You appear to be arguing the individual motivations are not relevant since the eithical validity of the actions are somehow determined in some motivational vacuum, which can't exist. Therefore your statement is completely without foundation, or premise. Ding dong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
If that's what you got out of it, good for youQuote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Maybe you should write more clearly.
So you'd have a harder time peddling Human Condition? I'll take it under advisement
Peddling? It is. No sale required.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Wow, hard to believe no one's come along yet to challenge that suggestion.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Didn't anyone else notice how AAP changed the terminology from FGM to FGC? The only explanation I can find is they're trying to accommodate millions of "cut" western men who refuse to entertain the notion that they've been mutilated.
:eek:
Irrelevant anyway. These people come from cultures where it's OK to kill women if there's a rumor they've had sex before marriage (and, ironically, almost half of women killed in "honor killings" have intact hymens), and we don't exactly accommodate that social norm, or compromise and say "no murder, but you can beat the harlot into a coma with a Koran instead."Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Horseshit. Sorry their culture or religion (debatable) says they have to show their faith by assaulting and mutilating babies, but tough shit, that doesn't fly over here. So they need to decide what's more important - the Stone Age version of God they wanna worship, or freedom and prosperity, 'cause you can't have both.
I'm gonna go with my standard answer to all of life's mysteries - it probably has a lot to do with the fact that people are stupid. That aside, these days at least, our society is kind of based on the 1 man reproducing with 1 woman nuclear family model... so there is at least something to the idea that people need to be assigned to one sex or another. (And while I'm well aware that this really isn't the case biologically, it's something... certainly something more than circumcision has going for it).Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
<Shrug>Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
So what that the parents don't have that specific intent? That's an argument about how stupid [most] parents are believing that hacking up your baby's genitals could possibly serve any other purpose, not an argument in favor of letting morons force their kids genitals to be hacked up. Seriously... I'm a pretty convincing guy, and I bet I could convince two sufficiently stupid breeders to give their child a frontal lobe lobotomy to increase their baby's intelligence. If they're stupid enough to buy that, is it an argument in favor of lobotomizing infants, or an argument against letting those particular idiots breed?
As mentioned, the gender reassignment case is largely a red herring anyway (in addition to being exceedingly rare), because the motivations are different. One procedure is an attempt to fix something, the other procedure is an attempt to enforce sexual morality on people by mutilating them as infants or children (because that's the only time a sane person would agree to the procedure).
I really can't say I've experienced any social stigma myself, and almost every American male my age is cut. Honestly, there's really a lot more stigmatization against being the guy who checks out other guys' wangs in the locker room. (Go figure, huh?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Weird how the more sexually uptight areas of the country have way more circumcisions, huh? Almost like a direct correlation, or something. :oQuote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Not that I'm complaining... makes my intact penis a novelty item. :D
This has piqued my curiosity - are you willing to explain further?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Or they're correcting the double standard - lopping off part of a woman's genitals == "mutilation", but lopping off part of a guy's genitals == "circumcision."Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Frankly, that double standard always pissed me off, and I'm glad someone's doing something to fix it (even if I would prefer that they call both "mutilation.")
Well, what can I say? I think the 'it's mutilation, and that's the end of it' crowd is right. Still I would find it more than a bit disgusting if I hadn't been circumcised. In my case it happened when I was 7 years old, so I actually sort of remember it happening. It was something that hurt a bit, gave some discomfort, but mostly was a happy occasion with presents and me feeling really important. I have no scar tissue because of it and I don't really think it reduced sensitivity all that much (considering that I also have had the embarrasing 'orgasm on entry' experience) and I feel uncomfortable about having sex with men with a foreskin.
It makes for an interesting mixture of intellectual acceptance of one thing and emotional rejection of the same thing.
Well, not wanting to try too hard to rationally deconstruct an irrational impulse... but I was kind of curious in more of a "what's gross about skin" kind-of-way... I assumed you found something off-putting about foreskin (otherwise, why would you prefer not to have one), but I was looking more for a "what it is" or a "why that's so."
Well, it is off-putting. It just doesn't look quite right. And really, despite protestations to the opposite, I have never met an uncut man whose dick wasn't smelly.
Sounds like a good "excuse" to bathe together first. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Doesn't sound very appealing to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Now i wonder if my wang is smelly. Or, more importantly, if circumcised guys wangs dont smell at all. Because mine obviously is located in my crotchal region, and after a long hard day, can smell like a bear on heat.
My armpits sometimes, very rarely, smell of celery. Inexplicable as i hate celery with a passion...
Hey. Maybe i should cut them off... Unnatural, unhygeinic monstrosities.
Edit. In the morning, my breath reeks. It sickens even me. I honestly dont know how my g/f stands it. I just try not to breathe near her.
I've got it on pretty good authority that *all* genitals smell... even the circumcised ones... best you can do is be odor-neutral, I'm told. (I think that comes about as a result of hygiene, but I'm not sure. :o)Quote:
Originally Posted by Spawnie
Celery? Most people don't think of celery as having a scent, but it does. I kinda like it, actually. :)
If I drink Starbucks coffee, my armpit sweat has the faint odor of cat piss. Very gross and off-putting. That's the only brand tho, Starbucks. No idea why.....
As someone who worked at a Starbucks, I know the cat piss smell all too well. I hate their House Blend for that reason. If it sits out for awhile after brewing it gets that smell. Barf.
True, but on average cut penises have a less unpleasant smell.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Wow I thought it was just me thinking their House Blend has a funny smell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catgrrl
Well, back when I was a manwhore...I was a fan of just cock...cut or uncut...no matter.
*pokes the hornets nest*
Update: AAP retracts their statement
Quote:
The American Academy of Pediatrics has rescinded a controversial policy statement raising the idea that doctors in some communities should be able to substitute demands for female genital cutting with a harmless clitoral "pricking" procedure.
"We retracted the policy because it is important that the world health community understands the AAP is totally opposed to all forms of female genital cutting, both here in the U.S. and anywhere else in the world," said AAP President Judith S. Palfrey.
The contentious policy statement, issued in April, had condemned the practice of female genital cutting overall. But a small portion of statement suggesting the pricking procedure riled U.S. advocacy groups and survivors of female genital cutting.
Good. :up:
Next up, the AAP policy on infant male circumcision. Stating their opposition to all forms of male genital cutting....?
Don't bet on it. The Jews will never let it become policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
And as alber always tells us, the Jews run your country.
Yours too, I bet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spawnie
I think ours might be "the toffs" or "the trade unions", depending on what side of the divide you are on.
On this side of the pond, you're all Jew monkeys. And you deserve it too. Fuckers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spawnie
Where is Alber? I miss him in a weird way.
Probably sharing a room with kat in a loony bin. Probably not his turn to go online.
Yeah, I do too. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
The Royal Dutch Medical Association states its view that male circumcision on minors is not justifiable without a medical reason (supported by a lot of medical-scientific foundations and a vast majority of doctors):
http://knmg.artsennet.nl/web/file?uu...ontentid=77976
(it's in english)
Interesting, but ultimately a weak document. It doesn't specifically discuss the potential "preventative" or hygienic benefits or discuss the specific "male functioning" aspect. It's a shallow document saying, "this makes some of us uncomfortable" but not saying much substantive.
:rolleyes:
Hey, sorry for having a high standard for "official" verdicts besides "this is different than what we do, we don't like it".
:rolleyes: *sigh*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
You did not read the text, did ya?Quote:
- There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene. Partly in the light of the complications which can arise during or after circumcision, circumcision is not justifiable except on medical/therapeutic grounds. Insofar as there are medical benefits, such as a possibly reduced risk of HIV infection, it is reasonable to put off circumcision until the age at which such a risk is relevant and the boy himself can decide about the intervention, or can opt for any available alternatives.
- contrary to what is often thought, circumcision entails the risk of medical and psychological complications. The most common complications are bleeding, infections, meatus stenosis (narrowing of the
urethra) and panic attacks. Partial or complete penis amputations as a result of complications following circumcisions have also been reported, as have psychological problems as a result of the circumcision.
- Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is contrary to the rule that minors may only be exposed to medical treatments if illness or abnormalities are present, or if it can be convincingly demonstrated that the medical intervention is in the interest of the child, as in the case of vaccinations.
- Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity.
First of all, it's not different than what they do, they had been doing it in the past without worrying. And if you bothered to read the document, you would have read about the hygiene (which they disagree with), and medical (which they aren't sure about, but any benefit is not for kids but for grownups so they want people to choose it for themselves) sides are mentioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I actually read it in full, I was curious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
That's known as a list of bullet points for an opinion. Not a or even a meta-study.
Yes, they disagree. They make that clear and use a lot of words to say the same things. They don't point to a ton of research, and more importantly they don't address specific issues about potential benefits of circumcision with contradicting research. In other words, it's not a real discussion of details, it's just an opinion. And some of the opinions being stated as facts just don't pass the logic test. Circumcision causes panic attacks? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
I didn't read the document, but do you have some definitive medical studies with "proof" of the so-called preventative benefits of male circumcision? I'm pretty sure the whole thing surrounding cancer prevention has been debunked, and the benefits against HIV angle is still under study (in African areas with deeply entrenched sexual myths and cultural issues to boot).Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Hygiene, obviously, means teaching little boys to pull back the foreskin and wash with soap and water. Infant diaper-wearing UTIs is just as simple---don't let the baby sit in a super-absorbent diaper for hours on end, circumsized or not.
*and what's the "male functioning" aspect? :confused:
Male functioning = sex. :o
I've linked to various studies in this thread, it's not like I'm hatching some kind of weird conspiracy theory. It's a widely examined and debated issue. But that document doesn't get into the debate, just lists some bullet points.
That's because it isn't a study, but the stance of an association of dutch doctors, recommending how doctors should treat their patients. Also, I'm fairly sure they did read plenty of research about this before formulating their stance, but this is not a study paper itself, so they didn't include it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
They point to incidents reported by doctors themselves to the organisation. I assume they mean panic attacks during/shorty after the operation, not years later, no.Quote:
Yes, they disagree. They make that clear and use a lot of words to say the same things. They don't point to a ton of research, and more importantly they don't address specific issues about potential benefits of circumcision with contradicting research. In other words, it's not a real discussion of details, it's just an opinion. And some of the opinions being stated as facts just don't pass the logic test. Circumcision causes panic attacks? :rolleyes:
And they take the stance that the right of bodily integrity goes above cultural or religious reasons, and that the other possible benefits are still valid if you have the operation later, when you can actually decide for yourself. They're not saying there aren't any benefits, just that you shouldn't force surgery, with all its risks, on kids. 'We don't cut in kids unless there is a medical reason to'.
You mean the Pleasure Principle of the foreskin? That's subjective, and rather difficult to convince a cut male he's missing out on something he never experienced in the first place. Much easier (and frankly, rational) to argue that removing sensitive genital tissue will remove an aspect of pleasure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I thought Flixy made a good point; any (debatable) health positives can be chosen by an adult of consenting age.