American Academy of Pediatrics softens its stance on FGM

gaijinguy wrote:

So yay! You can just get raped and maimed instead. (Note how your total crime rate is significantly higher than ours.) So when a man gets life for defending himself from intruders, you can rest easy knowing your cultural dogma has been upheld.

Makes chopping off a foreskin seem pretty mild in comparison.

Since you obviously are too lazy actually look at the data that ZoZo linked, I have made it simple for you.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Seule wrote:

gaijinguy wrote:

So yay! You can just get raped and maimed instead. (Note how your total crime rate is significantly higher than ours.) So when a man gets life for defending himself from intruders, you can rest easy knowing your cultural dogma has been upheld.

Makes chopping off a foreskin seem pretty mild in comparison.

Since you obviously are too lazy actually look at the data that ZoZo linked, I have made it simple for you.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

ooh owch, self pwning due to lack of actual reading are the worst,

It's funny, how you can't help but cherry-pick.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Yeah, England is such a better place to live.

gaijinguy wrote:

Oh, wow, selectively skewing the facts again?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Yeah, England is such a better place to live.

No, you magnificent moron, I was pointing out that the phrasing you used ("you're all getting raped and maimed every single day because you don't have the right to shoot a teenager in the back while he's running away") was stupid. And if you'll notice, our grand total of recorded crimes may be higher - if only slightly - but violent crimes, rape and murder are almost invariably lower.



EDIT: Far from cherry-picking, I simply brought up the data that corresponded with the things that you said. You inferred that there was a higher chance of getting raped/maimed in the UK due to tighter self-defence laws, so I pointed out that the statistics obviously showed the complete opposite. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Oh, give up already, Seule. To even consider any place but America to be remotely worth living in is decidedly un-American.

Spoiler:

Seule, have I told you lately that I love you?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Sauce 1 (table 16)

Sace 2 (Page 56 is the relevant one. Also, for extra lulz, check out page 51 for the rape statistics. They've nearly doubled since 2001, which is when your survey is from.)

Apologies for the late response, I was having my tea.

Gaij. Gaij. What are you talking about? How is anything that you are saying relevant? I could search and find statistics that contradict you, I'm sure, but I'm not going to. Why? Because it's a completely irrelevant point. We live in two different countries, with about the same level of development, with about the same level of crime. How we got to this from circwank is beyond me.

You said something stupid, I called you out on it. I'm not going down this path, it's ridiculous. So I suppose I'll go back to the comment that led us here, and respond how I should have at that point.

gaijinguy wrote:

Seule wrote:

I mean... you have to understand,
I'm English, we don't really do that here, and just... the idea of
performing what is, for all intents and purposes, cosmetic surgery on
babies... being socially acceptable, of all things, is just ludicrous
for me. I honestly cannot even begin to understand the reasoning behind
this. It's just bizarre.

Well, the notion of
people defending themselves is also unacceptable, bizarre, ludicrous,
etc. This may just be one of those places where our cultures will have
to agree to disagree.

What the fuck are you on about? You're wrong, this is grossly inaccurate, and it's completely and utterly irrelevant.

Seule wrote:

What the fuck are you on about? You're wrong, this is grossly inaccurate, and it's completely and utterly irrelevant.

Fair 'nuff. I don't really have a stake in the whole "circumcision" thing, so I took a swipe at the self-defense thing for grins.

Spoiler:

gaij nobody cares that you use weapons catalogues as fap material and regularly make love to your m-16

like literally nobody cares

Penguin wrote:

Are you seriously comparing removal of a useless bit of skin to the removal of a sensitive sex organ

FAIL; for a lot of men with either natural or restored foreskins, it is a sensitive, pleasurable part of their sexual anatomy. Maybe it should be up to the person who actually fucking HAS IT to decide how useful it is to him and whether he feels like parting with it or not.

Seriously, what is with you, gaijin, and Karmyn's axes to grind on this issue, with your dogged insistence, despite the arguments of almost everyone else in this thread, that ripping, crushing, and then cutting off a normal, healthy, natural part of the human sexual anatomy from a helpless infant is apparently nothing to bat an eyelash at? In a process, might I remind you, that is roughly equivalent to ripping a fingernail off its nail bed, since the foreskin and glans are fused together at birth... a process that is even today often performed without painkillers, or with painkillers that are inadequate.

I'm seriously starting to think that Cyber's comments about your debating styles are completely right on the money, honestly.

Seule wrote:

Penguin wrote:

Are you seriously comparing removal of a
useless bit of skin to the removal of a sensitive sex organ or human
sacrifice?

No, I am really obviously not. Stop being so
purposely dense.

Given the vehemence of some in the thread on the matter, would it
really be that much of a stretch to entertain the possibility
that you were serious?

Malganis wrote:

FAIL; for a lot of men with either natural or restored foreskins, it is a sensitive, pleasurable part of their sexual anatomy. Maybe it should be up to the person who actually fucking HAS IT to decide how useful it is to him and whether he feels like parting with it or not.

FAIL; for a lot of men it makes no difference whatsoever. We can do this forever.

Quote :

Seriously, what is with you, gaijin, and Karmyn's axes to grind on this issue, with your dogged insistence,

What's with yours?

Quote :

despite the arguments of almost everyone else in this thread,

You may notice that there's a similar ratio of people commenting on the subject between people with penises and people without.

Quote :

that ripping, crushing, and then cutting off a normal, healthy, natural part of the human sexual anatomy from a helpless infant is apparently nothing to bat an eyelash at? In a process, might I remind you, that is roughly equivalent to ripping a fingernail off its nail bed, since the foreskin and glans are fused together at birth... a process that is even today often performed without painkillers, or with painkillers that are inadequate.

I wish I could adequately explain why this is all just comes across as so much melodramatic prose.

After

Spoiler:

the idea that going through life without a foreskin somehow lowers one's quality of life just seems incredibly bizarre.

(Spoiled for TMI)

It's not about a factual "living without a foreskin is terrible" stance that needs to be decided on here.

Mal wrote:

FAIL; for a lot of men with either natural or restored foreskins, it is a sensitive, pleasurable part of their sexual anatomy. Maybe it should be up to the person who actually fucking HAS IT to decide how useful it is to him and whether he feels like parting with it or not.

(bolding mine)THATS the point that we (or at least I) am trying to get across. Some might miss it, some might not. But the point is it shouldn't be decided FOR someone whether they can have it or not for no good reason because *they* are the better judge of whether or not they will miss it- not the parents, not the doctor, not nobody, not nohow.

Penguin wrote:

the idea that going through life without a foreskin somehow lowers one's quality of life just seems incredibly bizarre.

That's because YOU do not miss it AND you had it done for a good reason. The latter criteria do not fit most circumcisions, and the former does not fit ALL circumcision victims. Some couldn't care less, some like it, and SOME hate it and some get it fixed. Those that get it fixed or just plain hate it might wish it hadn't been done to them in the first place. Thats why we're saying it should be about personal choice, which is what no one here seems to agree with for some reason.

Malganis wrote:

Seriously, what is with you, gaijin, and Karmyn's axes to grind on this issue, with your dogged insistence, despite the arguments of almost everyone else in this thread, that ripping, crushing, and then cutting off a normal, healthy, natural part of the human sexual anatomy from a helpless infant is apparently nothing to bat an eyelash at?

Maybe I'm just spitballing here - and this is the only thing I'm going to say on the subject because I don't have an opinion - but perhaps guys who are circumcised and have never had any problem object to being told that they have a problem, especially by people who don't and never did have penises?

Okay then. What is a good general, everyday reason for this operation to be performed? In what way will the quality of the person's life be enhanced?

Because if there are no reasons like this, the argument stands:

FOR: None.

AGAINST: 1) There may, in some cases, be negative consequences of the operation. 2) There is a very large ethical issue, as the patient has no say in whether the operation is performed on them or not.

If there is no reason to do this, and at least two reasons not to, why the fuck would you do it?



To clarify: Just because some, or even most men have no problems having been circumcised, there are still no good reasons to do it. Saying that it's ok because some people don't have a problem is a bit like saying that it's ok to punch someone in the face because not everyone gets a bruise.




And note: before people start wailing OH SOME MEN HAVE PROBLEMS this is not what I am talking about here. If there is a problem, of course the operation should be performed, as with every other fixable physical problem ever. I am talking about routine, everyday circumcision. You don't go about giving every infant heart surgery just because some have heart problems. NO I AM NOT FUCKING COMPARING HEART SURGERY TO CIRCUMCISION YOU WANKERS

Cyberwulf wrote:

Maybe I'm just spitballing here - and this is the only thing I'm going to say on the subject because I don't have an opinion - but perhaps guys who are circumcised and have never had any problem object to being told that they have a problem, especially by people who don't and never did have penises?

I don't care if someone's circ'd and is at peace with that (I can think of one guy on this board who's circ'd, has objections to the ethics of the procedure, but isn't going to pursue foreskin restoration, which is fine, since it's his body and his choice).

All that intactivists are saying to those guys who go through life happily enough with no foreskin that 1) they have no right to assume that their sons will be just as happy without their foreskins as they are, and 2) men who are very unhappy about being cut do neither need nor deserve to have their feelings brushed off, ridiculed, or minimized by men who are fine with whatever was done to them.

There's also the question of whether those circumcised guys who are content with their penises would be just as happy - or more so - if they had been left as nature made them, but that's just speculation and is impossible to answer.

For the second time in this thread so far, Seule, I FUCKING LOVE YOU MAN!

Okay, I lied - this is the last thing I'm going to say.

Malganis wrote:

There's also the question of whether those circumcised guys who are content with their penises would be just as happy - or more so - if they had been left as nature made them

I would abandon that plank of your argument completely, whether you're arguing here or somewhere else. When someone says "well I'm happy with how I am" and you say "well you'd be happier/better off if [this]", it's kind of insulting and disregards their experience.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Okay, I lied - this is the last thing I'm going to say.

Malganis wrote:

There's also the question of whether those circumcised guys who are content with their penises would be just as happy - or more so - if they had been left as nature made them

I would abandon that plank of your argument completely, whether you're arguing here or somewhere else. When someone says "well I'm happy with how I am" and you say "well you'd be happier/better off if [this]", it's kind of insulting and disregards their experience.

You're absolutely right, and for that I apologize.

Jesus. wrote:

(bolding mine)THATS the point that we (or at least I) am trying to get across. Some might miss it, some might not. But the point is it shouldn't be decided FOR someone whether they can have it or not for no good reason because *they* are the better judge of whether or not they will miss it- not the parents, not the doctor, not nobody, not nohow.

Making decisions on behalf of a child without their input is pretty much part of being a parent, which is rather the proverbial gorilla in the room.

Quote :

That's because YOU do not miss it AND you had it done for a good reason. The latter criteria do not fit most circumcisions, and the former does not fit ALL circumcision victims.

Circumcision "victims"? Hell, I have to take my parents' word for it that it was for a good reason, but I don't give a damn.

Quote :

Thats why we're saying it should be about personal choice, which is what no one here seems to agree with for some reason.

Because like it or not, parents will be required to make medical decisions for their children without their consent, because when it comes to children, "informed consent" does not exist. I am relatively certain most of the posters in this thread were forced to be given vaccines, having to trust their parents' word it was for their own good. Yet there are a lot of people out there who would rather not have been vaccinated, or blame later problems on having been vaccinated as a child. Does that mean that vaccination is a bad idea, or is a "personal choice" that should wait until the child is old enough to decide for themselves?

Seule wrote:

FOR: 1) Hygiene/ease of maintenance. 2) Disease
prevention. 3) Religion

AGAINST: 1) There may, in some
cases, be negative consequences of the operation. 2) Some people like to
wank about it.

Does that answer the question adequately?

Penguin wrote:

Because like it or not, parents will be required to make medical decisions for their children without their consent, because when it comes to children, "informed consent" does not exist. I am relatively certain most of the posters in this thread were forced to be given vaccines, having to trust their parents' word it was for their own good. Yet there are a lot of people out there who would rather not have been vaccinated, or blame later problems on having been vaccinated as a child. Does that mean that vaccination is a bad idea, or is a "personal choice" that should wait until the child is old enough to decide for themselves?

Bolding mine. Routine circumcision of babies isn't a medical decision.

Seule wrote:

FOR: 1) Hygiene/ease of maintenance. 2) Disease
prevention. 3) Religion

AGAINST: 1) There may, in some
cases, be negative consequences of the operation. 2) Some people like to
wank about it.

Does that answer the question adequately?[/quote]Seule's point still stands, even though you've done that annoying misquotey thing. There are no good reasons for it.
1. Hygiene: Teach your child how to fucking wash. Cleaning under a foreskin is quick and simple.
2. Disease prevention: I assume you're talking about STIs here. This is not a good argument for routine circumcision of babies. Teach your kid about condoms and sexual health. Offer him the opportunity of circumcision when he's older, but keep it in the context of 'a condom is better, you know'. Because a condom is much better. It's not like vaccines, which definitely prevent disease. It just... might. Sometimes. If they don't get so cocky they stop using condoms.
3. Religion: is never a good reason to do anything.

Routine circumcision of babies is unnecessary. By saying this I am not saying 'your cock is repulsive'.

ZoZo wrote:

Penguin wrote:

Because like it or not, parents will be required to make medical decisions for their children without their consent, because when it comes to children, "informed consent" does not exist. I am relatively certain most of the posters in this thread were forced to be given vaccines, having to trust their parents' word it was for their own good. Yet there are a lot of people out there who would rather not have been vaccinated, or blame later problems on having been vaccinated as a child. Does that mean that vaccination is a bad idea, or is a "personal choice" that should wait until the child is old enough to decide for themselves?

Bolding mine. Routine circumcision of babies isn't a medical decision.

This. Also, vaccination does not have a cosmetic component to it. Circumcision, when it's performed to make the penis look 'pretty' and 'sexy' to a future sexual partner, or to make the kid look like Daddy, does.

Furthermore, I find Penguin's absolute inability to empathize with or even acknowledge the fact that some men feel victimized and angry about being circumcised to be mind-boggling. It's one thing to feel fine about your own body; quite another to act as if it's simply inconceivable and ludicrous that someone else could feel differently.

Quote :

This. Also, vaccination does not have a cosmetic component to it. Circumcision, when it's performed to make the penis look 'pretty' and 'sexy' to a future sexual partner, or to make the kid look like Daddy, does.

I never did understand the beef with uncirced penises. They always looked fine to me. .-.

Quote :

Making decisions on behalf of a child without their input is pretty much part of being a parent, which is rather the proverbial gorilla in the room.

Yes, it is, but there are limits as far as I'm concerned. Maybe not legally, but ethically. This is one of them.

I am trying to figure out what about this conversation is pissing me off so badly, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

I was going to join in, but this pretty much sums up what I wanted to say.