Circumcision pokes it's turtle-neck out to say hello. Some parents just aren't cut out to raise boys. This is just the tip of the iceberg. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
87 ups - 44 downs = 43 votes
116 comments submitted at 18:25:25 on Jun 3, 2014 by loogawa
Nice work on the title.
Thanks. I really wanted to work in the word briss, maybe have it sound like bliss?
I like the cut of your jib. Very snippy.
Well, it is blissful drama for us.
This guy over here, he's got the puns.
Nothing more fun than watching people argue about baby dicks.
Sooo much better than /r/childfree, where it's all dick babies.
Quoting myself from last week, to be clear these are the opposing sides of the argument
>"It's barbaric"
>"It looks weird"
Don't expect anyone to refute this point, they'll just downvote you.
I once had an intactivist corner me at the Grove. She rattled off a bunch of stats she had memorized but failed to provide any sources. Had she allowed me to speak, I would have said, "lady, I'm just here to return something I bought online. My future sons' foreskins are none of your business."
Edited an incorrect pronoun.
It amazes me that these people don't find anything wrong with comparing circumcision and female genital mutilation.
I agree with you to a point, but there is a type that is legitimately comparable. Type 1 female circumcision (which is admittedly the least common on it's own) is strictly the removal of the clitoral hood. The other types are completely fucked, but if that is the one they are comparing to then I can see where they are coming from.
...
My foreskin is the most sensitive part of my body, so it seems like a pretty apt comparison to me.
Don't you fucking touch it(actually do please touch it).
MGM is atrocious because it happens in a fucking first world country to nearly 30% of all male infants. FGM is atrocious because its insanely brutal and horrific.
Yeah, but those of us who are circumcised don't really care. Outside of reddit and online communities the vast majority of those who are circumcised just don't care.
True, but its the fact that a first world country should respect bodily autonomy regardless of how big a deal the issue is.
I'll give you that, the US is the only western country where it's that widespread.
The main thing that annoys me about these debates are how some of the anti-circumcision crowd tell us circumcised men how we ought to feel about the issue.
I never understood why people can't just get the choice to be circumcised when they're 16. Everyone should be happy that way.
Well, it's obviously easier and the pain isn't remembered when the person is a baby, but I certainly see your point regarding consent.
Yeah, and it's also kind of weird to get told how shitty my sex life is. Sex is still incredibly awesome for me... I don't really think it could get any better.
In general the way I feel about it is:
Great these guys aren't circumcised... I don't want to talk about your dick, I don't want to tell you about my dick, and I don't want you thinking about my dick.
You don't care because you don't know what it's like to have a foreskin.
It's like living in a society where having one hand is normalized. Great that the amputees don't care, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't stop people from being ritually amputated, and those of us who have both hands and know what it's like are pretty goddamn concerned about this practice.
I don't care that you have a foreskin, so why do you care so much that I don't have it? You're only proving my point made in a response to NWAH:
>The main thing that annoys me about these debates are how some of the anti-circumcision crowd tell us circumcised men how we ought to feel about the issue.
I just explained why I care so much about this issue, though not about you personally. I'm not sure what part you had a problem with, I'm tempted to say you didn't actually process any of what I said before you regurgitated your laissez faire attitude towards mutilation.
I care about the millions of children who will suffer through not having the most sensitive part of their body for their entire lives without having a choice in the matter.
People with one hand lived their whole lives that way, of course they'll say "it's fine". They don't know anything else, they don't know what they have lost.
Add to this the fact that no man in all of history would publicly admit to there being a problem with his penis due to general insecurity issues, and the people who have been circumcised are the people who's opinions matter the least in this conversation.
Have you ever had a foreskin while sexually active? Because it's pretty amazing. The thought of losing it gives me fucking nightmares. You not having gotten to experience what it is like to have one is tragic and makes your opinion on the matter irrelevant. You feel sexually fulfilled because you haven't ever had sex the way you were meant to.
SnapShots: 1, 2, 3 ^[?]
^^Anyone ^^know ^^an ^^alternative ^^to ^^Readability? ^^Send ^^me ^^a ^^PM!
This has to be the most stupidest thing Reddit gets into arguments about. I don't give a shit either way, and it's so fucking amazing how heated people get over a flap of skin on a dude's dick. Just...wow.
Yeah its not like genital mutilation is big deal, stupid Reddit.
Compared to other problems that exist in the world? Then yes, it's extremely unimportant.
Your right. I mean women are literally getting told they are attractive as they walk down the street, that requires way more attention than babies having their genitals surgically altered without their consent.
Nice meme
He literally raped me with his eyes
Stop talking sense, it's misogynistic.
Relative to what's going on right now?
Doesn't even register.
Again I'm wrong I'm sorry. If we try to educate the public about about genital mutilation it means we can't address any other issues at all ever. My bad.
Apology accepted =]
GOOD. I'M GLAD WE HAVE PUT THIS BEHIND US.
OMG THE SHITLORD COMPARED CIRCUMCISION TO GENITAL MUTILATION
FUCKING MISOGYNISTIC SCUM, I HOPE YOUR PENIS ROT IN HELL
Only when it happens to women, like everything.
sp8der, does it get exhausting complaining about women in the same way so much? i feel like you at this point you're so predictable with your bitching that you could program a bot to do it and no one would be any the wiser.
that is unless... did you already do it????
10/10 for that title
Circumcision drama is my drug.
Thanks for all the drama over here guys. It's right in the Fore ground now.
i feel like reddit's apparent obsession with baby dicks stems from high school locker room teasing.
Before I joined reddit 3 years ago, I had never seen a group of people talk about dicks so much...to this very day it blows my mind.
Before I joined Reddit I never knew people actually argued about circumcision and called people "fucking idiots" for doing it.
It was one of those things that never even crossed my mind, and then when I came on reddit, it was like I missed out on the discussion for the past 16 years.
Awkwardness prevents them from being more familiar with vaginas.
Looking past the intolerable condescension, that doesn't make any sense. People who weren't circumcised would be the ones teased.
And it's as much to do with adult dicks as baby dicks.
I intentionally left my comment ambiguous so you could read whatever you wanted into it. And this drama is about baby dicks, specifically, other people's babies' dicks.
Those baby dicks become teenager dicks become adult dicks.
And when they're in high school, they're teased, and when they're adults they tell me how intolerably condescending I am about it on the internet.
Oh, yes, I'm commenting because I was clearly bullied too much.
Well, you were quick to call me condescending and ascribe what side of this debate I'm on. Figured you had something to prove.
Did I misrepresent your side?
No? Dude, I said I left my comment ambiguous on purpose, I don't have a side, whatever side you think I'm on, you're the one making that determination. If you find my comment intolerably condescending it's because you decided I'm against you, and therefore, feel I'm acting like I'm superior to you. Fact is, I'm not and I don't. If you found my comment silly and stupid, then you're not assuming I'm trying to pick on you and that I'm probably just making a silly comment about arguments on reddit.
Are you really going to downvote every comment I make?
You're using condescension to try to stop discussion - that's very clear. Imagine if people defended female circumcision by saying that you're clearly spending way too much time thinking about little girls' vaginas, pervert and that they're probably mad because their vagina got made fun of.
And no, before you jump to it, I'm not saying male circumcision is at all on the same level as FGM. But your condescension fulfills the same purpose either way - to shut down discussion. There's really no other way to view it, unless you truly think everyone discussing circumcision is just sad because they got made fun of in the locker room.
More Comments - Click Here
This is a good subreddit drama where I'm not on any side because of my own believes, I just go for the people who cool, obnoxious comments. I understand there's some reasons out there to not have your child circumcised, but it's a perfectly common thing to do. That's like judging parents for letting their kid watch TV.
In what way does something being common justify it?
When you see everyone around you doing something, you figure it must be ok. Whether it's smoking or riding in airplanes or opting for circumcision for your child. Your parents did it to you and you turned out ok, same with your brothers. Not to mention the doctor asks casually if you want it done. He (or whoever does it) has done it a million times. How unjustified were the parents in having it done? What's there big sin here? Doing something that (I once heard) is done to 75% percent of American babies? Heck, maybe they saw a headline about the benefits of circumcision. Yes, some people will judge you harshly for it. But hell, some people would judge you harshly for even having the kid in the first place. So I wouldn't call child services just yet.
Man we are really being downvoted by the anti-circumcision folks. I honestly could barely give two Shits. But you're totally right. Whether you're for it or against it you shouldn't judge people too strongly about it. No one cares this much in real life.
I'm circumcised and I enjoy sex and jerkin it plenty. I'd be almost afraid of enjoying it anymore than I do now. I've met people who were circumcised after being married, both of them said it felt different, marginally, and wasn't better or worse. They said it was really only different when masturbation too. I just don't get it.
You're explaining the decision, but not justifying it.
Lol. Really?
2014
not seeing all ethics and morals as social constructs without any basis in knowable objective truth, thus causing any decisions made by an individual actor to be justified as long as most of society does the same actions or agrees that those actions should or at least can be done without violating social ethical norms
Hah, you again!
Look at you coming in here, trying to poison this place with your vile, hate-speech, to spread the darkness that occupies your own mind.
So, you see morals as groundless, eh? You think your flimsy constructs and ideas of factual, evidenced proof, surely made to satisfy your feeble brain's lustful desires, are above my opinionated, totally substantiated ethics? I can tell you right now, with my objective superiority, that my views on how the world should function are backed by known truths. In fact, that you, a certified philistine, support the differing cause serves only to strengthen my position.
I bet you're an atheist, thus a person who is unable to have morals suitable for any advanced society, and are probably a nihilist, too, what with nothing to direct your meaningless life. I see you also have a distaste for social norms. Might that be because you are a reject, a person abandoned by an exhausted society to the lowest castes, to live in your own, muddled world, a world without hope or guidance?
I realise my exposition of your lamentable situation may be a tough pill for you to swallow (and I certainly would not recommend overdosing on paracetamol as a method), but it's to your own benefit that you take onboard my just and honest analyses and act according to my sanctions.
>Look at you coming in here, trying to poison this place with your vile, hate-speech, to spread the darkness that occupies your own mind.
Then after:
> I bet you're an atheist, thus a person who is unable to have morals suitable for any advanced society, and are probably a nihilist, too, what with nothing to direct your meaningless life.
I'm wondering if it's possible you are that shitty and stupid, or just a really good troll.
He's saying you shouldn't freak out and think someone is a bad parent over something fairly insignificant
I agree with that, but it's not what he said.
> but it's a perfectly common thing to do. That's like judging parents for letting their kid watch TV.
Thats really not a valid comparison at all. Its not really common outside of Americans and religious people. In Europe people would see you as weird if you circumcised your child for no reason.
Every time reddit talks about how awful ugly and mutilated circumcised penises are and how they don't feel nearly as much as pleasure as regular penises do, I touch my boyfriends junk and/or put my mouth on/around it just to double check and appreciate it.
I can't help but think both extremist sides of the debate are more concerned with their own insecurities of their dicks than this being a stand alone issue. Really though, no one cares this much about circumcision in real life. Reddit is fucking weird.
Great drama OP.
Circumcision is one of those subjects that I really genuinely don't understand how you can be for(in the sense of doing it on children with no choice, not adults). What is so horrible about about waiting till your child turns 18 and then let him decide for himself?
I'm circumcised and I like it. And since it happened at birth I have absolutely no memory of any pain or discomfort. Maybe I should have been given a choice but it does make me really uncomfortable that so many people apparently think I've been violated or mutilated.
Edit: Welp, it happened. People are replying without reading the actual thread and they clearly have no understanding of the consequences of circumcision, just a vague understanding of myths.
Oh boy, the drama has spread in here. Who left the bay hatch open goddamit?!
I TRIED TO STOP IT! I WAS TOO LATE!!
I feel like I'm just explaining my position to /u/FokkenPrawns. I don't feel any drama.
Oh you innocent soul. The drama mostly starts with civility, mostly.
I kinda figured that it was gonna spread here eventually, why not try to make it as civilized as possible.
Spreading like smegma cheese on a toasted slice of foreskin
And it's cool you like, but would it really have been that much different if you waited till you where 18? Circumcision can go wrong, and if it does then it would at least be a calculated decision made by you.
Well it'd be much more painful and it'd actually be a more challenging surgery since there'd be so much more skin so it'd be more like to go wrong.
Like I said, I probably should have been given a choice. But people who act like circumcision is akin to male genital mutilation really just come off as some sort of MRA who needs to invent a problem to be upset about. It's largely a cosmetic difference.
Circumcision kills over 100 boys a year in the USA each year.
http://www.mensstudies.com/content/b64n267w47m333x0/?p=488e687276f346699601a0275fc5827b&pi=2
In 2009, in one hospital in the UK, 105 boys were treated at A&E for complications after circumcisions.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/17/male-circumcision-baby-goodluck
I have a friend who got circumcised as an adult, it really isn't that bad. It's just 14 days you can't use your penis for sex.
Also I disagree about it being only a cosmetic issue, circumcision can have a lot bad side effects that you as an infant would have no chance of evaluating if it's worth the risks.
In my mind it's worth making it illegal to circumcise any infants if you can just prevent one child from suffering from side effects.
What side effects are you talking about? Because the AAP actually says it's healthier to circumcise. But you don't lose any functionality or significant sensitivity from being circumcised. Unless you really wanted a foreskin cause you liked the look there's very little reason to regret being circumcised.
It is healthier, but it's not like, a huge difference. I don't think the AAP recommendation makes any sense for individual family planning (but it is better in terms of overall morbidity for the country as a whole). The rates are so low though that any individual shouldn't feel particularly motivated by the AAP view.
Well that's sorta my point. The difference between cut and uncut really boils down to cosmetics cause the health issues on either side are damn near negligible.
Its not just cosmetics, a foreskin increases pleasure for males.
Ugh...you have read none of this comment tree.
More Comments - Click Here
In the developed world, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to take care of basic hygiene until the boy can learn to do it himself. Developing countries, sure, but the prevalence of STIs is pretty low in the USA by comparison, as is the risk of penile carcinoma.
You do actually lose sensitivity from losing the nerves in the foreskin and from the thickening of the exposed skin.
>Developing countries, sure, but the prevalence of STIs is pretty low in the USA by comparison, as is the risk of penile carcinoma.
That might have something to do with the extremely high rate of circumcision in the US. Look I really don't want to make this a medical debate because the health benefits and risks on both sides are just so inconsequential to the decision. But if you really wanna turn it into that, you'll lose because most research concludes that, all else equal, circumcision is "healthier."
>You do actually lose sensitivity from losing the nerves in the foreskin and from the thickening of the exposed skin.
You really don't. It's not like the outer skin petrifies.
> But you don't lose any functionality or significant sensitivity from being circumcised.
Actually the foreskin is a highly sensitive area of the penis. So it's not entirely useless.
It's a trade-off, really. Sensitivity on one end, hygiene (and avoiding frenulum rips... shudder) on the other. I'm uncut and would not want to be, but calling it mutilation is bullshit.
I feel like "hygiene" is a poor way to argue for circumcision. If you can't perform the simple task do keeping your dick clean, you probably have other hygiene issues that overshadow that problem.
If being cut makes you less sensitive, then I'm glad I'm cut. Lasting 20 seconds is bad enough, but 10? No thank you.
> (and avoiding frenulum rips... shudder)
Huh...I thought I had successfully repressed that memory.
Hear hear, mate. You never repress that completely.
I'd say we could compare battle scars, but I don't want to get booked for indecent exposure.
Here is a baby that actually died from circumcision http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/infant-death-maimonides-hospital-linked-circumcision-article-1.1032432
Also you can read a bit more about the cons of circumcision here http://www.circumcision.org/advocates.htm
The complication rate is like 1%-3%. And the chance of dying from it is so freaking low you're more likely to kill your baby driving home from the hospital. It exists but it's so indistinguishable from zero we'd be fools to let it influence our decision making.
Also note it was a religious circumcision - not one done the way the vast majority are done by physicians - which have an even lower complication rate.
Not only do they sometimes use different (less safe in terms of surgical procedure) equipment, they have a higher infection risk.
> the AAP actually says it's healthier to circumcise
The AAP report on circumcision: Bad science + bad ethics = bad medicine
Cultural Bias in the AAP’s 2012 Technical Report and Policy Statement on Male Circumcision
The risk is much, much higher in adulthood. It's much higher even later in childhood. I'm glad it went well for your friend, and there is still a good argument for adult male circumcision (especially in Africa) for health reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that it is so much ridiculously safer when done to infants.
Doesn't mean infants should be circumcised, but if you think there is any reason to do it, it's much safer for the kid to have it done as a baby.
Yes, but what about consent.
The risk maybe higher but it would be their choice and not their parents. Also I remember reading about the Africa study that it was faulty as the circumcision group was taught how to properly wash their genitals and the other wasn't.
I'm not sure who downvoted you so quickly. It wasn't me, just as an aside.
There are many studies that suggest benefits to circumcision, not just one. The reason I bring up Africa is only due to the high prevalence of HIV, which changes the risk/benefit ratio. In the US it just isn't as much of an issue, but in Africa the modest risk reduction can lead to much greater effect on the population HIV load.
It's safer and cheaper if its done earlier for starters.
Circumcision is interesting. It's much safer when done earlier. But at the same time it's not something that can be undone and has a lasting effect on your body so you'd want a say. Of course if you have a say but want it, it's less beneficial due to the much higher adverse effects rate. It has medical benefits that seem to help circumcised people more than the adverse effects hurt, on a population level - but that doesn't mean anything to the rare person who is on the other end of the spectrum and is hurt by it.
Life choices are made for kids all the time. For example, we gave my son a belly button even though he wasn't born with one. Very few people will say we mutilated his stomach though because it makes him more natural looking (despite being unnatural for him) but it is less beneficial medically than circumcision.
Another closer analogy is probably cochlear implants. If you are going to do it, it's better to do it early, but it's a huge body modification (and there are many folks in the deaf community against it). Personally I'm pro-cochlear implants and have mixed feelings about circumcision, but both are body changes that are often seen as a bad thing that are much better to do as a kid than an adult.
On the other hand, the recommendation for circumcision by the AAP seems a bit silly since while there does seem to be overall benefit, it's still fairly minor so it seems like it should be a personal or family decision. It's very much a population health based recommendation and I can't agree with it for the US, anyway.
Actually, you may have saved him some psychological morbidity later on from being different. It's impossible to say but it's a compelling reason nonetheless.
People in the deaf community take offense because they've made their livelihood work without hearing, and it's a pretty close knit group. When a kid gets a cochlear implant, he goes from being "one of us" to "one of them" hearing people, who are less likely to adopt sign language if they're super young.
I'm with you as far as circumcisions and the AAP's recommendation.
That was the hope, but there isn't a literature to fall back on like there is with circumcision. Otherwise we would have waited - we thought while it isn't medically necessary it was likely for the best for him.
Yeah, I understand the deaf objections - I do often here it described in terms of choice though, much like circumcision. The difference is that I think the folks against CI are completely wrong rather than a bit more of a gray area with circumcision.
>Life choices are made for kids all the time. For example, we gave my son a belly button even though he wasn't born with one. Very few people will say we mutilated his stomach though because it makes him more natural looking (despite being unnatural for him) but it is less beneficial medically than circumcision.
But circumcision is the exact opposite direction; you're basically filling up a belly button because it's common in your society.
Yeah, the point was that either way it's a not medically necessary decision without waiting for him to decide for himself. Less benefit than circumcision medically, makes a bit more sense as being more natural though. Like circumcision, though, it could theoretically wait until he's 18 - we didn't think that was the best choice though.
So...you're trying to bring the drama here?
Not trying, I kinda brought it.
You're trying to steal the Fleshy Throne and crown yourself King of the Foreskins. Usurpers will burn!
I definitely think people calling it mutilation or abuse are being a tad hyperbolic, but as a non-American it's just straight up baffling to me. Like, "Hey, cutting up our childrens' dicks is kind of weird, how about we not do that?" seems like a really easy decision to me.
I don't know that it's even like cutting the dick. It's like trimming a fleshy fingernail on the thumb of your penis.
This sums it up quite well. It's not comparable to FGM, but it's still an u justifiable decision that's made on a mass scale, and if you point that out of course you're some butthurt neckbeard who spends too much time talking about baby dicks.
If these parents have kids older than 4 years old, they shouldn't be strung up for having their children circumcised because even a few years ago doctors were giving parents bad information on circumcision and really pushing for it to be done to everyone. Now that there's more information we can be more conscious about the whole thing.