Nice comeback from my FB feed on circumcision

[–]AlphaWookie 68 points69 points70 points 12 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]JakeDDrake 23 points24 points25 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Number357 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]GodOfAThousandForms 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]AsteRISQUE 13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sekxtion 20 points21 points22 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ilorin_Lorati 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+]TjPshine -7 points-6 points-5 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ilorin_Lorati 15 points16 points17 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TjPshine 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]throw-away-today 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rahmulous 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rykocolor7 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You believe it works fine, but you have no control group with which to compare - and their are numerous studies demonstrating the functionality of the male foreskin. Hell, 99% of the western worlds medical associations do not suggest it, and their are many organizations composed of entirely doctors opposing circumcision for medical reasons, like DOC, Doctors Opposing Circumcision - I myself am circumcised, and I also do not feel like that my penis lacks function. I enjoy sex, I enjoy masturbation, and I think it looks alright. But you and I, we can't ever know. Never. Someone took that decision away from us, made it for us when they had no right to. Male circumcision is by the very definition mutilation, it most certainly does degrade the appearance (how it was meant to look by nature) and again, numerous studies show that it stunts function - and how it could it not, it's a part of your fucking penis.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jazzeki -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheFireMachine[🍰] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IAmTheBauss 36 points37 points38 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]Cyrakrum 12 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

This just reminds me that I haven't seen a worthwhile post from this subreddit in a couple of weeks.

[–]IAmTheBauss 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nepene -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheFireMachine[🍰] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]parkus45 16 points17 points18 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+]parkus45 -8 points-7 points-6 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Although the act is visually disgusting, I being a Christian, see and understand a large theological purpose for male circumcision.

"Because religion" is not a valid argument upon which to base child protection laws.

Firstly, because babies have no religion. Seconly because not all babies will grow up to remain in the religion they are raised with and secondly because the children of religious parents should be entitled to as much protection as those of secular parents.

I'm sorry we disagree, but male and female circumcision are separate identities

Female circumcision is religiously recommended by certain Muslim texts while male circumcision is actively rejected by the likes of Paul. If you has said you were a Jew, your argument would be factual, though still irrational. As a Christian you have no justification whatsoever.

There are more similarities between the practices that altogether encompass FGC and MGC than there are differences.

[–]parkus45 -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Paul does not reject circumcision in the manner you imply, he states that circumcision is now a matter of the heart and not of the flesh because Christ died for us. Furthermore, whatever has significance in the NT has precedence in the OT. Which means that since the Jews were circumcised to set themselves apart from pagan and other cultures, it was also implemented to curb animal lust. What does that mean? We as humans are no different than the animals in that all we want is sex, there is no shame in that. However, God intended more for his people and that meant to separate them from the rest of humanity and therefore from their animal like desires. (The bible showing us science far before the studies cited here.) Of course this is not a matter of salvation as that is what Paul was dealing with, Toranic Jews who thought salvation could only be achieved through circumcision. Furthermore, circumcision has many health benefits.

Your claim that babies have no religion is somewhat true. You are correct in that they cannot think and conceive of a God, as far as we know, but they are able to be blessed by a God or received into a community where they will worship a God. I am not sure of the numbers, but I am sure that many born into a Christian family are likely to end up a christian themselves, which would seem to downplay your claim that we shouldn't just assume the child will no be a christian.

I can go on and on about Islam and the problems within it, but I will spell out a little logic for you hear. Much of what we see and hear about Islam, just in the news, is murdering and the demonetization of women. I am not saying that all Muslims do this, but what we all see is that large branches of Islam make women cover up, and do not allow their voice to be permissible in court and such things like that. Therefore, wouldn't it be safe to assume that since Islam is so terrible to women that not everything they do to women is right?

Your attacks on me imply that you know more about my positions on the christian faith, by stating that I have no justification whatsoever, so I really do not know why I even replied to you in the first place. If you ever want to really be part of a discussion you should work on how you present yourself as I am not likely to reply to someone of your tone again.

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

Therefore, wouldn't it be safe to assume that since Islam is so terrible to women that not everything they do to women is right?

I never said female circumcision was right. All I said was that all religious justifications are equally valid as long as they are propped up by nothing but religious arguments; so the Muslims religious imperative to circumcise is as valid as a Jewish or Christian one—none at all in my opinion.

The religious point of view has no value to us here. We're Men's Rights advocates first and foremost and are concerned with addressing legal and social inequality, not walking on eggshells about any people's particular mythology.

Boys are discriminated against by law and society turns a blind eye to that. We seek to redress this and are fully conscious that we will be doing so on the backs of people like you. We're comfortable with that.

[+]EatYourOctopusSon 12 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Can you please elaborate on the theological purpose of circumcision?

[–]CrackpotPatriot 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]thatsabargain-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]atheistunicycle -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]CrackpotPatriot 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]atheistunicycle 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]MS2point0 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]IlleFacitFinem 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Manyrandomtacos4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]Turtbuscle1 -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago* (123 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (97 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Nugget_Muffins -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]d3gu 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Mm I can kind of see what you mean, in that you have it done & are fine with it. But it should be a choice of the individual, unless it's a medical issue. I see some giant flaws in your argument, though.

I'd rather be cut than uncut it seems very gross to me not to be cut

Why is something natural gross to you? As a woman, I would prefer uncut over cut every time, looks aside the sex is better.

I remember nothing at all from when I was a baby so why would I give a fuck

That's not the point, and it's completely untrue. Otherwise baby-rape would be a victimless crime. The fact is that, against your consent, you were a perfectly healthy baby boy with perfectly fine genitals. Then your parents, for some reason, (I'm assuming because your dad is cut, so he decided you should be too) let a stranger clamp your penis and cut a very important part off it. The penis head wasn't designed to be exposed to the air. Imagine not being able to moisten your tongue, and having it forced outside all the time. That's what someone did to you, and your parents smiled and paid for it, and you say it's not gross??!!

[–]Nugget_Muffins -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]thatsabargain 12 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

You make a really good point, however 99% of the subreddit will disagree with you because for some reason they see it as absolutely outrageous that you were circumcised (healthier) as a baby which almost everybody except the people don't give a fuck about.

[–]checkyourlogic 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Turtbuscle1 -62 points-61 points-60 points 12 years ago (91 children) | Copy Link

[–]Flailing_Junk 48 points49 points50 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (46 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+]Turtbuscle1 -44 points-43 points-42 points 12 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]SaigaFan 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]rykocolor 12 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

First, circumcision is mutilation, by definition. It doesn't matter that you don't like the word and don't see it as that: it is, by definition, there is no way around it. You may see it as an improvement, and that is also fine: but the issue for most here is in regards to ethics: self determination and the right to bodily integrity. This means that parents, ethically, should not be allowed to force children to have cosmetic surgery. The child should choose, when he is of age to understand what is happening. Otherwise we would allow certain types of female circumcision (not all are equal, for instance the removing to the female clitoral hood is the anatomical equivalent of removing the male foreskin and causes the same issues - yet we do not allow that for ethical and moral reasons)

Again, it matters not what you think it is. Mutilation has a definition: Mutilation or maiming is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, sometimes causing death.

-Physical injury? Check

-Degraded appearance? (from natural) Check

-Degraded functions? Check

-Sometimes causes death? Check

You have been mutilated, so have your sons, and so have I. Get over it, and help us stop more babies from being mutilated.

[–]coolguy5211 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]EatYourOctopusSon 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]coolguy52111 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]d3gu 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Turtbuscle1 -36 points-35 points-34 points 12 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]Flaghammer 27 points28 points29 points 12 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]Turtbuscle1 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bearmodule 27 points28 points29 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Turtbuscle1-15 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil16 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bearmodule11 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]StanleyDerpalton6 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Super_delicious-3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]StanleyDerpalton2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Super_delicious-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]StanleyDerpalton1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Super_delicious-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nepene2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]regging1-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nepene5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LT_BrownSnout-3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nepene4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LT_BrownSnout-2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nepene5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's rather suspicious when some comes in for the first time and mocks someone else who has an issue. If the only thing you do is tell other people their issues are unimportant you are not frying any fish.

You're correct that im in the wrong to insult, but to that point, would you request my taking pity upon him due to a practice thats been in place for hundreds of years, of which, more often than not, are actually successful and produce better hygiene for the genitalia?

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1u0ueu/some_people_here_have_trouble_explaining_why/

There isn't good evidence that circumcision produces better hygiene for the genitals.

I'm not saying "man up" either, because thats a bullshit phrase, we all agree there, but at what point do we stop bitching and just get shit done?

Insulting people who speak up about their issues is actively counterproductive about getting shit done. Awareness of these issues is the first step to activism. If people don't speak up about their problems we can't address those problems.

If we all sat around wallowing in self-pity, how far would we get, and how would we differentiate ourselves from our feminist counterparts?

As though talking about your problems meant that you couldn't do any activism.

We've spent much of our lives having people tell us that men shouldn't speak up about their problems. We can get stuff done and talk about our problems.

[–]AloysiusC 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwilke[🍰] 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rykocolor2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jesus_marley 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[+]Super_delicious -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jesus_marley 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+]Super_delicious -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jesus_marley 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Super_delicious-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jesus_marley3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Super_delicious-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jesus_marley1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Super_delicious1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sizzletron 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

People who would advocate for such a system should have their heads AND hearts checked. Reading off a checklist of the ways to prevent death from the 'procedure' doesn't negate the idea that a baby boy is being altered for no reason whatsoever. How cavalier of you to explain away the trauma. I'll take your word for it, I guess.

But before THAT happens, what about the moil who gave a series of newborns STDs because he put his diseased mouth on newborn's open wounds on their penises. Why in the name of all that is grateful for having a healthy baby boy would a parent be willing tempt fate and allow someone to cause harm and pain for no reason other than ritual disguised by flimsy biased research. Where are the wards of sorry men with dickhead cancer or disease who would've been spared had their parents chopped away? I got snipped at birth while a ward of the province I was born in. To this day I wonder how I felt at the time. Because I don't remember is no accounting for what trauma I might have felt at the time. Check that, I would have felt pain for certain.

[–]alaysian 15 points16 points17 points 12 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[+]Turtbuscle1 -31 points-30 points-29 points 12 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]fpmotivation 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheLittleGoodWolf 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]fpmotivation 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheLittleGoodWolf 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]fpmotivation 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheLittleGoodWolf1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fpmotivation1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheLittleGoodWolf1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

least nine times a day.

On a single patient? That can't possibly be good.

I was trying to find some good scientific or medically backed English websites on the subject but find myself lacking, finding mostly blogs and a men's health entry about the subject on askmen.com.

Since I'm Swedish most of my sources on information about this are also Swedish and I was hesitant to use them since I don't know how to easily translate the page. However I want to give you a good viable source so here goes either way.

This article goes through the hygiene of the uncircumcised penis, and this article goes through the hygiene of both men and women. Neither recommends washing the genitals more than once a day and recommends against the use of soap on the genitals.

The first article mentions how smegma is antibacterial and anti fungal but since it's produced constantly, there is the need to wash away the residue of the old stuff or it can have the opposite effect. It also mentions (like the second one) how excessive washing and the use of soap can dry out the sensitive mucous membranes that keep things moist and healthy. This can lead to itching, rashes, cracks in the skin etc.

I have provided a google translate version of the articles, but keep in mind that it's a bad translation, still it should give you the gist of the situation.

The first site is "a national web-based youth friendly clinic for young people aged 13 to 25 years. The purpose of the site is to make it easier for young people to find relevant, current and quality assured information about sex, health and relationships".

The second site is "Sweden's entire gathering place for information and services in the health and care."

Both are official outlets backed by research done by educated medical professionals.

I hope that is good enough for a source for you.

Edit: fixed link

[–]fpmotivation1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheLittleGoodWolf1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

it may be more extreme because most of the patients are incontinent.

Quite possibly so yes. Both these articles assume a relatively healthy and normal person of course.

I fixed the link in the first one, but if you couldn't make sense of the second one I doubt the language is much better there.

One point in both of them is that washing with soap (I suppose the soap you use is specifically made for heavy use) and excessively (even without soap) will eventually cause damage to the mucous glands in both the penis and the vagina. They therefore recommend using an unscented oil before rinsing off with warm water.

What you were taught is essentially right, peel back wash with water, gently rub the area clean while rinsing and then put it back. Drying of the area is not damaging per se, but the area is supposed to be naturally moist, much like the inside of our eyes and mouth.

This is of course what's recommended for the average person, I get the feeling you are working with seniors (from the incontinence mentioned) if so then I would rather hear about (what I would consider) excessive cleaning than the opposite. It is quite usual to hear reports of horrible neglect in the retirement homes over here.

[–]CrackpotPatriot 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheLittleGoodWolf 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CapitalDave 22 points23 points24 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SnickerSnak 13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Flaghammer 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alice_In_Zombieland 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SaigaFan 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Turtbuscle1 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]DuchessofYanks 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nepene 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]alaysian 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheLittleGoodWolf 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This may be seen as slightly hyperbole but it's only meant to provoke thought not as an attack on you or your parents (I'm sure they are decent people).

Ritual sacrifice was probably not done in malice either (most of the time), whether it was of humans or of animals. Yet this is often considered cruel too by todays educated society. In fact I think the very reason that such ceremonies ended (or became symbolic) is because of increased knowledge and the fact that they did end is indicative of them being based on misinformation rather than malice. Much like today with circumcision.

However the sacrificed are still dead, and the foreskin is still cut off of non consenting infants. The procedure is barbaric, uncivilized and needless, and it's perpetuated by misinformation. It's easy to not make this mistake yourself simply respect the bodily autonomy of your future child. Tip: find out how much the procedure would cost, wait until your son is around 15-18 and tell him that he can either have this money or have the tip of his penis cut off and see what he chooses. (hypothetical son of course)

[–]MockingDead 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gprime312 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]allenstenhaus 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rykocolor2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]Flaghammer 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Icarus82 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheLittleGoodWolf -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheLittleGoodWolf -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CrackpotPatriot -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Flaghammer -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]CrackpotPatriot -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Flaghammer -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alice_In_Zombieland -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]yourotherusername73 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SpaceKraken23 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Number357 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Circumcision can have negative effects a lot of people aren't aware of. In most cases, it just results in a slight loss of sensitivity. But it can have other side effects. Sometimes the loss of sensitivity is so great that it's virtually impossible for the man to achieve orgasm. Sometimes it lops off more than planned, leaving the boy/man severely disfigured and unable to have a normal sex life. Sometimes it leads to death, especially in developing countries.

On a side note, can this sub stop downvoting people for asking questions? This is a legitimate question as a lot of people grew up in a culture where circumcision is normal and acceptable. Instead of burying the post in downvotes, upvote it for visibility and explain why circumcision is frowned upon.

EDIT: An example for the poster above, Rabbi sued after baby's penis is severed during circumcision was a recent post on this subreddit. Incidents like this may not be the norm, but they're common enough that an unnecessary procedure can't be justified. The damage that baby boy had was at least as great as what girls go through with FGM.

[–]100cuccofreakout 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hi there, feminist here. Don't have a penis, obvs. My first serious boyfriend did though, and whoever circumcised him did a complete hackjob. Shit was ratchet.

I just don't understand the religious angle. Women are allowed in Temple during their menstruation and other "unclean" times, doesn't this break the same cleanliness rules as having foreskin?

It all comes down to hygiene, and if you're in a first-world country, you can pull that stuff back and run a washcloth over it. That won't eradicate the risk of HPV and other nasties that having foreskin will slightly raise the chance of spreading, but let's be adults; if you're having unprotected sex with someone, you've both been tested and know each other's statuses.

So, it goes without saying that I'm not in favor of circumcision. But it does make me kinda cringe a little to see it called mutilation, because I'm thinking of the circumcised men reading this. Either their self-image is taking a wallop, or they're going to get all offended and decide that people who are against circumcision are a bunch of crazies and go about his life with the idea that it's still an okay thing to do.

So, to the cut dudes. Love ya faces. Ya little wiener faces, too. Yeah, they're still cute. Nothing wrong with 'em. We just want the decision to circumcise to be made by the grownup owners of the penises in question.

[+]alternativejohn -29 points-28 points-27 points 12 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ambientmouse 16 points17 points18 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[+]alternativejohn -27 points-26 points-25 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Flaghammer 15 points16 points17 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]robswins 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]alternativejohn -16 points-15 points-14 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpaceKraken23 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Uncircumcised men are more likely to have premature ejaculation problems"

rofl i haven't heard that argument since high school. just because you need a half numb pud to last longer than five minutes doesn't mean we all do.

[–]StanleyDerpalton 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Flaghammer -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]alternativejohn -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Ambientmouse 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]mwilke[🍰] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]uncommonman 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]alternativejohn -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]alternativejohn -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sillymod[M] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]maregal 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]WunderBoss -8 points-7 points-6 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]pembinariver 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]WunderBoss 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]WunderBoss 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]xXxCREECHERxXx 12 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Jesus chirst guys if yall want anyone to join your cause telling them there penis is mutilated and fucking ruined and that they can't possibly feel anything from sex is NOT the way to do it. You all act like fucking children every time someone posts about circumcision

Edit: all your downvotes do is prove me right. You're driving people away from your cause

[–]AloysiusC 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SaigaFan 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PeterPorky -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MrMickus -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]SaigaFan 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]SaigaFan 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]SaigaFan 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]SaigaFan 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]SaigaFan 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]d3gu 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Boys who are circumcised will almost certainly benefit from it health-wise [...]

In what way, by how much? Merely saying that something has benefits is worthless. Almost every action or event has benefits of some type. Whether it is beneficial or not is something else.

What benefits justify degrading a boys genital function, subjecting him to excruciating pain and violating his human rights?

[...] and it's what his first sex partner will probably expect.

Husbands expect their wives to be circumcised in circumcising cultures too.

Female circumcision just takes away pleasure and stimulation for a woman, which is misogynistic and awful.

Intent is irrelevant to whether an action turns out to be harmful or not, except in some cases of mental/emotional harm.

That said, the justifications for genital mutilation are more similar between the sexes than they are different.

Also, male circumcision also reduces sexual function.

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Eryemil 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.

A possible decrease in UTIs, in the first year of life. UTIs are pretty rare in boys (much higher in girls, coincidentally) so you'd have to circumcise many to even prevent a single one and would stop conferring any advantage within months after birth.

This condition which is treated with antibiotics on both sexes. Circumcision as a preventive measure doesn't even begin to pass a cost benefit analysis.

A reduced risk of sexually transmitted diseases in men.

Irrelevant as infants are not sexually active. If this were the case, it would be relevant to adult men, if they believed the evidence was compelling enough. But not only is the evidence not compelling, there's not a single shred of evidence that it has any impact on men in the developed world. Doubly irrelevant.

Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners.

Penile cancer is rarer in men that breast cancer; also the link between penile cancer and circumcision disappears once the numbers have controlled for phimosis.

And this is a Men's Right's subreddit; suggesting that men should be deprived of parts of their genitals to benefit women will not get you very far. That said, there's an HPV vaccine out now. If you want to prevent cervical cancers in women (and mouth cancer in boys) have girls (and boys!) take that. No loss of tissue or genital function required.

Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).

In the same way that removing a tooth prevents toothaches. The tissues removed during circumcision account for up to a third of the total surface area of the penis and most of its mucous membrane. Remove even more of the sensitive mucosa and you get even fewer infections, but personally I don't think it's worth the tradeoff, any more than I'd like fewer teeth.

Balanitis and other surface genital infections are almost completely preventable with basic hygiene and men are much less likely to develop them than women anyway, so the idea that it requires surgery to prevent doesn't make any sense.

Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).

Phimosis is a rare condition; about 1 percent of adult men will be unable to retract their foreskins but not all—or even a majority of them—will need to be treated with circumcision. The overwhelming majority will be treatable with a stretching routine or, barring that, preputioplasty. Circumcision is an outdated means of treatment except for the most severe pathological cases or congenital malformations.

This is, by the way, also not something that affects children as it is normal for the foreskin to unretractable to some extent into adolescence. You'd be circumcising hundreds of potentially healthy boys to prevent a case of phimosis that the owner of said penis might not even mind in the first place.

Circumcision also makes it easier to keep the end of the penis clean.

So does female circumcision.

Overall, none of these benefits or potential benefits pass a rational cost benefit analysis when weighed against the strongest argument against infant circumcision; that of bodily sovereignty—the second most important human right there is.

Female circumcision is all about dominance over a sex.

I don't like to repeat myself. As I already said, intent is irrelevant, only outcome matters. Intent behind genital cutting is very similar across cultures and sexes, even taking into account the education and wealth gap.

It causes NO harm to the baby boy if done in a proper medical procedure, which is the only method I'm condoning.

Except of course, the violation of his rights, the pain he will be subjected to and the loss of function in his genitals.

Male circumcision does not reduce sexual function. Want proof? Here you go, the magic of science! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23937309

You're quoting a review by a well known circumcision fetishist, that purposely avoids citing the best research on the subject and call that proof? It's evidence, at most. Very shitty evidence but far from proof.

Firstly, sexual pleasure or sensation alone is not the same as function. Circumcision destroys most of the mechanical movement of the penis and its fine-touch sensitivity. Often destroys one of the two most erogenous areas of the penis, exposes fragile mucous membranes with surface-lying nerve endings to friction and dehydration, reduces the size of the penis and has a long list of complications beyond those that always occur which are likely to impact sexual function.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06646.x/full

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06685.x/full

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/06/13/ije.dyr104.abstract

And by the way, even though it's been studied so little in comparison. There are possible benefits to female circumcision that are not being researched; and also, ironically, more evidence of the negative impact of circumcision on men than women as far as sexuality is concerned.

You know all those claims about how circumcision destroys women's ability to enjoy sex? The evidence is mixed, at best.

[+][deleted] 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

Okay, you dismissed the articles I linked because of the reputation of the author.

I dismissed your one source because it is a poor one. I linked you to better quality (original) research, as supposed to a biased meta analysis where the authors decide what is and isn't high quality enough to be included.

Who is to say I can't do the same to all of yours?

Good luck with that. Nothing you find on any of them will be worse than guys that get off to baby boys being tortured.

For example, On UTI's - You're basing the differences on men who are circumcised (the majority).

What are you talking about? Elaborate.

On STD's- adult circumcision is unnecessarily painful if you'll humor me and just say that we should take care of it when they're babies and can't feel shit.

That's the most ignorant things you've said yet. We've known that babies feel as much pain as adults for decades now. In fact, it's quite possible they feel more pain than we do. Also, most circumcisions still use inadequate or no pain relief while adult circumcision patients are put under general anaesthesia.

On penile cancer and HPV - that vaccine JUST came out, and if I may speak personally, my girlfriend was one of the first old enough to get it. Her slightly older cousin never got it for that reason, and was just diagnosed with cervical cancer.

You're still asking men's body parts to be sacrificed for the well-being of women. That's frankly disgusting. And yes, the vaccine just came out, so fucking what? Just as we can't go back and retroactively vaccinate people we can't go back and attach boys foreskins—looking to the future makes this a non argument.

And penile cancer still remains less common than male breast cancer. It's the very definition of a non-issue. One, which as I've already mention, doesn't even affect non-phimosed intact men at a greater degree. Non-issue squared.

Also, I don't think it takes a genius to realize that male circumcision does not affect "mechanical movement" or pleasure.

How about you start by actually reading the articles I linked you to, instead of scrambling for reasons to dismiss them. I'm thoroughly familiar with the article you linked.

Or that a woman would have better sex with a clitoris.

Tell me, have you actually read the research on the subject?

You are all over the place, and frankly I don't believe a lot of what you're saying.

Most of what I've said is either easily verifiable or obvious enough to prove via rethorical argument. If you are so invested in your position that nothing I say will change your mind then I might as well go and message a guy on Grindr for a fuck.

So what exactly don't you "believe"?

[–]d3gu 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]thatsabargain 12 years ago* [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

Well said, completely agree.

[+]CaptnQwark 12 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Thanks man. I'm glad to see that there are some free thinkers here, not just a bunch of whiny "men" who doesn't understand the meaning of equality.

[+]thatsabargain 12 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

I've recently been contemplating unsubscribing seeing as this is one of the only few subjects MensRights cares about..

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

[+]jeepdave -44 points-43 points-42 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vanitati 14 points15 points16 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alice_In_Zombieland 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheLittleGoodWolf 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rahmulous 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheLittleGoodWolf 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Equa1 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]jeepdave -20 points-19 points-18 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]everyone_hates_you_ 13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]jeepdave 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[+]toad3527 -16 points-15 points-14 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]theblindelephant -55 points-54 points-53 points 12 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

[+]yourotherusername 12 years ago* [recovered] (39 children) | Copy Link

~~Lady~~ circumcision is ~~different and~~ unnecessary.

FTFY.

[+]theblindelephant -8 points-7 points-6 points 12 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[+]theblindelephant -46 points-45 points-44 points 12 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ballsdeepinreality 24 points25 points26 points 12 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]scythe7 31 points32 points33 points 12 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[+]ElfmanLV -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]ElfmanLV -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ElfmanLV1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ElfmanLV1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Good analogy but it fails in one crucial way. About half of women in the US are pro-choice and 28% of women have had an abortion.

You aren't pointing out how my analogy fails. You are actually supporting my point, which is people don't have to be in a certain subset of demographic to support it.

On the other hand, less than 20 percent of the adult male population in the US is intact and you'd struggle to find any of then that are as vocally pro-circ as the guy above. So yeah; how much do you want to be he's cut?

0% of women have had their foreskin removed, yet there are still women who will support circumcision. How do you explain this?

We can use a bitcoin third party arbiter to handle the money and I'll pay for the data miner myself if the subject refuses to cooperate.

lol Yeah, okay buddy.

[–]Eryemil1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jesus_marley 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]ElfmanLV-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jesus_marley1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ElfmanLV-3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jesus_marley5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The likelihood of your hypothesis has no logical backing.

That is why is just a hypothesis.

I am informing you of your logical inconsistency right here and now.

What is the evidence that you provide to support your position. Simply telling me that I am wrong because you disagree sans evidence is a worthless position.

There are women who have a viewpoint regarding circumcision.

Anybody can hold an opinion on a subject. There are men who have a viewpoint regarding abortion. That does not make it valid. The reality though is that among persons who are subject to a practice such as infant circumcision, those who defend it tend to have been subjected to it whereas those who oppose it or even merely hold no opinion, have not been. Something that you should note is that "Only 16% of men with documented histories of sexual abuse (by social service agencies, which means it was very serious) considered themselves to have been sexually abused, compared to 64% of women with documented histories in the same study." (Widom, C.S. & Morris, S. (1997). Accuracy of adult recollections of childhood victimization part 2. Childhood sexual abuse. Psychological Assessment, 9, 34–46.) While this is in regard to sexual abuse, it does denote a distinct and strong tendency of men to reframe negative childhood experiences into positive ones. If a man can deny their own documented sexual abuse as being a bad thing, what makes you think that they would not do the exact same thing regarding their circumcision?

You are ignorant, and your logic is flawed.

Ad hominem is not an argument, nor is it evidence. I am still waiting for you to provide evidence to support your position that I am wrong. I'll wait.

[–]ElfmanLV-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What is the evidence that you provide to support your position. Simply telling me that I am wrong because you disagree sans evidence is a worthless position.

You are stating that your hypothesis is likely. You do not have any evidence to say that your hypothesis is likely. This isn't an argument or a position. This is me making a statement on reality.

Anybody can hold an opinion on a subject.

Then why do you assume that a person who has the opinion defending circumcision is likely a circumcised male? How is it a "likely hypothesis" to assume that defenders of circumcision is a circumsied male if "anybody can hold an opinion on a subject"? More flawed logic.

There are men who have a viewpoint regarding abortion. That does not make it valid.

You are either derailing this conversation with strawman arguments or you don't understand what you've read. I'm saying people will always have a valid opinion on their own bodies. I'm saying that regardless of your stance on abortion, a woman who has been through an abortion will always have a valid opinion on her experiences. Always.

The reality though is that among persons who are subject to a practice such as infant circumcision, those who defend it tend to have been subjected to it whereas those who oppose it or even merely hold no opinion, have not been.

Where's your evidence to support your position? Simply telling me this sans evidence is a worthless position.

Something that you should note is that "Only 16% of men with documented histories of sexual abuse (by social service agencies, which means it was very serious) considered themselves to have been sexually abused, compared to 64% of women with documented histories in the same study." (Widom, C.S. & Morris, S. (1997). Accuracy of adult recollections of childhood victimization part 2. Childhood sexual abuse. Psychological Assessment, 9, 34–46.) While this is in regard to sexual abuse, it does denote a distinct and strong tendency of men to reframe negative childhood experiences into positive ones.

What does this have to do with anything? Sexual abuse and circumcision are not the same thing. You are making the two seem comparable when they're apples and oranges.

If a man can deny their own documented sexual abuse as being a bad thing, what makes you think that they would not do the exact same thing regarding their circumcision?

Strawman argument, again. Circumcision isn't rape. They are both horrible, but not one in the same and cannot be compared. Moot argument.

Ad hominem is not an argument, nor is it evidence. I am still waiting for you to provide evidence to support your position that I am wrong. I'll wait.

It's only ad hominem if you only quote the last bit of what I said, which is also another strawman tactic. The fact that you stated you would be "surprised" if non-circumcised people would have an opinion on the matter is evidence that you are ignorant. If you weren't ignorant, you would have realized that everyone, circumcised or not, would likely to have an opinion on circumcision.

Sorry for the wait, too many flawed arguments for me to point out.

[–]Jesus_marley3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You are stating that your hypothesis is likely.

No I am not. My hypothesis is that he is likely circumcised. Note the distinct difference.

Then why do you assume that a person who has the opinion defending circumcision is likely a circumcised male?

I provided my evidence above.

How is it a "likely hypothesis"...

I didn't say this. You did. If you are unable or unwilling to accurately represent the arguments I am making then I see no point in continuing. Either participate honestly, or not at all.

You are either derailing this conversation with strawman arguments or you don't understand what you've read.

Are you forgetting that you were the one that brought up that women have opinions regarding male circumcision? I merely extended that in the opposite direction. Don't start claiming nonexiestant logical fallacies when your own arguments get turned against you.

Where's your evidence to support your position? Simply telling me this sans evidence is a worthless position.

I provided it for you. You even quoted it.

What does this have to do with anything? Sexual abuse and circumcision are not the same thing. You are making the two seem comparable when they're apples and oranges.

Again, many medical professionals have gone on record as stating that Circumcision is abuse. As such, it is entirely reasonable to draw similar conclusions as to a persons psychological reactions to similar traumas.

I'm saying people will always have a valid opinion on their own bodies.

This is not what the heart of this conversation is about though. The issue is not one of what people do with their own bodies. If you want to get circumcised as an adult, you are free to do so. It becomes a problem though when that opinion extends to the bodies of others.

Strawman argument, again. Circumcision isn't rape. They are both horrible, but not one in the same and cannot be compared. Moot argument.

There are many who would argue differently. Several European medical associations, in fact. That said, the corollary between the psychological damage inflicted by each is not simply dismissable because you may not like it.

It's only ad hominem if you only quote the last bit of what I said

Did I misrepresent that you called me ignorant in response to a call for supporting evidence? Is that what you are saying?

The fact that you stated you would be "surprised" if non-circumcised people would have an opinion on the matter is evidence that you are ignorant.

Again you misrepresent my statements. I stated and I quote "I would find it quite surprising though that a person who was NOT circumcised would hold such a viewpoint regarding circumcision." That position being that male circumcision is "reasonable".

If you weren't ignorant, you would have realized that everyone, circumcised or not, would likely to have an opinion on circumcision.

If you are going to try and point out a flaw At least have the courtesy, to accurately represent my opinion before you do so. Your entire argument so far as been predicated upon your perception of my argument and not my actual argument. That you have altered my position, several times now, in order for it to fit with your so called rebuttals, tells me that you are simply incapable of creating a coherent argument based upon my original arguments. This is not supposition. The evidence is as clear as day in the thread. You have been nothing but dishonest in this entire discussion.

Sorry for the wait, too many flawed arguments for me to point out.

Says the person who can't even represent the arguments of his opponent accurately. I have spent more time in this discussion attempting to correct your inaccuracies regarding my own position than I have arguing the point. I would love nothing more than to debate you but you have shown yourself incapable of even understanding my position, or barring that, being able to argue against it honestly. Which leads me to the inevitable conclusion that you are either an idiot or a liar. Take your pick.

EDIT: formatting.

[–]ElfmanLV0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You are stating that your hypothesis is likely.

No I am not. My hypothesis is that he is likely circumcised. Note the distinct difference.

Your exact quote upthread was "I assumed nothing. I provided a likely hypothesis for his defence of circumcision." You said you provided a likely hypothesis, and this hypothesis is not based on evidence. I will accept your clarification or change in stance, but please be aware that you very clearly misconveyed your point. Don't get butthurt when other people quote you directly.

I provided my evidence above.

No you didn't. You provided statistics on sexual abuse. Your stance is "circumcised males are likely to defend circumcision", and your "evidence" doesn't prove that at all. You drew your own conclusions, something that is highly unscientific, providing a very weak argument.

I didn't say this. You did. If you are unable or unwilling to accurately represent the arguments I am making then I see no point in continuing. Either participate honestly, or not at all.

Read above. You need to remember what you said instead of changing your stance and blaming others for putting words in your mouth. Everything is on record, there isn't an opportunity for me to be "dishonest". I am 100% quoting you.

Again, many medical professionals have gone on record as stating that Circumcision is abuse. As such, it is entirely reasonable to draw similar conclusions as to a persons psychological reactions to similar traumas.

You're so big on evidence yet you don't provide a source. If it's true and if the article is credible then I'll believe it.

Did I misrepresent that you called me ignorant in response to a call for supporting evidence? Is that what you are saying?

You keep telling me to provide evidence...I have only made one criticism, and that is "You, Jesus_marley, have no evidence to prove that defenders of circumcision are likely circumcised, and to say such statement is a stereotype not based on logic". I don't know how you want me to prove this since you have no way of proving your hypothesis to begin with.

Again you misrepresent my statements. I stated and I quote "I would find it quite surprising though that a person who was NOT circumcised would hold such a viewpoint regarding circumcision." That position being that male circumcision is "reasonable".

Are you forgetting that you were the one that brought up that women have opinions regarding male circumcision? I merely extended that in the opposite direction. Don't start claiming nonexiestant logical fallacies when your own arguments get turned against you.

You were claiming that defenders of circumcision are likely circumcised males. If I provided an "opposite" like you did, that's like saying people who support abortion are likely women who have had abortions. Do you see why your logic is flawed now? I provided you an example of a demographic that are not circumcised males to debunk your flawed hypothesis, that being women who think circumcision is beneficial.

I said that although it shouldn't be a basis to finalize whether circumcision is morally right or not, circumcised men hold valid opinions on circumcision on the basis that they have first hand experience. Believe it or not, but circumcised males have both positive and negative experiences, and both matter. That's all I'm saying.

Obviously everyone has their opinion on any given topic, which means a defender of circumcision could be anybody.

I provided it for you. You even quoted it.

Again, no you didn't, and no I did not.

This is not what the heart of this conversation is about though. The issue is not one of what people do with their own bodies. If you want to get circumcised as an adult, you are free to do so. It becomes a problem though when that opinion extends to the bodies of others.

This was always the heart of my conversation, you just didn't want to take it there. I said circumcised men have opinions on their penile state, and that regardless of it being positive or negative, you cannot ostracise them for having an opinion on their own bodies. Some people are fine with circumcision, you cannot say "No, you're not fine, you don't actually feel this way".

There are many who would argue differently. Several European medical associations, in fact. That said, the corollary between the psychological damage inflicted by each is not simply dismissable because you may not like it.

You need to give me a source. Saying "several European medical associations" is just as convincing as "a dozen talking unicorns". I'll make an informed opinion on the matter once I evaluate the credibility of the article.

Did I misrepresent that you called me ignorant in response to a call for supporting evidence? Is that what you are saying?

I said that your stance of "if you defend circumcision, you are probably circumcised" is what makes you ignorant. That is what I'm saying.

Again you misrepresent my statements. I stated and I quote "I would find it quite surprising though that a person who was NOT circumcised would hold such a viewpoint regarding circumcision." That position being that male circumcision is "reasonable".

I didn't misrepresent you. You very clearly said that you assume non-circumcised people would not be pro-circumcision. This is an ignorant assumption, as anybody could support or be against circumcision regardless of penile state, or even gender. You even said so yourself, even men can have opinions on abortions.

If you are going to try and point out a flaw At least have the courtesy, to accurately represent my opinion before you do so. Your entire argument so far as been predicated upon your perception of my argument and not my actual argument. That you have altered my position, several times now, in order for it to fit with your so called rebuttals, tells me that you are simply incapable of creating a coherent argument based upon my original arguments. This is not supposition. The evidence is as clear as day in the thread. You have been nothing but dishonest in this entire discussion.

Again, the issue isn't that I'm misrepresenting you, you are misrepresenting yourself. You've been switching back and forth on what you're saying, how do you blame other people for misunderstanding your statements? I quoted you directly, rarely with alteration. Your position, in writing, is "if you defend circumcision, you are likely a circumcised person", and you extend that with "this is a likely hypothesis". Neither of those things are true. If this isn't what you mean, I could totally understand, but this is what you conveyed through text. Again, I don't know how I could be "dishonest" when this thread is hosted on a third party, but onwards.

Says the person who can't even represent the arguments of his opponent accurately. I have spent more time in this discussion attempting to correct your inaccuracies regarding my own position than I have arguing the point. I would love nothing more than to debate you but you have shown yourself incapable of even understanding my position, or barring that, being able to argue against it honestly. Which leads me to the inevitable conclusion that you are either an idiot or a liar. Take your pick.

Again, you need to work on message conveyance. You are having conflicting stances in this thread, and I don't think you mean to. Calling me names isn't going to help you get passing grade in high school English, so let's keep that to a minimum.

[–]Jesus_marley1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Your exact quote upthread was "I assumed nothing. I provided a likely hypothesis for his defence of circumcision." You said you provided a likely hypothesis, and this hypothesis is not based on evidence. I will accept your clarification or change in stance, but please be aware that you very clearly misconveyed your point. Don't get butthurt when other people quote you directly.

I will concede that I misspoke on that sentence. replace Hypothesis with reason. That said, given the context of my previous statements I call this out as a nitpick given that my position is quite clear.

No you didn't. You provided statistics on sexual abuse. Your stance is "circumcised males are likely to defend circumcision", and your "evidence" doesn't prove that at all. You drew your own conclusions, something that is highly unscientific, providing a very weak argument.

My evidence shows the direct psychological response to trauma imposed upon men by another person. The logical extrapolation of that response from one trauma to another is not at all unreasonable.

Read above. You need to remember what you said instead of changing your stance and blaming others for putting words in your mouth.

I haven't changed my stance. See above.

You're so big on evidence yet you don't provide a source. If it's true and if the article is credible then I'll believe it.

Here's one for now

You were claiming that defenders of circumcision are likely circumcised males.

Actually another user made this claim. My original response was to point out that making such a claim is not mockery. I then continued with an opinion that I would be surprised that a non circumcised person would hold to the idea that circumcision was reasonable.

You very clearly said that you assume non-circumcised people would not be pro-circumcision.

I did say I would be surprised given that to my knowledge I have yet to meet one. I did not discount the possibility, however. As I said before. this is an opinion.

You've been switching back and forth on what you're saying, how do you blame other people for misunderstanding your statements?

Other than an admitted mistype, I have been consistent with my argument, thank you. If there was a concern as to where my position lies, one would think that a simple question as to what I meant would have been forthcoming, don't you think? rather than assume that I am "switching back and forth".

Your position, in writing, is "if you defend circumcision, you are likely a circumcised person", and you extend that with "this is a likely hypothesis".

To be clear, my position from the beginning is that pointing out that a person who defends circumcision is likely circumcised is not mockery of that person, and that my opinion is that I would be surprised if the user who held the position that circumcision was reasonable was himself not circumcised. That opinion being entirely secondary to my original point.

You are having conflicting stances in this thread,

No conflict. One error, corrected, plus an opinion. In the future might I suggest that if you are unclear as to a point, that you seek clarification.

[–]ElfmanLV0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]everyone_hates_you_ -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]scythe7 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]ElfmanLV -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]scythe7 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]ElfmanLV-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

A lot of people who defend circumcision are cut themselves. I have seen it tons of times on-line, almost every time there is a debate of this nature.

But not this specific person, at all. So not only are you making blanket statements, you are perpetrating a stereotype about how all circumcised men will act. Whatever limited sample you have seen online is not representative of the entire population of circumcised men. Come on, you should understand this.

To say it is reasonable for men to get circumcised yet provide no references or instances to back this claim is what made me assume that he might be defending it because he may be part of those victimized by it, Stockholm syndrome.

I would say having a circumcised penis for their entire lives is a pretty justifiable reference. Both sides of the coin are valid; circumcised men can feel absolutely nothing special about their state, or they can feel like their rights have been stripped. You can't ostracize either parties for how they feel about themselves, which is what you are doing. You can (and should) argue that circumcision is wrong, but you can't argue that these people's opinions on their own body is invalid. You also don't have any accreditation to diagnose anybody with Stockholm, so stop doing it.

It was a generalization of one person, not all of them. You assumed that i was making fun of circumcized dudes, all i did was make a guess based on my previous experiences.

Again, you are actively stereotyping. This is literally what you are describing.

[–]scythe71 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But not this specific person, at all. So not only are you making blanket statements, you are perpetrating a stereotype about how all circumcised men will act.

There are tons of researches on why people defend circumcision. You are free to do research on it if you wish. It is called societal Stockholm Syndrome, similar to the effect of battered women defending their husbands or abused children defending their abusers

Whatever limited sample you have seen online is not representative of the entire population of circumcised men. Come on, you should understand this.

I never claimed it was a representation of the entire population, read my post again i said a lot, not all. obviously there are always exceptions.

I would say having a circumcised penis for their entire lives is a pretty justifiable reference.

So you are saying that because someone was circumcised that makes it reasonable for them to defend that men should get circumcised??

You can't ostracize either parties for how they feel about themselves, which is what you are doing.

How did i ostracize anyone? All i did was mention that it could be some form of self defence due to a traumatic event aka Stockholm syndrome

You can (and should) argue that circumcision is wrong, but you can't argue that these people's opinions on their own body is invalid.

Never said that either, where are you getting this from? Their opinions on their own body are completely fine. i do not care if they like being circumcised themselves, but people who are cut tend argue that infants should get circumcised thats whats bothering everyone. If they are already cut, then i would prefer that they be comfortable with themselves instead of trying to defend and encourage it.

You also don't have any accreditation to diagnose anybody with Stockholm, so stop doing it.

I never diagnosed anyone, I made an intelligent guess, I never said for sure that he has Stockholm syndrome, read it again i said its kind of like he has stockholm syndrome. But it is a common thing for circumcised males to defend it, and in turn try to promote it so they dont feel isolated. Page 60: http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=nb9EAAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA60&ots=Zpx2Jt_Dmw&dq=societal%20stockholm%20syndrome%20circumcision&pg=PR7#v=onepage&q&f=false

page 10: http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=SgJ05uXMfvgC&lpg=PA10&ots=RV8fxFi4Pe&dq=societal%20stockholm%20syndrome%20circumcision&pg=PA10#v=onepage&q=societal%20stockholm%20syndrome%20circumcision&f=false

Again, you are actively stereotyping. This is literally what you are describing.

Perhaps it was a generalization. But in no way did i ever make fun of circumcised males and i have absolutely no idea why you presume that i am taunting them.

[–]ElfmanLV0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]scythe71 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ElfmanLV0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]scythe71 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]everyone_hates_you_ 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Flaghammer 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheLittleGoodWolf -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]HappyCamper4027 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheLittleGoodWolf 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]alternativejohn -21 points-20 points-19 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]thatsabargain -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]AndyGHK -19 points-18 points-17 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Nice comeback from my FB feed on circumcision
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	265
Comments	261
Date	January 1, 2014 6:04 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1u57mg/nice_comeback_from_my_fb_feed_on_circumcision/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/nice-comeback-from-my-fb-feed-on-circumcision.1005324 https://theredarchive.com/post/1005324

Comments