/r/self goes completely off subject as /u/spongescream laments "You're damn right I have psychological issues! My own parents used my body for one of their rituals, carving a chunk out of it, and letting some bearded creep suck on my wounded cock!" (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
227 ups - 0 downs = 227 votes
264 comments submitted at 22:10:37 on Oct 31, 2014 by BoobSacamano
It's a shame intactivists tend to be raving, gibbering lunatics because there is certainly a legitimate debate to be had on circumcision, but in my opinion, having it with random strangers on the internet is not the best place to have it.
I think it's a serious issue that warrants a serious discussion but the people who are discussing it are why no one takes it seriously.
Right?
Hes not wrong, hes just an asshole
Donny, you're out of your element!
Is there really a debate? I don't think there are many people who advocate for circumcision, just those who don't think about it much because it is fairly minor and those on the Internet who apparently spend all day remembering it.
It is a practice that is slowly but surely going away and is already pretty rare outside of the US and religious groups.
Yeah, in my mind there's no debate other than "why the hell are people still doing this?" And that's not much of a debate, because the obvious answer is "tradition".
I'm agnostic as were my parents. I was circumcised and if I ever have a child I will probably circumcise them as well.
Why?
Tradition.
No, if you actually care, which I doubt you do, feel free to see my response to someone who asked why and didn't put words in my mouth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRdfX7ut8gw
Because there are actually many health benefits to circumcision. The fact that many believe it looks better cosmetically is not the issue. Nor is religion.
I don't really have a stake in the debate being Australian (there is no culture of circumcision here) and female, but what health benefits are there that wouldn't be offered if someone was to get a circumsion once they were an adult and able to consent to the operation?
It's kind of funny that you say there is no culture of circumcision in Australia considering Australian Aborigines are one of the most famous circumcising cultures. I guess what you mean is there's no white culture of circumcision.
You're right, in my context I do mean white Australia. However, there are roughly 400 different Aboriginal tribes in Australia, the rites of the Yuin (southern coast of NSW) are different to the rites of Larrakia (Darwin, NT), just because one tribe practices circumcision or subicision does not mean all tribes do.
> subicision
Oh lord, that one makes me cringe and I'm female
More Comments - Click Here
Circumcision alone is much riskier the older someone is. At a younger age the penis can heal and grow much more naturally than circumcising a fully adult one. Which is another reason the testimonies of adults who elect circumcision can't be 100% applied to someone who has it done at one or two days old.
So you've got a longer heal time as an adult, and memory of the pain. I got an IUD inserted so if someone wants to get a painful elective procedure done on their bits, I'm not going to judge them. Especially when circumcision can help with things like phimosis.
It is my understanding that the health benefits are marginal; decreased chance of developing infections verse learning to properly clean your penis, slight decreased chance of contracting STIs verse wearing condoms, both should still be getting regular STI screens if they're sexually active anyway as decreased chance doesn't mean no chance. The negatives of circumcision; decreased sensitivity, chance of developing infection from the procedure, and possibility of a botched operation, seem to outweigh the few positives. Twenty years ago removing tonsils was a routine operation on children due to the supposed health benefits. These days tonsils stay in until you can prove they're an issue. Personally I'd rather avoid as many surgeries as possible, no matter how minor. Once the kid's an adult they can decide for themselves. Or if something does happen that circumcision is an option, then weigh up the pros and cons/ alternatives before going and get it done.
I'm also against infants getting their ears pierced as well for the record.
[deleted]
More Comments - Click Here
>So you've got a longer heal time as an adult, and memory of the pain.
No... it's not that at all. A penis circumcised in adulthood will not heal as well as in child hood. Especially someone one years old. It's not a question of healing time or memory, it's literally the fact that an adult penis will not heal as well or grow with the circumcision. Children are growing and meant for healing. Their body will heal and grow around the circumcision, along with the added health benefits. Funny enough, I would not recommend an adult circumcise their penis.
But you have a differing viewpoint that I definitely will not change just be talking to you here and that's ok. I knew your viewpoint when you originally asked. You saying you didn't have a stake in this debate does seem a little disingenuous though since you obviously do have a very strong dog in this fight.
Have a nice night !
More Comments - Click Here
So what health benefits are there to it then? What am I missing out on, or did as a young child?
It's pretty easy to google them. If you want I'll link you to the first 1-5 responses on google to help you in your quest for knowledge. Excuse me for not being more helpful, but most of the time people asking these questions on Reddit are more looking for a soap box than a conversation.
The vast majority of medical organizations in the world with a policy on circumcision are outright against it. Including:
Swedish Pediatric Society (they outright call for a ban)
Royal Dutch Medical Association calls it a violation of human rights, and calls for a "strong policy of deterrence." this policy has been endorsed by several other organizations:
The Netherlands Society of General Practitioners,
The Netherlands Society of Youth Healthcare Physicians,
The Netherlands Association of Paediatric Surgeons,
The Netherlands Association of Plastic Surgeons,
The Netherlands Association for Paediatric Medicine,
The Netherlands Urology Association, and
The Netherlands Surgeons’ Association.
College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia >This procedure should be delayed to a later date when the child can make his own informed decision. Parental preference alone does not justify a non‐therapeutic procedure.... Advise parents that the current medical consensus is that routine infant male circumcision is not a recommended procedure; it is non‐therapeutic and has no medical prophylactic basis; current evidence indicates that previously‐thought prophylactic public health benefits do not out‐weigh the potential risks..... Routine infant male circumcision does cause pain and permanent loss of healthy tissue. |
Australian Federation of Aids organizations They state that circumcision has "no role" in the HIV epidemic. The German Association of Pediatricians called for a ban recently.
The German Association of Child and Youth Doctors recently Attacked the AAP's claims, saying the benefits they claim, including HIV reduction, are "questionable," and that "Seen from the outside, cultural bias reflecting the normality of non-therapeutic male circumcision in the US seems obvious, and the report’s conclusions are different from those reached by doctors in other parts of the Western world, including Europe, Canada, and Australia." (scroll to page 7 for the English translation.)
The AAP was recently attacked by the President of the British Association of Paediatric Urologists because the evidence of benefit is weak, and they are promoting "Irreversible mutilating surgery."
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan has taken a position against it, saying it is harmful and will likely be considered illegal in the future, given the number of men who are angry that it was done to them and are becoming activists against it.
The President of the Saskatchewan Medical Association has said the same (link above).
The Central Union for Child Welfare “considers that circumcision of boys that violates the personal integrity of the boys is not acceptable unless it is done for medical reasons to treat an illness. The basis for the measures of a society must be an unconditional respect for the bodily integrity of an under-aged person… Circumcision can only be allowed to independent major persons, both women and men, after it has been ascertained that the person in question wants it of his or her own free will and he or she has not been subjected to pressure.”
Royal College of Surgeons of England >"The one absolute indication for circumcision is scarring of the opening of the foreskin making it non- retractable (pathological phimosis). This is unusual before five years of age."..."The parents and, when competent, the child, must be made fully aware of the implications of this operation as it is a non-reversible procedure." |
British Medical Association > it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks. .... very similar arguments are also used to try and justify very harmful cultural procedures, such as female genital mutilation or ritual scarification. Furthermore, the harm of denying a person the opportunity to choose not to be circumcised must also be taken into account, together with the damage that can be done to the individual’s relationship with his parents and the medical profession if he feels harmed by the procedure. .... parental preference alone is not sufficient justification for performing a surgical procedure on a child. .... The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefit from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it. |
Australian Medical Association Has a policy of discouraging it, ad says "The Australian College of Paediatrics should continue to discourage the practice of circumcision in newborns."
Australian College of Paediatrics: >"The possibility that routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit. Whether these legal concerns are valid will probably only be known if the matter is determined in a court of law .....Neonatal male circumcision has no medical indication. It is a traumatic procedure performed without anaesthesia to remove a normal and healthy prepuce."|
Royal Australasian College of Physicians >Some men strongly resent having been circumcised as infants. There has been increasing interest in this problem, evidenced by the number of surgical and non-surgical techniques for recreation of the foreskin.|
ON that note, 74% of Australian doctors overall believe circumcision should not be offered, and 51% consider it abuse. Circumcision used to be common in Australia, but the movement against it spread faster there than America, where rates continue to drop.
A letter by the South African Medical Association said this: >The Committee stated that it was unethical and illegal to perform circumcision on infant boys in this instance. In particular, the Committee expressed serious concern that not enough scientifically-based evidence was available to confirm that circumcisions prevented HIV contraction and that the public at large was influenced by incorrect and misrepresented information. The Committee reiterated its view that it did not support circumcision to prevent HIV transmission.|
Royal Australasian College of Surgeons This one is a detailed evaluation of the arguments in favor of circumcision, They note that during one of the recent trials in Africa, the researchers claimed there was no loss of sexual satisfaction, when in fact there was. But the RACS called them out: >"Despite uncircumcised men reporting greater sexual satisfaction, which was statistically significant, Kigozi et al (2008) concluded that adult male circumcision does not adversely affect sexual satisfaction or clinically significant function in men." In general, they discuss how there's no evidence to support it.
The Norwegian Council of Medical Ethics states that ritual circumcision of boys is not consistent with important principles of medical ethics, that it is without medical value, and should not be paid for with public funds.
The Norwegian Children’s Ombudsman is opposed as well.
The Denmark National Council for Children is also opposed.
And recently, the politically appointed Health minister of Norway opposed a ban on circumcision, yet the ban was supported by the Norwegian Medical Association, the Norwegian Nurses Organization, the Norwegian Ombudsman for Children, and the University of Oslo.
The Danish Society of Medical Practitioners Recently said the practice is “an assault and should be banned.”
The Danish Medical Association is “fundamentally opposed to male circumcision unless there is a medical reason such as phimosis for carrying out the operation. ‘It's very intrusive that adults may decide that newborn to undergo a surgical procedure that is not medically justified and if power is lifelong. When a boy when the age of majority, he may even decide, but until then the requirements of the individual's right to self-determination prevail.’"
Your vast majority of medical organization seem to be organizations from several closely related nordic countries. Not the vast majority of medical organizations in the world... And even within those countries it's still disputed. You will find those for or against.
Uncircumcised penises are disgusting and unwieldy.
Possibly to avoid conversations he would perceive as awkward with his son about penises.
Your response as to why I would actually made me curious. What on earth could be possible about explaining an uncircumcised penis vs a circumcised one? I mean, they look a little different but what would be awkward about one verse the other?
That was my thinking exactly. I am only thinking that some fathers might feel embarrassed talking with their sons about penises (though they shouldn't).
A son will have questions about his penis. Whether that penis has foreskin or not wouldn't change how awkward that conversation is for someone. For me, it wouldn't be awkward at all. It's just a dick, half the population has one and they're pretty great. You can pee anywhere you want.
I talk about dicks with my dad all the time, not the slightest bit awkward.
More Comments - Click Here
> You can pee anywhere you want.
"Now listen here officer, do you see what I'm holding? Of course I can go here."
I think the whole "Dad why did you have someone cut off part of my penis" conversation is a lot more awkward than the "Why do our penises look a bit different" conversation. Especially if you don't have a reasonably good answer to the first question.
I don't think "Dad why did you have someone cut off part of my penis" conversations are a thing?
I agree.
That is why mine is done.
Foreskins creep me out. In america it's just a thing everyone does.
Why?
Because there are actually many health benefits to circumcision. The fact that many believe it looks better cosmetically is not the issue. Nor is religion.
well, if you amputate a child's toes, they will never get toe jam, or stub or break their toes, or get ingrown toenails.
still think it's a bad idea.
And if you make irrational comparisons you only hurt your cause.
elective surgery to prevent future potential health problems?
I agree, not sure what that has to do with this conversation. If I cut your head off you won't get a hangover tomorrow. Still a bad idea. If I cut off your right and left hand you'll never get a hang nail. Lots of what ifs.
right. performing unnecessary surgery on something because health problems might arise in the future, usually not a good idea. especially when the drawbacks are so clear.
The drawbacks actually aren't clear. And the health benefits are not a might thing but a definite thing.
More Comments - Click Here
Same.
Tradition is the corpse of wisdom.
Woah
Well I guess if you're going to beat the shambling corpse of wisdom, halloween is as good a time as any.
[deleted]
lol comparing them to anti-vaxxers are you serious?
[deleted]
I guess if we're talking about people who actually label themselves "intactivists" (horrible term and first time I've heard it btw), but there are lots of perfectly reasonable people who are against it as well.
For example, I'm against it because I think that the health benefits are questionable at best, and elective surgery should be done at the behest of, or at least with the informed consent of the patient. Not much call to be performing the procedure on newborns IMO.
> Is there really a debate? I don't think there are many people who advocate for circumcision
Maybe on reddit there is no debate, but among the religious there is very strong support for it, and they would debate you very vigorously about it.
Yeah, that's why I specifically said outside of religious groups. But even then outside of Judaism and Islam is there any religion that has circumcision as a tenet? I know a lot of Christians in the US do it but that was a recent change and more to do with a successful marketing campaign than anything else right?
>It's a shame intactivists tend to be raving, gibbering lunatics because there is certainly a legitimate debate to be had on circumcision, but in my opinion, having it with random strangers on the internet is not the best place to have it.
Tell me about it. They have to work really hard to make the Unnecessary Religious Surgery crowd look like the rational party here but somehow they always pull it off.
You have to do a hell of a lot of screaming to make the commonsense position look like the crazy one.
http://wondermark.com/1k62/
The biggest downside is lack of consent. If you state the true but very sensitive nature of the benefits of, uh, a whole dick, those who are cut are going to be very defensive about it. Not surprising, I can't blame them. Society puts a looot of worth on how 'good' the human penis is.
I think it's really just best to argue solely in favor of it being a violation of human rights regarding bodily agency.
As someone who is cut, calling it a violation of human rights is not the way to get through to people. To me it sounds like an over exaggeration considering that I don't feel like my rights were violated at all. Sex feels great, and I orgasm easily enough.
I think the best argument against circumcision is that it really doesn't have any positive affects.
Still, the majority of girls I've talked to said uncut dicks are even more weird looking than cut dicks and that's enough of a reason to have my sons circumcised.
Okay, maybe that would be too loaded of a phrase but letting your son know that he will have a choice personally in the matter when he's older vs. before he can say yes/no would still be a better argument since it's worded more gently.
And meh. I live in America and used to date a guy who came from a Jewish family for three months. But after, I had/have been having experiences with a person who wasn't the same downstairs and to be frank, in person, they're both pretty good looking to me. I think the ugliness factor is just a bit exaggerated. Most girls around are horrified and say it's ugly because they're simply not used to seeing a penis of that nature in person, I think. All they might see til then are internet pictures and that's a bit different, I think.
I live in FL currently, though, and the state has one of the lower statistics of modern circumcision so I expect the general attitude to change in the next decade or so. Well, I hope. It's body shaming to me, a bit mean, and a lot of European girls don't think it's ugly anyway.
Penises are all beautiful to me. :( Bu if my future kid turns out to be a son I'll let him have that choice when he's old enough to make a balanced decision. It's just... about choice...
When I was much younger, just entering teenhood, I was veeeeery for it and dismissed "intactivists" as whiny manchildren who were overly obsessive and jealous of others' genitalia and butthurt about their own, til one day I asked my mom who exclaimed it was barbaric, and then dejectedly, my dad what he thought about the hot button topic, expecting him to agree, but he was very sad, saying: "...No. I had no choice..."
After that, I started to rethink my stance...
tl;dr: I'm sorry for the tl;dr.
You're willing to mutilate your possible future children because some uneducated moron women might think it looks funny? Guess what, all genitalia looks funny. I have a vagina and they're the weirdest looking things on the planet. The fact someone might think it looks funny is a shitty reason to mutilate your kid. Especially without their consent. You might not think its a human right violation, but it is. They have a right to do with their body as they please. You don't have a right to mutilate them without their consent.
> They have a right to do with their body as they please.
No they don't. They're children and you're their parent. As their parent, you can make them get shots, select their diet, determine where they go to school, take out their tonsils, completely shape their personal identity in ways so central to their being they will probably never understand the full depth of your influence -- all without their consent. I guess the whole institution of parenthood is a human rights violation.
The whole intactivist thing is popular right now because some circumcised guys incorrectly think that they've been denied an unimaginable world of carnal delight because of their fundie parents, and therefore religion is the reason they are unpopular with girls. It's not true, and all the pearl-clutching about "mutilation" just plays into their narcissistic whining. It's beyond absurd that people like you can so strongly invest your egos into a stranger's hypothetical dick scraps.
Where else should he have these debates, if not on the internet? He shouldn't be commenting off-topic things in random threads but I think talking with strangers on the internet is the best option for him. Maybe some therapy, but issues like this should at least be discussed.
Yeah I agree with you. I'm circumcised and while I don't really see the issue sexually, I also don't think it's necessary (in most situations) and I don't plan on circumcising any of my future kids.
That being said, I have a cousin who was circumcised later in life, around 25 I believe, and he doesn't really have an issue with it.
He said that he remembers preferring sex more with a foreskin but it's been about 10 years so he doesn't really remember the actual feeling for what it was like. So, an issue at the time, but not an issue now.
He had it removed at the time due to a sexual injury and a resulting infection. He said after the infection he was pretty much willing to do whatever as long as the infection was gone so the loss of his foreskin was almost an afterthought compared to the initial injury.