~ archived since 2018 ~

Centers for Dick Control

AnotherUberfeminist

December 21, 2014

12 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://uberfeminist.blogspot.com/2014/12/centers-for-dick-control.html

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	Centers for Dick Control
Author	AnotherUberfeminist
Upvotes	12
Comments	14
Date	December 21, 2014 6:36 AM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2pydue/centers_for_dick_control/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/centers-for-dick-control.991859 https://theredarchive.com/post/991859

Comments

[+]AnotherUberfeminist 11 years ago* [recovered] (10 children) | Copy Link

If intactivist stuff does not belong in MR or the title doesn't fit guidelines, apologies in advance.

[–]chocoboat 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]1TrueScotsman 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+]AnotherUberfeminist 11 years ago* [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

I see it as primarily a cosmetic procedure and religious practice. If parents understand it as such, I don't have much of a problem. Parents do all kinds of things with that justification.

Where things get dicey is when it's regarded as medically necessary or not harmful at all. Parents that assume that it's helpful from a medical perspective will eventually feel misled.

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

[–]PM_ME_UR_PLANTS 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]1TrueScotsman 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I think their is too much unknown about the infant brain to know what effect the trauma has

I have heard of no evidence that the trauma is any more severe than any other single incidence pain trauma. That is, it makes no sense to me that this would be a special case with long lasting consequences. This always struck me as a weak argument. The belief that people suffer long lasting psychological damage from things like these is very Fruedonian...and not part of modern psychology. I find this a bad argument.

and that in practice there are a lot more problems than any small benefits warrant (mostly because of how it is tied to religion and unsafe practices that religion can perpetuate).

The benefits are often played down by intativists. I agree that the religious application is problematic and should cease.

I think that the little data we have...

I disagree that we have little data. This is often the plea of those that are dissatisfied with what the data shows.

Banning FGM hasn't seemed to hurt women.

I actually am not sure what you were trying to say here...so I'll leave it.

Do you have any reasoning other than the studies from Africa that warrant it?

There are other studies. The sensitivity controversy seems to fall on my side. The CDC and other orgs seem to fall on the side of benefit. But I don't base my opinion on health benefit, rather I base it on lack of proven statistical harm compare to statistical benefit PLUS cultural autonomy.

[–]PM_ME_UR_PLANTS 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"I have heard of no evidence that the trauma is any more severe than any other single incidence pain trauma. That is, it makes no sense to me that this would be a special case with long lasting consequences. This always struck me as a weak argument. The belief that people suffer long lasting psychological damage from things like these is very Fruedonian...and not part of modern psychology. I find this a bad argument."

I'd think it's more a case of for neurobiology than psychology. I don't think a baby's brain is developing in a way that makes much of any typical psychology relevant. It seems like any effect would be on an underlying emotional/personality level that would be could easily be mistaken for a genetic anomaly, since a concept of self or personality doesn't exist yet. Still, the baby is definitely learning, and it's hard to imagine it's brain wouldn't carry something along with it from such an experience.

It'll be difficult to find any study on it, since you can't easily do so in a humane manner. There's anecdotal evidence of babies nursing poorly after the procedure. I haven't been able to find much more and don't expect to.

CDC - This is based mostly on STDs from African populations on diseases that are much more readily handled with condom use. A 50% reduction in change of HIV isn't really that useful when sex is a common activity and a condom provides more like 99% protection. I don't see the CDC as being particularly unified on such a claim, and the AAP has been flip-flopping on their stance.

Lack of evidence I think still falls to the null hypothesis, which would be to protect bodily integrity until legal age.

"Banning FGM hasn't seemed to hurt women." This is important. Banning FGM establishes a precedent that secular bodily integrity trumps protection of religious practices on the bodies of others. Performing surgery on babies is something that IMO is a claim of great consequence, and as a result should require great evidence. I don't see that there's substantial evidence that it'll help the population that's receiving the surgery. My personal experience with circumcision is that it's caused more problems than it's helped. I've had sex with zero people who were STD carriers, and have had easy access to condoms. I've also had discomfort on my glans and trust issues with society over it.

[–]elwahrio 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]1TrueScotsman -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnotherUberfeminist1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

My compromise is parental education....I see it as a cultural thing with no real statistical harm with some statistical benefits.

The problem is that parents are miseducated by the "statistical benefits". You wouldn't give your child a face tattoo given a statistic suggesting they're less likely to be pregnant as a teen as a consequence.

All benefits are negligible. We know this as China and India, countries with circumcision rates with less than 1 in 5, with large health problems, do not take it up with modest investment was a beneficial practice.

Speaking to parents about circumcision in a medically beneficial context is basically like speaking of ear piercings possibly having some positive medical side effects. This can be thought of as why people that are anti-circumcision get a bit upset with the suggestion that circumcision is medicine at all. (as you may have witnessed)

[–]kizzan 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]AnotherUberfeminist 11 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

I'd call that a peculiarity of insurance plans - maybe very common but not a universal rule. (Unless the ACA changed something I'm not aware of)

In any case, if "zero" cost, it just means that the procedure is billed to everyone on the plan. There is little to suggest the amount billed for the procedure overall is offset from any positive impact of the procedure.

Let's say you have 150 million males and you circumcise them all. Is it a waste of effort or not?

[–]kizzan 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link