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.
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!
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.
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.
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:
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.
As the owner of a foreskin, fuck science. Yes, it is erogenous.
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.
Just to add: its not unique to the US, its even more common in many African, Middle Eastern, and majority Muslim countries
You are the biggest cunt so far.
I feel like the same people who are antiabortion are pro circumcision. This meme makes it sound like it’s the pro choice crowd are also the ones pushing circumcision, which is misleading no?
It is all coming from the Puritan ideology pushing the completely outdated and unrealistic idea that sexuality should be exclusively within the confines of marriage. Even the majority of the people pushing this ideal aren't following it themselves.
Circumcision is a way to discourage masturbation. This also means that they are against contraception which, according to them, promote extramarital sex. Abortion is only the tip of the iceberg of what they would ban if they were even given the chance and we've already seen them move on to attacking contraception in some places where they've already banned abortion.
No matter how they're trying to dress it as it is obviously a religion-motivated movement and should not be allowed to force its views on the people. It pisses me off that through their ideological reasoning they have also decided to fight stem cell research. We could have cured so many diseases and disabilities if it wasn't for these religious zealots.
Do you have a source on the circumcision being a tool to deter masturbation? I grew up understanding that it was yet one more thing that the Christians co-opted from the Jewish faith, and it was done because Christians wanted to cosplay gods chosen people.
Anecdotally, I’ve never heard a single person complain about masturbation difficulties due to being circumcised. I mean I guess if you performed the procedure at puberty it would be even more horrifying and traumatizing than doing it at birth, but I’m just not making the connection here.
I don’t know where you live, if it’s in Europe maybe it’s different. In the US, I know many pro-choice people who have gone the circumcision route for the own kids. For those who don’t want or have kids, quite a few have said they prefer cut guys. It’s still very much a normalized societal thing in the US.
Yep, the US is still very much in the 'most people (of all political ideologies) don't even see it as an issue' phase. Based on other political or cultural movements, I think we're still decades away from it even being seen as a real issue to address by most of society. We're maybe at a similar stage as the 50s were gay people?
Yeah I don't entirely follow the logic here, but I think the idea is:
- women complain about abortion rights
- but men also have body autonomy grievances
- if men choose to accept their own grievances as unresolvable, then women should, too.
I don't know the poster in question, so it could also be "this argument, but ironically"
Instead of working together, we should both just give up!
Solid choice, no notes.
Dude, just ask your dumb parents.
Exactly, circumcision isn't mandatory by law, unlike some of the draconian laws some states have and/or are trying to pass.
who says pro choice people demand circumcision. most pro-choice people would probably leave the choice to the kid when they grow up enough to have an opinion on it. and if they don't actively think that, I'm sure most can be very easily convinced to do so.
Where are my [FORESKIN], Summer?
https://www.adultswim.com/videos/rick-and-morty/where-are-my-testicles-summer
Straw man argument
That’s not what a strawman is. They’re not saying pro choice people are for circumcision, and then arguing against that falsely constructed opinion.
They’re making a joke that pro “choice” people should be against circumcision, as the babies who get them aren’t given the choice.
A strawman specifically means that they’re claiming that this is those people’s opinion, and then arguing against it.
Thanks for laying it out. I am curious about identifying logical fallacies. But after your description, strawman is exactly how I read the picture. Here's how it goes in my head: there's an unstated assumption that since circumcision in America is so common, that pro choice people are for it. And then they point out that circumcision at birth is against bodily autonomy. So yeah, strawman.
To me, the fact that it's intended as a joke is besides the point, but still supports strawman. Why is it funny? Because you contrast the pro-choice bodily autonomy ascribed to the pregnant woman with the lack of bodily autonomy for the circumcised child. But this juxtaposition ascribes the decision to circumsize the child to the pro choice person. Meaning, they're claiming that this is those people's opinion. And arguing against it. If instead we said that person A is pro-choice and person B circumcised their child then it isn't funny or clever anymore.
If I had a son he'd keep his foreskin until he can decide. I was there when they did my nephew's and fuck all of that.
Correct!
Why the fuck is a postmenopausal women giving this presentation? Neither issue pertains to her.
(This is a commentary on a male-dominated supreme court overturning Roe v. Wade)
maybe... she was forced to give birth before her menopause. or maybe she just has empathy for her fellow women
It's even possible she was circumcised. I know lots of circumcised women.
We don't know what stance on this issue she has, if any
Another .world banger take lmfao
/unpiss
This is a pissposting sub what kind of discourse were you expecting?
Why is that white person giving a presentation on racism? The issue doesn't pertain to them.
No melanin no opinion
Hey it's trans erasure
Not trans erasure, he's just an egg and I don't want to out him yet
