3 ms·

I generally agree with you, though I don’t think “bodily integrity” is nebulous at all. I don’t only worry about the physical—I just didn’t mention the mental b

I generally agree with you, though I don’t think “bodily integrity” is nebulous at all. I don’t only worry about the physical—I just didn’t mention the mental because the article is about body modification.

ars 11y ago
My point is don't worry about "bodily integrity", worry "are they doing good, bad, or neutral". Obviously we would see squishing a head as bad, but there are other modifications that are not so cut and dry. > I find infant circumcision little different from head-binding or foot-binding Why? Using my principle, circumcision is neutral, it does no harm, and has a slight benefit. But foot-binding does clear harm. How do you justify considering them the same?
- evincarofautumn 11y ago
  I mainly care about bodily integrity because I want very much for people to have the freedom of self-determination. Fostering that freedom seems like an instance of good parenting. > Why? Using my principle, circumcision is neutral, it does no harm, and has a slight benefit. But foot-binding does clear harm. How do you justify considering them the same? They are different degrees of severity of doing something to a person’s body that they can’t understand or consent to. With circumcision, there’s rarely a medical reason to do it, and it can have negative effects on sexual function, so I assess it as a net negative.
  - Natsu 11y ago
    I've never seen a proper study assessing sexual function, only hearsay, are you aware of a proper study on that? Whereas I have seen studies suggesting that it helps prevent infections and even transmission of AIDS. For example: Source: http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/ http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/ "There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence. Male circumcision provides only partial protection, and therefore should be only one element of a comprehensive HIV prevention package which includes: the provision of HIV testing and counseling services; treatment for sexually transmitted infections; the promotion of safer sex practices; the provision of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use."
- cronjobber 11y ago
  To combine your points, the view that circumcision "does no harm" could be viewed as a widespread mental modification that helps perpetuate the physical one. Moreover, having the physical modification yourself, or having had it done to a dependent child, naturally predisposes to help in spreading the mental modification.
- antocv 11y ago
  Circumcision is clear harm, removing bodily fuunction. Only people witl a full penis know how good it is to have sex, circumcized men have less joy, but they dont really know what they are missing. Ask for example any male who was circumcized as adult. Sex feels different. Its mutilation, thats an easier word to spell as well.
- coffeetea 11y ago
  That anyone can believe circumcision "does no harm" is almost unbelievable to me, it's simply fascinating that such a view isn't even considered outlandish in much of the US. The foreskin has an important mechanical action to how the penis functions during sexual activity, in addition to containing numerous nerve endings and protecting the glans. The procedure itself is often incredibly painful and traumatic for the boys it is performed on, who are too young to be given general anesthetic. The amputation also leaves a scar for life, causes penile curving and desensitizes the glans. Circumcision became popular in the US specifically because it was a way to damage the penis in a way that would prevent boys from masturbating (seen as a severe sin by the religious conservatives at the time) while not preventing sexual procreation.

ars 11y ago

My point is don't worry about "bodily integrity", worry "are they doing good, bad, or neutral". Obviously we would see squishing a head as bad, but there are other modifications that are not so cut and dry. > I find infant circumcision little different from head-binding or foot-binding Why? Using my principle, circumcision is neutral, it does no harm, and has a slight benefit. But foot-binding does clear harm. How do you justify considering them the same?

evincarofautumn 11y ago
I mainly care about bodily integrity because I want very much for people to have the freedom of self-determination. Fostering that freedom seems like an instance of good parenting. > Why? Using my principle, circumcision is neutral, it does no harm, and has a slight benefit. But foot-binding does clear harm. How do you justify considering them the same? They are different degrees of severity of doing something to a person’s body that they can’t understand or consent to. With circumcision, there’s rarely a medical reason to do it, and it can have negative effects on sexual function, so I assess it as a net negative.
- Natsu 11y ago
  I've never seen a proper study assessing sexual function, only hearsay, are you aware of a proper study on that? Whereas I have seen studies suggesting that it helps prevent infections and even transmission of AIDS. For example: Source: http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/ http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/ "There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence. Male circumcision provides only partial protection, and therefore should be only one element of a comprehensive HIV prevention package which includes: the provision of HIV testing and counseling services; treatment for sexually transmitted infections; the promotion of safer sex practices; the provision of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use."
cronjobber 11y ago
To combine your points, the view that circumcision "does no harm" could be viewed as a widespread mental modification that helps perpetuate the physical one. Moreover, having the physical modification yourself, or having had it done to a dependent child, naturally predisposes to help in spreading the mental modification.
antocv 11y ago
Circumcision is clear harm, removing bodily fuunction. Only people witl a full penis know how good it is to have sex, circumcized men have less joy, but they dont really know what they are missing. Ask for example any male who was circumcized as adult. Sex feels different. Its mutilation, thats an easier word to spell as well.
coffeetea 11y ago
That anyone can believe circumcision "does no harm" is almost unbelievable to me, it's simply fascinating that such a view isn't even considered outlandish in much of the US. The foreskin has an important mechanical action to how the penis functions during sexual activity, in addition to containing numerous nerve endings and protecting the glans. The procedure itself is often incredibly painful and traumatic for the boys it is performed on, who are too young to be given general anesthetic. The amputation also leaves a scar for life, causes penile curving and desensitizes the glans. Circumcision became popular in the US specifically because it was a way to damage the penis in a way that would prevent boys from masturbating (seen as a severe sin by the religious conservatives at the time) while not preventing sexual procreation.