NSFW: Photographs of intact vs circumcised penis. Useful tool to use on the web in the fight against male genital mutilation.

[–]theothermod[M] [score hidden] 8 years ago stickied comment (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]duckordian 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]imguralbumbot 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]imthewiseguy 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]imthewiseguy 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Avannar -6 points-5 points-4 points 8 years ago (60 children) | Copy Link

This hurts the cause far more than it helps it. Cherry picking photos to present one side in a positive light and the other in a bad one demonstrates the extreme emotional bias anti-circumcision advocates tend to have.

Whether or not you feel strongly about bodily autonomy is irrelevent at best in the conversation, and in dealing with people who feel positively about circumcision, it actually makes you look unhinged.

I'm a fan of bodily autonomy. I don't think any child should be cut, pierced, modified, tattooed, or anything else without their informed, aware consent, which is generally not available until adulthood. However, I can't stand the way anti-circumcision crusaders act like it's one of the most supreme injustices in society and as if everyone who doesn't share their visceral reaction to the topic is pro-mutilation.

[–]Underwater_Karma 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Avannar -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Underwater_Karma 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]full_control 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Underwater_Karma 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]full_control 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Underwater_Karma 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis[S] 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago* (43 children) | Copy Link

This hurts the cause far more than it helps it

What are you doing for the "cause"? Just trolling on Reddit it seems.

Cherry picking photos

LOL. Why don't you post some pictures of some "naturally" non cherry-picked circumcised penises. You know, some penises that have had their foreskin's amputated but are just magically as functional as intact penises.

extreme emotional bias anti-circumcision advocates tend to have.

Yep. We are "biased" against child sex-abusers. I guess you like 'em eh?

Whether or not you feel strongly about bodily autonomy is irrelevent

Said no genital mutilator ever.

it actually makes you look unhinged.

Sure 😉

I'm a fan of bodily autonomy.

No you're not. You think that is a "bias" — you just said so.

everyone who doesn't share their visceral reaction to the topic is pro-mutilation.

Correct. If you are not against genital mutilation, you are pro genital-mutilation.

[–]Avannar 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

What are you doing for the "cause"? Just trolling on Reddit it seems.

Tu Quoque fallacy.

LOL. Why don't you post some pictures of some "naturally" non cherry-picked circumcised penises. You know, some penises that have had their foreskin's amputated but are just magically as functional as intact penises.

Tu Quoque fallacy again. Also bordering on red herring for being a tangent, and a false dichotomy for possibly implying that we're dealing with two extremes with little to no middle ground.

Yep. We are "biased" against child sex-abusers. I guess you like 'em eh?

Hyperbole and a strawman, despite making it clear in my post that I am anti-circumcision of children for non-medical purposes.

Said no genital mutilator ever.

The topic of the statement was not MGM, but the discourse around circumcision itself.

Sure 😉

Much like how this follow-up comment makes you look like you have the reasoning ability of a young teen.

No you're not. You think that is a "bias" — you just said so.

I specifically explained my position on the topic.

If you think that my opposition to circumcision is invalid and that I must be pro-circumcision for critiquing your irrational hyperbole and intellectual dishonesty, then that's some "You're either with us or against us" junk and, iirc, that's a subset of False Dichotomy.

Correct. If you are not against genital mutilation, you are pro genital-mutilation.

To further clarify how logically unsound this statement is, compare it to feminism:

"Anyone who doesn't support feminism is against women's rights and hates women."

Same garbage.

And good evidence as to the increasing similarities between the MRM and Feminism. The more time passes, the more some groups in the MRM behave like early Third Wavers.

[–]Consilio_et_Animis[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Oh dear. You are what I refer to as someone who has been both intellectually mutilated as well a genitally mutilated. It's sad, but not uncommon.

When you were an infant boy, your mom and dad handed you over to a quack doctor or mohel, who severely mutilated your genitals by amputating the most sensitive part of your penis — the foreskin. Not only that, the mutilator actually got paid hundreds of dollars for the privilege of sexually abusing you.

Now you are an adult, you are unable to resolve the damage that has been done to you; and you cling to the vain hope that "all in OK down there". You live in permanent cognitive dissonance. But instead of using your intelligence to rescue yourself, you use it do dig a deeper and deeper hole.

So here you are on Reddit, posting endless circular arguments about your "logic", "fallacies" and "reason" and referencing obscure philosophers; whilst it's obvious to everyone that you are in deep denial and hurting real bad.

[–]full_control 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]full_control 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]full_control -7 points-6 points-5 points 8 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis[S] 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]full_control 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

You're not looking at the big picture and your examples are unrealistically reductionist and unilateral. How often are any large scale issues so simple and clear? They're the exception, not the rule. For example, I am a circumcised male. It's never been an issue for me. Most guys I grew up with were circumcised, and I've never been told of any issues they had with it. This does not mean that I don't believe there are botched circumcisions, but in being told that it's a wide spread issue naturally brings up my skepticism but at the same time makes me curious if I am unaware of larger problems. This would accurately describe being undecided on the issue and I see no problem with it.

Now being told by someone that if I'm not unilaterally for one side of an issue I am undecided makes me the enemy, that makes me sway against them. So my question to you is, are you most interested in antagonizing those who are not definitively for your cause or would you rather be reasonable and attract people to your cause?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Living in sub Saharan Africa (representation)

You're not looking at the big picture and your examples are unrealistically reductionist and unilateral. How often are any large scale issues so simple and clear? They're the exception, not the rule. For example, I am a circumcised female. It's never been an issue for me. Most women I grew up with were circumcised, and I've never been told of any issues they had with it. This does not mean that I don't believe there are botched circumcisions, but in being told that it's a wide spread issue naturally brings up my skepticism but at the same time makes me curious if I am unaware of larger problems. This would accurately describe being undecided on the issue and I see no problem with it.

this has been an episode of Living in sub Saharan Africa

[–]full_control -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]full_control -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis[S] 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

your examples are unrealistically reductionist and unilateral.

I see you didn't manage to answer my "examples" — a bit too close to home I guess? What's "unrealistic" about being opposed to hacking off bits of a young girl's vulva?

How often are any large scale issues so simple and clear?

The whole time. I could list hundreds, if not thousands. I managed to list 5 without even trying.

I am a circumcised male. It's never been an issue for me. Most guys I grew up with were circumcised, and I've never been told of any issues they had with it.

Do a quick Google. The "issues" are 5 seconds away. Or maybe even try just looking at the photographs that this post is all about. Notice anything that seems amis? Wonder if the intact penises seem more functional and complete then the mutilated ones?

This would accurately describe being undecided on the issue

No. It "accurately describes" willful ignorance.

are you most interested in antagonizing

Translation: "Telling and showing the truth". Which of course is always "antagonizing" to those who choose ignorance. And that's the whole point.

or would you rather be reasonable

So being 100% opposed to child genital mutilation is "unreasonable" in your opinion?

[–]full_control 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

You don't realistically think that I am on the fence for any of your simplistic examples. Saying that just obfuscates the discussion for the point of subterfuge. Despite that though I'm going to reasonably respond.

Doing a quick google of any stance on any topic will return results. I can tell you to quickly google why circumcision, racism, misogyny, misandry, and slavery are good things and you'll find a ton of results. That's not a mature or reasonable rebuttal in this or similar cases. Also you make no reasonable attempt to contest that your rhetoric is not just antagonistic. All zealots say that they're telling the "truth" and there's quite a lot of examples of them having ridiculous and extremist views. It's natural to be skeptical of such a stance. Additionally, labeling people who do not completely agree with you as ignorant is simply put, prejudiced and is not in any way a reasonable argument.

If you want to make a point, don't respond with polemic unilateral proclamations. Instead you should try presenting why your point in a way that is civil and not accusatory. I gave what I consider to be a very reasonable example of why I am undecided and I have found your response to be condescending and manipulative.

[–]Consilio_et_Animis[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]full_control 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Doing a quick google of any stance on any topic will return results. I can tell you to quickly google why circumcision, racism, misogyny, misandry, and slavery are good things and you'll find a ton of results. That's not a mature or reasonable rebuttal in this or similar cases.

for example? There is a right and wrong on this issue... its just a fact. Either every boy should be circumcised or none should. Just like vaccines, and everything like that.

All zealots say that they're telling the "truth" and there's quite a lot of examples of them having ridiculous and extremist views

what is extremist about saying "I don't think we should cut off parts of a child's penis to appease a god?"

Additionally, labeling people who do not completely agree with you as ignorant is simply put, prejudiced and is not in any way a reasonable argument.

Do you feel that standing by and watching more children get their penis cut up is a good thing?

If you want to make a point, don't respond with polemic unilateral proclamations. Instead you should try presenting why your point in a way that is civil and not accusatory. I gave what I consider to be a very reasonable example of why I am undecided and I have found your response to be condescending and manipulative.

so basically you are saying "be nice" lol got it!

[–]full_control 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Avannar 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

There is a right and wrong on this issue... its just a fact. Either every boy should be circumcised or none should. Just like vaccines, and everything like that.

Should boys born with disfiguring hypospadias get circumcisions? What about phimosis? Yes? Then by your logic all boys should be circumcised, right?

what is extremist about saying "I don't think we should cut off parts of a child's penis to appease a god?"

As explained, it's the part where you pretend that it's on the same level as genocide.

It's the part where a lot of anti-circumcision posters act like it's their version of slavery or feminism and make 100% empty emotional arguments. It's the part where people go and pick out the best images of uncut penises they can find and put them next to the most unflattering, dried out, poorly angled photos of circumcised penises they could find (and many activists go further and use images of disfigured penises instead) and pretend that this collage they've crafted is accurate to reality, and then present it as evidence that circumcision is wrong, as if it's not wrong purely for being a mostly cosmetic procedure inflicted on unconsenting infants.

Do you feel that standing by and watching more children get their penis cut up is a good thing?

Not only did you completely avoid answering the question, you chose to do so in a way that perfectly demonstrates the point being made.

You're not discussing the topic in good faith. You're making baseless emotional arguments instead.

They said that "You're either with us or against us" is bad argumentative logic and you responded with, "Oh, then do you like watching children get their penises cut up?"

This is like someone saying, "Feminism would be a lot more respectable if it weren't so hyperbolic and anti-male," and the feminist responded, "Oh, so you hate women then?"

Is it ok when you do it, but not when they do it?

so basically you are saying "be nice" lol got it!

Research proves that common ground arguments are far more effective at communication and problem solving than unidirectional attacks.

You have to be sympathetic towards your audience, invite them to be sympathetic towards you, and then provide solutions that in some way address the thoughts, desires, needs, etc, of both sides. "Be nice" is thus the core of diplomacy.

You can look into the works of Carl Rogers, Jergen Habermas, and the Gottmans for more on this topic.

Rogers focused on constructive rhetoric, Habermas on ideal speech situations, and the Gottmans generally focus on romantic relationships and communication within them.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nugymmer 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Avannar 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]nugymmer 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]full_control -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]nugymmer 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]full_control 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Avannar 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

Cherry pick for what? Most of these are not particularly "stunning" to look at. I'm gay so I know these things after much research. I'd even argue a few of those uncut ones are definitely siding on the "they look weird" camp, like the second one. Though that last one is stellar, and the only one that I'd say is.

It's a simple fact, there's no cherry picking required, that cut penises dry out over time and the glands harden. That's what happens when you mutilate them by removing the foreskin. Mine is the same way. Am I cherry picking my own dick? Or is that just an unavoidable side effect of it? (it's the ladder) They also all have scars on them, scars not even visible in the cut side.

Cherry picking would be going and picking the most beloved gay/straight porn star dicks and then googling the worst MGM outcome possible, with skin bridges, among other issues that can occur from MGM.

Get a grip.

However, I can't stand the way anti-circumcision crusaders act like it's one of the most supreme injustices in society and as if everyone who doesn't share their visceral reaction to the topic is pro-mutilation.

It is a great injustice to mutilate the genitals of any child with no good reason (ie; life threatening, which it rarely is). And if you don't support genital integrity and speak against it, then you are pro-genital mutilation because you're defending it... Just because they don't personally know the definition of mutilation doesn't change that that's what it is. Their mental gymnastics to justify mutilating baby's genitals doesn't change anything factually, or morally.

It's wrong to mutilating children's genitals. That's not a radical sentiment. In yet people radically argue against it.

[–]Avannar -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You present a false dichotomy when you insist that anything but the most extreme cherry picking somehow doesn't still count as cherry picking.

If I try to argue that people from France are better than people from Germany and to prove it find a bunch of pictures of 7/10 French people and line them up next to pictures of 4/10 German people, is that not still cherry picking just because I did not use 10/10 models from France and 1/10s from Germany?

I think the "You're either just as radical as us OR you're pro-mutilation" is also a false dichotomy. It's like saying, "either you support the feminist version of women's rights, or you're a misogynist."

That's not a radical sentiment. In yet people radically argue against it.

But we're not. We're discussing the faulty argumentative methods of the anti-MGM camp, and the radicals who have been called out in that camp have decided that rather than answer that criticism, they'll just accuse their critics of being pro-mutilation.

Oh hey, where have we seen that before? Oh right! Every time you criticize how radical feminists behave, they get defensive and pretend you're attacking women's rights instead of their radical behavior!

Congratulations on functioning almost identically to a RadFem. :)

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You present a false dichotomy when you insist that anything but the most extreme cherry picking somehow doesn't still count as cherry picking.

I literally asked you what was "cherry picked" about it. How is it biased, what is the message meant to falsely portray with "cherry picked" images? Then expanded well beyond that. If someone is purposefully cherry picking images... they're going to go with what best conveys their biased point. So that people too intellectually lazy to research something, and get their opinions from memes, will believe them to be correct. The odds that someone aiming to push an agenda is going to go with less extreme images in their creation is slim, because it'd be less effective.

I didn't read the rest. But if you actually answered my question, copy/paste it in a reply and I will read that.

Because I fail to see what the "cherry picked" point is. Because the only things I see in this image, are the fact that uncut penises have foreskin and the head of the penis is soft. While cut are dried out, have no foreskin. Things that you'd have to cherry pick images to disprove, because that's just what happens when you cut off the foreskin.

[+]jmg831 points 8 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Some people say that removing a foreskin has no ill-effect. These photos would suggest otherwise. Even the most serious circumcision defender would be hard pressed to deny the possible connection between wrinkled, dried glans and lack of sensitivity.

[–]Avannar -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Avannar -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	NSFW: Photographs of intact vs circumcised penis. Useful tool to use on the web in the fight against male genital mutilation.
Author	Consilio_et_Animis
Upvotes	29
Comments	59
Date	September 10, 2017 6:28 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/6z9xbr/nsfw_photographs_of_intact_vs_circumcised_penis/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/nsfw-photographs-of-intact-vs-circumcised-penis.914520 https://theredarchive.com/post/914520

Comments