against diseases that typically have high mortality rates, very serious deleterious effects such as loss of limbs, paralysis, and other serious debilitating issues.

And let’s look at other means to treat these diseases. Hm, there’s typically no treatment available.

Vaccination is important as it's the only option to both prevent and prime the immune system to fight the disease when someone is infected. There is no other means to prevent infection, and very often no way to treat it once infected. A vaccine is the only line of defence.

And finally vaccinations can not reasonably be delayed until the patient can make their own choice. There is 18 years of exposure to diseases that cannot be prevented or treated.

I conclude that vaccinations are medically necessary, and can not reasonably be delayed. This is a perfect example of when you can intervene on somebody else's body, when it's medically necessary.

Vaccines also do not come at the cost of the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.)

There is zero evidence other than assumptions that sexual pleasure is reduced.

LMAO.

You still have this backwards. There doesn't need to be any evidence of harm (despite that I've given you plenty of studies and decimated your links).

Really. There doesn't need to be a single shred of evidence of harm. There needs to be definitive proof of medical necessity. That is the direction that medical ethics goes. Say it with me, medical necessity.

And there is an entire terrible history behind that. You don't have to think very far to find examples of terrible practices that occurred. We don't start cutting off parts of other people's bodies saying "show me the absolute of proof that it's bad, otherwise it's cutting time!"

There is evidence however that there are many medical benefits.

Haven't we already covered this? Sure we can cover it again.

From the Canadian Paediatrics Society:

“It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics.

“The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1,231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298.” And circumcision is not effective prevention, condoms must be used regardless.

"An estimated 0.8% to 1.6% of boys will require circumcision before puberty, most commonly to treat phimosis. The first-line medical treatment of phimosis involves applying a topical steroid twice a day to the foreskin, accompanied by gentle traction. This therapy ... allow[s] the foreskin to become retractable in 80% of treated cases, thus usually avoiding the need for circumcision."

“Decreased penile cancer risk: [Number needed to circumcise] = 900 – 322,000” to prevent a single case of penile cancer.

These stats are terrible, it's disingenuous for these to be called legitimate health benefits. And more importantly, all of these items have a different treatment or prevention method that is more effective and less invasive.

Meanwhile the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis.(Full study.)

BTW the previous paper "circumcision for all: the pro side", it's obvious that you googled "circumcision pro" or very similar. So absolutely confirmed that you were just googling your own position.

[–]assassinator10141 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]intactisnormal0 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Circumcisions are reasonable.

Word inflation. Did you even notice that yourself?

Instead of arguing that it's medically necessary, you went on a hiking trip and are now arguing that it's reasonable. But reasonable is not the standard, necessity is. That's why they say necessary. They don't say the word reasonable. They say the word necessary.

Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority of substitute decision makers is not absolute. In most jurisdictions, authority is limited only to interventions deemed to be medically necessary. In cases in which medical necessity is not established or a proposed treatment is based on personal preference, interventions should be deferred until the individual concerned is able to make their own choices. With newborn circumcision, medical necessity has not been clearly established.

Do you see the word necessary? Yes. Do you see the word reasonable? No.

There's a ton more to medical ethics too. We can go into all that if you want.

They prevent the spread of STD’s

We can look at the real world results: “The African findings are also not in line with the fact that the United States combines a high prevalence of STDs and HIV infections with a high percentage of routine circumcisions. The situation in most European countries is precisely the reverse: low circumcision rates combined with low HIV and STD rates. Therefore, other factors seem to play a more important role in the spread of HIV than circumcision status. This finding also suggests that there are alternative, less intrusive, and more effective ways of preventing HIV than circumcision, such as consistent use of condoms, safe-sex programs, easy access to antiretroviral drugs, and clean needle programs."

I also like their discussion about how this is not relevant to newborns or children: "As with traditional STDs, sexual transmission of HIV occurs only in sexually active individuals. Consequently, from an HIV prevention perspective, if at all effective in a Western context, circumcision can wait until boys are old enough to engage in sexual relationships. Boys can decide for themselves, therefore, whether they want to get circumcised to obtain, at best, partial protection against HIV or rather remain genitally intact and adopt safe-sex practices that are far more effective. As with the other possible benefits, circumcision for HIV protection in Western countries fails to meet the criteria for preventive medicine: there is no strong evidence for effectiveness and other, more effective, and less intrusive means are available. There is also no compelling reason why the procedure should be performed long before sexual debut; sexually transmitted HIV infection is not a relevant threat to children".

That's critical. HIV via sex is not relevant to newborns. If you'd like to take extra security measures by cutting off part of your genitals you are absolutely free to do so. Others may choose to wear condoms. Or to abstain from sex until a committed relationship. Outside of medical necessity the choice is up to the individual. They can determine what is reasonable for their own body. To intervene on someone else's body requires medical necessity.

If you’d prefer, you can watch this presentation instead: Dr. Guest discusses that “any protective effect at all is obviously overshadowed by behavioural factors.” before discussing the absolute HIV numbers and the methodological flaws with the African studies including that the circumcised men were unable to have sex for 6-8 weeks, the prevalence and impact of sex workers, that malaria helped spread HIV in the study area, and problems with early closure of the study.

And we know that intact men use condoms more frequently: “Multivariate findings supported the conclusion that intact men may use condoms more frequently and that confidence predicts use, suggesting that intervention programmes should focus on building men's confidence to use condoms, especially for circumcised men.” Of course condoms are actually effective and most be used to prevent STIs and HIV.

And why are you upset that I’m insulting you?

I'm not upset lol. I'm pointing out that you have no argument so you resort to insults instead. Pretty much an ad hominem fallacy.

Like you just did again lol. Twice.

I decimate your links, so it's funny that you say "can't understand facts" when you completely ignore the addressal. So you resort to insults. It is so obvious to see through.

BTW you just admitted to continuing Googling your position after I decimate each one of your links. Aka: You are spam dumping links. This is exactly what I called you out for. You pull up a link, I decimate it, you ignore my addressal, you Google the next one, you dump it, I decimate, you ignore the addressal, you Google the next one ..... Etc, etc, etc.

So you don't want to spend an hour. But every time you spam dump a link you implicitly demand I spend time to address it. That's exactly what I called you out on. Because what happens after I address it? You ignore it! And then you google for and spam dump the next link. Again, that's exactly what I called you out on.

You're not discussing what I respond with. It's straight up ignored and unacknowledged. You're just Googling the next one. And you just said you're not spending an hour (total?), so I doubt you're even reading them, either my response or even your links. You're just hoping to keep dumping them to a point that I won't address them anymore. Also known as you're not engaging in discussion, you're just spam dumping links lol. And that's exactly what I called you out on.

You just just keep walking into yourself. It's fun.

[–]assassinator10141 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]intactisnormal1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I like how you don't include the link. After dumping links, you now dump quotes without the source.

“Medical necessity is a United States legal doctrine, related to activities which may be justified as reasonable, necessary, and/or appropriate, based on evidence-based clinical standards of care.”

You do understand that medical ethics is not limited to the United States? Lol. And that the United States does not dictate medical ethics to the entire world? Lol.

So lol you are attempting to apply a US doctrine to the entire world's field of medicine and medical ethics.

Not to mention this continues the hiking trip to legal doctrine when we are talking about medical ethics.

Now let's see why you didn't include a link

In contrast, unnecessary health care lacks such justification.

Ooooooo guess you didn't want me to see that lol.

Other countries may have medical doctrines or legal rules covering broadly similar grounds. The term clinical medical necessity is also used.

Oooooo I correctly noted this already, that you are attempting to apply US legal doctrine to the entire field of medical ethics. Plus the correct seperation between medical and legal areas lol. Which is an critical distinction all on it's own.

But sure, I'll let you hike a bit on a US legal centric view since you at least attempted to back this up, despite attempts to hide other info, just to get to the next point:

Guess who the burden of proof lies on? Those that want to intervene on someone else's body have to prove medical necessity. That's right, it's up to you to prove medical necessity. And I do mean prove. Remember I just decimated your HIV/STD argument, and there was no response.

Not to mention allllllllll your other arguments about 'no impact' does not contribute to medical necessity in any way, shape, or form. That's right, your entire previous talking points on 'no effect' are moot. Rather you're back to proving medical necessity.

Notable here is that I don't have to prove harm. Rather you have to prove medical necessity. That's the direction medical ethics goes. That's the hole you're in and what I said a long time ago when I brought in medical ethics.

And after all that, I like how you drop 1) the stuff on STDS and how it does not relate to newborns or children, 2) that any protective effect is overshadowed by behavioral factors, 3) that intact men use condoms more frequently, 4) your ad-hom fallacies, and 5) I like this the most, that you are dumping links, implicitly demanding an addressal, and ignoring the addressal when it happens. Exactly what I called you out on.

[–]assassinator10141 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]intactisnormal1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]assassinator10141 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]intactisnormal1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]assassinator10141 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]intactisnormal1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]assassinator10141 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]intactisnormal1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]assassinator10141 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]intactisnormal1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]assassinator10141 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]intactisnormal1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Circumcisions are very reasonable , they reduce risk of STI’s.

We literally just covered this. I see we need even more detail.

“The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1,231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298.” That originates from the CDC.

A terrible statistic. Especially when circumcision is not effective prevention and condoms must be used regardless.

And that’s accepting the data at face value. The concept is under attack so much by this group of 39 notable Physicians from around the world that they basically dismiss it entirely: "This evidence, however, is contradicted by other studies, which show no relationship between HIV infection rates and circumcision status.10 However, there is no evidence that circumcision, whether in infancy, childhood, or adulthood, is effective in preventing heterosexual transmission in countries where HIV prevalence is much lower and routes of transmission are different, such as Europe and the United States. Sexually transmitted HIV infections in the West occur predominantly among men who have sex with men, and there is no evidence that circumcision offers any protection against HIV acquisition in this group."

I'll bold some parts here:

And we can look at the real world results: “The African findings are also not in line with the fact that the United States combines a high prevalence of STDs and HIV infections with a high percentage of routine circumcisions. The situation in most European countries is precisely the reverse: low circumcision rates combined with low HIV and STD rates. Therefore, other factors seem to play a more important role in the spread of HIV than circumcision status. This finding also suggests that there are alternative, less intrusive, and more effective ways of preventing HIV than circumcision, such as consistent use of condoms, safe-sex programs, easy access to antiretroviral drugs, and clean needle programs."

So that decimates the STI argument. BUT if someone wants to circumcise themself as an adult, they are absolutely free to do so.

Now let's decimate the portion on forcing circumcision on a newborn:

I also like their discussion about how this is not relevant to newborns or children: "As with traditional STDs, sexual transmission of HIV occurs only in sexually active individuals.Consequently, from an HIV prevention perspective, if at all effective in a Western context, circumcision can wait until boys are old enough to engage in sexual relationships. Boys can decide for themselves, therefore, whether they want to get circumcised to obtain, at best, partial protection against HIV or rather remain genitally intact and adopt safe-sex practices that are far more effective. As with the other possible benefits, circumcision for HIV protection in Western countries fails to meet the criteria for preventive medicine: there is no strong evidence for effectiveness and other, more effective, and less intrusive means are available. There is also no compelling reason why the procedure should be performed long before sexual debut; sexually transmitted HIV infection is not a relevant threat to children".

That's critical. HIV via sex is not relevant to newborns. If you'd like to take extra security measures by cutting off part of your genitals you are absolutely free to do so. Others may choose to wear condoms. Or to abstain from sex until a committed relationship. Outside of medical necessity the choice is up to the individual.

So there's absolutely no argument to force circumcisions on newborns. At all.

If you’d prefer, you can watch this presentation instead: Dr. Guest discusses that “any protective effect at all is obviously overshadowed by behavioural factors.” before discussing the absolute HIV numbers and the methodological flaws with the African studies including that the circumcised men were unable to have sex for 6-8 weeks, the prevalence and impact of sex workers, that malaria helped spread HIV in the study area, and problems with early closure of the study.

We can even discuss condom usage a bit.

We know that intact men use condoms more frequently: “Multivariate findings supported the conclusion that intact men may use condoms more frequently and that confidence predicts use, suggesting that intervention programmes should focus on building men's confidence to use condoms, especially for circumcised men.”

Of course condoms are actually effective and must be used regardless to prevent STIs and HIV. This completely negates the role of circumcision.

Further on this point, the Canadian Paediatrics paper also says: “there is a risk that men may overestimate the protective effect of being circumcised and be less likely to adopt safe sex practices.", and "It remains unclear, however, whether these conclusions can be applied to populations in developed countries, where the HIV seroprevalence rates are lower and common routes of HIV transmission include injection drug use (IDU) and men who have sex with men (MSM)."

So let's sum up:

1) The STI/HIV benefit is very low to begin with.

2) The STI/HIV data itself is under suspicion.

3) The real, actual world results show it's not effective.

4) Condoms and safe sex are effective, and must be used regardless. Which is less likely with circumcised men (see point 3).

5) The STI/HIV argument isn't even applicable at all to newborns or children. So the patient themself can decide for their own body.

So medical necessity for routine newborn circumcision has not been established. Not by a long shot.

[–]SvGamerevocator 51 points52 points53 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mcchanical 13 points14 points15 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]harry353 25 points26 points27 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DogueMan 39 points40 points41 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Moronic-Simpleton 19 points20 points21 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SkyOminous 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JudexMars 20 points21 points22 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwaway42378910 10 points11 points12 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]flameguy4500 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]russwriter67 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tr3bjockey -3 points-2 points-1 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]flameguy4500 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rahsoft 9 points10 points11 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]whitebread111 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HungryHornyHigh 9 points10 points11 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]smokefan4000 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mindraker 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThrowawayGhostGuy1 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]spaghettbaguett 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheUltimateWhatever 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]tr3bjockey 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheUltimateWhatever 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]minshapedlikedeadguy 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheTIM333 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cking_wisdom 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Whisper 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]zalinanaruto 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thecasperboy 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Certainly-Not-A-Bot-[S] 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mens_rights_matter2 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Potatolover3 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sohum-the-KAWI-boi 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]sohum-the-KAWI-boi 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sohum-the-KAWI-boi 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sers00100 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OracleUK 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SnarkMasterRay 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]engineerdontwantthis 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MezzaCorux 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AgentC27 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shadowguyver 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]intactisnormal 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]shadowguyver 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]intactisnormal 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMasterSword60 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]APimplyKid 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jayjester 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WarOfNoise 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rosellem 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Certainly-Not-A-Bot-[S] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alien_Refugee 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LegendaryEmu1 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Herbivore4Life 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheOneHristo05 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Camelboom 19 points20 points21 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheOneHristo05 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Certainly-Not-A-Bot-[S] 15 points16 points17 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]biogenicmonkey 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rahsoft 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]intactisnormal 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheOneHristo05 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Mr_FreeSpeech1 points 6 years ago [recovered] (59 children) | Copy Link

Found two medical journals that say that MGM isn’t associated with sexual dysfunction. That it increases penile sensitivity and enhances the ease of reaching the orgasm. One reported that 50% of circumcised men reported benefits and 62% percent reported being satisfied with the circumcision. Why do people hate this practice? Reference:

https://scholar.google.com.mx/scholar?q=circumcision+increases+sensitivity&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DLA8ToabbGAQJ

https://scholar.google.com.mx/scholar?q=circumcision+increases+sensitivity&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DGQ79OPOEdKoJ

[–]intactisnormal 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (57 children) | Copy Link

[+]Mr_FreeSpeech1 points 6 years ago [recovered] (56 children) | Copy Link

Sorry, here they are:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1743609515318579

https://www.auajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1016/S0022-5347%2805%2965098-7

[–]intactisnormal 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (55 children) | Copy Link

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1743609515318579

This survey was done only two years after circumcision. It was tacked on to the end of an HIV study. So the people were pressured into getting a circumcision for HIV benefits and then asked if there was a detriment. Surely you see the conflict of 1) being pressured to undergo a procedure for health benefits (more on that later), and then being asked if there’s downsides. 2) Even without the pressure, there’s a psychological tendency to be happy with your decisions, whatever they are. And more issues 3) These are 5 point surveys, a pretty terrible way to note the complexity and nuances of sexual pleasure. 4) With a language barrier to boot. 5) The skin and glans were protected for 20+ years, and then exposed for only up to 2 years, leading to 6) Applying data from adult circumcisions to newborn circumcisions is overextending the data. That’s two years and one year of glans and foreskin remnant exposure compared to ~16 for newborn circumcision before their sex life starts.

The study even reveals the first conflict with one of their questions, that most "feel more protected against STIs". Unfortunately, “greater endorsement of false beliefs concerning circumcision and penile anatomy predicts greater satisfaction with being circumcised.“

Kenya also circumcises as a rite of passage. From a different study: “The fact that circumcision is traditional in most Kenyan populations is likely to create a major cultural bias. Circumcision is considered a rite of passage in Kenya and distinguishes man from boy. This probably biases how men perceive sexuality.”

To go over HIV quickly. “The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1,231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298.” This is a terrible number. And that’s accepting it at face value when there are several criticisms. Circumcision is also not effective prevention. Condoms, which are considered actually effective, must be used regardless.

https://www.auajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1016/S0022-5347%2805%2965098-7

There was an average of 4 years between circumcision and survey (age of 42 to 46). I don’t consider this long term because if we are talking about newborn circumcision we’re talking about 18 years before people are even sexually active.

Results: “A total of 123 men were circumcised as adults. Indications for circumcision included phimosis in 64% of cases, balanitis in 17%, condyloma in 10%, redundant foreskin in 9% and elective in 7%. The response rate was 44% among potential responders. Mean age of responders was 42 years at circumcision and 46 years at survey. Adult circumcision appears to result in worsened erectile function (p = 0.01), decreased penile sensitivity (p = 0.08), no change in sexual activity (p = 0.22) and improved satisfaction (p = 0.04). Of the men 50% reported benefits and 38% reported harm. Overall, 62% of men were satisfied with having been circumcised.”

So, pretty much all of the respondents needed a medical circumcision for medical reasons. You would expect an improvement since the circumcision would fix the medical issue, and that they now have a properly functioning penis. I actually would’ve expected far higher to report improvements once their diagnosable issue was resolved. So this does not address healthy uncircumcised sex to circumcised sex, it compares unhealthy uncircumcised sex to healthy circumcised sex. And it still had 38% reporting harm! Sorry to say this is so ridiculous it makes me laugh.

Any thoughts on the foreskin being the most sensitive part of the penis posted above.

[+]Mr_FreeSpeech1 points 6 years ago [recovered] (54 children) | Copy Link

Makes sense. So you want circumsion as an informed medical remedy rather than a cultural necessity, am I right?

[–]intactisnormal 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (53 children) | Copy Link

informed medical remedy

The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well:

Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority of substitute decision makers is not absolute. In most jurisdictions, authority is limited only to interventions deemed to be medically necessary. In cases in which medical necessity is not established or a proposed treatment is based on personal preference, interventions should be deferred until the individual concerned is able to make their own choices. With newborn circumcision, medical necessity has not been clearly established.

http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision

To override someone's body autonomy rights the standard is medical necessity. Without necessity the decision goes to the patient themself, later in life. Routine newborn circumcision is very far from being medically necessary.

[+]Mr_FreeSpeech1 points 6 years ago [recovered] (52 children) | Copy Link

Are you pro-choice or pro-life?

[–]intactisnormal 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (51 children) | Copy Link

[+]Mr_FreeSpeech1 points 6 years ago [recovered] (50 children) | Copy Link

Just trying to read your politics. I need you to answer the question to understand to what regards are ethics in medicine deemed as a premise for your view point. Seeing that you refused to answer the question, you’re pro-choice, right?

[–]intactisnormal 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago* (49 children) | Copy Link

[–]SonofFinn -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Certainly-Not-A-Bot-[S] 11 points12 points13 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+]SonofFinn -26 points-25 points-24 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Certainly-Not-A-Bot-[S] 22 points23 points24 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]SonofFinn -8 points-7 points-6 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Certainly-Not-A-Bot-[S] 12 points13 points14 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SonofFinn -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]thwip625 points 6 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

This might come as a shock, but it is possible to care about more thing at any given time.

[–]SonofFinn -3 points-2 points-1 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rahsoft 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Schiller_Memestar -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]PassifloraCaerulea 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thwip62 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Except if a male chooses to do it later in life, it's actually a dangerous operation.

First of all, given the choice, most men would never want this. Why the hell would they? Secondly, you really think that it's more dangerous doing to to a weak little baby than to a grown man?

Infection, stitches coming out of you get hard , genital pain and swelling for weeks.

You think a baby wouldn't experience pain and swelling? He just can't tell you how much it hurts.

I had a friend in HS who got one his junior year, he said it was worse then bladder stones.

So what? There are a hundreds of procedures that a person might want or need.

Fuck all that, doing it at a older age is way more barbaric then doing it young.

Are you trolling? You must be, because I don't see how anyone with any sense can think that unnecessarily disfiguring a newborn baby's penis for arbitrary reasons is less barbaric than a grown man who chooses to undergo the procedure.

My son will either get circumcised at birth or never honestly.

A) Why not simply not do it? B) What if your son as an adult chooses to do it to himself? It will be his decision.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]thwip621 points 6 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

It's not like they want to simply cut off your foreskin?

"They" who? If you mean a person's parents, then yes, often, that's exactly how it is.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]thwip62 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The only reason I had this done to me is because my father had it done to him. He admitted that there was absolutely no need to do it, other than he wanted me to match him, and he said that it cost him a lot of money, too. My mother said that she didn't want it done to me, but my father wouldn't drop it. It meant so much to him that after I was born premature and sickly, he waited several months for me to get stronger just so he could do this, which is really weird. I was told that he even had to specifically find a Jewish doctor to do it since no other doctor here would do this to a baby (we aren't Jewish) This being the early 80s, he couldn't just google it. Oh, and at the age of 33, I had to have skin bridges on my penis removed from my penis. In case you're not paying attention, I had an operation in my 30s that was the direct result of an operation forced on me as a baby that I neither wanted or needed, and actively dislike. When I tried to confide in my father about it, he changed the subject to an illness that hasn't affected me since I was a teenager and started going on about that. I kept my mouth shut, but I was pretty pissed off. He's a coward who doesn't even want to hear about the consequences of his actions.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Juterque33 -14 points-13 points-12 points 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Certainly-Not-A-Bot-[S] 15 points16 points17 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]assassinator1014 -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]thwip62 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]assassinator1014 -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]thwip62 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Bro, there’s literally nothing different from the two. It doesn’t matter if your circumcised or not, the pleasure is the same.

How do you know this? Did you get to use yours before it was cut? Plenty of men who chose this have said they wish they never did it, and I understand why. It alters the mechanics.

Women prefer circumcised penises more, which is a bonus.

Which women would these be, exactly? In any case, if the only reason a woman turns a man down is because he still has his whole penis, then the problem lies with her.

Are you upset that they cut off the umbilical cord? That was attached to you.

Don't be an idiot. You're resorting to the absurd to trivialise what I'm saying because you've got nothing better to say. The umbilical cord has served its purpose after birth. If it doesn't get removed, it would fall off in a few days, anyway, just like with any other mammal. The foreskin is supposed to last a man his entire life.

[–]assassinator1014 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Never said the only reason a woman would turn someone down was their penis. However women prefer circumcised penises. It’s common knowledge.

As for sexual pleasure, “There aren’t any scientific studies that show that removing the foreskin will negatively affect sexual function, sexual satisfaction, or sensitivity (despite what you may come across online or overheard). For example, this 2013 systematic review published in the Asian Journal of Andrology analyzed all of the studies that observed whether or not circumcision impacted male sexual functions. Out of the ten studies the researchers identified, which encompassed a total of 9317 circumcised and 9423 uncircumcised men, there were no significant differences in sexual desire, premature ejaculation, ejaculation latency time (the amount of time it takes until orgasm), erectile dysfunctions, and orgasm difficulties.”

[–]rahsoft 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I dont see where you're coming from. Why is it such a bad thing?

Some women support FGM and think it's a good thing. Does that mean it should be legal?

I'm glad my parents circumcised me.

Good for you. Other people aren't glad, and would have liked to choose for themselves. Some of them have erectile dysfunction or other damage caused by the circumcision. And a few babies die every year from a botched circumcision... a procedure which is completely medically unnecessary.

Everyone should be allowed to choose for themselves. If someone is uncircumcised and thinks circumcision is better, than they can choose it for themselves. But it's wrong to take away their choice and do body modification on them before they're old enough to decide for themselves... just like it's wrong to tattoo a baby. Let people make these kind of permanent decisions for themselves.

[–]thwip62 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RaddBlaster -5 points-4 points-3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]thwip62 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]SgtMajMythic-5 points 6 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Circumcision isn’t done for shits and giggles. It’s done to reduce STD rates.

[–]SkyOminous 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thwip62 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]intactisnormal 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Just a random redditor trying to denounce the severity of MGM

Comments

“All forms of genital cutting are considered a violation of human rights and should not be accepted under any condition.”

BAKA

Title	Just a random redditor trying to denounce the severity of MGM
Author	Certainly-Not-A-Bot-
Upvotes	2099
Comments	242
Date	June 5, 2020 12:18 PM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/gx3hc0/just_a_random_redditor_trying_to_denounce_the/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/just-a-random-redditor-trying-to-denounce-the.850733 https://theredarchive.com/post/850733