Mother laughs while her son gets mutilated

[–]LastStr8YtMale588 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vSkyy12105 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheFamBroski265 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vSkyy1278 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]XWillspikesX365 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vSkyy12118 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Talska140 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PeechMan66 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]EnIdiot40 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

While I am opposed to circumcision now that I know more about it, it isn’t just tradition in Jewish and Moslem families. The Jews (and I think the people in Islam as well) are literally commanded by God to do it to boys. Female circumcision has never been the law in Judaism or Islam as far as I know. It is just a tradition in some cultures, not an integral part of their faith.

In the US, it is mostly still done as a matter of course when boys are born. It is absolutely wrong to remove healthy tissue for no good reason unless there is overwhelming evidence it helps medically and prevents more deaths than it causes.

I am still on the fence when it comes to religious doctrines. I prefer, however, you just fly your ass back to Israel or Saudi Arabia if you want it done, when you are an adult and can chose it yourself.

[–]BlueZir30 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]variegated-anoesis27 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]EnIdiot7 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yeah. I get what you are saying, but if you ask, 99% of men who were circumcised as infants (as I was) have no memory of it. If you were to ask, most grown conservative Jewish men would probably say they were glad (specifically for religious reasons) they they were circumcised. There are lots and lots of unethical or immoral things people all around the world do every day to get through life without thinking twice about them. The question is, if the majority of people who had something done to them as infants, don’t mind or thought it was good that it was done, does it make it abuse? Putting aside FGM (which is often done at the onset of puberty), this tradition/ritual has never been shown to be overwhelmingly harmful. I am not saying it is right or that I support it, but is the supposed outcome (in a religious ceremony like the one above) really so bad that we need to violate a multi-millennium old region’s essential tenets?

I think the case for ending medically perfunctory circumcisions(like was done to me) is clear—not needed, no medical benefits, and possible needless harm. That is quite different than ending an essential religious practice that hasn’t been shown statistically to be harmful across the population of practitioners.

[–]CanadianAsshole112 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]variegated-anoesis9 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So if you were molested as an infant and have no memory of it it's ok? If you were physically assaulted as an infant but have no memory of it it's ok? That's a really poor argument.

Yes it is 100% abuse as you are taking away a person's right to body autonomy and you are mutilating their body. Religion is no excuse. By using religion as an excuse only in grains the false cover that it's ok to do it.

I find it absolutely crazy that you even need to ask the question of'.. we need to violate a multi-millennium old region’s essential tenets?' when this act violates the right of the child. Body autonomy and the child's rights need to always be put first.

Male genital mutilation is male genital mutilation. A religious practice does not change this and somehow magically make it different and ok.

[–]Windryder7 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]EnIdiot2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]StupidisAStupidPosts6 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]EnIdiot2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ReyosBlackwood6 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lastlaugh1004 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Velihopea6 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lastlaugh1005 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dont_know_sir1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I was circumcised when i was an infant as well. Ive been upset that i had the choice taken away from me. and being an american, one of the things ive was taught at a young age is the constitution. in the constitution is freedom of religion. a freedom i use sense my parents are somewhat religious and regret not haveing me do more religious stuff. but im glad i didnt waiste my life with that sense im not religious. and i hope that if i was rased more religious that i would end up in the same place. and my main issue with circumcision is that i and many other men didnt get to choose. its a thing how its rape when someone doesnt (or in some cases cant, if they are passed out) give consent for sex. while circumsision is a perminent body modification that a man cant even remember let alone comunicate any level of understanding or consent.

[–]Asbjoern13513 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ReyosBlackwood12 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Renk0b7 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]L3tum3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pobretano3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Inkspells0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pobretano1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Inkspells1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pobretano1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Inkspells1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pobretano2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Inkspells1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chinawinsworlds2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]idontknowatallguy0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Badde00-6 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]variegated-anoesis15 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Badde002 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]variegated-anoesis6 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ReyosBlackwood13 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This is actually not true. It's false for a few reasons:

Infants cannot be given proper anaesthetic, a general like they give adults would damage or kill them, so they are given locals, if they are given any at all because:
This comes partly out of a belief that infants cannot feel pain - it seems shocking but until 30-40 years ago or so it was believed that infants in fact couldn't feel pain. New science has shown that not only do they feel pain, they feel it about 4 times as intensely as adults do, which causes:
Permanent developmental changes - the brain is still developing, and science has shown spikes in cortisol and painful stimulation cause permanent changes to how it develops, leading to increased rates of ASD, ADHD, alexithymia , depression and a permanently lower pain tolerance.
There are many complications that can only happen to an infant, the foreskin is fused to the glans at birth by the balanopreputial lamina, it separates over time as a boy grows, fully releasing on average by age 11 (some take years longer, into puberty) infant circumcision requires this be torn, ripped from both sides, causing damage to the glans, this can cause adhesions and skin bridges when it to heal against the remaining foreskin, also damaged. Other issues happen because the penis is still growing, removal of too much, something you can't tell until it is fully grown leads to things like painful erections and hairy shaft, an uneven cut will cause tension on one side of the penis, making it grow into a curve.
Babies can't complain - sure babies can cry, but they can't say what's actually wrong, so a lot of issues with infant circumcision go ignored, and by the time the boy can complain, it's normal, by the time he's sexually active that's how his penis is, an adult circumcision has a before and after to compare and report issues.

[–]Badde004 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ReyosBlackwood3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Except it DOES harm the child in the long run, there are men who committed suicide for this issue alone, like Jonathon Conte, it's been well known that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis for thousands of years, that's why the puritans started cutting them off, it's why Jews in ancient Greece started foreskin restoration, because they wanted to hide among the Greeks that thought them insane for cutting off the best parts when baths and sports were all dune public and nude.

Hell recent science is showing not only does it harm a man's sexual function (453% higher ED risk according to Bollinger & Van Howe's 2011 study, 4 most sensitive spots on the penis removed according to Sorrells et al's 2007 study) not only does doing it to an infant cause the potential for permanent mental issues due to changes in brain chemistry during their development, it also could raise, not lower, STD risks which is the big claim for why to do it.

STD risks go up from circumcision for 3 reasons:

Risky behaviour increases - This happens because people overestimate the protection given (if there is any at all) men in Africa after circumcision are under the mistaken belief they are HIV immune, and thus don't need a condom, can have new partners freely, in Africa that usually means prostitutes, etc.
Condom aversion - Even those who know they aren't completely protected, the loss of the most sensitive parts of the penis make sex harder for a man, and adding a latex barrier on top of that may be too much to ask, more men in my experience resist wearing condoms who are cut than those who are intact.
physical changes - the foreskin reduces friction during sex and masturbation in many ways, some more obvious than others. Intact guys do not need lube to jerk off, their foreskin functions as a mechanical lubrication, the shaft slides back and forth inside the slack skin, it doesn't have to pull the tightly cut skin along with it, causing friction. On the out thrust the foreskin folds over the glans, covering the ridge of the corona behind the head, without that cover that ridge will pull fluid lubrication, precum, vaginal fluids, astroglide, whatever, out with every thrust, making it dryer and dryer, more friction. The lost sensitivity due to those most sensitive parts being removed men men who are cut tend to thrust harder, faster and longer, all this means more friction too. All that added friction, aside from being uncomfortable for both the man and his partner (and being responsible for the 75% higher likelihood of orgasm for a woman with an uncut partner O'Hara & O'Hara 1999) can cause abrasions, tiny tears in both the man's shaft skin and his partner, and it's common sense medicine that open wounds no matter how small raise the chances of infections.

I can go on about the actual downsides of circumcision, and how it's actually worse to do to an infant than adult, particularly though with an adult being able to choose it for themselves, and an infant having the chance to grow up like I did, like Eric Clopper and hate what was done to him, maybe so much that like Jonathon Conte, Kevin Cagle, or Alex Hardy, all dead, all their own hand, all pointing to circumcision as the reason for it, something they would never have allowed to happen to themselves if it weren't forced on them as an infant.

[–]Asbjoern1355 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Abiogeneralization117 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Hereforthefreecake114 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Abiogeneralization89 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Hereforthefreecake12 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]simanimos12 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Abiogeneralization8 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BlueZir5 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Hereforthefreecake2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BlueZir3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

They don't quote that stuff because they don't know where it came from. All most people know is that they don't like dicks to look a certain way, but This is because most of the dicks they've ever seen have been mutilated and most of the conversations they've had with family and friends have normalised the idea that circumcision is better and more desirable.

If the religious influence hadn't been there, people almost certainly wouldn't feel that way. People don't spontaneously decide to start chopping off functional body parts without some sort of imperative. If cutting off tongues had been passed down for millennia because speech was considered ugly then most of us would be mute, and arguing in favour of that would be just as stupid as arguing that babies should have unnecessary and dangerous surgery on their genitalia for the sake of their family's sexual preferences (!?).

The bottom line is reframing the argument around the vanity of the parents is wrong and immoral. Who gives a shit how you feel about explaining to your kid why part of your dick is missing. You only accept that because you have to, and have the ability to protect a child from the same pointless treatment. The majority of circumcised people were never given a choice and are inherently biased towards thinking it is normal, along with most of the people around them. Just like the women who have their clitoris cut off and don't realise that most of the world considers it barbaric.

[–]DenseMahatma4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Standard_Rules_Apply3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Hereforthefreecake1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Standard_Rules_Apply1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tastytatsu1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Windryder3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]felixlivesagain1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theferrit3215 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cazken11 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SpiritofJames0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Daemonicus9 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ReyosBlackwood4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mr_sinn0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ReyosBlackwood6 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mr_sinn1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ReyosBlackwood1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Brandwein0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mr_sinn1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CCrippled4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Abiogeneralization2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CCrippled1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]xNS539 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheFamBroski28 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]momojabada35 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LastStr8YtMale4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]momojabada11 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]turpin236 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheFamBroski2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Turtle_Dipped_Han8 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Quo210-4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]XWillspikesX8 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thepowerofone212 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]XWillspikesX8 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thepowerofone28 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LastStr8YtMale3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WalkedWithAZombie3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]factsd0ntlie3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Binary_techie3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GunOfSod2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]honeycombB821 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bringyoutomyhell1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]luckydayjp3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Deoxal3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WikiTextBot4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

David Reimer

David Peter Reimer (born Bruce Peter Reimer; 22 August 1965 – 4 May 2004) was a Canadian man born male but reassigned as a girl and raised female following medical advice and intervention after his penis was severely injured during a botched circumcision in infancy.The psychologist John Money oversaw the case and reported the reassignment as successful and as evidence that gender identity is primarily learned. The academic sexologist Milton Diamond later reported that Reimer's realization he was not a girl crystallized between the ages of 9 and 11 years and he transitioned to living as a male at age 15. Well known in medical circles for years anonymously as the "John/Joan" case, Reimer later went public with his story to help discourage similar medical practices. He committed suicide after suffering years of severe depression, financial instability, and a troubled marriage.

[–]ReyosBlackwood2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It should be added that phimosis is the natural state of all boys. The glans is actually fused to the foreskin by a membrane at birth, and until this breaks down (naturally usually around the start of puberty, but it can be at the end of puberty or in some cases earlier) the foreskin is naturally held tight to the penis. This means any diagnosis of phimosis in an infant or young child is BULLSHIT take a look at what happened to David's brother:

The doctors chose not to operate on Brian, whose phimosis soon cleared without surgical intervention.

Phimosis diagnosises in children are done for two reasons:

The doctors do not know what they are talking about, US and Canadian medicine had forgotten the functions natural growth of the penis, what is not an issue in children but is in adults is diagnosed. In fact phimosis in adults is often iatrogenic, caused by doctors, when they pull a child's foreskin back, forcing the membrane mentioned to tear, and causing scars in the foreskin that don't grow right. There are some medical papers that say the foreskin should detach by 3, some by 5 but the accurate average age is 10.4 years.
Money - specifically insurance money. In Canada and many of the US states now, insurance does not pay for circumcision by parental choice, but it's a surgery like any other when there's a diagnosis, so a diagnosis of phimosis is often given for insurance reasons, it's technically accurate, the foreskin is tight and can't be retracted, but since that's the natural state, not a problem to treat it's just done so they can get paid.

[–]Deoxal1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]frenulum20021 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CptHammer_0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]putzu_mutzu-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tastytatsu1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MichaellZ-2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theferrit3221 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Windryder4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MichaellZ1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]carbot1174 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LastStr8YtMale16 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MichaellZ2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LastStr8YtMale3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]imguralbumbot2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ReyosBlackwood1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ReyosBlackwood5 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Dan Bollinger estimated 117 infant boys die each year, this was done by going through medical records and tying deaths to the surgery based on what they died of (usually haemorrhage or sepsis) to the cause, circumcision, based on how long after the death was. Thing is they don't actually list circumcision as a cause of death, only the complication from the circumcision, blood loss or infection. And that's in US hospitals, the most dangerous genital cutting practice done today is the Xhosa male circumcision rite in Africa.

For benefits, the results on that are mixed, some studies say it protects against STIs, others show it has an increased risk, and most show no statistically significant difference either way. Take the study out of Puerto Rico by Rodriguez-Diaz in 2012 that found circumcised men had 11.7% higher rates of STIs than intact men, or the 2014 NHANES data which shows twice the rate of high risk cancer causing strains of HPV on cut men. It's also not really that much easier to clean, my partner's not cut, I am, sure he takes a few extra seconds each shower, which is not worth cutting off sensitive parts of the penis.

[–]matrixislife3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]XWillspikesX2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheOriginalBoxcar-6 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tastytatsu2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ReyosBlackwood2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well decreased risk of phimosis and paraphimosis is decreased 100%, since phimosis is a foreskin too tight to pull over the glans, and paraphimosis is a foreskin that was forced over the glans and is too tight to push back. Cutting off the foreskin guarantees you won't have tight foreskin issues. Phimosis affects less than 1 in 100 men as adults and paraphimosis is just phimosis that someone handled wrong. less than 0.5% of phimosis cases need circumcision to fix, more than 4/5 of cases can be fixed by betamethosone to loosen it, or a lesser surgery that cuts a vertical slit in the tight area then stitches it closed horizontally, shortening but widening the foreskin without removing any of the sensitive tissue. Less than 1/20,000 men will need a circumcision to treat phimosis issues.

Decreased risk of UTI - Wiswell was the study usually referenced for this, there haven't been many large ones since, Wiswell found a 0.02% risk of UTI in circumcised boys and a 0.22% risk in intact ones, that's a 91% reduction, BUT the actual risk was so very, very small to start with that reduction means 444 circumcisions prevent 1 UTI, AND Wiswell did not exclude premature babies, boys who are not circumcised because the risk of operating on them without need was too great AND who had higher risks of infections because of being premature, artificially raising the risks shown here, risks of getting a single infection that can be cured by a week of pills. It's also worth noting that the lifetime risk of UTI in men is about 1.3% the lifetime risk in women is 9.2%, 7X higher, but they don't get recommended surgery to reduce it (labiaplasty would also likely reduce the risk, since the moist flaps of skin would be removed, areas where bacteria can grow if not kept properly clean)

Penile cancer is a disease of old men, the average age of penile cancer is 84 years old, and less than 1 in 100,000 men will get it as it's one of the rarest cancers there is. Circumcision is said to reduce the risk, but not give 100% prevention. The estimate of deaths from circumcision itself is 9/100,000 boys, so 9 times as many boys will die during the cut than will get the cancer 80 years later, after living a full life! That's even worse when you realise penile cancer has an over 80% survival rate, so where 1/10,000 will die from circumcision less than 1/500,000 will die of penile cancer(calling it 10/100,000 to make the numbers easier to look at) 50 times more from the cut.

Sure these can sound like benefits, until you look critically at the numbers, then the benefits, if they really exist, are small and insignificant. They are post hoc justifications for carrying on a tradition of medicalized mutilation that started to punish boys who were masturbating, to reduce sexual pleasure in an era where pleasure and sex were seen as evil and diseases were punishments from god for that evil.

[–]Tastytatsu1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Shibs3331 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vSkyy128 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Talska19 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LastStr8YtMale29 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This is a typical infant circumcision: https://youtu.be/DRB6oHkrhms

Please, watch any/all of the following videos to learn more about the damage that circumcision does:

-Circumcision: The Whole Story https://youtu.be/SeAXantm4tE

-Child Circumcision: An Elephant in the Hospital https://youtu.be/Ceht-3xu84I

-Sex and Circumcision: An American Love Story https://youtu.be/FCuy163srRc

-American Circumcision documentary on Netflix www.netflix.com/title/81000861?source=android

It is estimated that up to half of circumcisions in the US are still performed with no anesthesia or ineffective local anesthesia. If done in adulthood, the patient will usually be fully anesthetized and if done with only local anesthesia, the procedure is not started without first ensuring that local anesthesia is completely effective. The patient will also be given analgesics for recovery- a luxury not afforded to circumcised infants, who cannot avoid getting acidic urine and poop on their wound and will obviously not be able to clean themselves. Most importantly, an adult male can give informed consent after thoroughly researching the procedure and weighing the pros and cons for themself. Circumcised infants can never get the part of their penis that was cut off back.

There are little to no health benefits- the ones that are claimed are controversial and not very well-supported. No medical association in the world recommends routine infant circumcision, and most European medical associations actively discourage it. A growing number of doctors, parents, circumcised men, intact men, and women recognize circumcision as a destructive practice no less barbaric than Female Genital Mutilation.

Circumcision is relatively rare in Europe, and they generally have much lower rates of STDs/HIV. The US, Israel, the Middle East, Africa, and some of Southeast Asia are the only areas in which it is particularly prevalent. Approximately 70-80% of the men on Earth are intact and very few of them will ever need to get circumcised. In Finland, for example, less than 0.01% (1 in 16,000) men EVER get circumcised in their ENTIRE LIFETIME.

Here are some comments made by men who were circumcised as adults and regret their decision: https://imgur.com/a/Gc9oPEb

Here are some photos of serious complications of MGM in Africa: https://imgur.com/a/fCkg1LD

Circumcision is always destructive to proper function and sensitivity of the penis: The foreskin contains 20,000 erogenous nerve endings and the vast majority of the most specialized ones on the penis. There are 5 regions on the intact penis that are more sensutive than the number one most sensitive region on the average circumcised penis. For comparison, the glans clitoris contains about 8,000 nerve endings and the glans penis contains about 4,000. Keratinization and desensitization of the glans as well as loss of the mucous membranes are unavoidable results of circumcision. The gliding/rolling action of the foreskin is also inherently lost to circumcision. This makes sex much more abrasive to both partners. There is a lot of evidence that sexual dysfunction of all sorts are higher among circumcised men.

Functions of the foreskin: https://foreskinfunction.org

Here are some photos that demonstrate some of the harm inherently caused by circumcision: https://imgur.com/a/VpWXipS

Circumcision is also linked to psychological harm: https://imgur.com/gallery/KixiaqU

Many men who are cut low (closer to the sulcus/glans) have no/almost no foreskin or frenulum left and have an extremely difficult time getting pleasure from sex or masturbation. I know a couple of them personally. I am also circumcised and the only area of my penis from which I get significant pleasure is the tiny remnant of foreskin right above my scar line, in line with my frenulum. I have a very hard time reaching climax from oral sex. This is not a problem you will find commonly among intact men.

The only things you can do if you are circumcised and wish you had your whole penis are foreskin restoration by tissue expansion (also called tugging), hope that regenerative medicine advances very quickly, and join Intactivist organizations that are fighting to end this unnecessary, barbaric practice.

I DID NOT CONSENT. I WILL NEVER BE WHOLE. I WILL NEVER EXPERIENCE FULL HUMAN INTIMACY AS NATURE INTENDED.

[–]Becki_Minaj6 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This is all important info. I'm glad you mention foreskin restoration. It's important to help the victims as well as prevent it from happening.

Just some stuff about foreskin restoration. I did it and it helped immensely like night and day. Even though it's impossible to get the foreskin back to how it was when it was intact (nerve endings are permanently damaged), it's incredibly worth it for a few key reasons:

Increased glans and foreskin remnant sensitivity. These are internal structures and they keratinize and lose sensitivity when they are external and exposed. Luckily keratinization is (mostly if not entirely) reversible once full coverage is achieved and maintained.
Regained ability for movement (gliding/rolling) during sex (more pleasure and less chafing for both partners). This is also very useful for masturbation.
It can help somewhat if you feel violated by circumcision and it can help gain feelings of body autonomy.

If someone is circumcised and also has sexual trouble I highly recommend it. Circumcision can cause sexual dysfunction as it did with me and restoration can really be an effective answer. It's a lot of effort and it's not perfect, but it's worth it.

[–]LastStr8YtMale3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jesus_marley18 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlbiTheDargon3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jesus_marley3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tastytatsu1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]meltedcheeser14 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]littlefilms12 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

There's almost no benefits to modern day circumcision besides for cosmetic and "cultural" reasons, especially in a 21st century setting since hygiene problems wouldn't be an issue. Just imagine if it was acceptable for little girls and babies to get Labiaplasty because apparently society found vaginas more attractive this way.

Circumcision significantly raises risk of meatal steanosis. Meatal steanosis is practically unheard of in intact males.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6166766/?fbclid=IwAR2DrFlo14E-CBfHpYDAldJJahD_MmdwsNYoyU_u5_DNch0w2C_QESoNi5E

UTI's are easily treatable and are more common in girls. The risk reduction is very low. The circumcision surgery can result in infections. It is thought that one cause of meatal steanosis is a steady supply of irritation and minor infections on the urethral opening.

The US has high rates of circumcision and high rates of STD's while Europe has lower rates of circumcision and much lower rates of STD's.

[–]Oklawolf11 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vSkyy129 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ShaidarHaran29 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's not inherently healthy, at best that's a wash, there are pros and cons to it and it's not without risk. It's more carried forward because it became the critical mass in places like America, and then parents continue on what they know, outside of where it's religion. Also became sexualized, which I find really strange to inflict on a baby.

The vast majority of medical organizations in the world with a policy on circumcision are outright against it. Including:

Swedish Pediatric Society (they outright call for a ban)

Royal Dutch Medical Association calls it a violation of human rights, and calls for a "strong policy of deterrence." this policy has been endorsed by several other organizations:

The Netherlands Society of General Practitioners,

The Netherlands Society of Youth Healthcare Physicians,

The Netherlands Association of Paediatric Surgeons,

The Netherlands Association of Plastic Surgeons,

The Netherlands Association for Paediatric Medicine,

The Netherlands Urology Association, and

The Netherlands Surgeons’ Association.

College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia

This procedure should be delayed to a later date when the child can make his own informed decision. Parental preference alone does not justify a non‐therapeutic procedure.... Advise parents that the current medical consensus is that routine infant male circumcision is not a recommended procedure; it is non‐therapeutic and has no medical prophylactic basis; current evidence indicates that previously‐thought prophylactic public health benefits do not out‐weigh the potential risks..... Routine infant male circumcision does cause pain and permanent loss of healthy tissue. |

Australian Federation of Aids organizations They state that circumcision has "no role" in the HIV epidemic. The German Association of Pediatricians called for a ban recently.

The German Association of Child and Youth Doctors recently Attacked the AAP's claims, saying the benefits they claim, including HIV reduction, are "questionable," and that "Seen from the outside, cultural bias reflecting the normality of non-therapeutic male circumcision in the US seems obvious, and the report’s conclusions are different from those reached by doctors in other parts of the Western world, including Europe, Canada, and Australia." (scroll to page 7 for the English translation.)

The AAP was recently attacked by the President of the British Association of Paediatric Urologists because the evidence of benefit is weak, and they are promoting "Irreversible mutilating surgery."

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan has taken a position against it, saying it is harmful and will likely be considered illegal in the future, given the number of men who are angry that it was done to them and are becoming activists against it.

The President of the Saskatchewan Medical Association has said the same (link above).

The Central Union for Child Welfare “considers that circumcision of boys that violates the personal integrity of the boys is not acceptable unless it is done for medical reasons to treat an illness. The basis for the measures of a society must be an unconditional respect for the bodily integrity of an under-aged person… Circumcision can only be allowed to independent major persons, both women and men, after it has been ascertained that the person in question wants it of his or her own free will and he or she has not been subjected to pressure.”

Royal College of Surgeons of England

"The one absolute indication for circumcision is scarring of the opening of the foreskin making it non- retractable (pathological phimosis). This is unusual before five years of age."..."The parents and, when competent, the child, must be made fully aware of the implications of this operation as it is a non-reversible procedure." |

British Medical Association

it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks. .... very similar arguments are also used to try and justify very harmful cultural procedures, such as female genital mutilation or ritual scarification. Furthermore, the harm of denying a person the opportunity to choose not to be circumcised must also be taken into account, together with the damage that can be done to the individual’s relationship with his parents and the medical profession if he feels harmed by the procedure. .... parental preference alone is not sufficient justification for performing a surgical procedure on a child. .... The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefit from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it. |

Australian Medical Association Has a policy of discouraging it, ad says "The Australian College of Paediatrics should continue to discourage the practice of circumcision in newborns."

Australian College of Paediatrics:

"The possibility that routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit. Whether these legal concerns are valid will probably only be known if the matter is determined in a court of law .....Neonatal male circumcision has no medical indication. It is a traumatic procedure performed without anaesthesia to remove a normal and healthy prepuce."|

Royal Australasian College of Physicians

Some men strongly resent having been circumcised as infants. There has been increasing interest in this problem, evidenced by the number of surgical and non-surgical techniques for recreation of the foreskin.|

ON that note, 74% of Australian doctors overall believe circumcision should not be offered, and 51% consider it abuse. Circumcision used to be common in Australia, but the movement against it spread faster there than America, where rates continue to drop.

A letter by the South African Medical Association said this:

The Committee stated that it was unethical and illegal to perform circumcision on infant boys in this instance. In particular, the Committee expressed serious concern that not enough scientifically-based evidence was available to confirm that circumcisions prevented HIV contraction and that the public at large was influenced by incorrect and misrepresented information. The Committee reiterated its view that it did not support circumcision to prevent HIV transmission.|

Royal Australasian College of Surgeons This one is a detailed evaluation of the arguments in favor of circumcision, They note that during one of the recent trials in Africa, the researchers claimed there was no loss of sexual satisfaction, when in fact there was. But the RACS called them out:

"Despite uncircumcised men reporting greater sexual satisfaction, which was statistically significant, Kigozi et al (2008) concluded that adult male circumcision does not adversely affect sexual satisfaction or clinically significant function in men." In general, they discuss how there's no evidence to support it.

The Norwegian Council of Medical Ethics states that ritual circumcision of boys is not consistent with important principles of medical ethics, that it is without medical value, and should not be paid for with public funds.

The Norwegian Children’s Ombudsman is opposed as well.

The Denmark National Council for Children is also opposed.

And recently, the politically appointed Health minister of Norway opposed a ban on circumcision, yet the ban was supported by the Norwegian Medical Association, the Norwegian Nurses Organization, the Norwegian Ombudsman for Children, and the University of Oslo.

The Danish Society of Medical Practitioners Recently said the practice is “an assault and should be banned.”

The Danish Medical Association is “fundamentally opposed to male circumcision unless there is a medical reason such as phimosis for carrying out the operation. ‘It's very intrusive that adults may decide that newborn to undergo a surgical procedure that is not medically justified and if power is lifelong. When a boy when the age of majority, he may even decide, but until then the requirements of the individual's right to self-determination prevail.’"

[–]Mister_Drakkon7 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MyOtherTagsGood7 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Windryder6 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ReyosBlackwood2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tastytatsu0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

the tissue is sold, and it's very valuable

I don't really like to get personal, but on this I will. You subhuman piece of shit. You are suggesting that it is okay to sell away little children's body parts -no less, their non-consensually removed genitalia-, and what's more, people deserve to make money off of it? Do you know where the foreskin tissue goes? In to lotion for celebrities to apply to their faces at spas. You can look this up, it's publicly acknowledged fact. Whatever imitation of mental capacity is retained in your garbage-can cranium must surely understand that adult women rubbing little boys' chopped genetalia all over their faces is abhorrent at best. Your commodification of unwilling human body parts is the equivalent of nazis chopping off people's hair to make fabric with. There is no reason that anybody in their right mind would think this level of human rights violation is acceptable.

[–]ReyosBlackwood3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Okay go ahead and read the rest of my position posts on this topic, then perhaps you should apologise for grabbing this from the wrong end and running with it into personal attacks. Shoving your foot so far into your mouth....

There is a GIGANTIC difference between pointing out that this happens, that a single foreskin can be lab grown into $100,000 of tissue, or cells used in facials at $650 an appointment, sold for I don't know exactly what a mL I know it's over $400. There is a huge difference between pointing it out and thinking that any of it is at ALL okay.

SkinMedicaEdge SystemsJohnson & Johnson

All companies that use infant foreskins in their products or to test their products, and none of it is acceptable, circumcision of anyone under the age of 16 at the lowest probably 18 where they can make their own choice about their own body without an actual and 1 in a BILLION medical reason for it should be illegal and punishable with millions of dollars in damages in trust to the boy mutilated for life, not to the parents, and YEARS of jail time for those who did it and those who gave "consent" This means so called medical circumcision, family tradition and even religions. No one has the right to cut heathy body parts off of anyone but themselves, period.

[–]CCrippled1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]redveinlover6 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Standard_Rules_Apply5 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]meltedcheeser5 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nowthengoodbad4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vSkyy123 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]meltedcheeser3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vSkyy123 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Standard_Rules_Apply-2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]meltedcheeser3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Standard_Rules_Apply-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]meltedcheeser2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Standard_Rules_Apply1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]meltedcheeser0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jameswalker431 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Standard_Rules_Apply0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]meltedcheeser2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Standard_Rules_Apply-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vSkyy121 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]-Master-Builder-5 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]flickflack15 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Most people in Europe and other parts of the world aren't circumcised and still healthy. It is more of a cultural/religious thing. While I personally think that every kind of genital mutilation should be illegal, we still have to face reality. We will never be able to make everyon in the Jewish community stop circumcising young boys and trying to do so would come with some moral problems that I can't solve. The parents who want to perform MGM (Male genital mutilation) on their son just because everyone does it, because they think it would look weird or because it is supposed to be cleaner, should not be allowed to do so. We don't allow similar operations to be done on girls (here I'm talking about the operation where they cut of the fold of skin surrounding the clitoris other forms of FGM are far more severe and should be illegal all around the world, but this one is the most comparable to circumcision.) so why should we allow it on boys?

PS: If you are being downvoted you are not silenced or shut down. You did not receive a ban or got your comment deleted. I imagine (since this is a pretty sensitive topic for people on here) that you got most of your downvotes because people think that this question could've been answered by a google search. I personally think though that downvoting you is not the right way and we should be happy that there are people on here who are interested and genuinely try to get informed. Talking with people is after all the best way to further ourselves and others.

[–]DongleNocker3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]prawnandcocktail3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eraser7232 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BumLeeJon2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ReyosBlackwood2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Saucebiz2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OPTIMUSL1ME1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]A_confusedlover1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vSkyy12-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]A_confusedlover2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vSkyy12-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]A_confusedlover2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sgshallow0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]northern_crypto-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Standard_Rules_Apply12 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]northern_crypto-3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Standard_Rules_Apply3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BK-ash2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Standard_Rules_Apply5 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BK-ash2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Standard_Rules_Apply3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]northern_crypto-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Standard_Rules_Apply3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]northern_crypto-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Standard_Rules_Apply2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MaxStout8084 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]northern_crypto0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MaxStout8083 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]northern_crypto-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MaxStout8084 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes, but not cleaning under the foreskin is a bad hygienic practice. Removing it is a ridiculous and extreme solution to this potential problem that causes more harm than good.

My point remains about your flawed logic. Failure to brush one’s teeth can also lead to health issues, but we don’t pull kids’ teeth and give them dentures.

If parents around the world must learn how to care for sons and daughters’ gender-specific health needs. This is not hard to understand.

It’s akin to the American Humane Society’s recommendation that getting dogs sterilized is healthy because it eliminates the possibility of uterine/testicular cancer. Cause, DUH, the organs are gone: they can’t get tumors on them. But in Europe, it is illegal to “fix” your pets without a medical cause, because of the health risks of eliminating the hormones produced be these organs.

You get that your argument is based on generations of information and is in NO WAY supported by the scientific/medical community, right? You are so clearly on the wrong side of history.

Here is the comment u/meltedcheeser :

It's not inherently healthy, at best that's a wash, there are pros and cons to it and it's not without risk. It's more carried forward because it became the critical mass in places like America, and then parents continue on what they know, outside of where it's religion.

The vast majority of medical organizations in the world with a policy on circumcision are outright against it. Including:

Swedish Pediatric Society (they outright call for a ban)

Royal Dutch Medical Association calls it a violation of human rights, and calls for a "strong policy of deterrence." this policy has been endorsed by several other organizations:

The Netherlands Society of General Practitioners,

The Netherlands Society of Youth Healthcare Physicians,

The Netherlands Association of Paediatric Surgeons,

The Netherlands Association of Plastic Surgeons,

The Netherlands Association for Paediatric Medicine,

The Netherlands Urology Association, and

The Netherlands Surgeons’ Association.

College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia

This procedure should be delayed to a later date when the child can make his own informed decision. Parental preference alone does not justify a non‐therapeutic procedure.... Advise parents that the current medical consensus is that routine infant male circumcision is not a recommended procedure; it is non‐therapeutic and has no medical prophylactic basis; current evidence indicates that previously‐thought prophylactic public health benefits do not out‐weigh the potential risks..... Routine infant male circumcision does cause pain and permanent loss of healthy tissue. |

Australian Federation of Aids organizations They state that circumcision has "no role" in the HIV epidemic. The German Association of Pediatricians called for a ban recently.

The German Association of Child and Youth Doctors recently Attacked the AAP's claims, saying the benefits they claim, including HIV reduction, are "questionable," and that "Seen from the outside, cultural bias reflecting the normality of non-therapeutic male circumcision in the US seems obvious, and the report’s conclusions are different from those reached by doctors in other parts of the Western world, including Europe, Canada, and Australia." (scroll to page 7 for the English translation.)

The AAP was recently attacked by the President of the British Association of Paediatric Urologists because the evidence of benefit is weak, and they are promoting "Irreversible mutilating surgery."

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan has taken a position against it, saying it is harmful and will likely be considered illegal in the future, given the number of men who are angry that it was done to them and are becoming activists against it.

The President of the Saskatchewan Medical Association has said the same (link above).

The Central Union for Child Welfare “considers that circumcision of boys that violates the personal integrity of the boys is not acceptable unless it is done for medical reasons to treat an illness. The basis for the measures of a society must be an unconditional respect for the bodily integrity of an under-aged person… Circumcision can only be allowed to independent major persons, both women and men, after it has been ascertained that the person in question wants it of his or her own free will and he or she has not been subjected to pressure.”

Royal College of Surgeons of England

"The one absolute indication for circumcision is scarring of the opening of the foreskin making it non- retractable (pathological phimosis). This is unusual before five years of age."..."The parents and, when competent, the child, must be made fully aware of the implications of this operation as it is a non-reversible procedure." |

British Medical Association

it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks. .... very similar arguments are also used to try and justify very harmful cultural procedures, such as female genital mutilation or ritual scarification. Furthermore, the harm of denying a person the opportunity to choose not to be circumcised must also be taken into account, together with the damage that can be done to the individual’s relationship with his parents and the medical profession if he feels harmed by the procedure. .... parental preference alone is not sufficient justification for performing a surgical procedure on a child. .... The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefit from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it. |

Australian Medical Association Has a policy of discouraging it, ad says "The Australian College of Paediatrics should continue to discourage the practice of circumcision in newborns."

Australian College of Paediatrics:

"The possibility that routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit. Whether these legal concerns are valid will probably only be known if the matter is determined in a court of law .....Neonatal male circumcision has no medical indication. It is a traumatic procedure performed without anaesthesia to remove a normal and healthy prepuce."|

Royal Australasian College of Physicians

Some men strongly resent having been circumcised as infants. There has been increasing interest in this problem, evidenced by the number of surgical and non-surgical techniques for recreation of the foreskin.|

ON that note, 74% of Australian doctors overall believe circumcision should not be offered, and 51% consider it abuse. Circumcision used to be common in Australia, but the movement against it spread faster there than America, where rates continue to drop.

A letter by the South African Medical Association said this:

The Committee stated that it was unethical and illegal to perform circumcision on infant boys in this instance. In particular, the Committee expressed serious concern that not enough scientifically-based evidence was available to confirm that circumcisions prevented HIV contraction and that the public at large was influenced by incorrect and misrepresented information. The Committee reiterated its view that it did not support circumcision to prevent HIV transmission.|

Royal Australasian College of Surgeons This one is a detailed evaluation of the arguments in favor of circumcision, They note that during one of the recent trials in Africa, the researchers claimed there was no loss of sexual satisfaction, when in fact there was. But the RACS called them out:

"Despite uncircumcised men reporting greater sexual satisfaction, which was statistically significant, Kigozi et al (2008) concluded that adult male circumcision does not adversely affect sexual satisfaction or clinically significant function in men." In general, they discuss how there's no evidence to support it.

The Norwegian Council of Medical Ethics states that ritual circumcision of boys is not consistent with important principles of medical ethics, that it is without medical value, and should not be paid for with public funds.

The Norwegian Children’s Ombudsman is opposed as well.

The Denmark National Council for Children is also opposed.

And recently, the politically appointed Health minister of Norway opposed a ban on circumcision, yet the ban was supported by the Norwegian Medical Association, the Norwegian Nurses Organization, the Norwegian Ombudsman for Children, and the University of Oslo.

The Danish Society of Medical Practitioners Recently said the practice is “an assault and should be banned.”

The Danish Medical Association is “fundamentally opposed to male circumcision unless there is a medical reason such as phimosis for carrying out the operation. ‘It's very intrusive that adults may decide that newborn to undergo a surgical procedure that is not medically justified and if power is lifelong. When a boy when the age of majority, he may even decide, but until then the requirements of the individual's right to self-determination prevail.’"

[–]meltedcheeser4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]northern_crypto-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tastytatsu1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MaxStout8083 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]northern_crypto1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tastytatsu2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You cant say with 100% percent certainty that all circumaized men have neurological effects of trauma.

You can't say with 100% certainty that getting shot in the face will kill you. Still, we don't do it because that's what happens a vast majority of the time. Inb4 "You're comparing circumcision to shooting somebody in the face!" No. I'm not. I'm saying that using logic centered around the phrase "Not 100% of the time" (Despite trauma occurring at a high rate post-circumcision) when discussing an irreversible, unnessecary, nonconsensual, and painful process is willful naivety.

take for instance the top bun of a samurai warrior

Lucily, nobody is a samurai, so this isn't a problem. Unluckily for us, all men are babies at some point, and an unlucky few have to get an important sexual organ cut off.

[–]Brandwein3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ReyosBlackwood4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]northern_crypto2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Brandwein2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tastytatsu2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]used_npkin-2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MaxStout808-2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]neoAcceptance0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tuplad-8 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PassifloraCaerulea26 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]goofy25858-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tastytatsu4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]goofy258583 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tastytatsu2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tuplad-10 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Spangaer13 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tuplad0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tastytatsu3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tuplad2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ShaidarHaran26 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tuplad0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tastytatsu3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Daemonicus7 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ReyosBlackwood5 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That's the myth pushed by western feminism yes, but it's not true at all. L. Catania's study into FGM victims showed 98%+ still able to orgasm and enjoy a sex life, though orgasm was harder to reach because yes they lost pleasure, the same happens to cut men. Women in those cultures are much like men in the USA, "I was cut and I am fine" or "It didn't do me any harm" because they know no different, just like most cut American men, in fact only 1 in 5 women in Egypt support ending the practice, the other 80% keep doing it, after all it's mothers, not fathers, that have their daughters cut, just like it's fathers not mothers in these cultures that get their sons cut.

The reasons given are all the same
Future partner will prefer it that way
God commands it
Easier to clean
Looks better
Smells better
Has to look like mommy/daddy
Tradition

Most anthropologists say that genital cutting of both genders evolved side by side within cutting cultures, and for the same reasons. The foreskin was often seen as female, a vestigial vulva, and the clitoris was often seen as male, a vestigial penis, so when a child came of age in tribal cultures the wrong sexed part was removed, nothing about sexual control there. It's also worth noting that there are virtually no cultures that cut only girls, if genital mutilation were about controlling them sexually, the cultures would most likely cut only them.

This is true in most cultures for FGM, in a few it is about sexual control, those cultures responsible for the 4% of all FGM worldwide that is FGM III, places like Somalia where it is done to preserve virginity, making sex impossible without surgery to reverse what they did.

[–]Hepu-21 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]XWillspikesX14 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]paigeap25135 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tuplad-12 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]variegated-anoesis7 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tuplad-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]variegated-anoesis5 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tuplad-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]variegated-anoesis4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tuplad1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]variegated-anoesis1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tuplad1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]variegated-anoesis1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tuplad0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I know what you are trying to do.

What am I trying to do? Your argument is weird. People don't just go about mutilating people and you repeating your own lie will not make it a point.

The fact that the result is the same, doesn't not mean it's intended mutilation. Essentially what you're saying is when I was (pre)teen I looked at my penis, went to my parents and said: "hey can you mutilate my penis because I want it ?" No, I thought I had too much foreskin and found it ugly and we went and cut it.

Same with the parents of jews and muslims, they don't go with the intent to MUTILATE. This is a very valid argument. You can't go around screaming mutilation when it's not. If you end up with less pleasure of something, that also doesn't make it mutilation. Mutilation is mutilation.

Although yes, it being forced on you and you having no choice is a part of the issue. I believe you should be able to choose.

[–]variegated-anoesis1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tuplad0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]variegated-anoesis1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tuplad1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]variegated-anoesis1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tuplad0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Because both these things are not the same, not done for the reason reason or purpose.

Female genital mutilation involves the partial or complete removal of the genitalia, is a crime because it is abhorrent by any measure. It subjugates women, makes intercourse extremely difficult and painful, and can be the cause of a number of serious medical complications, including not only hemorrhage but also urinary retention, urinary infection, wound infection, and septicaemia.

It's done by trained practitioners in a clean environment and has no recognized negative impact on a person's life. WHO's numbers are like 0.2-0.4% for adverse effects.

People are glad to talk about any type of mutilation, but there is simply no dialogue to be had except for these left wing radicals who make this bizarre argument that circumcision and female genital mutilation is the same thing. There is no movement to call it mutilation because men are just happy with it and have not experienced negative effects, except for some isolated cases.

Maybe there are some people who consider it negative, sure! That's possible. Do you think those numbers are the same when you compare men to women? That's a very rocky road.

Both groups have rights that should be respected, but just stop the mutilation bullshit.

Here's a nice read: https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/Pages/New-Benefits-Point-to-Greater-Benefits-of-Infant-Circumcision-But-Final-Say-is-Still-Up-to-parents-Says-AAP.aspx

Or are they wrong?

[–]variegated-anoesis1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

There is so much misinformation in your post and again you are getting lost with the whole 'intent' issue. To say there is no comparison between male genital mutilation and female genital mutilation is just ridiculous. Male genital mutilation also involves the partial removal of the genitals which involves the complete removal of the most sensitive part of the penis. Let's remind you of what is actually being removed.

The foreskin contains 20,000 erogenous nerve endings and the vast majority of the most specialized ones on the penis. There are 5 regions on the intact penis that are more sensitive than the number one most sensitive region on the average circumcised penis. For comparison, the glans clitoris contains about 8,000 nerve endings and the glans penis contains about 4,000. Keratinization and desensitization of the glans as well as loss of the mucous membranes are unavoidable results of circumcision. The gliding/rolling action of the foreskin is also inherently lost not to mention the many other functions of the foreskin.

So removing 20,000 nerve endings and disrupting the proper functioning of the penis is not abhorrent by any measure? Yet alone on an infant without consent?

Then you go on to mention the complications of female genital mutilation and say that there are no recognized negative impacts of male genital mutilation yet say a percentage of 0.2—0.4% of adverse effects occur. So already you have contradicted yourself and remember this is for something that is completely unnecessary and so any complication should have been avoided in the first place. But let's now mention the complications of male genital mutilation that you failed to mention:

Wound infection, removal of too much or too little skin, damage to the urethra, partial or complete loss of the glans or penis, urinary retention, dislocation of Plastibell ring, hematoma, meatitis and meatal stenosis, adhesions and skin bridges, need for repeat surgery and the major one: death. More than 100 infants die each year in the United States as result from male genital mutilation. Interesting how you forgot to mention this. Now this all happens in a 'clean environment by trained professionals' which you pointed out where female genital mutilation usually does not.

You go on and say that 'men are just happy with it and have not experience negative effects' which is just insulting and is simply not true. There are many men that are deeply angry and unhappy that this was forced upon them and it has negatively affected their lives. The loss of sexual function and body autonomy has profound effects and is traumatic. Not to mention the painful and traumatic event that happens to the infant. Sexual dysfunction is higher in men who have been circumcised, in the largest study on circumcision in South Korea, Seoul University found 33% of men who were circumcised during adulthood reported difficulty attaining sexual gratification, 63% said masturbation less enjoyable, and 11% had "frequent" orgasm difficulties. (Kim, Peng et all, Seoul University). It's no wonder as over 20,000 nerve endings have been removed and the proper functioning of the penis has been disrupted.

And your link is from the American Academy of Pediatrics who's view is not line with the rest of the world, and you do realise the reason circumcision was brought into the United States was to prevent masturbation and intentionally reduce male sexual pleasure? Also US hospitals make a profit from selling foreskins to beauty products companies, pharmaceutical companies and research companies so they have vested interests. Every European pediatric institute condemns or discourages circumcision because there is just no valid medical reason. Here are some statements from non-US pediatric institutions:

Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) (2015) The CPS does not recommend the routine circumcision of every newborn male. It further states that when “medical necessity is not established, …interventions should be deferred until the individual concerned is able to make their own choices.”

Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) (2010) The KNMG states “there is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene.” It regards the non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors as a violation of physical integrity, and argues that boys should be able to make their own decisions about circumcision.

The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) (2010) The RACP states that routine infant circumcision is not warranted in Australia and New Zealand. It argues that, since cutting children involves physical risks which are undertaken for the sake of merely psychosocial benefits or debatable medical benefits, it is ethically questionable whether parents ought to be able to make such a decision for a child.

British Medical Association (BMA) (2006) The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefits from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient as a justification for doing it. It suggests that it is “unethical and inappropriate” to circumcise for therapeutic reasons when effective and less invasive alternatives exist.

Expert statement from the German Association of Pediatricians (BVKJ) (2012) In testimony to the German legislature, the President of the BVKJ has stated, “there is no reason from a medical point of view to remove an intact foreskin from …boys unable to give their consent.” It asserts that boys have the same right to physical integrity as girls in German law, and, regarding non-therapeutic circumcision, that parents’ right to freedom of religion ends at the point where the child’s right to physical integrity is infringed upon.

In addition, medical organizations and children’s ombudsmen from a number of other countries, including Belgium, Finland, Norway, Slovenia, South Africa, Denmark, and Sweden, have gone on record in opposition to non-therapeutic circumcision of boys.

As stated before it is mutilation as it's being done on an unconsenting infant just as a hoodectomy and labiaplasty are called mutilation on an unconsenting infant or should we not call these mutilation either?

[–]Tuplad1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Then you go on to mention the complications of female genital mutilation and say that there are no recognized negative impacts of male genital mutilation yet say a percentage of 0.2—0.4% of adverse effects occur. So already you have contradicted yourself and remember this is for something that is completely unnecessary and so any complication should have been avoided in the first place.

This is just weird. Every single thing can bring complications, but statistically, 0.2-0.4% means no complications. I'm not contradicting myself, the point is clear: circumcision has no known complications.

I'll cite another paper, a systematic review of hundreds of papers: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5296634/

The literature review by the AAP[2] and a large detailed study by CDC researchers of 1.4 million MCs from 2001-2010 (93% in newborns)[128] have determined that adverse events from MC occur in less than 0.5% of newborn infants and are almost all minor and immediately treatable, with complete resolution. In the CDC study, serious adverse events arising from early infant MC were extremely rare.

You can read more, it's very interesting ;)

The 100 deaths a year is a myth and is full of crap, I googled the names of the victims, and it's all complete bullshit. What we see immediately is a lot of Jewish names, so it's safe to safe say that's religious nuts did it, and not as I said: "a professional in a clean environment". We're gonna take some more recent names for example, and leave out victims of circumcision like "Patrick Hoho, 58 (hacked to death by Hoho's circumcision victim)" because obvious reasons.

http://www.cirp.org/library/death/

Goodluck Caubergs: bled to death after his penis has been cut off at home for 100$ and covered with oil.

All the deaths are either: overdose from anaestesia, bleeding to death, infections and what not. None of them are done in hospitals. Most of them are in Africa/Asia, and a lot of them are for religious reasons, thus done at home.

So no, death by circumcision is a myth. Because if you do heart surgeries at home, you might die too, so heart surgery is bad?

And your link is from the American Academy of Pediatrics who's view is not line with the rest of the world, and you do realise the reason circumcision was brought into the United States was to prevent masturbation and intentionally reduce male sexual pleasure? Also US hospitals make a profit from selling foreskins to beauty products companies, pharmaceutical companies and research companies so they have vested interests. Every European pediatric institute condemns or discourages circumcision because there is just no valid medical reason. Here are some statements from non-US pediatric institutions:

This is just conspiracy theory talk, that's nonsense.

I don't disagree with you on the fact that circumcision MUST be done. I disagree with you on things like: 1) it's not mutilation 2) it has no adverse effects

Circumcision is not needed, but if you want it, go and get it. In South Korea, 89% of the men believe it has some good effects and the rate of circumcision are extremely high. It's a social thing, let them do it if they want it, they're consenting adults. Just don't call it mutilation, because it is not.

[–]variegated-anoesis1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Seeing as you just skipped over all the facts and information I presented to you without responding, I will just skip over the majority of what you have posted.

But here is a website where you can read more, it's very interesting ;)

https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org

And it's ironic that you mention South Korea as they did a study on circumcised South Korean men and it's the complete opposite of what you just said.

The studies conclusion reads as follows:

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.

The thing you just don't seem to understand is that it is indeed mutilation if it done to an unconsenting infant or to anyone who cannot/did not consent and/or is not an adult. This is what this whole post is about.

And it is just ridiculous to think there are no adverse effects. I have listened the adverse effects and complications above. Think about it, the most sensitive part of the penis is removed; that's over 20,000 nerve endings.

Again there is no issue if a consenting adult chooses to, with 'consenting' and 'adult' being the key words. Albeit it is completely unnecessary and propaganda and misinformation should not be spread to influence the decision.

[–]KilltheK128 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]xdmbx109 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Razorbladekandyfan18 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]grumpypeach90014 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chaun22 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]grumpypeach90013 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lastlaugh1003 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Onlymgtow8878 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]waiflife8 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chaun24 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CCrippled3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]peepeeandpoopooman52 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BrockORockLee13 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ReyosBlackwood5 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Trusty_Pigeon5 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]coke5012 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]XWillspikesX46 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DenseMahatma2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ShaidarHaran212 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]XWillspikesX2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DenseMahatma2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ReyosBlackwood2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CCrippled42 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]galuchon26 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ImaImaDrugDealer7 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tiiimmmbooo13 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Daemonicus3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ImaImaDrugDealer4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Daemonicus-2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kabayev2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Daemonicus0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ImaImaDrugDealer2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Daemonicus1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That fallacy doesn't apply here.

I'm asking to be shown a religion that isn't stupid. I already know there isn't one that currently exists. That doesn't mean that there can't be one, or that it's impossible.

For the sake of brevity, I'm not going to go down a list of every religion pointing out how stupid they are. It's much easier for you to simply provide a single example.

Also, from your own link...

Using bad logic does not necessarily mean the argument is false (or true)

But let's go down the examples it gives, shall we?

"This drug is safe because no-one has found any toxic effects." This only implies that complete testing has been done. It does not say it has been tested completely.

I'm not shifting the burden of proof. Like this example is.

"Candidate Smith has never spoken out concerning her views on abortion. We can safely conclude that she must be pro-choice".[7] The argument from ignorance fallacy can be used to dismiss a subject or to argue that it means the opposite.[7]

I'm not dismissing the subject at all.

"Of course disease is caused by witchcraft. How else could it happen?" (The argument from ignorance often takes the form of "how else could X happen" which implies that because there is no other explanation yet known, the one being offered is correct.)

Not even close to what I was asking, is it?

Make sure you actually understand how to apply logical fallacies, before you hop on that high horse... Since you know... The argument from fallacy is a thing.

[–]Chronoguy-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Daemonicus2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Chronoguy2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Daemonicus2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kabayev2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Daemonicus4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

To answer your question, Judaism

You mean the group that mutilates little boys for literally the stupidest reason? Yup, not stupid at all.

Watch the video, address his arguments, and get back to me.

Don't really need to, since I already gave an example of why it's stupid.

But sure, why not, let's get into it.... His logic is terrible.

He says that future lie could not work. Yet that's precisely how Christianity was started. They looked at the "prophetic predictions" from the Jewish texts, and formulated a character that fulfilled them. The future lie is also precisely how modern day cults are created. These concepts are not new by the way. These types of cults have existed for a long time. Some Christian sects even adopt future cult beliefs (like Doomsday). So he's wrong about that in multiple fronts.
He's wrong about cults using present lie. I'll take this moment to point out the irony about him talking about gullibility in charismatic speaker, and you buying into this bullshit from a charismatic speaker.
Past lie. This is the smoking gun of retardation... So because there's a written record of some names... That means Judaism is true? Really? That's the saddest shit I've heard all week. He talks about some thing natural occurring more than once, and then gives a couple examples. Then he says that group/public revelation has never happened except that one time... He's lying about that. Day of Pentecost, Ptesáŋwiŋ speaking to Lakota people, Huitzilopochtli speaking to Aztecs. There's more, but that's more than enough. He literally gives the perfect reason why Past Lie was the most likely scenario.

Explain, rationally, how this man is likely to be incorrect and I'll drop my religion tomorrow.

Using his own metrics, he's objectively wrong. Simply having a list of names that goes back a certain amount of time, doesn't mean anything. It's also interesting that the gap period he talks about, precisely correlates with that group not keeping written records, and using verbal tradition.

I'm honest about that. I'm just looking for the truth. Show me I'm wrong and I'll change.

I'll take this opportunity to point out that even if Judaism was correct about god existing... It would still be stupid, because it's filled with a bunch of stupid shit.

[–]Kabayev-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yet that's precisely how Christianity was started. They looked at the "prophetic predictions" from the Jewish texts, and formulated a character that fulfilled them.

Are you trying to say Jesus didn't exist?

Christianity came to fruition after Jesus was around.

I'll take this moment to point out the irony about him talking about gullibility in charismatic speaker, and you buying into this bullshit from a charismatic speaker.

I don't care for who says it, I care for the points he's compiles.

So because there's a written record of some names... That means Judaism is true?

No, it's that there's an unbroken tradition that goes back millennia. How do you go about fabricating a lie that large? Let's use the more reserved number of 600k. How do you get 600,000 people to agree on a single event that happened to them? The reason you believe what's told in your history classes is because there's a line back to the primary source.

Secondly, I'm not familiar with Ptesáŋwiŋ speaking to Lakota people and Huitzilopochtli speaking to Aztecs. Could you provide more info on these? Links if you could, please.

It's also interesting that the gap period he talks about, precisely correlates with that group not keeping written records, and using verbal tradition.

The Torah has both a written and oral tradition. He's not talking about the oral tradition here. That's a different discussion.

I'll take this opportunity to point out that even if Judaism was correct about god existing... It would still be stupid, because it's filled with a bunch of stupid shit.

Then you fail to understand that if an all powerful entity exists, it does not care for your opinion, just like gravity doesn't either.

I should take a moment to say that I don't know Judaism to be the absolute truth 100%. I believe that it's the most likely option so I live my life as though it were true.

Finally, it may take me some time to respond as I'm caught up in other things. Please don't think it means I've forgotten.

[–]Daemonicus3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Are you trying to say Jesus didn't exist?

Christianity came to fruition after Jesus was around.

No, I don't think the Jesus that was portrayed in the Bible actually existed. There might have been a person named Jesus at some point, but that's entirely different. And your response in no way addresses my point about forcing the Jesus story to fit in with Judaism's future lie.

I don't care for who says it, I care for the points he's compiles.

There aren't multiple points. There's just the one. A chain of names is not proof that an entire religion's theology is true.

No, it's that there's an unbroken tradition that goes back millennia. How do you go about fabricating a lie that large? Let's use the more reserved number of 600k. How do you get 600,000 people to agree on a single event that happened to them? The reason you believe what's told in your history classes is because there's a line back to the primary source.

That's literally what I said. Those names are the tradition that he's talking about. And it's quite easy to get that many people to believe a fabrication... Since according to him, every other religion is a fabrication. Yet how many followers do they have?

Secondly, I'm not familiar with Ptesáŋwiŋ speaking to Lakota people and Huitzilopochtli speaking to Aztecs. Could you provide more info on these? Links if you could, please.

No. You can Google that. I wasted 45min on that stupid video, I'm not doing homework on your behalf, for something that is irrelevant to what I even said.

The Torah has both a written and oral tradition. He's not talking about the oral tradition here. That's a different discussion.

The Talmund says that Moses wrote The Torah. But that's not really proof of anything. That actually mimics what Joseph Smith did with the Mormons, which the speaker found ridiculous.

But this book lays out that The Torah was written by multiple authors (including the parts that were wrongly attributed to Moses), over centuries.

Then you fail to understand that if an all powerful entity exists, it does not care for your opinion, just like gravity doesn't either.

That doesn't mean that Judaism doesn't have a lot of stupid shit in it. By the way, if he's all powerful, how come he couldn't create humans to not be so stupid that he would be forced to wipe them out? How come he didn't know, or couldn't predict their behaviour? If you're going to blame Free Will of humans, then god wouldn't be all powerful, if he couldn't foresee the future. And if you're going to blame the devil (or evil), keep in mind that god created him, and never gave him free will, which means that the devil (evil) did exactly what god wanted.

I should take a moment to say that I don't know Judaism to be the absolute truth 100%. I believe that it's the most likely option so I live my life as though it were true.

Like I said. The truth about a couple of its claims is irrelevant to the point that religion is stupid. Judaism is no exception. Mental gymnastics won't make it true. What that Rabbi did in that video is precisely what Descartes did. Trying to break down knowledge into it's most basic form is admirable... But as soon as he tried to build it back up, he made leaps in logic that were simply not rational. This is a result of trying to prove the hypothesis, instead of trying to find the truth. Descartes wanted to use reason/logic to prove god's existence. That was already a mistake right there.

The Rabbi did the exact same thing. How do we give credibility to Judaism, while not giving it to other religions? That's the wrong question to ask, and in answering that question, he allowed himself to led to the favourable conclusion that he wanted.

[–]Kabayev1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And it's quite easy to get that many people to believe a fabrication

No, no, you don't follow. These people are saying an event happened to them, not their ancestors. How do you trick 600,000 people into thinking they all heard God speak? Surely, not a likely feat.

No. You can Google that. I wasted 45min on that stupid video, I'm not doing homework on your behalf, for something that is irrelevant to what I even said.

Do you not care to share the truth? I gave you information and a link. I didn't just say Judaism and tell you to go looking. I'd like the truth and I have no way of directing pinpointing what you're talking about without you telling me. So please, if you could, provide a link (or source) to another religion that claims a mass revelation (and the people lived to tell the tale).

The Talmud says that Moses wrote the Torah.

Yep, Moses did write it down... after they (the 600,000 men) all heard God speak Himself.

That doesn't mean that Judaism doesn't have a lot of stupid shit in it.

I'm not discussing whether you think it's intelligent. I'm telling you that it's likely to be true.

By the way, if he's all powerful, how come he couldn't create humans to not be so stupid that he would be forced to wipe them out?...

Entirely different point that I'm willing discuss after we discuss the legitimacy of the Torah. If you can agree to me that it's likely to be true, I'd gladly delve into it (so long as you cut the pretentiousness).

he made leaps in logic that were simply not rational.

Where was the irrational leap?

How do we give credibility to Judaism, while not giving it to other religions?

Judaism is different from other religions (i.e. mass revelation of 600,00 people). It would be a false-equivalency to say all religions are the same.

[–]Daemonicus1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, no, you don't follow. These people are saying an event happened to them, not their ancestors. How do you trick 600,000 people into thinking they all heard God speak? Surely, not a likely feat.

Yes, yes, I do follow. Your comment, and my reply that you quoted is not talking about a present lie. It's talking about the past lie that Judaism is based on. And answering your question would actually validate my point to begin with.

Do you not care to share the truth? I gave you information and a link.

I do care about the truth. But you gave no information, and only presented a video, which I have examined, and explicitly detailed my problems with it.

I didn't just say Judaism and tell you to go looking. I'd like the truth and I have no way of directing pinpointing what you're talking about without you telling me. So please, if you could, provide a link (or source) to another religion that claims a mass revelation (and the people lived to tell the tale).

I already gave you names. I'm not going to go scour the Internet for sources, when, if you actually cared, could do so on your own time. I'm not even asking you to believe me, or anything that I've said. But the burden of proof isn't on me though is it? You need to prove without doubt, that Judaism is not full of bullshit, while every other religion is. You need to actually prove that Judaism is the only legitimate, factual religion.

Yep, Moses did write it down... after they (the 600,000 men) all heard God speak Himself.

How can you quote that sentence, yet ignore the actual proof in the following sentences that refutes it? This is an example of you being dishonest.

I'm not discussing whether you think it's intelligent. I'm telling you that it's likely to be true.

You're wrong on both accounts. My original point is that religion is objectively stupid... So that's the entire point of the conversation. You shifted the goalposts, and tried to make it about truth. Fine... Even if it was true, it would still be objectively stupid. But, thankfully it isn't true. And nothing you have presented has come anywhere close to supporting the notion that it is true. While I have given you plenty of examples/reasoning as to why it isn't true.

Entirely different point that I'm willing discuss after we discuss the legitimacy of the Torah. If you can agree to me that it's likely to be true, I'd gladly delve into it (so long as you cut the pretentiousness).

No you won't... Because you've already displayed your dishonest nature in your reply.

Where was the irrational leap?

Really? Are you just going to ignore my previous post which specifically outlined the issues? Another example of being dishonest.

Judaism is different from other religions (i.e. mass revelation of 600,00 people). It would be a false-equivalency to say all religions are the same.

I never said all religions were the same. I made the point that using mass revelation as the defining trait of truth, is fallacious. Which is what the Rabbi did, and the examples I gave prove that it's not a unique characteristic to Judaism. Thus, this falsifies the legitimacy of Judaism according to the Rabbi's own parameters.

[–]Chronoguy3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]succedaneousone1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Daemonicus0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]succedaneousone1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Interesting. Have you considered that faith is the same thing as trust, and that having faith in something or someone is not, in fact, 'objectively' stupid.

You can't prove you'll still be alive tomorrow, but you're still planning to do things the next day. You can't trust that the road you're on was well-designed and will hold the weight of your car, but I would bet you're willing to drive (or ride in a vehicle). You can't trust that an eagle won't drop a turtle on your head (or some other regional equivalent), and yet, you don't fear the sky and wear a helmet every day.

Faith is trusting in something that you can't prove, and that includes the mundane, not just religions. It would be pretty stupid to be constantly wearing kneepads just because someone might decide to hit you in the knees, or never eat out or buy food because someone might contaminate the food.

You take a lot of things on faith every day. I would not believe you have a three feet penis because an erection would literally kill you, but I would probably take your word for it if you said you had an eight inch penis or a six inch, or whatever; I would not demand proof. That's the mundane everyday trust that most of us operate on. Religion is just another kind of everyday trust.

[–]Daemonicus0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Interesting. Have you considered that faith is the same thing as trust, and that having faith in something or someone is not, in fact, 'objectively' stupid.

I have considered it. But that's not even close to being true, because they are two completely different concepts. Trust is earned with a history of evidence supporting it. Faith doesn't have that.

You can't prove you'll still be alive tomorrow, but you're still planning to do things the next day. You can't trust that the road you're on was well-designed and will hold the weight of your car, but I would bet you're willing to drive (or ride in a vehicle).

But things like history shows that the odds of that happening are slim to none. History shows that government regulations which oversee road projects are almost always enough to ensure safety. History shows that education, and employment experience plays a role in the expertise of engineers, so they can design things properly.

This isn't faith. It's well placed trust.

You can't trust that an eagle won't drop a turtle on your head (or some other regional equivalent), and yet, you don't fear the sky and wear a helmet every day.

This is seriously retarded.

Faith is trusting in something that you can't prove, and that includes the mundane, not just religions. It would be pretty stupid to be constantly wearing kneepads just because someone might decide to hit you in the knees,

Faith is the belief in something that can't be proven. Trust is confidence. I'm confident that an eagle won't drop a turtle on my head. It doesn't mean that it's impossible, it just means that it's very unlikely. So why would I wear a helmet for something that most likely isn't going to happen?

or never eat out or buy food because someone might contaminate the food.

I don't eat out, because it's a waste of money, and I have a specific diet, that I don't trust chefs to adhere to, or wait staff to communicate properly. And I also don't buy bullshit from the supermarket because of poor quality, and contamination. You know why? Because I don't trust the systems in place that attempt to prevent that.

You take a lot of things on faith every day.

No, I really don't.

I would not believe you have a three feet penis because an erection would literally kill you

So the reason you don't believe is because there's a perfectly normal, and rational reason why it wouldn't be true. Nothing exists like that for most religious claims.

but I would probably take your word for it if you said you had an eight inch penis or a six inch, or whatever; I would not demand proof

What if I was 4'2"? Would you believe it then? What if I was a woman, would you believe it then?

Religion is just another kind of everyday trust.

Except it isn't, but nice try. If you're naive enough to trust someone about the existence of god with literally no proof, I have a teapot to sell you.

[–]succedaneousone1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Daemonicus1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If you believe I'm naive for believing in God, all I can say is, good luck with graduating high school

I'm more than 10 years older than you. But go ahead, and try to be more condescending, instead of addressing what I said.

I hope life doesn't knock you around the way it has me.

What a coincidence that the people who have had a rough time, are more likely to believe in god. Or better put... More likely to be manipulated into believing there is a god.

Also funny how you think I have never been "knocked around" like you have. The martyr complex isn't a new thing with religious people, it's pretty common.

I'll even add a different perspective onto it. Original Sin = Patriarchy/Privilege. Feminists = Clergy. Martyr Complex = Victim Complex. Righteousness = SJW. And they both use Projection/Hypocrisy to an absurd degree.

Now when you tell me that religion isn't stupid, you're basically saying that all of the tenets of Feminism are true, because they have the same amount of evidence supporting it. None.

[–]GamePro201X0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dval92-2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]galuchon4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SirDocv25 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Warma9920 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ReyosBlackwood2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LettuceBeGrateful2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]K-man299920 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]General-Rommel13 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Look, your lens on this matter is not wrong, but it's because you literally have no ability to see what the other side is. Males circumcised after becoming sexually active compare it to seeing color, and black and white. I have been restoring my foreskin for over a year now and I am telling everyone, with all possible authority I could realistically muster; just going from a CI-2 to a CI-3 is the difference of black and white, night and day with regards to masturbation and sex in general. Being circumcised and "being fine with it" is the literal equivalent of having our eyeballs gouged out at birth and proclaiming that you understand some art because you can feel the texture of it. Male genital mutilation is literally, objectively more traumatizing than most instances of modern FGM, and it is only because of this attitude of "well it happened to me and I'm fine" that the practice persists. Again, you're *not wrong* but you are unintentionally fanning the flames for this practice to continue unabated. As I always do, I encourage everyone to give this video a watch--in its entirety--because it sheds a LOT of light on a practice that is ancient, and barbaric, and has literally no place in a modern society that pretends to love bodily autonomy and science.

Please take the time to view this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZfBwwWqIGw

[–]ReyosBlackwood6 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ShaidarHaran23 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]General-Rommel6 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]User_identificationZ16 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ShaidarHaran211 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]User_identificationZ2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ShaidarHaran23 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]User_identificationZ2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ShaidarHaran24 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If you'll allow me to copy pasta my other post here -

The vast majority of medical organizations in the world with a policy on circumcision are outright against it. Including:

Swedish Pediatric Society (they outright call for a ban)

Royal Dutch Medical Association calls it a violation of human rights, and calls for a "strong policy of deterrence." this policy has been endorsed by several other organizations:

The Netherlands Society of General Practitioners,

The Netherlands Society of Youth Healthcare Physicians,

The Netherlands Association of Paediatric Surgeons,

The Netherlands Association of Plastic Surgeons,

The Netherlands Association for Paediatric Medicine,

The Netherlands Urology Association, and

The Netherlands Surgeons’ Association.

College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia

This procedure should be delayed to a later date when the child can make his own informed decision. Parental preference alone does not justify a non‐therapeutic procedure.... Advise parents that the current medical consensus is that routine infant male circumcision is not a recommended procedure; it is non‐therapeutic and has no medical prophylactic basis; current evidence indicates that previously‐thought prophylactic public health benefits do not out‐weigh the potential risks..... Routine infant male circumcision does cause pain and permanent loss of healthy tissue. |

Australian Federation of Aids organizations They state that circumcision has "no role" in the HIV epidemic. The German Association of Pediatricians called for a ban recently.

The German Association of Child and Youth Doctors recently Attacked the AAP's claims, saying the benefits they claim, including HIV reduction, are "questionable," and that "Seen from the outside, cultural bias reflecting the normality of non-therapeutic male circumcision in the US seems obvious, and the report’s conclusions are different from those reached by doctors in other parts of the Western world, including Europe, Canada, and Australia." (scroll to page 7 for the English translation.)

The AAP was recently attacked by the President of the British Association of Paediatric Urologists because the evidence of benefit is weak, and they are promoting "Irreversible mutilating surgery."

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan has taken a position against it, saying it is harmful and will likely be considered illegal in the future, given the number of men who are angry that it was done to them and are becoming activists against it.

The President of the Saskatchewan Medical Association has said the same (link above).

The Central Union for Child Welfare “considers that circumcision of boys that violates the personal integrity of the boys is not acceptable unless it is done for medical reasons to treat an illness. The basis for the measures of a society must be an unconditional respect for the bodily integrity of an under-aged person… Circumcision can only be allowed to independent major persons, both women and men, after it has been ascertained that the person in question wants it of his or her own free will and he or she has not been subjected to pressure.”

Royal College of Surgeons of England

"The one absolute indication for circumcision is scarring of the opening of the foreskin making it non- retractable (pathological phimosis). This is unusual before five years of age."..."The parents and, when competent, the child, must be made fully aware of the implications of this operation as it is a non-reversible procedure." |

British Medical Association

it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks. .... very similar arguments are also used to try and justify very harmful cultural procedures, such as female genital mutilation or ritual scarification. Furthermore, the harm of denying a person the opportunity to choose not to be circumcised must also be taken into account, together with the damage that can be done to the individual’s relationship with his parents and the medical profession if he feels harmed by the procedure. .... parental preference alone is not sufficient justification for performing a surgical procedure on a child. .... The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefit from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it. |

Australian Medical Association Has a policy of discouraging it, ad says "The Australian College of Paediatrics should continue to discourage the practice of circumcision in newborns."

Australian College of Paediatrics:

"The possibility that routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit. Whether these legal concerns are valid will probably only be known if the matter is determined in a court of law .....Neonatal male circumcision has no medical indication. It is a traumatic procedure performed without anaesthesia to remove a normal and healthy prepuce."|

Royal Australasian College of Physicians

Some men strongly resent having been circumcised as infants. There has been increasing interest in this problem, evidenced by the number of surgical and non-surgical techniques for recreation of the foreskin.|

ON that note, 74% of Australian doctors overall believe circumcision should not be offered, and 51% consider it abuse. Circumcision used to be common in Australia, but the movement against it spread faster there than America, where rates continue to drop.

A letter by the South African Medical Association said this:

The Committee stated that it was unethical and illegal to perform circumcision on infant boys in this instance. In particular, the Committee expressed serious concern that not enough scientifically-based evidence was available to confirm that circumcisions prevented HIV contraction and that the public at large was influenced by incorrect and misrepresented information. The Committee reiterated its view that it did not support circumcision to prevent HIV transmission.|

Royal Australasian College of Surgeons This one is a detailed evaluation of the arguments in favor of circumcision, They note that during one of the recent trials in Africa, the researchers claimed there was no loss of sexual satisfaction, when in fact there was. But the RACS called them out:

"Despite uncircumcised men reporting greater sexual satisfaction, which was statistically significant, Kigozi et al (2008) concluded that adult male circumcision does not adversely affect sexual satisfaction or clinically significant function in men." In general, they discuss how there's no evidence to support it.

The Norwegian Council of Medical Ethics states that ritual circumcision of boys is not consistent with important principles of medical ethics, that it is without medical value, and should not be paid for with public funds.

The Norwegian Children’s Ombudsman is opposed as well.

The Denmark National Council for Children is also opposed.

And recently, the politically appointed Health minister of Norway opposed a ban on circumcision, yet the ban was supported by the Norwegian Medical Association, the Norwegian Nurses Organization, the Norwegian Ombudsman for Children, and the University of Oslo.

The Danish Society of Medical Practitioners Recently said the practice is “an assault and should be banned.”

The Danish Medical Association is “fundamentally opposed to male circumcision unless there is a medical reason such as phimosis for carrying out the operation. ‘It's very intrusive that adults may decide that newborn to undergo a surgical procedure that is not medically justified and if power is lifelong. When a boy when the age of majority, he may even decide, but until then the requirements of the individual's right to self-determination prevail.’"

http://www.cirp.org/library/death/

Sydney Gellis believed that "there are more deaths from complications of circumcision than from cancer of the penis. Robert Baker estimated 229 deaths per year from circumcision in the United States.12 Bollinger estimated that approximately 119 infant boys die from circumcision-related each year in the U.S. (1.3% of all male neonatal deaths from all causes)

Not sure what religion you're from but there's a lot to bring up if you face pressure for this practice on your kids...

[–]User_identificationZ2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tastytatsu2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]User_identificationZ1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JellyfishRave10 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CardMechanic7 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]drops_of_Sunshine10 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MGMStopTheChop5 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]alex_d_20161 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Techdude5947 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MrSmigick6 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]decixl6 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jerk_off_now6 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]weneedsomemilk20165 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Double_A_924 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]weneedsomemilk20162 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thwip625 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wlopside5 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]iseegoatse4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CCrippled2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]J-Free4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]A_one_legged_man4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]patriot1594 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CCrippled3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]XenaDeusa3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SUPER_HELPFUL3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CCrippled3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bman00012 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]terrible-punmaster692 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I normally agree with a lot of things on this sub but I differentiate on circumcision. I dont think its good or bad, their are reason against and for it. This could be a matter of their religion (which is the only argument I can think to defend this). In life though(despite religious beliefs) circumcision should be decided by the actual person who it affects.

If they want to get circumcised then it is their choice and no one else should influence how they feel. This seems to be a more religious setting (correct me if I am wrong) so I think it makes sense because this is what the mother believes to be right.

It is alright if you disagree with me and I meant nothing here in a mocking/hostile/negative tone. I just wanted to share what I thought on this photo. I am not even judging whoever posted this because there could possibly be a ill intention for the circumcision. I just like to explain from the other POV just to get others to think about logic from the other side because in the end understanding each others reasoning for actions is what will help us move forward even if we dont like the actions taken we will learn to empathize with each other.

Rant Over

[–]lastlaugh1009 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Chronoguy7 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't think the people who oppose circumcision would oppose an adult, say 14-18+ year old, who decided to get cosmetic surgery for religious reasons, or if there was some dire medical need for someone younger who could not give informed consent. The opposition is to routine infant circumcision.

This seems to be a more religious setting (correct me if I am wrong) so I think it makes sense because this is what the mother believes to be right.

So the child doesn't get to deiced, which is in opposition to your first paragraph:

circumcision should be decided by the actual person who it affects.

Female circumcision is banned in (I think all) modern western countries as child abuse, but a women can get labiaplasty as an adult if they desire. I don't see why it should be different for a man. Religions shouldn't get a free pass to abuse children, that a religious exemption to child abuse laws is also sexist is just the cherry on top.

[–]lastlaugh1002 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ilpalazzo642 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JohnMcCainToHell2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThriftyGeo692 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]var_root_admin2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]croidhubh2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hewillslayu2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Koda12141 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BardTheKappa0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Double_A_920 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BardTheKappa2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jameswalker432 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Double_A_920 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BardTheKappa1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ilpalazzo640 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sir_fantapants3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]millenialprincess0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ilpalazzo640 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sir_fantapants3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Fair enough. I was raised probably a lot closer to your beliefs than most, conservative seventh day adventist, so kept 24 hours of sabbath from friday sunset to saturday sunset etc, 10% min in tithe plus offerings on top and so on. morning and evening worship every day.

With the mitzvah's, it just seems like a lot of them are ignored these days like wearing clothes made out of two different types of linen, because it isn't convenient or practical. Like in a Jubilee year, do jewish farmers let their land rest for a year? Do you kick your wife out when she is on her period because she is unclean and defiles others? Was she unclean for a week after having a son, 2 weeks after a female?

I also remember reading somewhere that jews have to forgive debt every 7 years if they have loaned money to another jew, and so have complicated setups which are basically loans all the same, but technically adhere to the mitzvah. Is this a thing?

Seems a lot like other religions where they cherry pick the parts that suit their current society.

All the best mate, I've enjoyed our talk. I do hope one day you'll reconsider your view on non-consensual male circumcision. Just like female genital mutilation, it shouldn't exist I think it should be a decision left to the child (maybe at 13 at the bar mitzvah or something). My parents didn't let me get baptized as a child because they thought it was something I should be old enough to choose when I understand what I am choosing, and i appreciate them for that. :)

[–]GamePro201X0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Double_A_925 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GamePro201X2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Double_A_926 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GamePro201X3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MGMStopTheChop0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]second_random_guy-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]owowhatsthis123-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tamper_ed-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dval92-2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DolanTurnip-3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]redsnake15-3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RhEEziE-4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Shitlordlogic222-5 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ilpalazzo64-5 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sir_fantapants11 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ilpalazzo64-5 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sir_fantapants8 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Double_A_926 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ilpalazzo642 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]twofaze-5 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Blackops_21-6 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Double_A_926 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tastytatsu5 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jrock3030-7 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]variegated-anoesis12 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]b95455-3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]variegated-anoesis10 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]b95455-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tastytatsu6 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]b954550 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tastytatsu4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]b954551 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tastytatsu2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]b954551 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tastytatsu1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jrock3030-4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]variegated-anoesis4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jrock30301 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]variegated-anoesis4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jrock30301 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tastytatsu4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]variegated-anoesis4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ReyosBlackwood4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jrock3030-2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ReyosBlackwood6 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LettuceBeGrateful4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tastytatsu3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ShaidarHaran210 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Barthaneous-7 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tastytatsu6 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Barthaneous-5 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Double_A_926 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Double_A_925 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]locks_are_paranoid-7 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tastytatsu4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NUCLEAR_DETONATIONS3-19 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RicoCat-68 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]14b755fe3939 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ruben_Samich29 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dhorso26 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RicoCat-40 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Excelcior4731 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RicoCat-31 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Maito_Guy23 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The US has the highest rates of STD's including fucking AIDS in the developed world, It also has the highest rates of circumcision. MGM increases the rate of transmission as it causes the skin of the head to thicken and harden, lose it's natural lubrication and the gliding motion the foreskin provides. All of those functions prevent friction during sex. The friction causes micro abrasions for both partners increasing transmission rates.

Smegma and bad odour are easily resolved if you just wash your dick. If you are happy that you had the most sensitive part of your penis cut off and have lost all the function of the foreskin and 80% of your sexual sensation then that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. You do not get to tell everyone on here that they can't talk about it and you do not get to make that decision for defenceless babies.

And I was mutilated as a newborn so yeah.....

[–]another_cube21 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RicoCat6 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]another_cube15 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I will try to explain why this is a poor analogy:

Foreskin has function. It has smooth muscle, numerous neurons, mucous membrane, high vascularization. It protects the penis from drying out, functions during sex, mechanically and sensually.

In the appendectomy case, of course the benefits outweigh the cons (appendicitis is life-threatening, having foreskin is not)

However, with foreskin, there are negative consequences to removing all the function I mentioned earlier. All the "benefits" you mentioned two comments ago are overstated.

Circumcision is like cutting off your foot because you might get skin cancer on your toe. It's NOT like an appendectomy.

Most of us who are anti-circumcision are also circumcised (me included) We're not trying to act superior or anything, we just wish we were able to make the choice for ourselves.

[–]ThatBlueGuy711 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RicoCat2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]another_cube8 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]14b755fe3912 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dhorso11 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]14b755fe396 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]7800343 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]variegated-anoesis12 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RicoCat-6 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]variegated-anoesis11 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]waiflife10 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Chronoguy9 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KamuiSC5 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jrock30304 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tastytatsu2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jrock3030-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tastytatsu6 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]justlurkinghere5000h-2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]quazkapeck-30 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Maito_Guy16 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tropical_YT2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Maito_Guy8 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bpstyles1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bpstyles2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tropical_YT1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bpstyles1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]itsdanishh1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tastytatsu5 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Maito_Guy4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]quazkapeck-12 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Maito_Guy18 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]quazkapeck-13 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Maito_Guy16 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]quazkapeck-3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Maito_Guy17 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]variegated-anoesis8 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Maito_Guy6 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]variegated-anoesis4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]quazkapeck-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Maito_Guy6 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]quazkapeck-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tastytatsu3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]quazkapeck-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tastytatsu4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]quazkapeck0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tastytatsu2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Maito_Guy3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, every statement I have made is fact backed up by research. I can read and assess medical studies and have spent a long time researching this. I am an expert in genital physiology and mutilation. It doesn't matter what area you are from or what the cultural norms are cutting important body parts is immoral. Cutting off parts of a girls genitals is normal in certain regions and in many of those cultures men expect their wives to be cut, does that make it right?

The only hardship I have faced that your boys won't is feeling like the odd one out in the shower room which while I was a little embarrased never had a big impact on me. I have never been judged by a sexual partner. They will face every loss of function and sensation that I have that have effected me however. Your only hope is that in an increasingly information drive society they will put their head in the sand and remain in denial as you are.

Your entire argument just boils down to two logical fallacies Appeal to tradition & appeal to popularity.

[–]variegated-anoesis11 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]quazkapeck-4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]variegated-anoesis4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]quazkapeck-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]variegated-anoesis4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]quazkapeck0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tastytatsu2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So it's not a human till it exits the womb? Or did you set some arbitrary line of humanity? Your right it's not mutilation its murder.

I don't even want to open that can of worms with you in the middle of a discussion on a completely different contentious topic. I'd engage with you somewhere else about it, though.

Female GM is primarily used to stop "promiscuity" basically to make sex unenjoyable that's wrong.

You don't think male circumcision makes sex less pleasurable? Here are some examples of how pleasurability in sex is lost.

In the largest study on circumcision in South Korea, Seoul University found 33% of men who were circumcised during adulthood reported difficulty attaining sexual gratification, 63% said masturbation less enjoyable, and 11% had "frequent" orgasm difficulties. (Kim, Peng et all, Seoul University)

also,

Circumcision is always destructive to proper function and sensitivity of the penis: The foreskin contains 20,000 erogenous nerve endings and the vast majority of the most specialized ones on the penis. There are 5 regions on the intact penis that are more sensutive than the number one most sensitive region on the average circumcised penis. For comparison, the glans clitoris contains about 8,000 nerve endings and the glans penis contains about 4,000. Keratinization and desensitization of the glans as well as loss of the mucous membranes are unavoidable results of circumcision. The gliding/rolling action of the foreskin is also inherently lost to circumcision. This makes sex much more abrasive to both partners. There is a lot of evidence that sexual dysfunction of all sorts are higher among circumcised men.

Functions of the foreskin: https://foreskinfunction.org

Now I suppose if females had some genetically outdated unnecessary flap of skin

Once again, use https://foreskinfunction.org to find out more about the usefulness of the foreskin. Also, for reference, even if the foreskin wasn't useless (Which it isn't), there is an example of what you desire. Earlobes are completely useless, but we don't remove them at birth.

genetically outdated unnecessary flap of skin that was prone to infection and other issues

Supposing it was in fact prone to infection (which is only the case concerning people who don't wash under the foreskin), we could look at another example of

genetically outdated unnecessary flap of skin that was prone to infection and other issues

in the form of the appendix. You would be batshit to have your child's appendix removed at birth, and it only gets removed once a problem arises.

Good luck growing your skin flap back you fucking psycho.

Your ad hominem really isn't helping your case.

[–]quazkapeck2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Chronoguy4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FiddyOneCent-20 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]variegated-anoesis8 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Flynhigh30-9 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ignis_Vespa14 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tastytatsu3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Because male circumcision is so common in the states, few Americans realize how rare it is most everywhere else. The practice has fallen by the wayside in Australia, Canada, Britain and New Zealand, and fewer than one-fifth of all male Europeans are circumcised. In December, the Danish Medical Association recommended ending the practice for boys, arguing that because it permanently alters the body it should be “an informed, personal choice” that young men make for themselves.

In Germany, a district judge ruled in 2012 that ritual circumcision of juveniles is a crime that violates “the fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity.” South Korea is the only Asian country to embrace the procedure, as a kind of physiological souvenir of America’s occupation following World War II. But there, too, circumcision rates are declining fast, as the adolescent boys who would otherwise go under the knife (as per local custom) gain access to research about its purported benefits online.

It's from this https://qz.com/885018/why-is-circumcision-so-popular-in-the-us/ article. Literally no other country in the industiallised west or Asia does it.

Title	Mother laughs while her son gets mutilated
Author	carbot117
Upvotes	1503
Comments	492
Date	March 20, 2019 4:43 PM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/b3e9sk/mother-laughs-while-her-son-gets-mutilated/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/mother-laughs-while-her-son-gets-mutilated.1625698 https://theredarchive.com/post/1625698

Comments