shadowplay
your ad here
Do NOT eat calamari at a circumcision.
Rasist Cake
- Thread starter LucyDuke
- Start date
CaptainF
The Professional Poster
Frankly, I think it's sexist to disassociate female and male genital mutilation. It minimizes the horrors that those mutilated men have to go through.
Your next sentence...I don't know where to begin. Men aren't supposed to be angry about having their genitals sliced up when they were defenseless infants? How does that make any sense at all?
So, Shane Peterson is just a whiner. So was David Reimer. Not including all the millions of other men who suffer. All just whiners.
Pathetic.
Alrighty then.
I can whack it and I feel the same sensations as someone who didn't do it.
Obviously there is no scientific consensus on the possibility of complications with the surgery. So you cannot claim complications as a danger with the procedure.
Oh my~
Neat
Delish
That's all just from the wiki article. If I actually felt motivated to debate this, I could write a massive research paper on this, with hundreds of sources, and come to the same conclusion that your extremism and alarmism is, well, extremism and alarmism. Your equation of male circumcision to female "circumcision" once again is no better than equating abortion to murder.
My reading of the Wiki article gave me two big impressions, one, there is no real conclusive evidence for either health benefits or health detriments. There are dozens of papers that claim both to be the result of circumcision, which obviously means there is still science to be done and it's inconclusive. What I do know is that in two major religions it's a cultural tradition, Judaism and Islam, with the latter being one of the fastest growing religions in the world. It's obviously not impacting anyone's ability to procreate, nor their sexual pleasure. 2.1 billion people are doing fine without their foreskin, with, using some of the stats in the article, roughly 4200 of those suffering from any sort of complication.
Learn to stop being so reactionary and accept some multiculturalism, and maybe we'll all be a little better off.
I equate stabbing the skin to cutting it off and you go up in arms. You equate cutting off the skin to amputating an organ and are totally fine with it.
You're a cute little extremist
Quackers
The Frog
Jeeze joe I read when you said there is no difference in pleasure between cut and uncut and thought MUST BE BS. Now I'm on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision scroll down to summary of reseach findings and it is pretty inconclusive. Despite that, I think Dawg is right it does lead to less pleasure. Just my intuitive thinking;p
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
Dawgphood, I can't get through to you and trying to is sickening. I'll just repeat my last word.
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
What about menudo?
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
Check your self. If ear piercing is mutilation than it'd be against most legal codes in the USA.
holy king
Deity
i'm not saying you are trying. i'm pretty sure you're not. i'm saying you are doing it, regardless of your motivations.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the famous atheist activist (who was also a victim of FGM), is on record as saying that male genital cutting is a form of mutilation and can be even worse than FGM, especially in African countries where medical standards are generally non-existent.
Is what she said wrong? Is she trying to take away from the suffering of FGM's victims?
i do not know what form of male genital mutilation she is talking about. i do not think she is trying to take away from the females' suffering.
maybe the actual quote could shed some light on this.
G-Max
Deity
- Joined
- May 20, 2006
- Messages
- 2,556
That's because ear piercings are not commonly performed on infants without anaesthetic.
CaptainF
The Professional Poster
Tell me, how does this intuitively make sense to you? Do you think chopping off 15 square inches of skin has no effect on sexual feeling?
Also interesting when you look at the method of that study you cited.
Spoiler :
The uncircumcised men are reporting greater satisfaction, it seems.
Disingenuous. The scientific consensus is that complications do occur, and to say otherwise is ridiculous. Circumcision is after all a procedure performed by humans, who make mistakes.
But continue pretending that circumcision is no worse than getting your fingernails cut. It's rather cute, to see someone double thinking circles around themselves.
Oh my! I wondered who would be the first to come out wit this canard.
The studies carried out currently used by the WHO to justify widespread neonate and youth circumcision are rife with methodological error and inconsistency.
Circumcision and HIV connection is dubious at best
Spoiler :
So, in certain parts of the U.S. where nearly all of us are circ'ed, we're having just as big of a problem with HIV as they are in some parts of Africa.
If circumcision is such a boon to HIV prevention, why are circumcised men still getting AIDS in large numbers?
The data doesn't support the conclusion.
Circumcision facilitating spread of HIV
Furthermore, there are many countries where being circumcised means you are more likely to catch HIV:
Cameroon
Ghana
Lesotho
Malawi
...I could go on and on. Condoms are always more cost-effective and effective in general at preventing STD's than chopping off erogenous tissue.
It should be known that the wiki article for Circumcision is frequently edited by a known circumfetishist by the name of Jake Waskett, who is not a medical doctor and associates with websites and people who fetishize the cutting of babies.
Female and Male genital mutilation are more alike than many are willing to acknowledge
Circumcision affects sexual sensitivity, can disrupt mother-infant bonding, causes pain and trauma to the infant in all cases, can cause penile amputation and death (over 100 infants die per year from circumcision in the U.S.) and provides no concrete health benefits at all.
Sounds like a lose-lose to me.
Cultural and religious traditions should never trump the human right of bodily autonomy.
"Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility to everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally. The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision."
-Rabbi Moses Maimonides (1135-1204)
It has been known since time immemorial that circumcision weakens the sexual capacity of the male.
I cannot accept genital mutilation and human rights violations in the name of "multiculturalism".
The Foreskin contains 33-50% of the total penile skin and the vast majority of fine-touch nerve receptors in the penis.
So, in that sense, it is an organ. A sexual one. Sorry you clearly cannot see this.
You're a cute little extremist
Right. I'm the extremist, because I believe that infants should be protected from genital surgery that they cannot give consent to and which causes them pain and detriment.
I would laugh at such an absurd statement, but I don't think genital mutilation is a joke, at all.
CaptainF
The Professional Poster
It seems that I still haven't gotten through to you, rather, that infant genital cutting of both genders for any reason (religious, social, cultural, "medical") is to be condemned in the strongest terms. Female and male genital mutilations are more alike than they are different. Truly informed people know that genital cutting, is genital cutting.
CaptainF
The Professional Poster
It's very personal for me.
I think all anyone needs to know about infant circumcision can be explained by watching a video of the procedure. It tears me up just to think about it, to hear the scream from the infant that literally continues until the boy cannot scream anymore, to see the brutality of the instruments used to cut the penis, and the detatched, callous manner in which the "doctor" wields them, to see the infant's face turn purple from agony, and in some cases to see the baby go eerily silent as they stare a thousand yards in the distance, a product of shock and extreme trauma. What's even more disturbing is the thought that this all occurred at the very beginning of the infant's life, and in a certain way comprised its first sexual experience as well. No one should have to go through this, and it enrages me that our culture has become so complacent to this ritually inflicted agony that it is the butt of many "jokes".
It boggles my mind how we have allowed our infants to be victimized in this manner for generations. Women were not spared either. Clitoridectomy and clitoral hood removal, along with male circumcision were both widely practiced 100 years ago. As early as the 1970's doctors were advocating female circumcision as a way to improve female sexual response, and Blue Shield insured the procedure until 1977. Nowadays female genital mutilation of any sort, even the varieties that are according to the AAP much less extensive than male circumcision, are Federal crimes that mandate imprisonment. But baby boys are not afforded this protection for some reason, and this I believe is in violation of the 14th Amendment which guarantees equal protection under the law for everyone.
It is long past time that we start treating all infants like the human beings that they are, and respect their bodies which are the end result of nature's intricate and amazing functional design. We must accept that the medical community has deceived us in the past by introducing circumcision to cure the supposed "disease" of masturbation, and that this practice continues today in large part because of widespread ignorance about male anatomy in both the medical community and society at large. Every male mammal on planet Earth is born with a foreskin for a reason, and it is not a birth defect, or an optional "flap of skin" that serves no purpose.
I strongly recommend you guys to read Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma if you get the chance. It goes in depth on many psychological implications of infant circumcision that are quite fascinating, including the effect on the mother-child bonding process, cultural attitudes and denials surrounding the practice, and documented effects of this trauma not only upon infants and children, but also adult men who have suffered from infant circumcision physically and psychologically, which includes symptoms of PTSD. Probably the single best resource, along with some of the essays I've linked to in this thread, of why circumcision must be relegated to history once and forever. I've written my congressmen and my governor's office in support of the MGM Bill (as have many others), and against Brad Sherman's bill in Congress that would enshrine the legality of circumcision. I will continue to do so, until boys and girls are both afforded bodily autonomy at birth.
aelf
Ashen One
Only in the USA.
Emphasis added
That's exactly what happened in the thread on the topic of male circumcision in the Chamber.
I kind of take issue with that.
If Dawgphood employing a false equivalency there justifies many participants (including you) ignoring the actual debate while criticising the false equivalency doesn't that mean that other people would be justified to dismiss the issue of FGM and its debate as a nuissance merely because one activist overstated FGM in some way (e.g. claiming all FGMs were Type III FGMs)?
I don't think so...
Mostly as a result of the same prudery and sexism that is probably the most relevant motivation for the practise outside of religious considerations.
There are actually studies on this. Iirc they mostly find that...
a) the statistical prevalence of the cited sentiment is significant in America largely due to the impact of women who only had circumcised partners
b) that women who had both circumcised and intact partners considered the visual aestetics of circumcised penesis superior
c) that b) didn't hold true for the actual funtion of the thing. (Which makes a lot of sense, if you actually read into the matter at wikipedia. IU don't want to post links due to the explicit nature of the pictures involved.)
Disclaimer: Note that i prefer the thread in the Chamber (and the Chamber in general for that matter) and may neglect to answer here. All of this is a tangent in this thread anyway.
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
I think the cake is hot.
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
No, I absolutely agree that infant genital cutting of both genders for any reason (religious, social, cultural, except occasionally medical) is to be condemned in the strongest terms. (I doubt you actually want to argue about plastic surgery to repair serious birth defects.) I have agreed that they are both terrible.
That link is really not at all persuasive. But I have realized through this thread that I don't think this sort of comparison is productive.
Fair point. I don't want to ignore anything. I don't think the comparison should stifle the rest of the discussion, I think the comparison is a distraction that should be left off the table. Hell, this thread was to talk about a cake.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Female circumcision as practiced in the US and covered by Blue Shield and other insurance plans isn't the same thing as female genital mutilation. In fact, it is just the opposite:
http://voices.yahoo.com/female-circumcision-united-states-55258.html?cat=17
I really don't understand the recent controversy over circumcision. I think it is quite similar to the issue of abortion. The parents have every right to decide to remove the male foreskin if they desire to do so. It is a completely harmless operation if done properly by medical experts, and many medical professional still recommend doing so as they did in the past.
Women should also have the right to have the similar operation performed on them to increase sexual pleasure. After all, it is their body.
Disgustipated
Deity
Yes there can be complications with male circumcision, but the risk is very low. There can also be complication from immunizations, yet the parents do that without the child's permission.
Nevertheless if I had a boy, I would not get him a circumcision. It's immoral to deprive your child of sexual pleasure (as an adult), and I do believe circumcision reduces male sexual pleasure. I don't believe the foreskin itself gives that much pleasure, but the motion of it rubbing back and forth over the head increases the pleasure. But if I was a woman, I wouldn't like giving oral on guys who aren't cut. And most women seem to like giving oral on guys who are cut rather than uncut (in my experience at least). So it's a mixed bag. Uncut guys may find more pleasure in intercourse, but may not find as many women willing to do oral.
Either way, I would not cut my child. I had a female friend at work who did it. I didn't feel it was my place to tell her not to circumsize her child. That would be rude. I can't understand why a woman would do that to her baby.
Nevertheless if I had a boy, I would not get him a circumcision. It's immoral to deprive your child of sexual pleasure (as an adult), and I do believe circumcision reduces male sexual pleasure. I don't believe the foreskin itself gives that much pleasure, but the motion of it rubbing back and forth over the head increases the pleasure. But if I was a woman, I wouldn't like giving oral on guys who aren't cut. And most women seem to like giving oral on guys who are cut rather than uncut (in my experience at least). So it's a mixed bag. Uncut guys may find more pleasure in intercourse, but may not find as many women willing to do oral.
Either way, I would not cut my child. I had a female friend at work who did it. I didn't feel it was my place to tell her not to circumsize her child. That would be rude. I can't understand why a woman would do that to her baby.
CaptainF
The Professional Poster
What kind of garbage is this?
This sort of nonsense was published and discredited in the 1970's when female circumcision was believed mistakenly to improve female sexual response.
Why? Why not allow parents to remove the female foreskin of their infant daughters? Lots of people want to do that, after all.
There is no medical reason to do so.
Routine infant circumcision is harm by it's very definition since it removes a normal part of the body without any valid medical reason to do so. The penis is deprived of normal erogenous tissue.
Medical professionals do not recommend infant circumcision, given that no medical association in the world recommends circumcising infants.
Of course, you have unethical doctors that promote circumcision and even circumcise babies against the wishes of the parents. But I digress...
Yes, when they are adults they can get themselves infibulated for all I care. When men and women are infants, however, they are not capable of giving informed consent to operations performed on their bodies and should be protected. Parents do not own the genitals of their children, and are not qualified to make this decision.
Disgustipated said:
The difference being that circumcision has no proven medical benefit, whereas immunization does.
And the complication rate of circumcision is much higher than you would think. After all, it's estimated that between 100 and 200 male infants die per year from circumcision.
That's what I like to hear.
80% of the World's men have foreskins, and I'm sure that the majority of them have no problems finding women willing to perform fellatio and other sexual acts with them.
Many American women have never seen an uncut penis and so react with fear. People fear what they don't know, after all.
Neither can I.
Similar threads
