~ archived since 2018 ~

CDC Circumcision Verdict: Benefits Outweigh Risks

axsis

December 3, 2014

17 upvotes

/r/MensRights

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	CDC Circumcision Verdict: Benefits Outweigh Risks
Author	axsis
Upvotes	17
Comments	44
Date	December 3, 2014 11:25 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/2o7cjh/cdc-circumcision-verdict-benefits-outweigh-risks/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/cdc-circumcision-verdict-benefits-outweigh-risks.1623544 https://theredarchive.com/post/1623544

Comments

[–]bowbreak18 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]axsis7 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sgx1913167 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SlipcasedJayce1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]axsis6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jojotmagnifficent5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause-13 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DaNiceguy16 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause-10 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jarka_Ruus14 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause-10 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat8 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause-4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]stop_stalking_me9 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]stop_stalking_me2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]axsis7 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AryaBarzan3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cajunFAITH0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]axsis3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cajunFAITH-3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cajunFAITH-2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Removal of foreskin to me is not a form of mutilation.

Circumcised women don't consider having their clits cut off and their vaginas closed up to be mutilation. Mutilation is always the maiming that other people do. What your culture does is justified to you because everyone around you is been mutilated and are constantly telling you from cradle to grave about how fortunate you should feel about having functional parts of your body cut off.

The definition of "mutilation" is not dependent on intent, or whether people feel good about being mutilated but is determined by how the word is used, not just in the context of circumcision but as a whole. It applies to instances where there's been injury or damage to the body, usually involving destruction of tissue or changing the appearance of it through violent/abusive means in a way that leaves less functional. In most cases used when the damage inflicted without the consent of the victim, but not always.

There are motives behind why people do it. Some bad, many good.

Everyone has reasons. Why exactly, do you believe that mothers in China last century broke almost every bone in their daughters' feet or women in Sudan today remove all of the external genitalia of theirs? Do you think they do it because they hate their kids and want them to suffer? No, they have plenty of justifications. They think it's more beautiful, more feminine, improves hygiene, is healthier and so on.

Intent does not matter at all unless the reasons people are doing this fucked up shit are actually true and results in a good outcome.

Nonconsensual genital mutilation, and any other kind of amputation, bodily modification or injury is a human rights violation. In some instances it can be justifiable for medical reasons but it certainly does not start out as such by default.

[–]cajunFAITH0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I wasn't talking about anything else beside the removal of foreskin.

For your info, my dad isn't circumcised, but he felt that being circumcised would be cleaner.

As a kid he did not tell me that one is right or one is wrong. He then KD me what is natural and his reasoning behind the decision.

As a grown make I can make my own decisions. I've lived through certain things, and I make my decisions as I see fit.

You can argue all day about what is this and what is that. I will not believe that removing the foreskin of a male is mutilation of any kind in the sense of causing harm.

This has nothing to do with removing functioning parts of a human or sewing anything shut. It isn't breaking bones.

It's a shame that you would group that together.

I have a question though. You claim it is against human right to circumcise a boy, is it against human right to abort a baby?

[–]Eryemil3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause-8 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

They touched on this on the complications aspect to an extent in the video when they talked about how anecdotal stories of circumcision going bad does not prove that male circumcision is wrong or shouldn't be done. You would need to show the rates of complication. Many vaccines/surgeries have complications that can result in death, but we still do them because the benefits outweigh the risks. Heck, a flu shot can kill someone.

Do you have a link on the US Marines study? I'd be interested to see that.

Overall, if there are legitimate medical benefits than circumcision probably should be left up to the parent, however, we should try to raise awareness of the benefits and risks so parents can make a more informed decision. It seems like that's what the CDC is trying to do that here, whether we agree with the conclusions or not. But at the very least, at least the conversation has gotten out of the religious realm and into the scientific realm. That's a good thing.

[–]AryaBarzan4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause-4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AryaBarzan1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]axsis2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Trebbers5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think the big issue is that the decision is not based off of scientific grounds because the "risks" of circumcision are weighed in some odd moralistic clusterfuck. If we look at circumcision as just a problem of "Is the lower risk of STDS worth it with the downside of X?" we can quickly figure out the issue. So, the downside X (from the standpoint of those pro circumcision) is that the surgery has possible complications and may reduce sensitivity. The downside X (from the standpoint of those anti circumcision) is that sex is demonstrably worse, the procedure has possible complications, is genital mutilation and violates the rights of the child as a not strictly necessary medical procedure.

The idea of "more harm than good" falls to pieces when those who are pro circumcision just don't consider issues like the fact that it is irreversible genital mutilation, it makes sex demonstrably worse in multiple ways (the two glaring, scientifically proven ways are that you lose a fuckton of nerve endings (the foreskin has the most) and you need more lube) and the fact that it significantly changes an infants life for a very arguable benefit.

The issue of agency is huge, and of human rights. If I could get circumcised, painlessly, for free, with 0 chance of complications, with 0 decrease in my aesthetic appeal and I would decrease my chance of getting STDS when not using a condom by 90% I still would laugh off the option as ludicrous. Having better sex is far more important, to me, than being safer when having sex with infected people without a condom (yay... what a... great upside?) and people should be able to make that judgment call.

The moralistic judgment of sensitive, pre-lubed sex vs being able to get it on raw with more hiv positive people is not something to be scientifically weighed and the idea you could do that is really fucking stupid. On another, somewhat related note the way the scientific community has handled circumcision is demonstrably, horrifyingly backwards. Circumcision was not always done for health reasons. For the vast majority of history circumcision had nothing to do with health reasons. When there is a SURGICAL PROCEDURE being done for religious reasons and a culture practicing it becomes scientifically literate the first thing the medical community should do is ask "why are we cutting up dicks?" The obvious answer is religion, that is not debated. The scientific procedure would then dictate you stop cutting dicks altogether (as the reason for doing it is unscientific) and you move on. There is no reason to research it independently, as the reason to initially have it was thoroughly debunked (religion=surgery doesn't cut it for good reasons.) This is textbook, there is no debate to be had.

What actually happened is we, as a culture, started inventing reasons to keep doing a RELIGIOUSLY MOTIVATED SURGICAL PROCEDURE- please keep that in mind here, something that is nothing more than BIBLE SAYS CUT DICK, LET'S DO. First we said it stopped masturbation (mm, dr kellog) and now we are saying being able to get it on with diseased partners while not using condoms is worth it. Scientific method fucking rolling in it's grave.

PS: Weird coincidence that the less religious countries are the less they want to cut on dicks. Must be a coincidence, all of it.

edit:

TL:DR The fact that we continued to circumcise without a scientific reason for so many years is proof of a fucking stupid agenda, doctors cannot make the judgment call of "Sex being slightly safer with diseased partners is more important than more sexual pleasure" as that is entirely moralistic and agency is important.

[–]atheist4thecause-6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think most of our disagreement comes from how much you care about sexual sensation and how little I actually care about that as part of the issue. First of all, I'm not convinced that circumcision does make sex worse. Second of all, I care more about the health of the child.

There are a lot of aspects (such as sexual performance and religious decisions), but I think the health is the more important and most easily objectified aspect. If we can figure out whether or not circumcision tends to improve or worsen the health of a child, then that's a great baseline for the argument IMO. After that, you can start to bring up the issues of sexual sensation and religious decisions to compare to how much circumcision improves or hinders the health of the child.

Also, just because in the past circumcision has been done for religious reasons doesn't mean that it can't be done for scientific reasons now. I agree that a religious basis is not a good reason to perform circumcisions, and frankly, it seems there needs to be more studies done on the science of the procedure.

Since so much of your argument seemed to hinge on the sexual aspect, do you have proof that circumcision makes sex objectively worse for people? In the video, they brought up a person that had adult circumcision for a medical purpose and this person claimed that they had more sexual sensation after than before. One person obviously doesn't make the case, but it's a sign that we shouldn't just assume the sexual experience or sensation does get worse.

[–]Trebbers4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think most of our disagreement comes from how much you care about sexual sensation and how little I actually care about that as part of the issue.

You have reinforced my point that this is a subjective moralistic judgment that should not be decided by doctors. edit: It is important to note that if I am correct that people can argue about the subjective judgment of pleasure vs ability to have unprotected sex with infected people more and that the argument is a non trivial one then the CDC's opinion can be completely disregarded due to them not being the experts on subjective moralistic judgments (as nobody is or can be.)

Also, just because in the past circumcision has been done for religious reasons doesn't mean that it can't be done for scientific reasons now. I agree that a religious basis is not a good reason to perform circumcisions, and frankly, it seems there needs to be more studies done on the science of the procedure.

You misunderstand me, it being done for religious reasons is not the issue. The medical community performing a surgical procedure based off religion and then not using the actual scientific method to prove it (with no moratorium on performing it) is the issue. It is a very strict violation of the scientific method.

Since so much of your argument seemed to hinge on the sexual aspect, do you have proof that circumcision makes sex objectively worse for people?

The foreskin is a pleasure center that is being cut off. Making the assumption that having more nerve endings designed for pleasure there makes sex more pleasurable is pretty standard. There was a study done with microfilaments showing it as the most sensitive part of the penis but the study doesn't need to be linked or discussed. A pleasure center is being cut off, we don't even need to go further than that.

One thing that always confuses me about circumcision proponents is the idea of the health of the child. The two health benefits are 1: you probably get to have more unprotected sex with diseased people before you get stds and 2: if you don't wash your dick at all you will get less infections due to non washing when you have no foreskin. Those health benefits are both really shitty.

[–]atheist4thecause-4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Wow, wow, wow. So much to correct here.

1) Me asking you about sexual sensation because you base so much of your argument on sexual sensation is not me reinforcing your point about a moralistic judgement call. It's me trying to get you to talk about your basis of belief on sexual sensation/experience.

2) Circumcision is not purely based on religion, and even if the decision is based on religion, if generally improves the health of a child it's still reasonable to allow on scientific grounds.

3) I did not make an assumption. I made a statement about someone who had the procedure as an adult and claimed their sensation increased. If there was a study done about nerve endings, I'd like to see that, but I don't actually think that alone would prove your side anyways. It would certainly help, though.

4) Woah! Woah! Woah! I am NOT a circumcision proponent. I am someone looking for the answers that doesn't have my mind made up. You also GROSSLY misrepresented the argument about health.

Your arguments seem to be getting more and more emotional, so I'm going to tap out with you now. I'll talk to people who can be less emotional.

[–]Trebbers3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I am quite calm, thank you.

1) "I think most of our disagreement comes from how much you care about sexual sensation and how little I actually care about that as part of the issue." I quoted you directly, you supported my opinion that it is a subjective judgment. Please respond to my argument.

2) Please respond to the argument.

3) You misread, I will respond to point 3 if you reread. I never said you made an assumption.

4) I did not say you were a proponent. Calm down and read.

In points 3 and 4 you either demonstrate a severe lack of knowledge of our language, are incompetent or you are too rushed to actually consider things. 2 of the 4 points you fucked up reading comprehension, the other 2 you simply refused to respond to my actual arguments. Strawmen are super easy to knock down.

When you cannot adequately respond to arguments launching an ad hominem attack and pretending to leave due to that is childish and foolish.

edit: Oh and if I am fucking up the argument about health please inform me. I have only ever seen lower risk of infection, lower std transmission and possibly lower chance of penile cancer as benefits. If you want to correct all of my horribly wrong opinions go ahead and actually offer up a counter.

[–]all_you_need_to_know4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause-2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]all_you_need_to_know4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause-4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]all_you_need_to_know3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]regents4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]axsis0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link