Party of family values part 1 😂
-
@bi4smooth said in Party of family values part 1
:So, I would say that your claim that circumcision has health benefits is PROVEN false solely by the statistical analysis of populations of circumcised males vs populations of uncircumcised ones... which, in communities of like economic status, are virtually identical.
You might want to read this: article about the fallacy of male circumcision in American Culture written in the 1980s
Other than for religious or cultural "looks" reasons, there is no need or benefit to the practice - though it does surgically remove a LOT of nerve endings!)
The same CDC you are quoting as a great source of information endorsed the practice of male circumcision in December of 2014 after releasing a 61 page literature review saying the health benefits vastly outweigh the risks and they criticized much of the arguments in the opposite direction because they were made off faulty experiments. That is far more updated than anything that was said in the 80s given the studies and technology that has come out since then.
The CDC recommends male circumcision due to the following reasons:
Medical Conditions That Male Circumcision Protects Against Over the Lifetime:
Urinary tract infection
Penile inflammation, for example, balanitis, balanoposthitis, lichen sclerosus
Candidiasis
Phimosis and paraphimosis
Inferior hygiene
Sexually transmitted infections including high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV), genital herpes simplex virus (HSV), trichomoniasis, mycoplasma, syphilis, chancroid, and HIV (now I mentioned that this is a reason that I have never seen here in the west, but when you think of places like Africa, the continent most ravaged by AIDS, it might be relevant.)
Physical injuries to the foreskin, including coital injuries
Cancers of the penis, prostate, and cervix
peer reviewed article from 2017 reinforcing cdc Mc reccomendations
If there were no medical value to it there'd be no reason why we'd be doing it in our hospitals. There is no credible evidence that removing the foreskin decreases penile sensitivity and function. However, I think that men believe that is the case and have been struggling to argue that it has no medical value ever since.
At this point, penile foreskin is like a vestigial structure similar to that of the appendix. Perhaps somewhere in our evolutionary ancestry it was an important organ but today It has no real value and serves no real purpose other than being the source of potential infection. The reason why we don't go through the trouble of removing everyone's appendix is because it lies deep within our bodies and is surrounded by the organs of our abdominal cavity. It's too much of a hassle and the risk of surgical trauma is higher than what the appendix poses. However, the appendix is such a useless thing that if for any reason we had to surgically go into that area, like installing a ileostomy, repairing some kind of intestinal trauma, or removing the ovaries, even if the appendix was not infected we would still remove it. Because it's a time bomb.
But unlike the appendix, the foreskin exists on the outside of the body, making it much easier and much more common to remove. I don't know why y'all are struggling to keep it anyways. If all you cared about was vanity, your pig in a blanket dicks are not visually appealing and are prone to strange smells. Not that uncircumcision would ever stop me from getting with a guy I liked, but I'm just keeping it real.
However, getting back to the original argument, we women also pay taxes. And we don't get to decide whether that money pays for your circumcisions (something half of you guys deem unnecessary) and your vasectomies which are wholly unnecessary because it's not that hard to not cum inside a woman. We pay for your birth control all the time without any complaints, I don't see why men think they can decide not to pay for our birth control, and then claim they care about abortion. Best way to avoid abortion is never getting pregnant in the first place. You conservatives should be BEGGING to pay for our birth control, if y'all really cared about abortion the way you say you do.
-
Any excuse to mutilate males, but justify not doing the same to females.
Feminist "gender equality" is strong in this thread.
I say we should chop shit off of women for medical reasons.
-
@chanelkokoro said in Party of family values part 1
:So if circumcision is such a great and wonderful thing, perhaps you can explain why it is mostly prevalent in Northern Africa and the Middle East - 2 areas of the world most highly regarded as leaders in human disease prevention, hygiene, and general excellence in all things intellectual and science-based! (Proof: look at all the lunar and martian landings these countries account for! Not to mention the UNCOUNTABLE numbers of Nobel and other prizes for science and medicine they have achieved!) (end sarcasm)...
Indeed, it's such a great and wonderful thing, the prevalence of it in America (US) has dropped from about 80% in the 1950s to roughly 50/50 in the 2000's... those dumb American parents!
Honestly, and I know I'm repeating myself here, if there was any REAL evidence of any SIGNIFICANT benefit to circumcising male children (or female - gotta include @raphjd here), don't you think there would be world-wide campaigns to get it done?
The FACTS are that STD rates, urethra infections, and rates of most other genital-based diseases and problems in the US/Canada, Australia, Japan, S. Korea, Russia (as much as is reported), and Europe are statistically so even - despite the WIDELY disparate rates of circumcision (e.g.: virtually never done in Asian countries!) - that the BEST you can say is that while circumcision does not appear to help, it also appears to do no harm either!
Indeed, the fact that it cannot really be shown to be either helpful or harmful is precisely why it remains "optional" around the world.
Personally, I would infer from the rate data that mass-circumcision is indeed cultural (based on religious and ancient misconceptions)... being that N Africa and the Middle East are far more religiously-oriented and controlled than the rest of the world.
That said, I'll admit that I have only observation to backup that assertion...
Check out the circumcision rates around the world here. (While I don't often cite Wikipedia as a "trusted source", this article has more than 60 references to backup its data).
-
Circumcision for boys became a thing in the US as an anti-masturbation technique, at about the same time as all the other wacky medical stuff came out. Graham Crackers also cured masturbation.
I mentioned the penis health study and Demark having the highest rate of intact males and the highest rate of penis health.
All the pro-mutilation "science" comes from Africa. When it gets reported in the west, they leave out the barbaric way it's traditionally done, while reporting on how safe it is in a clinical setting. Of course, it's much safer in a clinic than in the bush using a broken bottle or rusty piece of scrap metal.
Oprah needs male genital mutilation so she can rub the ground-up foreskins on her ugly mug to look younger. Korean males are losing their foreskins so western bitches can rub them on their faces at $500 a pop.
-
@bi4smooth said in Party of family values part 1
:@chanelkokoro said in Party of family values part 1
:So if circumcision is such a great and wonderful thing, perhaps you can explain why it is mostly prevalent in Northern Africa and the Middle East - 2 areas of the world most highly regarded as leaders in human disease prevention, hygiene, and general excellence in all things intellectual and science-based! (Proof: look at all the lunar and martian landings these countries account for! Not to mention the UNCOUNTABLE numbers of Nobel and other prizes for science and medicine they have achieved!) (end sarcasm)...
Indeed, it's such a great and wonderful thing, the prevalence of it in America (US) has dropped from about 80% in the 1950s to roughly 50/50 in the 2000's... those dumb American parents!
when non Africans argue with an African about Africa...
This is a strawman argument. The rate of circumcisions in the west, has nothing to do with its efficacy, and everything with the media and the perception of circumcision in those places over the years. This is like saying that because 40% of Americans still refuse to get vaccinated because people without medical degrees decided to get on fox news and make it a national debate, the vaccines must not be effective.
Secondly, it's a fallacy to compare Africa to the West in the first place. Africa is a continent of underdeveloped nations while much of the west is industrialized. STDs in Africa occur due to a number of factors, that doesn't mean that circumcision doesn't help lower the number of incidents, as the studies have indicated, over and over again.
Let me explain what you are doing using my own arbitrary made up numbers:
Let's say canada has a 1000/1 million std rate and they don't circumcise much.
then Liberia has a rate of like 10000/1 million std rate and they circumcise 80%
Studies compare the parts of Liberia that circumcise and the parts that don't and realize that the parts that circumcise have 62% less incidents of stds than those who didn't (which is actually what the cdc studies are indicating.)
just because 10,000/1million is higher than 1000/1million does not mean circumcision did not prevent stds. but this is what you are arguing.
Now, saying that we shouldn't circumcise our children because we are living in a first world country with enough wealth and resources to treat or prevent penile health incidents is a MUCH better and sound argument, than looking at these 2 different numbers with no context and saying that circumcision has no health benefits. Because that's false.
Lastly, the united states has the highest rate of stds in the industrialized/developed world. So bragging about how our circumcision rates have lowered when among first and second world countries we're number 1 in STD rates is a weird flex to say the least.
Honestly, and I know I'm repeating myself here, if there was any REAL evidence of any SIGNIFICANT benefit to circumcising male children (or female - gotta include @raphjd here), don't you think there would be world-wide campaigns to get it done?
we can't even get people to do something as simple as wearing masks in the middle of a global pandemic. and we can't get our red states to teach sex ed in schools, but sure, we'll be able to convince people to take off the loose skin off their baby's dick.
the most the US has done is make circumcision free under government health programs.
The FACTS are that STD rates, urethra infections, and rates of most other genital-based diseases and problems in the US/Canada, Australia, Japan, S. Korea, Russia (as much as is reported), and Europe are statistically so even - despite the WIDELY disparate rates of circumcision (e.g.: virtually never done in Asian countries!) - that the BEST you can say is that while circumcision does not appear to help, it also appears to do no harm either!
this is a real simple and flawed logic. that's not how this works. for instance you know why japan's std rate is low? because they ain't fucking!
sidenote: the wikipedia article you liked shows that south koreans are doing it at a rate of 75% and climbing.
Indeed, the fact that it cannot really be shown to be either helpful or harmful is precisely why it remains "optional" around the world.
Look, all I did was quote the cdc, same as you did, which is filled to the brim with health and medical experts from all over the world who have said they have tested and studied this issue for literally decades and have found that male circumcision has so many health benefits that they recommend people circumcise their children. They gave you 61 pages worth of research and studies they've conducted. they were a reliable source for you before, when you wanted to show @raphjd his irrationality, so what changed? You are cherry picking what you want to believe based on your own politics/beliefs and ignoring the science.
If the CDC, National Institute of Health, and World Health Organization which all say that male circumcision has numerous health benefits are out here and you're still holding onto stats with no context and debates from the 80s done by people with no medical degrees to defend your position, then you're never going to be convinced of anything else. There is no informed medical consensus you will ever accept. Just like the people who say manmade climate change is a hoax despite the fact that 98% of the world's scientists are in agreement that it's not, the only reason why this is still a debate are because of the people who want to keep it debate.
As for people doing it for religious reasons, who cares? A broken clock is right twice a day. I'm completely secular, but that doesn't mean I'm going to find fault in them doing something medically beneficial for their child because they've deluded themselves into thinking it's for god.
-
This post is deleted! -
@raphjd said in Party of family values part 1
:Circumcision for boys became a thing in the US as an anti-masturbation technique, at about the same time as all the other wacky medical stuff came out. Graham Crackers also cured masturbation.
Well we can agree that Graham crackers are better than sex, amirite?
All the pro-mutilation "science" comes from Africa. When it gets reported in the west, they leave out the barbaric way it's traditionally done, while reporting on how safe it is in a clinical setting. Of course, it's much safer in a clinic than in the bush using a broken bottle or rusty piece of scrap metal.
As an african I have never seen it done this way but I assume that's the way used to be or could've been. What you need to worry about is some of these jewish rabbis that be sucking on the baby's peen afterwards. What is that about??
Am I weird? Has anyone else ever seen that?
-
@chanelkokoro Why don't we unmask this issue and talk about the real issue. The fact that we even have circumcision (male or female) is a religious one. When it was 'practiced' in ancient times arguments of HPV and other health related arguments was not even considered. The fact is that we now know that circumcision is completely useless (if not harmful) practice that is only propagated via religious customs.
I'm sorry for your loss (of foreskin) but the fact of the matter is that they did something to you (not even asked you) so that God can recognize their true followers. Stop trying to explain away the mussing of some illiterate shepherds! -
I've said from the beginning that, for every study you find in support of circumcision, you can find another against it... in both cases, the logic is usually a stretch.
I stand by my argument:
- circumcision does little-to-no harm
- circumcision has few, if any, real benefits
- arguments both for and against are "weak"...
I consider it equivalent to getting a tattoo... very few people have adverse reactions to getting a tattoo, it is seldom of any real benefit to the "wearer", but the decision to get one is essentially permanent.
The biggest difference is that most circumcisions are done to babies - the child has no say... would we allow parents to cover their child in tattoos? (Actually, it would be perfectly legal! Same as circumcision!)
Finally, you completely missed the point about the circumcision-rates:
- higher rates in N Africa and the Middle East are due almost entirely to religious reasons, not economic ones. But these countries are NOT leaders in medical fields, so IF there was a solid medical basis for circumcising infant males, this isn't the part of the world we would expect to see "movement" in the circumcision rates
- lower rates (that is, rates getting lower) in N America and Europe - where medical science is a "strong suit" would be expected to be on the rise -- IF there was a solid medical basis...
-
In the developed world, we only allow baby boys to be mutilated and in some places allow children to get their ears pierced.
We don't allow lip plating, scarring, tattooing, neck stretching, boot binding, and countless other things.
-
Earlier in this thread, we were informed that vaginas are perfect and naturally clean, the polar opposite of uncut penises.
Oddly enough, while shopping Amazon, I have found a lot of products for manky vaginas.
Clearly, they are nothing but snake oil, just like gynecology.
-
@vmalar said in Party of family values part 1
:@chanelkokoro Why don't we unmask this issue and talk about the real issue. The fact that we even have circumcision (male or female) is a religious one. When it was 'practiced' in ancient times arguments of HPV and other health related arguments was not even considered.
I'm agnostic. I left religion with my hair on fire. That is not the point and this is not a valid argument. There are plenty of things that we used to do that had no medical merit or had a different purpose that we later discovered was actually beneficial. For example: viagra was first made to treat heart conditions. It just so happens that we discovered that it could also help with erectile dysfunction.
The fact is that we now know that circumcision is completely useless (if not harmful) practice that is only propagated via religious customs.
I'm sorry for your loss (of foreskin) but the fact of the matter is that they did something to you (not even asked you) so that God can recognize their true followers. Stop trying to explain away the mussing of some illiterate shepherds! -
@chanelkokoro said in Party of family values part 1
:...There are plenty of things that we used to do that had no medical merit or had a different purpose that we later discovered was actually beneficial.
When ancient middle eastern communities were putting together their social rules, cloaked in religious imperatives, there was some practical wisdom to some of them: Consuming pork and/or shellfish in a hot desert climate without refrigeration was clearly unwise, and thus prohibition of such found its way into kosher "laws." Similarly, making a garment out of different fibres (wool and cotton, for example), was a bad idea because the fabric would eventually shred...and thus that was prohibited. Was circumcision a "sign of being part of the community" or a practical measure to keep penises clean when there was no running water? Scholars have debated that for ages.
Circumcision only reappeared in non-Jewish or Islamic communities in the late 19th century in the United States when the medical community thought it would prevent masturbation, which was considered by many to be a sin (again rooted in the Old Testament "reproductive imperative," but that's another topic.) There does not appear to be a medical "need" for the practice today.
I think it's important to advocate for eliminating circumcision except when medically necessary (e.g., severe phimosis that impedes sexual function), but at the same time I avoid phrases like "male genital mutilation." It's not helpful to have circumcised men (or boys) feel that they are somehow inadequate or deformed because of something that happened to them as infants. This is especially true with younger men/youth who already have enough body image issues going on that they don't need to add another one.
PS: Slightly off-topic fun fact on circumcision: Note that Michelangelo's famous statue of David, Jewish shepherd boy and future king of Israel, shows an uncircumcised youth. Not historically accurate...but that wasn't the point. (On the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, Michelangelo also gave Adam a belly button, even though he was not "born of woman.")
-
This post is deleted! -
I am staying out of this ridiculous argument, but as a circumcised male, who has been circumcised his entire life, didn't feel a thing as it was done at my birth, and happens to know via education that whether it actually has any health benefit that it is done for purported health benefit I resent being told I am mutilated. Do we call men with piercings mutilated?
You don't like it, don't like it. Maybe you are unused to seeing circumcised penises. I am not. A preference or unfamiliarity with something does not give someone the right to slap a derogatory description on people. A preference to heterosexuality and unfamiliarity with homosexuality gets us called faggots, poofters, fudgepackers, fruit loops, and a host of other things. They show intolerance. Are they ok too because it's a "preference"? I didn't ask to be circumcised, nor am I asking not to be. I am asking to be respected whether I have been circumcised or not. I don't go around calling uncircumsised men "doggy dick".
mutilate
[ myoot-l-eyt ]SHOW IPASee synonyms for: mutilate / mutilated / mutilation on Thesaurus.com
High School Level
verb (used with object), mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing.
1 to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts:
Vandals mutilated the painting.
2 to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.
OTHER WORDS FOR MUTILATE
1damage, mar, cripple.I am not injured, imperfect, or irreparably damaged. My foreskin was not essential, and my circumcision did not cripple my dick. The disfigure part is entirely subjective.
@raphjd In the developed world? Which developed world are you talking about? In my country multiple people have tattoos.
-
@eobox91103 said in Party of family values part 1
:Circumcision only reappeared in non-Jewish or Islamic communities in the late 19th century in the United States when the medical community thought it would prevent masturbation, which was considered by many to be a sin (again rooted in the Old Testament "reproductive imperative," but that's another topic.) There does not appear to be a medical "need" for the practice today.
You hit the nail on the head: the re-introduction of circumcision in America had no medical reasoning behind it - it was religious / societal!
Indeed, the primary "reason" for male circumcision is the same reason some societies circumcise GIRLS (yes, there is such a thing as female circumcision! Google it yourelf tho)... that reason is the terrible crime of masturbation. (I will admit - I could have written several books if I collected the time I've spent masturbating over my entire life! Hell, even just in 1 year! LOL)
How is circumcision supposed to prevent masturbation (in boys or girls)? By literally cutting away the nerve endings that make masturbation (not to mention sex) pleasurable!
I've mentioned this before: I am the father of 9, FOUR of whom are boys, and I have not allowed ANY of them to be circumcised! (Unfortunately, my parents followed the societal norms of the 1960s and had my penis cut...
) -
@eobox91103 said in Party of family values part 1
:I think it's important to advocate for eliminating circumcision except when medically necessary (e.g., severe phimosis that impedes sexual function), but at the same time I avoid phrases like "male genital mutilation." It's not helpful to have circumcised men (or boys) feel that they are somehow inadequate or deformed because of something that happened to them as infants. This is especially true with younger men/youth who already have enough body image issues going on that they don't need to add another one.
I use it for gender equality since it's the term used when it's done to females; ie "female genital mutilation".
Calling it "circumcision" is nothing more than a way to downplay what it is. Boys get circumcised and girls get mutilated.
As for body image issues, no one cares about males. In London for example, Sadiq Kahn banned "female body-shaming" ads but didn't do likewise with male body-shaming ads. As an example, which lead to the ban, there was the "are you beach body ready" ad which had a fit woman in a bikini. Right next to that ad was an ad with David Gandy in a white speedo. It didn't matter about the men with perfect bodies because men don't matter when it comes to gender equality.
PS: I used the term "marriage equality" because "gay marriage" because it's a separate, but equal thing or as Tony Blair called it in a TV interview "separate but somewhat equal".
-
MGF wasn't exclusively to prevent masturbation.
A lot of quacks said that it prevented all manner of diseases and mental illnesses.
Dr Kellogg said it prevented insomnia and constipation, to name just 2.
-
@kamyk said in Party of family values part 1
:mutilate
[ myoot-l-eyt ]SHOW IPASee synonyms for: mutilate / mutilated / mutilation on Thesaurus.com
High School Level
verb (used with object), mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing.
1 to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts:
Vandals mutilated the painting.
2 to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.
OTHER WORDS FOR MUTILATE
1damage, mar, cripple.I am not injured, imperfect, or irreparably damaged. My foreskin was not essential, and my circumcision did not cripple my dick. The disfigure part is entirely subjective.
@raphjd In the developed world? Which developed world are you talking about? In my country multiple people have tattoos.
How is it not disfigured, by definition?
In many cases, it is injured by the procedure.
Tattoos can't be done to kids in the developed world, so there is choice by the person it's being done to.
Why can't we chop off earlobes of our infants, since they are useless? Why can't we lip plate, face scar, and all manner of other things that are cultural or religious in other parts of the world?
-
@raphjd We could, if we chose to as adults. I must have missed something somewhere. All I saw was a statement that we do not do any of those things, not anything about an age qualifier.
My other point was that I saw people calling it mutilation, and it's not the first time I've seen people refer to it as mutilated. I am not mutilated. That is all. I want no part of political or religious discussions on here, and unchecked the notifiers for them so I won't see any more of these subjects. I would rather not have seen this topic in the first place, but I did. Now I won't see any again. I'm not here to argue or debate. I'm here to download torrents, and talk to gay people since my area has a distinct lack of anywhere to meet any. If the majority of forum discussion here involves argument and debate then I guess I won't be talking to gay people much here either. I get enough of that shit from my toxic father when I visit my family.
