Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[DJ]

/jumping in without reading the thread

IMO the biggest problem these changes have brought is that there really is no safe and successful way to court now. If a guy comes on a bit too strong he's a Neanderthal creep. And if you get this reputation in a small town, which doesn't take all that much, you may as well become a monk because you're dead to women. If he comes on a bit too weak, he'll quickly be dismissed as a spineless wuss, because there's virtually zero women that like guys with self-confidence issues. Combine this with the fact that the definitions of too strong and too weak are different for each woman, and you have to be a bona fide telepath to approach women. And then women wonder why there's no good men left.

[Wayward Device]

Hmm, just been reading through this thread, even though its a little clash of the wall of text titans. I was wondering if anyone could tell me why male circumcision is so popular in the US? I've never really understood it (its not for religious reasons in most cases) so I'd appreciate anyone who could shed some light on it.

[Criptfeind]

Momentum.

[DJ]

And because torture is OK if the victim doesn't remember it years later.

[moocowmoo]

Hmm, just been reading through this thread, even though its a little clash of the wall of text titans. I was wondering if anyone could tell me why male circumcision is so popular in the US? I've never really understood it (its not for religious reasons in most cases) so I'd appreciate anyone who could shed some light on it.

Search for the history, it's actually pretty interesting. The original idea (Victorian era) is that masturbation caused all kinds of disease, and circumcision would prevent boys from masturbating. It was championed in America by a nut case named John Harvey Kellogg (of the cereal fame) and got more and more entrenched in the medical establishment especially as more Jewish doctors arrived. All kinds of "studies" were done about how it cures epilepsy etc, and that trend has continued to this day where now they say it helps prevent UTIs and HIV infection (they're currently pushing for a mass circumcision campaign in Africa to fight AIDs, backed by Bill Gates, Bill Clinton etc). By 1950 I think it was, the "routine infant circumcision" rate was around 80%. Thankfully the rate is now around 30%. That is still way too high, it SHOULD be illegal to alter boys genitals, since it already is for girls. Few if any other countries view circumcision as a legitimate medical practice, and there are countries in Europe where it is illegal. The practice is perpetuated because people do not talk about it or want to learn what it actually is. Men who are circumcised themselves understandably can get really defensive, because no one wants to hear that their manhood has been hacked up and that there's little they can do to fix the damage. Many become apologists for the practice and insist that their own sons "look like them", that it's "cleaner", "women like it better" etc. The most proactive and vocal group against the practice seem to be young women and mothers.

[RevolutionaryDorf]

IMO the biggest problem these changes have brought is that there really is no safe and successful way to court now. If a guy comes on a bit too strong he's a Neanderthal creep. And if you get this reputation in a small town, which doesn't take all that much, you may as well become a monk because you're dead to women.

I think it's better than we tell ourselves it is. Girls and guys are equally as awkward about their intentions and feelings, and attraction is so complicated that it would be self-defeating to just say that either you're a creep or weak. Part of transcending this is learning how to communicate with girls effectively, and it is difficult, but it comes with time and these sort of problems fade eventually.

[Leafsnail]

My point is that western male circumcision does not have an equivalent in damage in female circumcision. I don't really care about how "technically" removing the clitoral hood is equivalent to removing the foreskin, when the results on the victim are worse for one than the other.

Are they?  I thought we'd established they both cause numbness in the uncovered part.  Certainly the more extreme forms of female circumcision (in which much more is removed) are far worse but I think male circumcision causes pretty much equivalent numbness to the milder form of FGM.

Saying that circumcision is a type of male genital mutilation makes sense.  Using these two words as equivalent things does not make sense.  I do not think that anyone is saying "circumcision is not a type of male genital mutilation."  I think it is entirely proper to say "a form of male genital mutilation is widely practiced in the US," because it clues us in to what we are talking about.  But at the same time, I think it is important to carefully and deliberately distinguish that circumcision is a subcategory thereof.  This is so that the experiences of circumcised men, men undergoing other forms of genital mutilation, and women with mutilated genitals can be respected.

Uh... "X is Y" is a valid statement when X is a subcategory of Y, though, isn't it?  "Cats are animals" or whatever doesn't imply that "animals are cats".  I'm pretty sure noone's arguing for circumcision and just circumcision to be labelled MGM, even if they say "Circumcision is MGM".

[Criptfeind]

Are they?  I thought we'd established they both cause numbness in the uncovered part.

Nope. One guy said it and no one really questioned him much. So I guess I will.

Also before jumping in on the issue at least learn about the anatomy and function of the foreskin. The glans is supposed to be a sensitive, internal organ... the foreskin normally doesn't even retract until about 10-13 years old. So imagine what kind of damage is done to cut and crush it off at one year old, and have the sensitive glans now permanently exposed to air, chemicals and the abrasion of clothing. At around 25-30 years old the glans of a circumcised male is almost completely numb (kind of like feeling nothing from the clitoris). But yeah god forbid we call it mutilation...

Source? Because the most I have found is some desensitization with no effect on sexual pleasure.

[ChairmanPoo]

they say it helps prevent UTIs and HIV infection (they're currently pushing for a mass circumcision campaign in Africa to fight AIDs, backed by Bill Gates, Bill Clinton etc)

There's some evidence that it marginally reduces the risk of infection, but I don't think it was significant enough to warrant embarking into a mass foreskin-cutting campaign because of it. (In fact, it might be counter-productive because of risk compensation: the risk of HIV infection in a single exposure is not too high to begin with, and the reduction with circumcision was rather small. However, a false sense of security might lead to more risky habits)

[ChairmanPoo]

not before we circumcise you! Hahahahaha!

[Loud Whispers]

Er... There might be a couple problems with that "protection."

[DJ]

Katanas can cut diamonds, silly.

[Bauglir]

And they're pretty easy to shatter, too.

[Loud Whispers]

/This thread.

[moocowmoo]

Are they?  I thought we'd established they both cause numbness in the uncovered part.

Nope. One guy said it and no one really questioned him much. So I guess I will.

Also before jumping in on the issue at least learn about the anatomy and function of the foreskin. The glans is supposed to be a sensitive, internal organ... the foreskin normally doesn't even retract until about 10-13 years old. So imagine what kind of damage is done to cut and crush it off at one year old, and have the sensitive glans now permanently exposed to air, chemicals and the abrasion of clothing. At around 25-30 years old the glans of a circumcised male is almost completely numb (kind of like feeling nothing from the clitoris). But yeah god forbid we call it mutilation...

Source? Because the most I have found is some desensitization with no effect on sexual pleasure.

It is not a popular area of study, and thus there is little literature to cite to "prove" it. However it should be self evident enough that when you make a highly sensitive internal organ permanently external, the body must adjust to the painful stimulus of constant exposure (thus numbing to protect itself). This is to say nothing of the the thousands of specialized nerve endings and mucosal (like the inside of the cheek) tissue removed. The foreskin is important for sexual function for both mechanical (protects glans, holds in lubrication, glides over the shaft) and tactile (nerve endings) reasons.

See here under "Medical Perspectives": https://www.cpsbc.ca/files/u6/Circumcision-Infant-Male.pdf
And: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1464-410X.1996.85023.x/abstract;jsessionid=8CD757ED053BFA793550FB235E662E84.d02t02

Search for "keratinization" of the glans if you are interested. I'm sure people will scoff at any anecdotes, or anything taken from a website explicitly against circumcision, so I will refrain from posting those. But really, the burden of proof lies on people who insist on removing a healthy part of another's body without permission. They are the ones who need to "prove" it is not only harmless but beneficial. I shouldn't have to "prove" why a healthy part of the body should be protected from forced removal. There are more resources I could share about the effects of circumcision on sex, but people will discredit the whole notion because it doesn't have the backing of scientific research.

Edit: okay just one site that may raise the cry of bias http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/sorrells_2007.pdf