FSTDT Forums
Community => Religion and Philosophy => Topic started by: DiscoBerry on April 08, 2013, 12:13:43 pm
-
Yeah, not really sure what to say here.
A New York City infant contracted herpes last month as a result of an Orthodox Jewish procedure known as metzitzah b'peh (MBP) that involves orally sucking the blood off a newborn's penis after circumcision, according to the city's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH).
The news, which came in an April 3 email alert from the New York City Bureau of Sexually Transmitted Disease Control, marks the 13th such case in New York City since 2000. Two of those infants died (including one last year), and two others have suffered brain damage as a result, according to a department alert from January.
The infant, whose parents were not named, came down with a fever a week after being circumcised and developed vesicular lesions the next day, the email stated. The city did not disclose in which hospital the infant was born.
The department email said the ritual circumciser, known as a mohel, likely transmitted the virus to the newborn child. The department said it won't sue the mohel, whose name was kept secret by the infant's parents, according to the Jewish Daily Forward.
The New York City Board of Health has recently passed a number of regulations concerning the controversial oral suction procedure, including requiring cases of herpes in infants younger than 60 days to be reported to the city.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/05/infant-herpes-jewish-circumcision_n_3021277.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/05/infant-herpes-jewish-circumcision_n_3021277.html)
-
orally sucking the blood off a newborn's penis after circumcision
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_MpnA9si4GMs/TRJWy_rmXuI/AAAAAAAAISk/UcHryHhbDCo/s1600/wtf.jpg)
-
Again?
-
Why is this method of circumcision practiced? I don't see any point what so ever in sucking blood of the baby's wang. Is there a group of Jewish pedophile vampires out there or something?
-
I am very suspicious of the baby penis sucking part. You can't help but wonder about the people who invented these rituals.
-
Why is this method of circumcision practiced? I don't see any point what so ever in sucking blood of the baby's wang. Is there a group of Jewish pedophile vampires out there or something?
I actually once saw a YouTube video of a Rabbi defending the practice. BS about how the mouth forms the best seal, and that it is proof of humans divine creation.
-
Here's how you know your tradition is bullshit, if it involves SUCKING THE BLOOD FROM AN INFANT. what the fuck is wrong with these dummies?
-
This kind of circumcision is only practiced by a minority of Jews. Most circumcisions are not particularly dangerous and are cleaned with proper equipment, not someone's mouth. There are a lot of perfectly acceptable ways to perform a circumcision that don't have nearly the same risk of harming the infant as metzitzah b'peh.
-
God said to do it that way. According to the mohels I've spoken with, the pay is low but the tips are good.
-
I really should ask about the basis for this tradition, since it violates at least one Jewish law I know of (no consumption of blood).
-
Here's how you know your tradition is bullshit, if it involves SUCKING THE BLOOD FROM AN INFANT.
Specifically from said infant's penis.
-
I really should ask about the basis for this tradition, since it violates at least one Jewish law I know of (no consumption of blood).
Ironically, I've read that the original reason for it was to prevent infection. When I first heard of this practice, I thought someone made it up because it seems really sketchy and, like you said, violates Jewish law to begin with.
-
I guess it's too much to ask for male genital mutilation to be illegal, but is it really too much to ask to make it illegal to suck on baby penises?
-
I guess it's too much to ask for male genital mutilation to be illegal, but is it really too much to ask to make it illegal to suck on baby penises?
Apparently part of religious freedom entails being able to put a baby's wang in your mouth. Who knew?
-
I guess it's too much to ask for male genital mutilation to be illegal, but is it really too much to ask to make it illegal to suck on baby penises?
Apparently part of religious freedom entails being able to put a baby's wang in your mouth. Who knew?
Hey, if it can honestly and without any sense of irony entail cutting up someone else's wang, putting said doodle in your mouth seems like a rather minor concern in comparison.
-
Now that I got over my rage after hearing this I'd like to know how that one professor feels about this method. You know, this one:
http://forums.fstdt.net/index.php?topic=3874.0
I mean if the kid hadn't gotten herpes in this occasion his arguments would fit right in.
And now I have to go unleash this new fit of rage.
-
I guess it's too much to ask for male genital mutilation to be illegal, but is it really too much to ask to make it illegal to suck on baby penises?
Apparently part of religious freedom entails being able to put a baby's wang in your mouth. Who knew?
Hey, if it can honestly and without any sense of irony entail cutting up someone else's wang, putting said doodle in your mouth seems like a rather minor concern in comparison.
But at least there are medical benefits to circumcision, right? Supposedly it lowers the risk of HIV infection (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/malecircumcision/) for heterosexual males, and also reduces the risk of cervical cancer and other problems in female partners.
-
It still baffles me that such an archaic form of circumcision is still practiced to this day, even if by a minority of Jews.
-
I guess it's too much to ask for male genital mutilation to be illegal, but is it really too much to ask to make it illegal to suck on baby penises?
Apparently part of religious freedom entails being able to put a baby's wang in your mouth. Who knew?
Hey, if it can honestly and without any sense of irony entail cutting up someone else's wang, putting said doodle in your mouth seems like a rather minor concern in comparison.
But at least there are medical benefits to circumcision, right? Supposedly it lowers the risk of HIV infection (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/malecircumcision/) for heterosexual males, and also reduces the risk of cervical cancer and other problems in female partners.
I'm sure cutting off their finger tips would reduce the risk of nailbed infections. Or a double mastectomy would eliminate the chance of breast cancer. However, I doubt many would consider that a valid reason to permanently remove a body part from someone who's incapable of consenting to it.
-
Also a good place to say that medical associations all over the world disagree with the AAP's stance that circumcision is beneficial at all.
http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Nieuws/Nieuwsarchief/Nieuwsbericht-1/International-physicians-protest-against-American-Academy-of-Pediatrics-policy-on-infant-male-circumcision.htm#.UWKD9aPgits.facebook
-
I guess it's too much to ask for male genital mutilation to be illegal, but is it really too much to ask to make it illegal to suck on baby penises?
Apparently part of religious freedom entails being able to put a baby's wang in your mouth. Who knew?
Hey, if it can honestly and without any sense of irony entail cutting up someone else's wang, putting said doodle in your mouth seems like a rather minor concern in comparison.
But at least there are medical benefits to circumcision, right? Supposedly it lowers the risk of HIV infection (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/malecircumcision/) for heterosexual males, and also reduces the risk of cervical cancer and other problems in female partners.
I'm sure cutting off their finger tips would reduce the risk of nailbed infections. Or a double mastectomy would eliminate the chance of breast cancer. However, I doubt many would consider that a valid reason to permanently remove a body part from someone who's incapable of consenting to it.
Yeah, chopping off fingers is totally analogous there, Art ::)
Also a good place to say that medical associations all over the world disagree with the AAP's stance that circumcision is beneficial at all.
http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Nieuws/Nieuwsarchief/Nieuwsbericht-1/International-physicians-protest-against-American-Academy-of-Pediatrics-policy-on-infant-male-circumcision.htm#.UWKD9aPgits.facebook
Thanks for at least posting something of substance. This, at the very least, suggests there is an ongoing debate on the benefits of circumcisions. I do know that the CDC acknowledged that complications certainly occurred, they just downplayed them as rare enough to not be a valid criticism of the practice.
-
I guess it's too much to ask for male genital mutilation to be illegal, but is it really too much to ask to make it illegal to suck on baby penises?
Apparently part of religious freedom entails being able to put a baby's wang in your mouth. Who knew?
Hey, if it can honestly and without any sense of irony entail cutting up someone else's wang, putting said doodle in your mouth seems like a rather minor concern in comparison.
But at least there are medical benefits to circumcision, right? Supposedly it lowers the risk of HIV infection (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/malecircumcision/) for heterosexual males, and also reduces the risk of cervical cancer and other problems in female partners.
I'm sure cutting off their finger tips would reduce the risk of nailbed infections. Or a double mastectomy would eliminate the chance of breast cancer. However, I doubt many would consider that a valid reason to permanently remove a body part from someone who's incapable of consenting to it.
Yeah, chopping off fingers is totally analogous there, Art ::)
Finger tips, not the whole finger.
-
I guess it's too much to ask for male genital mutilation to be illegal, but is it really too much to ask to make it illegal to suck on baby penises?
Apparently part of religious freedom entails being able to put a baby's wang in your mouth. Who knew?
Hey, if it can honestly and without any sense of irony entail cutting up someone else's wang, putting said doodle in your mouth seems like a rather minor concern in comparison.
But at least there are medical benefits to circumcision, right? Supposedly it lowers the risk of HIV infection (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/malecircumcision/) for heterosexual males, and also reduces the risk of cervical cancer and other problems in female partners.
I'm sure cutting off their finger tips would reduce the risk of nailbed infections. Or a double mastectomy would eliminate the chance of breast cancer. However, I doubt many would consider that a valid reason to permanently remove a body part from someone who's incapable of consenting to it.
Yeah, chopping off fingers is totally analogous there, Art ::)
Finger tips, not the whole finger.
Thank you, that distinction makes your analogy only slightly less ridiculous.
EDIT: To clarify what my opinion on circumcision actually is, I'll say that I'm more or less undecided but I lean towards what the existing body of research currently says on the subject. The CDC asserts that studies demonstrate that it lowers risk of HIV/STD infection in heterosexual partners, and if that is actually the case then I don't see why circumcision is a big deal--especially since I had that at birth and have suffered no ill effects from it. Now, if someone can conclusively prove the opposite then I would say that the procedure is arbitrary, archaic and unnecessary. But just trying to say it's like lopping off other body parts and not trying to make a scientific argument isn't going to, and shouldn't, convince anyone of anything.
-
EDIT: To clarify what my opinion on circumcision actually is, I'll say that I'm more or less undecided but I lean towards what the existing body of research currently says on the subject. The CDC asserts that studies demonstrate that it lowers risk of HIV/STD infection in heterosexual partners, and if that is actually the case then I don't see why circumcision is a big deal--especially since I had that at birth and have suffered no ill effects from it. Now, if someone can conclusively prove the opposite then I would say that the procedure is arbitrary, archaic and unnecessary. But just trying to say it's like lopping off other body parts and not trying to make a scientific argument isn't going to, and shouldn't, convince anyone of anything.
You didn't suffer ill effects from it. Doesn't mean others haven't. And it's removal of a part without the person's consent. I can see why someone would be angry about it.
-
EDIT: To clarify what my opinion on circumcision actually is, I'll say that I'm more or less undecided but I lean towards what the existing body of research currently says on the subject. The CDC asserts that studies demonstrate that it lowers risk of HIV/STD infection in heterosexual partners, and if that is actually the case then I don't see why circumcision is a big deal--especially since I had that at birth and have suffered no ill effects from it. Now, if someone can conclusively prove the opposite then I would say that the procedure is arbitrary, archaic and unnecessary. But just trying to say it's like lopping off other body parts and not trying to make a scientific argument isn't going to, and shouldn't, convince anyone of anything.
You didn't suffer ill effects from it. Doesn't mean others haven't. And it's removal of a part without the person's consent. I can see why someone would be angry about it.
I already said that ill effects do happen, and it doesn't seem to be widespread to my knowledge. And yeah it's the removal of a body part but, I just personally can't bring myself to get that worked up over a foreskin. I think I'd be more upset if I had lost my pinky toe at birth. Again, that's just my personal thoughts as the subject applies to me--if anyone who was circumsized at birth feels violated and angry, they have every right to do so; I'm not going to tell people what to feel.
-
I understand, I was just responding to the "I don't see why circumcision is a big deal" portion. It's fine that you're not angry over loss of your foreskin, but you have to be able to acknowledge that it's quite acceptable for people to be angry over it. The part I just quoted seemed to imply otherwise. And even if it's merely removal of the foreskin, it's still a procedure done without consent, and that's wildly unreasonable, to me.
-
And even if it's merely removal of the foreskin, it's still a procedure done without consent, and that's wildly unreasonable, to me.
Ayup. That's about the crux of the issue.
-
And even if it's merely removal of the foreskin, it's still a procedure done without consent, and that's wildly unreasonable, to me.
Ayup. That's about the crux of the issue.
If it's a procedure that carries medical benefits with it, then I personally feel that outweighs the issue of consent on the part of an infant. After all, and I realize that this is not a perfect analogy, I might have grown up to be an anti-vaxxer and, as such, be angered that I received vaccinations (http://www.swaraj.org/shikshantar/40Reasons.htm) without my consent. We know the vast benefits of immunizations (which makes the case far more concrete here) and so we recognize that even though the infant did not consent, the medical reasons for vaccinations outweigh the consent issue. It's different in the circumcision case because A) you actually lose a part of you, however small, during this procedure and B) the medical benefits appear to be hotly contested by both sides. So, like I said before, if there are medical benefits to having your child circumsized (and I have to empathize with parents such as my own who made the decision based on the advice of medical doctors) then they may very well outweigh the rights of an infant who may, in the future, disagree with his parent/guardian's decision to have him circumsized. All in all, for me it's a matter of medical benefits as opposed to consent.
-
And even if it's merely removal of the foreskin, it's still a procedure done without consent, and that's wildly unreasonable, to me.
Ayup. That's about the crux of the issue.
If it's a procedure that carries medical benefits with it, then I personally feel that outweighs the issue of consent on the part of an infant. After all, and I realize that this is not a perfect analogy, I might have grown up to be an anti-vaxxer and, as such, be angered that I received vaccinations (http://www.swaraj.org/shikshantar/40Reasons.htm) without my consent. We know the vast benefits of immunizations (which makes the case far more concrete here) and so we recognize that even though the infant did not consent, the medical reasons for vaccinations outweigh the consent issue. It's different in the circumcision case because A) you actually lose a part of you, however small, during this procedure and B) the medical benefits appear to be hotly contested by both sides. So, like I said before, if there are medical benefits to having your child circumsized (and I have to empathize with parents such as my own who made the decision based on the advice of medical doctors) then they may very well outweigh the rights of an infant who may, in the future, disagree with his parent/guardian's decision to have him circumsized. All in all, for me it's a matter of medical benefits as opposed to consent.
But you said yourself that the supposed medical benefits not exactly agreed upon by the medical community. Not to mention, there are a whole host of complications and other problems it can cause besides the loss of sensitivity. I really don't see how it's justifiable to leave something as personal and permanent as removing a body part up to the whims of the parents (who'll happily do it for reasons as asinine as "a boy should look like his father") when the only arguments in favour are some rather minor and unproven medical benefits. In fact, the only reason there's even controversy over it in the first place is because it's culturally accepted.
-
And even if it's merely removal of the foreskin, it's still a procedure done without consent, and that's wildly unreasonable, to me.
Ayup. That's about the crux of the issue.
If it's a procedure that carries medical benefits with it, then I personally feel that outweighs the issue of consent on the part of an infant. After all, and I realize that this is not a perfect analogy, I might have grown up to be an anti-vaxxer and, as such, be angered that I received vaccinations (http://www.swaraj.org/shikshantar/40Reasons.htm) without my consent. We know the vast benefits of immunizations (which makes the case far more concrete here) and so we recognize that even though the infant did not consent, the medical reasons for vaccinations outweigh the consent issue. It's different in the circumcision case because A) you actually lose a part of you, however small, during this procedure and B) the medical benefits appear to be hotly contested by both sides. So, like I said before, if there are medical benefits to having your child circumsized (and I have to empathize with parents such as my own who made the decision based on the advice of medical doctors) then they may very well outweigh the rights of an infant who may, in the future, disagree with his parent/guardian's decision to have him circumsized. All in all, for me it's a matter of medical benefits as opposed to consent.
But you said yourself that the supposed medical benefits not exactly agreed upon by the medical community. Not to mention, there are a whole host of complications and other problems it can cause besides the loss of sensitivity. I really don't see how it's justifiable to leave something as personal and permanent as removing a body part up to the whims of the parents (who'll happily do it for reasons as asinine as "a boy should look like his father") when the only arguments in favour are some rather minor and unproven medical benefits. In fact, the only reason there's even controversy over it in the first place is because it's culturally accepted.
Wait, wait, full stop. What do you mean "look like his father"? Parents want the dicks of fathers and sons to look alike? I feel like I'm missing something.
EDIT: And before you say it, I mean more than just my foreskin.
-
In addition to what Art said, if the medical benefits like lower HIV and cervical cancer risk were proven 100% true, those are benefits that occur in adulthood. The person would then have the choice of being circumcised, and he'd still receive those benefits.
-
Wait, wait, full stop. What do you mean "look like his father"? Parents want the dicks of fathers and sons to look alike?
Yep. It's a depressingly common justification for circumcision. I'm sure the internet will back me up on this, assuming you're feeling masochistic enough to check.
-
Wait, wait, full stop. What do you mean "look like his father"? Parents want the dicks of fathers and sons to look alike?
Yep. It's a depressingly common justification for circumcision.
(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view4/4002778/nostalgia-critic-what-o.gif)
I'm sure the internet will back me up on this, assuming you're feeling masochistic enough to check.
Of all the things I've ever wanted to search the Internet for, that is not one of them. Consider this a very rare case of me taking someone at their word.
-
A medical association in Canada recently revised their circumcision stance to be more neutral (which many European medical associations also disagree with, of course), and one of their reasons was actually that the father should have the option to make his son look like him.
I had a chart somewhere comparing the AAP's position on the benefits and risks to a European country's, I think Sweden. The European country claimed risks were much more dangerous and the benefits less substantial than the AAP were claiming. I'll post that as soon as I can dig it up.
I also wanted to include how little American doctors seem to know about the foreskin. They even have a habit of retracting infants during check-ups, which is a big no-no. This tends to cause the infections people think the foreskin itself causes. They also tend to push circumcision for any little issue with the foreskin, something other countries leave as a last resort.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201110/why-continue-harm-boys-ignorance-male-anatomy
(Link detailing the forced retraction by doctors issue)
-
I just want to emphasize my previous point, because I think it's extremely important. And if the medical benefits of circumcision are so hotly contested right now, then it's not fair to have a guy cut for potential benefits. Let him decide.
-
Of course. There's also the fact that a man can be given adequate pain medication. Infants often aren't given enough because of the danger, and local anesthetics don't numb the frenulum much. Local is usually the only type infants are given, if they're given any at all.
-
I just want to emphasize my previous point, because I think it's extremely important. And if the medical benefits of circumcision are so hotly contested right now, then it's not fair to have a guy cut for potential benefits. Let him decide.
I still feel that the parents should be allowed to decide, and personally don't view circumcision as something that's that horrible. For the people who are against it, I understand where you're coming from but I just disagree.
-
Honestly, the issue is "should parents be allowed to force their children into having purely cosmetic surgeries done for no real medical reason?"
Would anyone here support breast implants for 10-year-old girls? How about the parents of a dwarf child being able to force them into those horrific leg-lengthening procedures? How can anyone sit here and condemn female genital mutilation overseas, while approving of the exact same thing being done to males here?
Circumcision itself doesn't have to be a terrible thing. I'm all for people having the choice to do it to themselves. But when you do it to a child, that choice is gone. Forever. A child can't magically regrow his foreskin if he decides he wants it as an adult--but one who has it can make an informed choice to have to it removed.
-
How can anyone sit here and condemn female genital mutilation overseas, while approving of the exact same thing being done to males here?
No, just no. It is NOT the same thing. It's not even in the same ballpark. Comparing something with that (apparently arguably) has medical (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/malecircumcision/) benefits (http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/) and that is done for health reasons is not the same as mutilating the genitalia of girls--a process that unquestionably has no medical benefits (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/index.html) and is done in order to stop women from feeling sexual pleasure of any sort--is a disgusting trivialization of FGM. If people want to debate the benefits and drawbacks of male circumcision, fine. But let's not start comparing it to a barbaric practice done to women out of spite.
-
How can anyone sit here and condemn female genital mutilation overseas, while approving of the exact same thing being done to males here?
And before anyone says FGM is different can't be compared, it isn't, and yes it can.
Many people think FGM is the removal of the clitoris with a piece of glass and sewing up the vagina. That may be done in some African countries, but worldwide, most FGM isn't that extreme. In Egypt and Indonesia, the common form of FGM is removing the clitoral hood (which is pretty much exactly what MGM is) and it's done by a doctor in a hospital.
http://aandes.blogspot.com/2010/04/circumcision.html
This is a blog by an Indonesian woman who had her daughter circumcised. Only the clitoral hood was removed, as she specified in the comments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcJNAtn-c6I&feature=youtu.be
A Youtube video of women defending female circumcision in Egypt.
http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/news/indonesia-ignores-un-ban-on-female-circumcision-denies-mutilation/581699
And this shows something doesn't even have to be removed to be considered FGM, and illegal in the USA. This type of circumcision is just scraping some skin from the clitoris in Indonesia. Nothing removed, still considered mutilation.
IMO, there is no good reason to be against FGM but think male circumcision is okay.
-
How can anyone sit here and condemn female genital mutilation overseas, while approving of the exact same thing being done to males here?
And before anyone says FGM is different can't be compared, it isn't, and yes it can.
Many people think FGM is the removal of the clitoris with a piece of glass and sewing up the vagina. That may be done in some African countries, but worldwide, most FGM isn't that extreme. In Egypt and Indonesia, the common form of FGM is removing the clitoral hood (which is pretty much exactly what MGM is) and it's done by a doctor in a hospital.
http://aandes.blogspot.com/2010/04/circumcision.html
This is a blog by an Indonesian woman who had her daughter circumcised. Only the clitoral hood was removed, as she specified in the comments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcJNAtn-c6I&feature=youtu.be
A Youtube video of women defending female circumcision in Egypt.
http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/news/indonesia-ignores-un-ban-on-female-circumcision-denies-mutilation/581699
And this shows something doesn't even have to be removed to be considered FGM, and illegal in the USA. This type of circumcision is just scraping some skin from the clitoris in Indonesia. Nothing removed, still considered mutilation.
IMO, there is no good reason to be against FGM but think male circumcision is okay.
It's completely different. I was not circumsized to stunt my sexual pleasure, and at least male circumcision has some legitimate reasons behind it. If you want to debate the medical benefits of it, feel free to post that. I can't even wrap my head around this, because you have one practice with evidence of medical benefits and one with zero. This is fucking baffling and borderline sexist.
I think this (http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2008/11/12/why-male-circumcision-and-fema/) sums it up nicely. I could still be convinced that the problems of male circumcision outweigh the benefits, but comparing the two...I apologize for being so angry but it REALLY rubs me the wrong way.
-
The type of circumcision I was talking about was not done to curb sexual pleasure. If you read/watch them, you'll see they use the same reasons many people do to justify MGM. They think it's cleaner, healthier, and many women want it done to their daughters because it's tradition.
And if you're going to say there are no benefits to FGM, remember that many European countries say the same about MGM, but we ignore it because we think there are benefits. That's pretty much what these countries with FGM are doing.
And remember, I'm not talking about cutting the clitoris off and sewing up the vagina, but the more common clitoral hood circumcision, which is almost the exact same thing as MGM. In fact, it's probably worse for men, since their foreskins are bigger and cover a lot more skin.
I have to say I don't agree with that article at all, besides the general idea that FGM is wrong, which I agree with.
-
The type of circumcision I was talking about was not done to curb sexual pleasure. If you read/watch them, you'll see they use the same reasons many people do to justify MGM. They think it's cleaner, healthier, and many women want it done to their daughters because it's tradition.
And there's not even remotely any proof of this. Besides, even if they say that's the reason these are Muslim nations that tend to be extremely patriarchal, so I'm not surprised that even women would try and justify the practice. It's a cultural thing.
And if you're going to say there are no benefits to FGM, remember that many European countries say the same about MGM, but we ignore it because we think there are benefits. That's pretty much what these countries with FGM are doing.
Fine, then let the people in European countries do more research about male circumcision. The CDC, the WHO and other organizations who have studied it have said otherwise--it isn't about just ignoring things because they don't like it. But I think you'd be hardpressed to find ANY reputable health organizations agreeing that there is ANY scientific evidence that FGM has medical benefits.
And remember, I'm not talking about cutting the clitoris off and sewing up the vagina, but the more common clitoral hood circumcision, which is almost the exact same thing as MGM.
How is it almost the exact thing? Even with that there is long-lasting damage--something one rarely finds with male circumcision.
-
In other words, you can't just say, "Well, they're both procedures done to genetalia that involve removing something so they're totally the same." We're talking about one procedure (FGM) that is done to stop women from experiencing sexual pleasure and that, even if some people in Islamic countries believe there are health benefits, there is no evidence of them; and a second procedure (MGM) which is not done as a way to control men's sexuality and actually has scientific research from prominent groups saying it carries benefits, even if those benefits are doubted by the medical doctors that were linked to earlier. If you want to disprove what the CDC or WHO does, then by all means do it, but I feel you're making a false equivalency.
-
MGM does cause long lasting damage. Thousands of nerve endings essential for sexual stimulation are lost, along with the protection of the glans. It's been connected with erectile dysfunction, for one.
And that's just if there are no complications to the procedure. If there are complications, it's even worse.
And here's another thing I find troubling: Why is it that you can say FGM isn't the same as MGM because it would be like cutting off the entire penis, then why can't the retort be, "Yes, but then what's wrong with removing the foreskin, then? We already do that with men."
It's like FGM can only be compared to MGM to explain how damaging it is, but not to highlight how similar they can be.
Oh, and MGM did gain popularity as a way to curb masturbation in the USA in the late 1800s. It has been done to stop sexual feelings before.
-
MGM does cause long lasting damage. Thousands of nerve endings essential for sexual stimulation are lost, along with the protection of the glans. It's been connected with erectile dysfunction, for one.
And that's just if there are no complications to the procedure. If there are complications, it's even worse.
I never said there were no complications--any medical procedure can have complications, but according to the sources I gave those are rare.
And here's another thing I find troubling: Why is it that you can say FGM isn't the same as MGM because it would be like cutting off the entire penis, then why can't the retort be, "Yes, but then what's wrong with removing the foreskin, then? We already do that with men."
It's like FGM can only be compared to MGM to explain how damaging it is, but not to highlight how similar they can be.
The damage is discussed to differentiate the two, with one being demonstrably worse than the other.
Oh, and MGM did gain popularity as a way to curb masturbation in the USA in the late 1800s. It has been done to stop sexual feelings before.
Which brings us back to the question of whether it actually does so--i.e. the damage argument. Does male circumcision stunt sexuality? How often? Because it seems far more common for FGM than "MGM".
Here's what I feel you'd have to show to say that FGM is the same as "MGM": That male circumcision was primarily a result of a deeply sexist culture (sexist against males in this case) and was done first and foremost to stop sexual pleasure. Moreover, there would have to be frequent cases of long-lasting damage, not rare cases. Finally, there would have to be concrete evidence from reputable medical groups saying, as with FGM, that there are either no medical benefits or that whatever medical benefits there are are vastly outweighed by the medical problems. Then you'd show they are the same. Until then, you can make small comparisons between the two but in the end one is far, far worse than the other.
-
Yeah... Clockwork that's really not cool to compare male and female circumcision... Rabbit covered most of what I wanted to say already though.
-
I was the one that made the comparison, and I stand by it. Because it's fucking true. The only legitimate difference between the two practices is that Americans are fucking used to lopping off part of boys' dicks. So used to it, in fact, that a natural penis is now considered weird and gross by most Americans. And, well, since leaving the penis intact instead of taking a knife to it is weird, we might as well keep going.
That is seriously the only argument the pro-circumcision crowd has on its side. It's normal, so we may as well keep it up. Too bad that botched, unnecessary surgery means Little Timmy will never be able to keep it up.
-
I was the one that made the comparison, and I stand by it. Because it's fucking true. The only legitimate difference between the two practices is that Americans are fucking used to lopping off part of boys' dicks. So used to it, in fact, that a natural penis is now considered weird and gross by most Americans. And, well, since leaving the penis intact instead of taking a knife to it is weird, we might as well keep going.
That is seriously the only argument the pro-circumcision crowd has on its side. It's normal, so we may as well keep it up.
You are completely misrepresenting the pro-circumcision arguments. I disagree with circumcision in principle because I believe it is unnecessary and interferes with the child's bodily autonomy, but I do give scientific evidence supporting its practice some weight. (On the other hand, there is no legitimate medical reason for female circumcision. At least male circumcision has some evidence supporting it, even if that evidence is very debatable.) Not everything is as cut-and-dry as you'd like to think.
Too bad that botched, unnecessary surgery means Little Timmy will never be able to keep it up.
No. Circumcisions are almost always a safe procedure; the vast majority of men who are circumcised function normally during sex. You can't say the same about women who have been circumcised and thus have had basically all potential for sexual pleasure removed.
-
I want to pop on and point out that the risk (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/895/what-are-the-odds-of-getting-aids-from-ordinary-heterosexual-sex) ratio of HIV infection is a 1 in 5 million chance for a non-risk sexual partner. Even if your sexual partner has HIV, it's still a 1 in 500 chance.
And as for the studies, the most recent I one done I know of was in 2005 and 2007 in Africa. Those studies, however, were seriously (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021171713) flawed (http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/05/when-bad-science-kills-or-how-to-spread-aids/).
-
No. Circumcisions are almost always a safe procedure; the vast majority of men who are circumcised function normally during sex. You can't say the same about women who have been circumcised and thus have had basically all potential for sexual pleasure removed.
The point is, the procedure is not without risk, and any benefits are laughably minor--if they exist at all. Certainly not enough to justify irreversible surgery. It's one thing if there is actually a problem and the surgery is done as a form of treatment. But since when the hell has "cut off minors' body parts without consent" been an acceptable form of preventative medicine?
'Cause I can assure you, cutting off a kid's legs guarantees he'll never get a broken leg, but I don't imagine that one's going to catch on any time soon.
-
Whether or not its equitable to FGM is, to me, moot. What is happening, purely and simply, is cosmetic surgery being performed on infants without their consent. The claims that circumcision has medical benefits have, at best, mixed levels of support and dissent from the medical community.
Yes, there are times when circumcision is necessary: my brother is a living example. Long story short, his foreskin wasn't growing with the rest of his dick, causing extreme pain, and was therefore removed.
But, let me get this across, before this gets drowned out by people yelling at one another and flinging their shit: they are cutting pieces off infant boys' penises. Generally speaking, if you cut something the fuck off in medicine, you have a very, VERY fucking good reason to do so. There are some good reasons to circumcise, and when those situations arise, its perfectly acceptable. Other times, its not. Its not okay to lop off bits of a person's cock without a really fucking good reason behind it. Conformity is NOT a good reason.
With the evidence for and against it being so mixed, I'm looking past that, to the simple facts of the matter. Argue what you will, that's my stance, and that's what happens.
I'll let ya in on something: my mom, to this day, insists that I'm circumcised. I am not, and I'm not the only one who can attest to that. Why? I really have no clue, but the one I'd like to believe was that the doctor had a crisis of conscience, and didn't go thru with an unnecessary procedure, and my cock is better off for it.
[ETA]
That said, what happened to this poor child should be grounds for a fucking lawsuit and imprisonment of the offending bastard who caused this. He infected an infant with fucking herpes. If it'd been done to an adult male, there'd be veritable lynch mobs outside the motherfucker's house, the same should apply here, if not moreso, because its a fucking infant.
-
But it is an important part of abraham's covenant with God. And moses told the Israelites to circumcise their hearts.
Sorry but I would have to say that Moiles have no business doing circumcision these days unless they are also Surgeons and are doing it in modern operation room conditions.
-
The point is, the procedure is not without risk, and any benefits are laughably minor--if they exist at all. Certainly not enough to justify irreversible surgery. It's one thing if there is actually a problem and the surgery is done as a form of treatment. But since when the hell has "cut off minors' body parts without consent" been an acceptable form of preventative medicine?
This, so hard. Seriously, chopping an infant's dick without his consent just to have questionable future benefits? How is that okay? Like I said before, let him decide if he wants to do it when he's a damn adult, because he can still receive those supposed benefits at that time. The parents shouldn't get to decide what their kid's dick is like.
-
This looks like a job for Foreskin Man (http://www.foreskinman.com/).
-
But it is an important part of abraham's covenant with God. And moses told the Israelites to circumcise their hearts.
Isn't that also known as "getting stabbed"?
Or do they just slice of one of the major arteries to make it look more presentable?