Calm debate about circumcision: "[W]e should also ban abortion until the owner of the body is old enough to decide for himself or herself whether he wants it to remain intact or not." - "It's wonderful to hear that you support Female Genital Mutilation because it reduces HIV/AIDS by around 50%." (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
42 ups - 23 downs = 19 votes
75 comments submitted at 00:57:13 on Nov 26, 2013 by Enibas
I've never understood why people give such a shit about male circumcision. Is it really hurting the child that much to lose a tiny piece of skin on their dick?
I've never understood why people have to bring the popcorn back here with them.
If it's not a big deal, then why not just not do it? It's a weird cultural phenomenon with no clear medical benefits, and some serious potential drawbacks (possible disfigurement (beyond the intended disfigurement, I mean) or even death, in some cases). It was devised in the 19th century by a dubiously pedo pediatrician who was obsessed with stopping kids from masturbating, and all the excuses made for it since then have been nothing but post-hoc rationalizations. The same doctor strongly proposed female genital mutilation as well, for the same reasons, so I suppose at least it's a small thing to be thankful for that that didn't take off in the States as well.
Apart from perhaps Israel (I'm assuming), there's nowhere else in the developed world other than the US which practices male circumcision on any significant scale, and all horrible epidemics of filthy penises and STDs that the population of the US seems to be terrified of simply, objectively, do not happen.
If it was revealed that some country in Europe systematically chopped off the last digit of every infant's little finger after birth for some convoluted, religious-backed reason, US-based redditors would practically explode in righteous anger and calls of barbarism. Yet most of them will calmly suggest that an equally pointless cosmetic surgery on their own infant boys is "nothing to get worked up over". The lack of self-awareness is, quite honestly, astounding.
I guess you have to add the Arabic world to countries with high circumcision rates. I think its also common in Canada .
I agree with you, but why are you comparing having some skin snipped off to losing a finger?
A finger is nothing at all like a little bit of skin. You can't relate them.
> Is it really hurting the child that much
Go and listen when they're performing one and decide for yourself. (You won't need to be in the room to hear)
I mean in terms of long term pain. Most procedures cause temporary pain. Also I'm pretty sure a newborn baby will be crying no matter what is going on.
If that is acceptable to you then you go for it.
Personally I don't see the reason. No compelling medical evidence, only religious reasons.
I have a son on the way, he'll be keeping all of his penis.
[deleted]
yeah wiping the shit from your ass is such a chore too lets all get colostomy bags
So vulgar, yet so elegant. That gets a solid 'gottem' rating from me.
An injection causes pain. If it's to give the child a vaccine this makes sense. If you're just stabbing them with a needle to appease the voices in your head then it is not, even if the damage is the same.
What's the important difference there?
> Also I'm pretty sure a newborn baby will be crying no matter what is going on.
I'm pretty sure you've never attended a bris, or spent much time around babies.
Oh man, a baby was CRYING? Well shit, that changes everything.
Children cry all the time for almost any reason. Is it hurting the child when we give them a shot to vaccinate them against Hepatitis B? Needles are pretty painful when you're a child, so I'd say yes. I used to cry so much when I had to get shots that you'd think they were cutting my arm off without any sort of painkiller. Does it mean anything from a medical standpoint? Absolutely not.
You mentioned further down that there was no compelling medical evidence in favor of circumcision, but I wonder if you've considered the fact that there's no compelling medical evidence against it, either. In the United States, circumcision is mostly done for cultural reasons, not religious ones. It's only done for religious reasons in Judaism and Islam, with Christians being more or less indifferent to it (it's certainly not a noticeable part of modern Christianity). With that being said, I don't see any reason to circumcise a child in the 21st century since all of the problems associated with having an uncircumcised penis can be mitigated by practicing good hygiene, but it's not a completely open and shut case without any room for argument.
Its fucking genital mutilation. Is that not medically compelling? Its cosmetic surgery on a new born baby. Is that not compelling?
Some people are just dead set on being ok with their barbaric traditions.
Why would it be compelling? You're acting as if cutting off their foreskin is going to inhibit their enjoyment of life as much as cutting off a limb will. This faux-outrage over circumcision is honestly disgusting. The scientific evidence is not on your side. Go protest abortion clinics and anything else that does things to children against their will like schools because your argument has as much scientific evidence to support it as theirs do.
> Is it really hurting the child that much to lose a tiny piece of skin on their dick?
About as much as it would to give them a piercing or tattoo. But we don't do that for some reason.
uh...plenty of people get ear piercings for their kids.
And it's almost universally considered tacky.
The harmed caused by doing it is greater than the harm caused by not doing it.
It's weird that we even have to have this discussion: the default decision is that I'm going to cut off the parts of your baby that I feel he doesn't need. That's just logical. You must prove that he needs those parts for me not to do it.
Hey by the way, how often do you really use your pinky on your non-dominant hand? I mean plenty of people do just fine without it.
Most people don't give a damn about male circumcision. There's a small and very vocal group of redditors, however, that are VERY VERY VERY UNHAPPY with their dicks and will tell everyone in the fucking world about it at every single possible opportunity. Apparently they think circumcision shaved a good three inches off (which probably would have gotten them to a total of four) and they're heartbroken by what might have been.
It is completely fucking impossible to have a conversation on the subject without a hundred of these foreskin-obsessed nutjobs showing up. It could be an article about a survivor of female genital mutilation and would still immediately get hijacked by a few dozen guys shouting "but what about MY DICK" over and over and over.
This is by far the most accurate response. Love you <3
So I'm guessing you're female then?
I'm a circumcised male and it hasn't effected my life negatively or positively. It's just you know not there and that's it shrug
So how do you know what it's like not to be circumsized then? Personally I do not like the idea of anyone loosing "bits" without consent..
Unless you're Jewish, then please forgive my persumption.
For the record, I too am cut.. And I cope. I just see little reason to do it.
Nope Catholic but idk it just seems like something that either happens or doesn't. To be fair if given the choice now I say uncut just cause as opposed to being a baby, now I'm sentient enough to know that it would hurt like a motherfucker.
That's my main problem with it too. It's traumatic and serves, to me, no useful purpose.
Yeah I never got the the whole "cleaner" thing, I feel if you bathe regularly you'd be good.
All in all it's just something I don't have an opinion on, it is what it is.
I got a feeling that everything to be said has been said then.
So yah.. ;)
I wouldn't call it traumatic. It's painful in the moment, but it almost never has any effects on you later in life.
I'm using the clinical defination of having bits removed there... that kind of trauma.
*losing
I'm a circumcised male, it doesn't have any effects on my health, and personally I think it looks better, as every woman who has seen my penis has also agreed.
Also, I'm not a fan of leaving it up to you when you become an adult. In my dad's country they perform circumcision around age 13 and boys can't walk for a week after having the procedure done. Why have to waste a week of your life when you could just have had it done at birth?
Because people should be able to decide if they get chunks of thier sexual bits removed on thier own if there's no real reason not too.
At least that's my opinion.
How do you feel about this then? Last time I saw it on reddit, people were really on board with it.
Considering that I have more than one trans friend I can only say that gender issues are not the same thing as circumcision in the slightest.
If I put it more like it really is for someone going under somethign like your link it would be something along the lines of "Girl has freak penis removed."
That is hardly the same thing as nipping a bit off, as well. It's quite a bit more involved and serious than circumcision, considering it's surgery and not an outpatent procedure.
Sure but should the parents be allowed to make that decision for their child before the child is old enough to give consent? What if the parents just wanted a child of the opposite gender and the child isn't really trans?
>The parents of a seven-year-old New Zealand girl who identifies as a boy plan to facilitate the child’s inclination by having him injected every three months to medically stop puberty, as an initial step to sex change.
I added the emphasis on the part you (and the "concerned" folks mentioned in the article) seem to be missing. By taking puberty blockers instead of male hormones, they are giving the kid the opportunity to decide, once he is mature enough to make a decision he won't regret. The effects of puberty blockers are entirely reversible.
Circumcision, on the other hand, is permanent. (Well, unless you decide to get some shitty foreskin reconstruction surgery that probably isn't worth the pain and empty wallet.)
Thank you for the backup here Pinkerton.
No reputable doctor will "Just do a sex change." Considering that it's major surgery. It's a non-issue.
As a matter of fact, one of the major problems with having it done is that it takes a lot to convince some doctors it's approprate.
Gender Dystrophia is a medically recgonised condition with real concenquences.
It is not the same as a procedure like circumsion.
It is also best for a transexual to start hormone thereapy before puberty. So you're comparing apples to Kiwi fruits.
A better analogy is "should parents be allowed to pierce thier baby's ears?" I say "No" to that too.
Then they should go to prison for a long, long time.
Obvious Transphobe is obvious.
>what if the parents just wanted a child of the opposite gender and the child isn't really trans?
Obvious lack of reading comprehension is obvious. Moron.
[deleted]
Ok but there are clearly negative effects to female circumcision as opposed to male circumcision, which has no negative or positive effects. It's the equivalent of having your daughter's ears pierced if you're looking to make comparisons