Circumcision question

That's like saying that people with two eyes are somehow envious of people with just one. Why would intact men be envious of the circumcised when the circumcised penis is a degraded version of the intact and they could choose to undergo the procedure at any time?

After all, almost all male porn stars are circumcised [...]

What decade are you living on? With the rise of "amateur" porn and globalization the market has been flooded with Brazilian and European actors, even in the American porn industry.

That said, you're begging the question here. Why would watching porn with circumcised guys make intact men feel bad? I'd think that it'd actually give them an ego boost when they even notice at all.

It's proven that circumcised penises help decrease the rate of HIV infection in high-risk areas.

Which, even if true, is not relevant to either newborns or men in developed countries so I am wondering why you'd even bring it up.

Instead what we should focus on are the important things [...]

We are. The right to bodily integrity for men and boys is pretty damn important.

[+]LeonardTimber -14 points-13 points-12 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm going to start with a quick "fuck you" for being a hostile ass, and make my way from there.

Why would intact men be envious of the circumcised when the circumcised penis is a degraded version of the intact and they could choose to undergo the procedure at any time?

Because of the next fucking sentence. Quotes out of context are a liar's trade, son. Let me put it clearly:

We watch porn.
Many pornstars have huge, uncircumcised penises (challenge ahead)
Young boys use them as archetypes for a sexually attractive male.
Young boys who aren't circumcised feel inadequate.
Envy. (subconscious, like when you meet a person and you don't know why but you know you wont get along ) Comment on your "amateur porn" point: they aren't the men that boys are looking up to. Boys are looking up to the men that are paid to have sex with beautiful women, because they can. Amateur porn specifically styles itself so that it doesn't appear that the actor is a pornstar.

What decade are you living on?

*in, but that's beside the point. Count the circumcised vs uncircumsized pornstars on this website [NSFW, obvi].

Go on. I'll give you some time. Anyway, because most porn is filmed in America, and most American men or pornographic age are circumcised, most men that appear in porn are also circumcised. I'm serious about checking every entry on that site. you'll probably find that around 80% of actual pornstars are circumcised. I spent a week around a casting location [for all sorts of things, not just porn] last summer. I am positive that is the approximate number. I met a casting agent, and that was one of the numbers he threw out when I asked him what it took to be a male pornstar (the more important ones are the three 8's: 8 inches, 808 area code, and lasting 88 minutes, but those are beside my point).

The point of saying,

It's proven that circumcised penises help decrease the rate of HIV infection in high-risk areas.

is that it is the closest thing to an actual number on prevention of HIV that is ethically possible, because an experimental study to determine one way or the other would be unethical (because the scientist is hypothesizing that one test group is more at risk for harm caused by the experiment). It is shown in many studies that uncircumcised penises are more at-risk for infections of the glans and UTIs, as well as penile cancer, so it can be reasonably inferred that HIV also has a higher rate of transmission. I just figured someone with a modicum of intelligence would be able to infer that as well. I am sorry for believing in you.

The right to bodily integrity for men and boys is pretty damn important.

I couldn't agree with this sentence more. But this is the problem that I have with the anti-circumcision community. Doctors have spent decades trying to decide if circumcision is harmful or not, with no agreements on the matter, but you have decided that being circumcised makes a penis "degraded" and ruins a man's bodily integrity. Case in point, you just compared a circumcised man to one who is missing an eye. How much more bigoted can you get? Who else do you view as disabled? Once the WHO or the UN comes out and says that it should stop, maybe I'll stop believing that circumcision should be a personal or familial choice. But until then, I will gladly defend the rights of men to get circumcised, in the face of those who would have it banned.

Also, I really hope you took the time to look at some of those dicks. Takes one to know one.

...I would know.

[–]Eryemil 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Young boys who aren't circumcised feel inadequate.

You're begging the question again. Do you know what cut boys are called in the UK? Halfcocks. Obviously I think that's cruel but I think it's a perfect example of how you are overestimating the impact of porn among intact guys.

is that it is the closest thing to an actual number on prevention of HIV that is ethically possible, because an experimental study to determine one way or the other would be unethical

That's not my point. How is this relevant to men in the developed world when the HIV epidemic is significantly different in terms of how it is transmitted? The results of the African trials have zero impact on HIV outside of Africa.

It is shown in many studies that uncircumcised penises are more at-risk for infections of the glans and UTIs, as well as penile cancer so it can be reasonably inferred that HIV also has a higher rate of transmission.

Begging the quetstion; again. Also, that' the stupidest thing you've said. The tree things you mentioned have nothing in common so saying that HIV must also be higher (based on unsubstantiated claims, to boot) is ridiculous.

I couldn't agree with this sentence more

Circumcision removes some of the most sensitive tissues in the male genitals. A net loss of sensory apparatus is logically followed by a net loss of sensation. Not to mention the loss of mechanical function itself.

I'm glad you agree.

But until then, I will gladly defend the rights of men to get circumcised, in the face of those who would have it banned.

No one is trying to keep men from being circumcised. We, among the MRM and the intactivist movement both, believe that men should have 100% say about the integrity of their own bodies.

[–]ExpendableOne 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

First of all, not all porn stars are circumcised, porn is a pretty universal thing and fabricated all over the world(japanese, european and homemade all have plenty of uncircumcised men in them). Secondly, heterosexual men who watch porn don't generally focus their attention on penises, they focus most of it on the women in porn(which is why women in porn get paid significantly more than men in porn). Thirdly, the notion that every man would be envious of porn actors' bodies is kind of a fallacy, they maybe envy the women they get to fuck but no one really looks at ron jeremy and says "yeah, i wanna look like that guy". Finally, if there was an unhealthy or unfair predisposition in main stream porn for circumcised men, this is not something we should just be accepting or championing; it's something that should be opposed or discouraged.

Instead what we should focus on are the important things, like the education gap, and new job gap. Not silly thousand-year-old traditions with highly debatable benefits and costs now.

The men's rights movement doesn't have to just focus on one thing or another, it's capable of addressing multiple issues at a time. Every issue is important and virtually every issue affecting men also overlaps with a lot of other male issues. The fact that it's thousands of year old also doesn't make it any less important, it just makes it that much more evident that male issues and well-being are being ignored and have been for over thousands of year. There are no debatable benefits(no, it does not prevent HIV) and, despite the numerous costs, disadvantages and complications it does actually have, this is still a body integrity and a fundamental human's rights issue.

[–]neofool 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]LeonardTimber -6 points-5 points-4 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]neofool 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]LeonardTimber -9 points-8 points-7 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Once again, they can't be compared. female circumcision has been shown to make women experience pain during sex, and the removal of the clitoris (as occurs in most all) is akin to chopping the head of a penis off.

Not only that, but when has it ever been mandated for all male children? It is recommended as a choice for parents to make, because they can consciously weigh the benefits and risks for their children. The "decreased functionality" that some people bring up has not been proven, if you don't believe me, read the wikipedia article. Doctors (i.e. the people qualified to make a medical decision regarding the matter) cannot agree one way or the other on sexual functionality. It should also be noted that the article most quoted in deference to circumcision (Boyde et. all, 2002) is based on a biological viewpoint, not from empirically collected data. No survey data has been able to show a statistically significant difference in sexual functionality.

But the big point is that female circumcision is so much worse. I am a man and I can say that. It completely ruins sex. Completely. Doctors don't speculate that it decreases sensitivity, it physically removes an entire pleasure-producing organ. Before we have determinant sexual characteristics (in utero), the clitoris and the head of the penis are the same organ. Female circumcision is like turning a man into a eunuch.

[–]rajanala83 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

but that has a legitimate purpose (circumcised penises are less prone to infection

Even if true, and I'd like sources, enough to warrant amputation? Cutting off body parts is a last result only undertaken for extreme reasons such as gangrene or severe injuries and malformations.

Females are much more prone to genital infections than men; does this warrant the excision of the labia for little girls?

religious observations dating back thousands of years.

Appeal to tradition.

The long term harm caused is almost always negligible

Unless of course, the baby dies, loses his cock or ends up with an even more fucked up cock than is normal for circumcision.

This is of course, without taking into account the normal harm caused by loss of normal penile function and the immediate harm caused by the excruciating pain of having highly enervated tissue amputated with little or no pain relief.

[+]jamazo -19 points-18 points-17 points 13 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

No cheese

That's like saying that noses should be removed to stop the gathering of snot but even worse since smegma doesn't even form unless hygiene is neglected for days at a time.

And the kicker? Women produce a hell of a lot of it more than men. You've probably feasted on some delicious pussy cheese and haven't even noticed.

no HIV.

Enjoy your AIDS buddy. HIV is more common in circumcised US than intact Western Europe. There's very little actual correlation between the two. Hell, circumcised men in Zimbabwe now have more HIV after the recent circumcision campaign. Hooray?

A vaccine that only works half the time is more or less the same as no vaccine at all. You still have to always wear a condom if you are at risk for HIV in the West (I take you're gay/bisexual) and being cut doesn't give you more protection if you are wearing a condom.

This beast is zero maintenance. Love it! Totally self-cleaning.

So do you or do you not reach down and rub soap/water with your fingers when you are showering? If you do, congratulations, you're following the same procedure intact men do; if you don't then that's fucking disgusting.

I pity the uncircumcised, quite frankly.

Why? Intact men can choose circumcision at any time. You are the one who has no choice. Your attempts to puff yourself up, no pun intended, by putting down intact men are as effective as a blind man going "Ha ha lose, you can see!".

[–]paragon97[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[+]LeonardTimber -9 points-8 points-7 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]jamazo -13 points-12 points-11 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]LeonardTimber -10 points-9 points-8 points 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]jamazo -12 points-11 points-10 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]jamazo -14 points-13 points-12 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]jamazo -14 points-13 points-12 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]jamazo -7 points-6 points-5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExpendableOne 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No fuss

What fuss? An intact penis works exactly the way it's supposed to work. The extra slack does serve multiple purposes, including protecting the glans(from fabrics, the environment or dryness for example, preventing unnecessary callusing and loss of sensitivity), increasing fluidity during intercourse and adding that extra bit of slack when you get an erection(can't help but think that erections would be significantly less without that extra bit of slack). It's also significantly easier to use and more accessible, since there really isn't as much of a need for lubricants(which also means fewer cleanups).

no muss.

Every sane man cleans their genitals, circumcised or uncircumcised. If you don't clean it, it will get dirty even with no foreskin. It's a pretty simple fundamental part of one's personal hygiene(most men tend to be more than happy to give their genitals a little scrubbing). Your penis is not "self-cleaning", you still have to clean it(if anything your glans will probably get dirtier faster simply for the fact that is has no outer protection); just like you still have to clean every other part of your body.

No cheese

Smegma is not cheese, nor should it ever be referred to as such(excess oil and skin cells aren't a dairy product). It also happens to be a natural part of the human body for both men and women.

no HIV

Not having a foreskin doesn't make you immune to HIV, it doesn't even reduce the chances of you contracting HIV. This is the most ridiculous argument you could possibly ever make for circumcision. It would be like a catholic priest saying "condoms don't prevent pregnancies, praying prevents pregnancies!".

I pity the uncircumcised, quite frankly

Bullshit, if this was truly the case, you wouldn't be on here trying to convince everyone, or trying to convince yourself maybe, that you're really happy about not having a foreskin, having an important choice about your body taken away from you and not being able to know what life would be like with that functional piece of male anatomy still intact.

[–]jamazo -4 points-3 points-2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rajanala83 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]LeonardTimber -11 points-10 points-9 points 13 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]jamazo -13 points-12 points-11 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Luxieee 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Circumcision question
Author	paragon97
Upvotes	15
Comments	44
Date	August 8, 2012 3:49 AM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/xv2mq/circumcision_question/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/circumcision-question.1016320 https://theredarchive.com/post/1016320

Comments