5 ms·

Are you talking about male circumcision? It's hardly a blip on the radar of invasive procedures with no lasting side effects except some minor benefits.

by jjeaff 4y ago

causi 4y ago
Cutting off an infant's outer ears or doing electrolysis on their armpit hair follicles or burning them with a hot iron also have no long lasting side effects but we don't allow those because of course we don't. Cutting off a male prepuce has just as much effect as cutting off a female prepuce. Can you imagine a doctor agreeing to removing a baby girl's clitoral hood? As someone who did have long-lasting effects from circumcision, I would delight in finding the son of a bitch that did it to me and seeing how he likes having pieces removed. You don't need a spreadsheet to know that causing agony to children is a bad thing.
- balfirevic 4y ago
  > I would delight in finding the son of a bitch that did it to me and seeing how he likes having pieces removed That's understandable, but I'm curious - do you feel the same about your parents, who presumably scheduled the circumcision?
  - causi 4y ago
    Somewhat, but my parents didn't have to listen to the screaming. He did, and kept going.
    - jjeaff 4y ago
      You act like you remember it. Most parents are present for the operation. And at least modernly, they use injected local anistetic.
celeritascelery 4y ago
To elaborate the risk vs benefits[2], circumcision can reduce the risk of UTI in males by 10x. Not 10%, but 10x[1]. It also significantly reduces the risk of STI's particularly HIV. And as you said, there are no lasting negative side-effects (though a very small risk of complications). [1]https://health.choc.org/circumcision-and-urinary-tract-infections/ https://health.choc.org/circumcision-and-urinary-tract-infec... [2]https://www.center4research.org/circumcision-health-benefits-risks/ https://www.center4research.org/circumcision-health-benefits...
- theqabalist 4y ago
  The majority of the world is not circumcised. The majority of the world is not dealing with an STI epidemic; some areas are, and only with some STIs. The US has a very high circumcision rate and a very high STI rate for what the proponents of circumcision would like you to believe. The two are only correlated due to a third variable. Circumcision simply isn't a good replacement in any circumstance for sexual hygiene. Don't mutilate children to control for the root variable. Males are born with foreskin for a reason. Much like one is not born prozac-deficient, the majority of males are not born with some evolutionary "excess".
- causi 4y ago
  Those are good reasons for you to get circumcised. They are not good reasons to do it to someone who cannot consent. You should also consider that statistics regarding complications only count complications that required medical intervention. Nobody goes around asking men "does anything bother you about your penis?" and noting down what annoyances could've been caused by circumcision. There are a lot of men who don't know that not everyone is bothered by loose underwear rubbing on them or that getting your frenulum licked is supposed to feel really nice.
  - celeritascelery 4y ago
    I am sympathetic to the consent argument (I don't know that I would have my boys circumcised). However risk significantly increases with age, so that is something to consider.
gumby 4y ago
If that's the case why not wait until the recipient is an adult and can give consent? When my son was born (in the US) the woman who did these procedures was very aggressive and persistent about having it done immediately. When I said that he could choose when he was an adult she replied, "But in that case he will say no" which seemed like a very odd position use to try to justify the mutilation.
- jjeaff 4y ago
  Because it is way more of a big deal after infancy and especially after puberty. More nerve endings and more connections are made at that point. Not to mention just more skin to be removed.
Fire-Dragon-DoL 4y ago
A blip on the radar? I find completely insane about this response. How could we consider this even somewhat acceptable is insane. Mutilate a baby because "it looks better to me or that's how it looks usually". No, sorry, it completely unreasonable. Adult deciding for themselves are totally fine. Children? No, that should be disallowed by law.

Are you talking about male circumcision? It's hardly a blip on the radar of invasive procedures with no lasting side effects except some minor benefits.

by jjeaff 4y ago

Are you talking about male circumcision? It's hardly a blip on the radar of invasive procedures with no lasting side effects except some minor benefits.

causi 4y ago

Cutting off an infant's outer ears or doing electrolysis on their armpit hair follicles or burning them with a hot iron also have no long lasting side effects but we don't allow those because of course we don't. Cutting off a male prepuce has just as much effect as cutting off a female prepuce. Can you imagine a doctor agreeing to removing a baby girl's clitoral hood? As someone who did have long-lasting effects from circumcision, I would delight in finding the son of a bitch that did it to me and seeing how he likes having pieces removed. You don't need a spreadsheet to know that causing agony to children is a bad thing.

balfirevic 4y ago
> I would delight in finding the son of a bitch that did it to me and seeing how he likes having pieces removed That's understandable, but I'm curious - do you feel the same about your parents, who presumably scheduled the circumcision?
- causi 4y ago
  Somewhat, but my parents didn't have to listen to the screaming. He did, and kept going.
  - jjeaff 4y ago
    You act like you remember it. Most parents are present for the operation. And at least modernly, they use injected local anistetic.

celeritascelery 4y ago

To elaborate the risk vs benefits[2], circumcision can reduce the risk of UTI in males by 10x. Not 10%, but 10x[1]. It also significantly reduces the risk of STI's particularly HIV. And as you said, there are no lasting negative side-effects (though a very small risk of complications). [1]https://health.choc.org/circumcision-and-urinary-tract-infections/ https://health.choc.org/circumcision-and-urinary-tract-infec... [2]https://www.center4research.org/circumcision-health-benefits-risks/ https://www.center4research.org/circumcision-health-benefits...

theqabalist 4y ago
The majority of the world is not circumcised. The majority of the world is not dealing with an STI epidemic; some areas are, and only with some STIs. The US has a very high circumcision rate and a very high STI rate for what the proponents of circumcision would like you to believe. The two are only correlated due to a third variable. Circumcision simply isn't a good replacement in any circumstance for sexual hygiene. Don't mutilate children to control for the root variable. Males are born with foreskin for a reason. Much like one is not born prozac-deficient, the majority of males are not born with some evolutionary "excess".
causi 4y ago
Those are good reasons for you to get circumcised. They are not good reasons to do it to someone who cannot consent. You should also consider that statistics regarding complications only count complications that required medical intervention. Nobody goes around asking men "does anything bother you about your penis?" and noting down what annoyances could've been caused by circumcision. There are a lot of men who don't know that not everyone is bothered by loose underwear rubbing on them or that getting your frenulum licked is supposed to feel really nice.
- celeritascelery 4y ago
  I am sympathetic to the consent argument (I don't know that I would have my boys circumcised). However risk significantly increases with age, so that is something to consider.

gumby 4y ago

If that's the case why not wait until the recipient is an adult and can give consent? When my son was born (in the US) the woman who did these procedures was very aggressive and persistent about having it done immediately. When I said that he could choose when he was an adult she replied, "But in that case he will say no" which seemed like a very odd position use to try to justify the mutilation.

jjeaff 4y ago
Because it is way more of a big deal after infancy and especially after puberty. More nerve endings and more connections are made at that point. Not to mention just more skin to be removed.

Fire-Dragon-DoL 4y ago

A blip on the radar? I find completely insane about this response. How could we consider this even somewhat acceptable is insane. Mutilate a baby because "it looks better to me or that's how it looks usually". No, sorry, it completely unreasonable. Adult deciding for themselves are totally fine. Children? No, that should be disallowed by law.