Infant Contracts Herpes Through Orthodox Jewish Circumcision Ritual

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

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.

[Auggziliary]

Yeah... Clockwork that's really not cool to compare male and female circumcision... Rabbit covered most of what I wanted to say already though.

[Yaezakura]

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.

[Osama bin Bambi]

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.

[Damen]

I want to pop on and point out that the risk 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 flawed.

[Yaezakura]

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.

[RavynousHunter]

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.

[davedan]

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.

[Sleepy]

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.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

This looks like a job for Foreskin Man.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

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?