The Circumcision Decision - YouTube

[–]intactisnormal 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

When you read through that study you realize how terrible it is. There are plenty of counter studies right in the paper, the data that prefers circumcised is horribly old, and he relies heavily on Africa.

The US:

First study is from 1976 in Georgia. 1976. That puts the respondents born approximately between 1954 to 1958. This is so incredibly old.

Second study They go straight to the Midwest which is the epicenter of circumcision. Yeah that’s biased. This is a study from 1988. Keep in mind the respondents would be born well before that, likely born in the 1958-1968 range at the youngest.

Third study in Massachusetts (1999) found the opposite. Yup, a countering study right in the US. “Participants gave circumcised men an overall rating for sexual activity of 1.8/10 compared with 8.0/10 for uncircumcised men.”

Canada: Same thing, it used to be common and there’s lots of regionality. This was in Ontario, a location with higher rate. And the population they studied had a lot of older generation. The study date and ages given puts the women surveyed being born between 1944-1996, average of 1970. So regionality bias and age bias. And the study isn't all that either, it even says: "women with intact partners reported higher levels of sexual satisfaction … Women's responses indicated that circumcision status minimally impacted satisfaction with partner's genitals”, which I think says plenty, Morris is trying to play it up.

Australia: A 1989 study? Wow. The date study and ages puts most of the women surveyed being born between 1949-1969, average of 1959. Holy cow lots of generational bias there.

Denmark: They try to get out of this study by ignoring the author’s response to Morris's letter (which I can give if you want):

“Male circumcision and sexual function in men and women: a survey-based, cross-sectional study in Denmark”

"Results: Circumcised men...were more likely to report frequent orgasm difficulties after adjustment for potential confounding factors, and women with circumcised spouses more often reported incomplete sexual needs fulfilment and frequent sexual function difficulties overall, notably orgasm difficulties and dyspareunia."

“Conclusion: Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment. Thorough examination of these matters in areas where male circumcision is more common is warranted.’

Mexico: No difference.

Then the tour through Africa begins: Botswana, South Africa, Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia, Uganda, and “Multiple Sub-Saharan African Countries”. Circumcision is popular there for religion or quasi-religion, tradition, coming of age, culture, or for HIV reasons. This is not good information, and certainly not for the West.

Looking at how few countries there are, the weakness of the studies to support Morris's conclusion, the countering studies right in the paper, the regionality bias, the generational bias and social norms at that time, the issues relating that to newborns today, and the huge reliance on Africa, I say this study is horrendous.

[–]curiossceptic 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Current_Finding_4066 -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]intactisnormal 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

Dude, it's not inclusion, it's complete reliance on very old papers and on Africa to make a misleading title. Seriously. While ignoring and trying to get out of studies that show no difference or that woman prefer uncircumcised. All so that he can make a title that people won't read past. But, like I said, when you actually read the paper you realize how terrible it is.

If he wanted to make a more accurate title, it would be some women born in the 1950s and 1960s located in the epicenter of circumcision in the US may prefer circumcised. But you don't see that huh.

Why do you not provide better studies? Is that too much to ask?

Many things here.

First, I don't need to. Those making the claim need to prove their point. And this, like I said, is a horrendous paper for all the reasons I listed.

Second, did you even read what I wrote?

Third study in Massachusetts (1999) found the opposite. Yup, a countering study right in the US. “Participants gave circumcised men an overall rating for sexual activity of 1.8/10 compared with 8.0/10 for uncircumcised men.”

And:

“Male circumcision and sexual function in men and women: a survey-based, cross-sectional study in Denmark”

"Results: Circumcised men...were more likely to report frequent orgasm difficulties after adjustment for potential confounding factors, and women with circumcised spouses more often reported incomplete sexual needs fulfilment and frequent sexual function difficulties overall, notably orgasm difficulties and dyspareunia."

“Conclusion: Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment. Thorough examination of these matters in areas where male circumcision is more common is warranted.’

Third, I don't need to part 2.

The medical ethics requires medical necessity in order to intervene on someone else’s body. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well:

“Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority of substitute decision makers is not absolute. In most jurisdictions, authority is limited only to interventions deemed to be medically necessary. In cases in which medical necessity is not established or a proposed treatment is based on personal preference, interventions should be deferred until the individual concerned is able to make their own choices. With newborn circumcision, medical necessity has not been clearly established.”

To override someone's body autonomy rights the standard is medical necessity. Without necessity the decision goes to the patient themself, later in life. Circumcision is very far from being medically necessary.

[–]Current_Finding_4066 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]intactisnormal 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I assume you are referring to the medical ethics?

Medical ethics are not unique to the Canadian Paediatrics Society. It's not specific to a particular country or medical organization. All of western medicine operates on the same principles of medical ethics. This is just a clear writeup that happens to be written by the Canadian Paediatrics Society. This is entirely contemporary with the field of medical ethics.

counterevidence

lol what is this? Dude already covered:

Many things here.

First, I don't need to. Those making the claim need to prove their point. And this, like I said, is a horrendous paper for all the reasons I listed.

Second, did you even read what I wrote?

Third study in Massachusetts (1999) found the opposite. Yup, a countering study right in the US. “Participants gave circumcised men an overall rating for sexual activity of 1.8/10 compared with 8.0/10 for uncircumcised men.”

And:

“Male circumcision and sexual function in men and women: a survey-based, cross-sectional study in Denmark”

"Results: Circumcised men...were more likely to report frequent orgasm difficulties after adjustment for potential confounding factors, and women with circumcised spouses more often reported incomplete sexual needs fulfilment and frequent sexual function difficulties overall, notably orgasm difficulties and dyspareunia."

“Conclusion: Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment. Thorough examination of these matters in areas where male circumcision is more common is warranted.’

Third, I don't need to part 2.

The medical ethics requires medical necessity in order to intervene on someone else’s body. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well:

“Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority of substitute decision makers is not absolute. In most jurisdictions, authority is limited only to interventions deemed to be medically necessary. In cases in which medical necessity is not established or a proposed treatment is based on personal preference, interventions should be deferred until the individual concerned is able to make their own choices. With newborn circumcision, medical necessity has not been clearly established.”

To override someone's body autonomy rights the standard is medical necessity. Without necessity the decision goes to the patient themself, later in life. Circumcision is very far from being medically necessary.

do exactly what you blame others for doing.

What is this? I pointed out how Morris relies on terribly old studies, especially bad when studying personal feelings which can change dramatically over time, and relies on Africa to make his title.

And you want to suggest ??? that I'm relying on terribly old studies??? Course you can't say that so you try go twist a bunch of words around to say I'm doing the same thing "same thing". Yeah. But when I cut through it, it makes no sense. Sorry to say, you just want to lash out at the other person.

Pasting lots of text does not make a valid argument.

And you don't like the medical ethics so you try to get out of them. Yup. That was easy to see through.

Again, you show exactly why medical ethics goes the direction they do. Because you want to want to get out of them to get out of your burden of proof to show that it must be medically necessary.

[–]curiossceptic 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Current_Finding_4066 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]curiossceptic 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Current_Finding_4066 -3 points-2 points-1 points 3 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]intactisnormal 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Lol did you even read that right?

Ranking circumcised 1.8 and uncircumcised 8.0/10, and you want to suggest ??? I don't even know you just want to get out of it by twisting words. Remember this was a study that was in Morris's paper, in the section about women preferences, and a study that Morris tries to get out of. That's right, Morris included it in that section. So whatever bizarre twisting you're trying to do makes no sense, you're just trying to get out of it even more than Morris lol.

And you don't respond to how I don't even have to provide countering studies. Yup. Those that want to circumcise others have to prove medical necessity. Because of exactly what you're doing. Counter study sitting right in Morris's paper in the section on women preference, and you try this bizarre twisting all so that you ??? can try to turn the tables and demand that give arguments to not circumcise other people (which you then don't accept, see attempted twisting above). Yeah, no. This is why medical ethics goes the direction they do and why the burden of proof on those that want to circumcise others to prove medical necessity.

[–]Current_Finding_4066 -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]intactisnormal 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Lol dude, I don’t need to ‘prove the opposite’. Morris is the one making a grand claim, and Morris is the one that needs to back up his claim.

And I’m showing how terrible Morris’ substantiation is. Yup. It’s that easy. You don’t like this, so you try to twist it around that I must prove this or that of your choosing. It’s easy to see through. I don’t need to do any of that, I’m just showing how terrible Morris’s substantiation is. Which I’ve done:

Looking at how few countries there are, the weakness of the studies to support Morris's conclusion, the countering studies right in the paper, the regionality bias, the generational bias and social norms at that time, the issues relating that to newborns today, and the huge reliance on Africa, I say this study is horrendous. (See prior response for full details.)

[–]Current_Finding_4066 -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]intactisnormal 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Current_Finding_4066 -3 points-2 points-1 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]AvailableCandidate89 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]intactisnormal 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

What is this? Morris includes 3 studies from the US (and an “Adam and Eve” website survey).

Really.

Source 16

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1265180/

Here’s what I said:

First study is from 1976 in Georgia. 1976. That puts the respondents born approximately between 1954 to 1958. This is so incredibly old.

Source 17

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01614576.1988.11074930

Here’s what I said:

Second study They go straight to the Midwest which is the epicenter of circumcision. Yeah that’s biased. This is a study from 1988. Keep in mind the respondents would be born well before that, likely born in the 1958-1968 range at the youngest.

Source 18

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10349418/

Third study in Massachusetts (1999) found the opposite. Yup, a countering study right in the US. “Participants gave circumcised men an overall rating for sexual activity of 1.8/10 compared with 8.0/10 for uncircumcised men.”

Source 19

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/adamandevecom-asks-women-do-you-prefer-a-circumcised-or-uncircumcised-penis-246386151.html

Which I don’t say much on because it’s not an proper scientific study. That he even includes it is telling enough. People may bat that around online, but to include a non scientific source in a scientific paper is laughable.

Really, this was all covered. The sources are clear. How you only found source 17 and missed source 16 and 18 is beyond me. And if you go to the Denmark section, there is the Denmark paper I gave.

At this point you’re just flailing around lashing out at the other person calling them a liar. X2. So, ad-hominem fallacy and poison the well fallacy.

[–]Current_Finding_4066 -2 points-1 points0 points 3 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]intactisnormal 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

You make a claim his data comes from the epicenter of circumcision? Prove it!

Is this really what you're down to? Trying to nitpick around the outsides? And then no doubt on any of those items you will try to act as if you've won the entire discussion. It's a common tactic/fallacy and it's easy to see through.

But sure: https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/gzijge/circumcision_across_the_globe_by_subnational/

That authors sources:

Circumcision

Prevalence of circumcision

Worldwide Circumcision Statistics

Percentage of circumcised males in each of the 237 countries and territories in the world

Is this where you say but Africa? Then I will say epicenter for circumcision in the west.

No, it is not on me to prove data and conclusions in a peer reviwed article! It is on you!

What is this? I went through the studies that Morris provides and discussed why that makes his study terrible. But you are now trying to ??? twist that to ??? what ever this is.

And you try to twist the medical ethics and where the burden of proof is. So I'll cut through it: To circumcise someone else, eg a newborn, the standard is medical necessity. Those that want to circumcise others have to prove medical necessity. Not woman preference. Medical necessity.

We can talk about preference all day and it does not change the medical ethics one bit: Those that want to circumcise others have to prove medical necessity.

You claim that in a country where 64% of boys get circumcised

Argumentum ad-populum fallacy.

You claim ... most women are against it.

Strawman fallacy! Clear enough this time that I can properly call it a strawman fallacy. I did not say that. But you have to make it up out of thin air, pin it on the other person, just so you have a strawman to blow down!

I said Morris's study is terrible, for all the reasons I listed. You don't like this, so you try to turn the tables around and make a strawman fallacy, and that I must prove this or that of your choosing. Yup, it's easy to see through.

If you are making such a ridiculous claim

And you double down on your strawman fallacy! Can't forget the lashing out included in that.

you need to prove it!

And if your implicit demand wasn't clear enough before, now you make an explicit demand on your strawman fallacy. Boy that was easy to see through.

I don't need to make any argument about what women prefer. Really. I discussed that: 1) Morris's study is terrible for all the reasons I listed, and 2) The medical ethics require medical necessity to circumcise others, eg a newborn.

Without medical necessity the patient themself can make their own decision later in life based on what they prefer for their own body. Yup. It's that easy. It's their body, it's their genitals, it's their decision.

PS I like how you drop your sources dispute.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Current_Finding_4066 -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It is a bit more sanitary, but the same can be said for female genital mutilation. CDC is still actively spreading information that Male genital mutilation decreases the spread of STDs. Mind you, I saw Muslim sources saying the same for female genital mutilation. Yet we rightly denounce FGM.

The study covers many countries. It includes data on the USA.

Someone claims that the study is old and some other bogus claims. I checked the data, 64% of boys get circumcised, I am sure that the study concluding that most women support it is still valid. Unless someone can prove mothers are forced into it. But I read newer generations are getting more aware. So, things are slowly moving in the right direction.

And they are still heavily promoting it in Africa due to HIV. At the same time, they are cracking down on FGM.

[–]IngoTheGreat 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Current_Finding_4066 -3 points-2 points-1 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]curiossceptic 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Current_Finding_4066 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]curiossceptic 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Current_Finding_4066 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lastlaugh100 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Current_Finding_4066 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]lastlaugh100 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Current_Finding_4066 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]lastlaugh100 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	The Circumcision Decision - YouTube
Author	n0tqu1tesane
Upvotes	13
Comments	39
Date	May 27, 2023 6:21 AM UTC (3 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/13szwev/the_circumcision_decision_youtube/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/the-circumcision-decision-youtube.1220353 https://theredarchive.com/post/1220353

Comments