Male Circumcision

[GBU56]

I have a wallet made entirely of foreskins that I received from my relative Josef Mengele when he lived in South America [bless his soul]

The problem is that when my wallet gets close to any hot women....it turns into a suitcase.

[PLAYER57832]

Player, there are no sound medical reasons for pre-emptively removing the foreskin shortly after birth. They've all been debunked.

Not really. They are disputed, not necessarily "debunked". There IS a difference.

[PLAYER57832]

You're being dishonest when you only compare the most extreme forms of FGM against the mildest, medically necessary forms of MGM. Yes, leg amputations are sometimes necessary too - that doesn't mean that it should be acceptable to amputate legs of infants indiscriminately for no good medical reason.

My point stands - both male and female circumcision have some marginal cases where their use is acceptable, that doesn't mean that either is acceptable outside of those specific cases. Your stance is irrational and inconsistent - you argue it's not ok to mutilate women, but it's ok to do the same for men - this is also horribly sexist.

If anythind is dishonest, it is to claim that the rare female procedure to which you refer is common... and that the damage from the VERY commonly performed male circumcision is someow "equal" to a procedure that has a primary purpose of specifically removing sexual pleasure from women, to make them "more Godly".

I agree that male circumcision may not be the best procedure, but to compare the two is very diengenuous. Its basically a kind of reverse discrimination on your part. They are not medically or socially the same, at all.

[natty dread]

If anythind is dishonest, it is to claim that the rare female procedure to which you refer is common... and that the damage from the VERY commonly performed male circumcision is someow "equal" to a procedure that has a primary purpose of specifically removing sexual pleasure from women, to make them "more Godly".

The only purpose of MGM is religious, in vast majority of cases. It is medically unnecessary, and results in up to 75% loss of sensitivity in the penis.

Arguably, MGM is also performed to make men "more Godly". It also results in partial removal of sexual pleasure.

I agree that male circumcision may not be the best procedure, but to compare the two is very diengenuous. Its basically a kind of reverse discrimination on your part. They are not medically or socially the same, at all.

Oh, I see. When a cruel and unnecessary procedure is performed on women, it's a horrible tragedy. When it's performed on men, it's just business as usual...

Try to see through your sexist attitudes for once. There's no point in playing oppression olympics here - both FGM and MGM are wrong and should both be banned. You can't make justifications for MGM while decrying FGM.

[BigBallinStalin]

You're being dishonest when you only compare the most extreme forms of FGM against the mildest, medically necessary forms of MGM. Yes, leg amputations are sometimes necessary too - that doesn't mean that it should be acceptable to amputate legs of infants indiscriminately for no good medical reason.

My point stands - both male and female circumcision have some marginal cases where their use is acceptable, that doesn't mean that either is acceptable outside of those specific cases. Your stance is irrational and inconsistent - you argue it's not ok to mutilate women, but it's ok to do the same for men - this is also horribly sexist.

If anythind is dishonest, it is to claim that the rare female procedure to which you refer is common... and that the damage from the VERY commonly performed male circumcision is someow "equal" to a procedure that has a primary purpose of specifically removing sexual pleasure from women, to make them "more Godly".

I agree that male circumcision may not be the best procedure, but to compare the two is very diengenuous. Its basically a kind of reverse discrimination on your part. They are not medically or socially the same, at all.

You've been comparing the two for the past two pages. You have the shortest memory in CC.

You even compare them with your conclusion--right in this very post of yours!

Let's write you off as "diengenuous."

[MeDeFe]

Player, there are no sound medical reasons for pre-emptively removing the foreskin shortly after birth. They've all been debunked.

Not really. They are disputed, not necessarily "debunked". There IS a difference.

Yes, the difference is that the proponents of MGM refuse to face the fact that the studies they rely on have been debunked. That's why they say they're merely "disputed".

But let's say you're right and that the results of studies are conflicting. What follows from that?
Well, for one, that we should stop mutilating boys shortly after birth. If there's no clear indication that it's beneficial it shouldn't be done.

[Phatscotty]

It's interesting to be able to detect who is circumcised and who is not.

[Dibbun]

I obsess over the penis type of internet men.

Noted.

[Woodruff]

It's interesting to be able to detect who is circumcised and who is not.

That seems to be faulty logic.

[Woodruff]

But let's say you're right and that the results of studies are conflicting. What follows from that?
Well, for one, that we should stop mutilating boys shortly after birth. If there's no clear indication that it's beneficial it shouldn't be done.

Hard to disagree with that.

[Symmetry]

Player, there are no sound medical reasons for pre-emptively removing the foreskin shortly after birth. They've all been debunked.

Not really. They are disputed, not necessarily "debunked". There IS a difference.

Yes, the difference is that the proponents of MGM refuse to face the fact that the studies they rely on have been debunked. That's why they say they're merely "disputed".

But let's say you're right and that the results of studies are conflicting. What follows from that?
Well, for one, that we should stop mutilating boys shortly after birth. If there's no clear indication that it's beneficial it shouldn't be done.

A poster above seemed to think that there was undisputed evidence that infant circumcision prevented AIDS in homosexual men, although the bits of evidence are disputed, discuss HIV, and in heterosexual men, and only in areas where HIV is epidemic.

But I wouldn't go quite as far you do- there are medical benefits that are up for debate. I wouldn't go as far as debunked. There are also dangers,

[bedub1]

I can't believe 13 people thinks it's great. You should be ashamed of yourselves for being so incompetent and barbaric.

[natty dread]

I'm even more shocked that 4 people condone circumcision of kittens.

SHAME ON YOU KITTENCISIONERS

[saxitoxin]

I'm even more shocked that 4 people condone circumcision of kittens.

Those people were just being jocular. All kittens are girls.

[natty dread]

I'm even more shocked that 4 people condone circumcision of kittens.

Those people were just being jocular. All kittens are girls.

I'm shocked that 4 people condone female circumcision of kittens.

[saxitoxin]

I'm even more shocked that 4 people condone circumcision of kittens.

Those people were just being jocular. All kittens are girls.

I'm shocked that 4 people condone female circumcision of kittens.

Four people condone male circumcision of female kittens, which is obviously simply an expression of irreverence, because only boys have penises (except at certain hookah bars in Amsterdam and specialty massage parlors in Rio).

[Army of GOD]

I'm going to have my kid circumcised and then I'm going to feed him the foreskin on his 18th birthday

[saxitoxin]

I'm going to have my kid circumcised and then I'm going to feed him the foreskin on his 18th birthday

Like you have that kind of willpower. You can't keep a sleeve of oreos around for a week without breaking into them.

[Army of GOD]

it's not like they're penis flavored oreos though

[natty dread]

Excuse me, I'm going to go to the bank to ask for a starter loan. I just got the business idea of the century.

AoG, you won't get any royalties on account of being short.

[Army of GOD]

Excuse me, I'm going to go to the bank to ask for a starter loan. I just got the business idea of the century.

AoG, you won't get any royalties on account of being short.

Oreos already beat you on penis flavored Oreos

[PLAYER57832]

Player, there are no sound medical reasons for pre-emptively removing the foreskin shortly after birth. They've all been debunked.

Not really. They are disputed, not necessarily "debunked". There IS a difference.

Yes, the difference is that the proponents of MGM refuse to face the fact that the studies they rely on have been debunked. That's why they say they're merely "disputed".

But let's say you're right and that the results of studies are conflicting. What follows from that?
Well, for one, that we should stop mutilating boys shortly after birth. If there's no clear indication that it's beneficial it shouldn't be done.

A poster above seemed to think that there was undisputed evidence that infant circumcision prevented AIDS in homosexual men, although the bits of evidence are disputed, discuss HIV, and in heterosexual men, and only in areas where HIV is epidemic.

But I wouldn't go quite as far you do- there are medical benefits that are up for debate. I wouldn't go as far as debunked. There are also dangers,

I never said that the evidence circumcision prevented AIDS was undisputed. In fact, its not even that it prevents AIDs, the study I saw said it seemed to very slightly decrease the chance of transmission.

Overall, I fully agree that the benefits are debatable, but so are many of the risks.

[PLAYER57832]

I agree that male circumcision may not be the best procedure, but to compare the two is very diengenuous. Its basically a kind of reverse discrimination on your part. They are not medically or socially the same, at all.

Oh, I see. When a cruel and unnecessary procedure is performed on women, it's a horrible tragedy. When it's performed on men, it's just business as usual...

Try to see through your sexist attitudes for once. There's no point in playing oppression olympics here - both FGM and MGM are wrong and should both be banned. You can't make justifications for MGM while decrying FGM.

Get real. There is NO true comparison between the so-called "female circumcision", which removes active parts of women's genitalia and the male circumcision, which removes a bit of skin covering.

And your 75% sensation loss bit is absolutely disputed by many experts, as is your claim that circumcize men need to be more harsh on women, cause pain and so forth. AND.. I think I have a good deal more experience on that last bit than you!

[natty dread]

Get real. There is NO true comparison between the so-called "female circumcision", which removes active parts of women's genitalia and the male circumcision, which removes a bit of skin covering.

A bit of skin covering? Oh but hey, the clitoris is just a lump of meat. What's the difference between removing a lump of meat and a bit of skin?

Maybe you should stop spewing these dishonest arguments, and ignoring the evidence. The foreskin is not just "a bit of skin", it has tons of nerve endings, and removing it reduces the sensitivity of the penis by up to 75%.

Player, you always do this - when ever there's an issue that concerns men, some injustice which men have to suffer from, you always argue "oh, but women have everything WORSE because x and y and stuff"... as if the suffering of one part of population negates the suffering of another. Look up the term "oppression olympics" because you're a world-class athlete there.

And your 75% sensation loss bit is absolutely disputed by many experts, as is your claim that circumcize men need to be more harsh on women, cause pain and so forth. AND.. I think I have a good deal more experience on that last bit than you!

Which experts are those again? Rabbis? Your college professors? Doctors who perform circumcisions for money?

Funny how your anecdotal personal experience always seems to trump any actual scientific data, whenever it suits your agenda...

[PLAYER57832]

Get real. There is NO true comparison between the so-called "female circumcision", which removes active parts of women's genitalia and the male circumcision, which removes a bit of skin covering.

A bit of skin covering? Oh but hey, the clitoris is just a lump of meat. What's the difference between removing a lump of meat and a bit of skin?
..

Biology. You should study it sometime.