You're viewing a single thread.
For those who don't know, the US systematically mutilates the genitals of baby boys and young boys.Sciences points to the foreskin being a protective and erogenous dual layered membrane.
It is not 'one side' pushing this. This is how the American people take their aggression out on males.
Just to add: its not unique to the US, its even more common in many African, Middle Eastern, and majority Muslim countries
You had me until the last sentence. There are a lot of deeply misguided—and plain fucking stupid—reasons that circumcision has become seen as the 'norm' in the US, but I don't think it's how the American people takes its aggression out on men?? That's a pretty unhinged thing to think. I understand the anger and frustration at genital mutilation of babies (bc that's what it is, in my opinion), but let's come back to earth a bit.
EDIT: since this comment is getting attention, I just wanted to add that it really does seem like people are waking up to how fucked circumcision is. We just had a baby, and as part of our stack of information brochures given to us by the hospital (in Oklahoma, a deeply red state), there was a whole page dedicated to circumcision pros and cons. You could tell it heavily favored not circumcising, and preserving bodily autonomy was it's own full bullet point on the cons side, as well as busting myths that people perpetuate trying to justify it still.
Also, in our infant care courses, they showed some really awful pictures of freshly-circumcised baby penises. We had already decided not to circumcise for obvious moral reasons, but that made us feel even more secure in our decision. I feel like more parents need to see that stuff to make them realize what's actually going to be done to their baby with the procedure.
All that to say, I think there's hope for decreasing the occurrences of this deeply awful cultural practice!
Insurance companies should do what they do and make it be a cosmetic surgery and not cover it. It should cost thousands in cash.
Even better would be to simply banun, unless there are proven medical reasons.
Leveraging the broken health care system to attack the revanchist cultural system?
I mean, maybe. But when child birth already runs into the $20k-$50k range, I doubt anyone is going to notice the $150 they charge for foreskin removal until the bill arrives.
That's what they're saying. The typical cost is $20k-$50k, with all but ~$3k covered by insurance.
If insurance doesn't cover it it's now $1200 out of pocket.
Making it illegal would be better, but that requires convincing people. Even if you approve of circumcision, you're still not going to be surprised when your insurance company drops what you consider to be something important.
If insurance doesn’t cover it it’s now $1200 out of pocket.
Where does a routine circumcision cost $1200? That's the same as Lasik.
Making it illegal would be better
Maybe you could try this by leveraging all the anti-Trans legislation.
I can honestly tell you I did not search very hard. First results for how much it cost said $500 cash price, and up to $4000 as billed to insurance. I picked a number in the middle.
Honestly it didn't seem that weird to me that removing skin from the genitals of a newborn would be along the same price as non-invasive outpatient surgery.
I did not search very hard.
:-/
It's an online discussion. I'm not going to go price shopping for average circumcision costs by state broken down by insurance coverage.
Random urologist lists cash and insurance prices for infant circumcision? Done, that's the range I'm using.
Meh, it'd be a $200 add-on charge.
An eye for an eye is pretty aggressive when it comes to penis mutilation, especially as the babies haven't done anything (wrong) yet.
Relevant post https://lemmy.world/comment/7949837
None of that has anything to do with the US "taking aggression out on males". Circumcision should be stopped but you're grasping for reasons here--there's no countrywide conspiracy to continue pushing it. The reasons are from historical pseudoscience and it's been in decline for 30 years.
That was a rabbit hole of reading.
While I whole heartedly disagree with the practice of circumsizing babies. (babies can't consent therfore an unnecessary procedure is just flat out unethical) It's not really true to say science shows that the foreskin is erogenous or even that circumcision affects sexual pleasure.
There is a bit of conflicting data out there so there is still some debate over the fact but right now the data leans heavily toward there being little to no adverse affects on sexual pleasure. And in fact some anecdotal evidence actually seems to show that the opposite may be true; that circumsized penises may actually be more sensitive to sexual stimuli.
Again though, I can't stress enough how much I believe circumsicion is wrong.
Edit: hey guys. Coming back to this and uh, have learned some things. I'd like to retract this statement pretty please. Please forgive me.
The studies around this are very often heavily biased.
The main reason it was pushed in the states in the first place was because of an anti-masturbatory craze.
Growing up (like 25 years ago) it was a bit weird how lotion was so strongly shorthand for masturbation in American TV and movies. Didn't really get it until I learned a lot of circumcised guys prefer or even require lotion for masturbation.
I'm circumsized, but apparently they didn't go too short, as I've never needed lotion to jerk off. I would hate to get it in the urethra anyway..
Curious study. I personally only have my self as a test subject, so it's quite subjective, however I use the foreskin quite a bit for stimulation, not really as an erogenous zone, more of a way to slide it in, it also helps prevent lubricants from drying up, since without at least spit it just hurts. It's REALLY sensitive under there and fucking hurts when rubbed by just about anything else, if I didn't have foreskin, it would have to become significantly more numb before I could rejoin society. Actual sex might not be as affected, but masturbation as I know it would cease to be.
That's really interesting actually. Might be why there's reports of things being more sensitive after adult circumsion. You're removing a protective layer that's been covering that super sensitive part of you all your life. All of a sudden it's gone and now that part is exposed.
This is gonna be a silly anology but I wonder if it's anything like playing guitar. When you first start, your fingertips hurt a bunch but as you play you build up calluses in addition to the fingertips just becoming partially numb so it stops hurting as much.
If I remember correctly, the top layers of the glans keratinize (in a similar way to your hands may form callouses) causing a long term loss in sensitivity. Adult circumcisions are probably more sensitive post op because the glans is left completely exposed when it was once covered and hasn't had the time to adapt. I'm uncircumcised and the thought of boxers brushing up against my bits while my heads' exposed sounds fucking awful haha
Lol, could be xD
It’s not really true to say science shows that the foreskin is erogenous or even that circumcision affects sexual pleasure.
https://bjui-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06685.x
"The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23374102/
"This study confirms the importance of the foreskin for penile sensitivity, overall sexual satisfaction, and penile functioning. Furthermore, this study shows that a higher percentage of circumcised men experience discomfort or pain and unusual sensations as compared with the uncircumcised population. Before circumcision without medical indication, adult men, and parents considering circumcision of their sons, should be informed of the importance of the foreskin in male sexuality. "
Source
Heads up, that source is written by Brian J. Morris, who is rather infamous having a circumcision fetish, and has a habit of peddling shitty studies meant to skew cultural acceptance of circumcision. Nine times out of ten, when people post pro-circumcision studies, they're from him. He is downright obsessed with it, constantly pumping out studies and publications solely about circumcision.
https://en.intactiwiki.org/wiki/Circlist
Take this above link with a grain of salt, it is literally from intact wiki, but still.
Here is a more educated breakdown:
As the owner of a foreskin, fuck science. Yes, it is erogenous.
there isn't conflicting data, there's people without foreskins not knowing what they've lost and people with foreskins who don't know how to jerk it properly.
as someone with a foreskin i can tell you with the utmost certainty that it is an erogenous zone and makes the experience infinitely better, it is unfathomable to me how circumcized people are even capable of masturbation and intercourse, it's like trying to swim without feet.
Wasn't it the point of religious nutter ? To prevent kids and people in general from masturbating because they think it is sin ? IMO it ls very obvious that it reduces sexual pleasure.
Brian Morris is a sadistic fundamentalist Christian creep and a fraud
There's also this comment that goes into it well
He was also an advocate for female circumcision (which is illegal in most of the non-muslim world and is mostly used as a mechanism to prevent women from having sex or to remove the pleasure from sex, it's a very cruel act)
In the same thread you can find this (the link doesn't work anymore though)
Another person already wrote about the academic bias that Brian Morris has, and how he's trying to tilt the body of research to support circumcision. It's also important to note that Brian Morris has a circumcision fetish, he gets sexual pleasure from seeing people getting circumcised and he is a member of the Gilgal Society, a circ fetish group. His name has been included in Gilgal pamphlets and in some of his early research papers he thanked the Gilgals for providing information and support.
You can verify some of the information I wrote on this page https://www.circumstitions.com/morris.html
I recently found a sub called r/DebunkingIntactivism (a "pro-circumcision" sub) and it's... it's fucking nutters. The people there talk like they've completely lost their minds. It's basically where a bunch of insecure circumcised dudes go to fume over other people not being mutilated, and make "slurs" for them and stuff. Anyways the few weirdos that are active in that sub love to cite that guy and only that guy a lot.
Yeaaah. Seems I've unintentionally sited some weird fucking guy. That'll teach me to not look into the writers of a study before I post about it. Fucking yikes...
Here's some posts from that weird fetishist cult community btw. These guys are obsessed... maybe Morris' alt accounts? lol
spoiler
False. Educate yourself on the ridged band and frenulum
I mean. I provided an actual source for my statement with aggregated data supporting my point. You, however, have not.
Sounds like you need to be educated.
And also the frenulum is not the foreskin.
And also the frenulum is not the foreskin.
While the other user hasn't explained why it is relevant, they are correct in that it is relevant. This is because circumcision usually removes the frenulum, or at least a large chunk of it. And it's downright criminal because the frenulum is very sensitive. What little left I have is the most sensitive part of mine.