Total Posts:71|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Study: Circumcision is Genital Mutilation

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 4:38:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
A new study in the British Journal of Urology International shows that men with normal, intact penises enjoy more sexual sensitivity -- as much as four times more -- than those who have been circumcised. Circumcising slices off more of a male's sensitivity than is normally present in all ten fingertips.

http://www.prweb.com...
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 4:41:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
MOAR

In every site tested, intact men have as much or more fine-touch skin sensitivity on their penis and foreskin than a man who has been circumcised. Circumcision removes the most sensitive portions of the penis.
This new study demonstrates what we have suspected for decades, that circumcision"s result " if not its intent " is reduced sexual pleasure for men. As such, it is a violation of a male"s right to bodily integrity. In large part, female circumcision does the same; even the mildest forms remove the most sensitive portions of the female genitalia. Females in the USA and many other countries are protected by law from all forms of genital cutting.
The mistaken belief behind circumcision is that it is cleaner, healthier, protects against disease, and will make males more tractable in a society.
Because circumcision has such a drastic effect on sexuality later in life, no infant or child should ever experience a non-therapeutic circumcision.
Parents should not be allowed to control their son"s level of sexual sensitivity because of personal bias or prejudice, just as no parent should be allowed to request for their son or daughter any other sensitivity-reducing surgery; for example, eye surgery that would limit vision from color to black-and-white.
In addition, circumcised men, with one-fourth the sensitivity of intact men, might decline to wear further-desensitizing condoms. Some may consider themselves "safe" because of circumcision, adding to their determination to have sex without a condom.
Adult men who want circumcision for themselves should be advised per proper informed consent that penile sensitivity will be reduced on average by a factor of four. Men should also be advised that circumcision will not prevent the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
gordonjames
Posts: 47
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 6:31:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is interesting.

There are a host of medical reasons that favor male circumcision.

http://www.nhs.uk...

From the POV of a Christian who takes the Bible quite literally it is interesting to me that God gave us great pleasure in sex, and then (after the Fall and generations of sin) commanded circumcision.

Almost like our sin made it better to lose some of the pleasure rather than reap the results of the promiscuity that had become common.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 7:03:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Title is non-sequitur. Just thought I'd point that out before the study is ripped to shreds.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 7:09:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I also find it incredibly suspicious that the poster couches the findings in charged terms- uncircumcised is "intact" and his obvious conclusion is that circumcision is a terrible thing which shouldn't be inflicted on a child. That's not something a serious scientist or scholar would say. I would like to have a look at the actual study, but hey, I guess we'll have to take his word for it.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
slo1
Posts: 4,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 8:25:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 7:09:35 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
I also find it incredibly suspicious that the poster couches the findings in charged terms- uncircumcised is "intact" and his obvious conclusion is that circumcision is a terrible thing which shouldn't be inflicted on a child. That's not something a serious scientist or scholar would say. I would like to have a look at the actual study, but hey, I guess we'll have to take his word for it.

Here is the synopsis. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.... You can pull the study down from the publication for a fee, but I think it is safe to say it is a professional publication. The emotion comes from the nature of circumcision.

It would make more sense from a health standpoint to remove women's breasts, yet we would not consider that as a public health option.

In this case, the norm is to see a penis without the foreskin and it is an uphill battle to convince people that despite that it needs to be pulled back and washed because stuff likes to grow in the moist wet dark areas, it does serve a purpose. At the very least cutting it off should be a significant decision.

I recall my Doc recommending it for my boys because of the sanitation advantages. He did not give one disadvantage.

PS:Please note the current mechanism though to reduce HIV infection in circumcised males, is that with out the foreskin there is less bacteria, which causes less immune response which causes less T4 immune cells, which is what HIV hooks a ride on when infecting a body.

Please note that 1/2 as likely to contract the disease is not a public health option when things like condoms are much more effective at stopping HIV transmission and other STD's. It is time to stop over inflating the benefits and get an honest evaluation of pro's and con's of circumcision.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 9:09:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 8:25:53 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/21/2013 7:09:35 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
I also find it incredibly suspicious that the poster couches the findings in charged terms- uncircumcised is "intact" and his obvious conclusion is that circumcision is a terrible thing which shouldn't be inflicted on a child. That's not something a serious scientist or scholar would say. I would like to have a look at the actual study, but hey, I guess we'll have to take his word for it.

Here is the synopsis. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.... You can pull the study down from the publication for a fee, but I think it is safe to say it is a professional publication. The emotion comes from the nature of circumcision.

No, I'm talking about the article WSA gave. And no, you don't ever have to insert emotion into scholarly works. That's an absolute red flag for most scientific or historical literature. Raul Hilberg writes about the Holocaust without inserting an emotional backdrop, so I'm not sure why someone can't talk about cutting off loose, entirely regrowable skin without using loaded terms or cringing.

Did that synopsis just say that the samples were entirely random? Or is it being ambiguous? If it did, it's definitely not a serious study. And no, I'm not forking out cash in order to find out if the methodology is appropriate because I'm simply not interested in this kind of "science-proves-this" pseudo-study that always seems to draw decisive conclusions about politically charged issues in defiance of multiple other studies, and always juuuuust happens to involve a subject which is extremely difficult to sample and compare without a huge amount of confounding variables murking it up.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 9:10:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'd be interested to know who commissioned and funded the study, also.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 8:17:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
As if this is the only study done on the matter. In 2007 there was a study in the British Journal of Urology that "conclusively shows that circumcised males have a significant penile sensory deficit as compared with non-circumcised intact men"
That study was eventually shown to be based on Poor methods and erroneous statistical analysis.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

There are objective studies comparing sensitivity and sexual pleasure in circumcised versus uncircumcised men and evaluating measures of sexual pleasure before and after adult circumcision have concluded that no clinically significant difference exists between the circumcised and uncircumcised states. This result should come as no surprise in view of the complex psychological, neurologic, chemical, hormonal, and circulatory cascade involved in sexual activity.

Collins S, Upshaw J, Rutchik S, Ohannessian C, Ortenberg J, Albertsen P. Effects of circumcision on male sexual function: debunking a myth?
J Urol.2002;167 :2111" 2112

Fink KS, Carson CC, DeVellis RF. Adult circumcision outcomes study: effect on erectile function, penile sensitivity, sexual activity and satisfaction.
J Urol.2002;167 :2113" 2116

Bluestein CB, Eckholdt H, Arezzo JC, Melman A. Effects of circumcision on male penile sensitivity [abstract]. J Urol.2003;169 :324

Senkul T, Iseri C, Sen B, Karademir K, Saracoglu F, Erden D. Circumcision in adults: effect on sexual function. Urology.2004;63 :155" 158

http://www.pediatricsdigest.mobi...
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 9:04:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
>Sensitive parts of a dick get cut off
>Loss of sexual sensitivity

It made sense to me, and the study made me more furious at being circumcized. But the more I read about it, the better I feel. Thanks for addressing it guys!

"Serious policies have been instituted recently against circumcision that depend on the idea that penile sensation diminishes nearly 50% after circumcision. Therefore, the decision should be left to the child when he gets older. The majority of anticircumcision movements refer to the procedure as, "genital mutilation." However, it has been shown that there is no difference between circumcised and uncircumcised men in their ability to sense extroceptive and tactile stimuli on the ventral and dorsal surfaces of the glans.[1] This definitely counters the idea of loss of penile sensation."

1. Masters WH, Johnson VE. Human sexuel response. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company; 1966. pp. 189"91.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 9:38:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 9:04:21 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
>Sensitive parts of a dick get cut off
>Loss of sexual sensitivity

It made sense to me, and the study made me more furious at being circumcized. But the more I read about it, the better I feel. Thanks for addressing it guys!

"Serious policies have been instituted recently against circumcision that depend on the idea that penile sensation diminishes nearly 50% after circumcision. Therefore, the decision should be left to the child when he gets older. The majority of anticircumcision movements refer to the procedure as, "genital mutilation." However, it has been shown that there is no difference between circumcised and uncircumcised men in their ability to sense extroceptive and tactile stimuli on the ventral and dorsal surfaces of the glans.[1] This definitely counters the idea of loss of penile sensation."

1. Masters WH, Johnson VE. Human sexuel response. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company; 1966. pp. 189"91.

I too have an interest in this topic. I actually did a lengthy debate with FourTrouble on circumcision http://www.debate.org...
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 9:47:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Question. Would I feel more pleasure during sex if I were uncircumcised?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 10:43:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There is no clear answer. Some studies say that it does, some say that it doesn't. Many of the studies I've seen that claim to support the idea that it reduces the pleasure contained various flaws such as extremely small samples, faulty statistical analysis, etc. If I recall correctly, I've even seen studies which claim the opposite.
http://dbp.idebate.org...
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
slo1
Posts: 4,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 3:53:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 9:47:35 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Question. Would I feel more pleasure during sex if I were uncircumcised?

Oh yes, and it helps too, if you are ever walking naked through a cornfield or tall grass.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2013 3:29:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 9:04:21 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
>Sensitive parts of a dick get cut off
>Loss of sexual sensitivity

It made sense to me, and the study made me more furious at being circumcized. But the more I read about it, the better I feel. Thanks for addressing it guys!

I thought you already knew it can be regrown?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2013 5:44:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/22/2013 3:53:42 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/21/2013 9:47:35 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Question. Would I feel more pleasure during sex if I were uncircumcised?

Oh yes, and it helps too, if you are ever walking naked through a cornfield or tall grass.

Good thing we all don't live in a nudist colony in Nebraska or Idaho.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2013 10:53:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think the science is quite clear that we lose a lot of nerve-endings in circumcision, but since I am circumcized I find it difficult to discuss the subject. I seem to have plenty of sensitivity but how would I know the difference? The body does have ways of making up for lost neural connections... how else would a blind person hear more sensitively?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 2:59:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/23/2013 3:29:45 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
I thought you already knew it can be regrown?
Nerves lost cannot be restored.

As for the study in the OP, that's comparable to studies showing vegans are healthier than omnivores. Some say they are, others show no differences, and a few say omnivores might be healthier. Since there are too many variations in the conclusions of different studies, there seems to be little evidence to suggest that sexual pleasure is reduced by circumcision. Maybe for some, but that isn't necessarily the general take.
llamainmypocket
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 2:44:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Subject seems to confuse sensitivity for pleasure.

Pleasure comes from the climax.

The pleasure of the climax comes from the duration of the sexual act.

It can therefore be inferred that reducing sensitivity can lead to longer sex and therefore more pleasure.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 3:49:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The biggest problem is not the debate over the possible harm, but the fact that parents are making permanent decisions about their child's body.

It IS genital mutilation by definition: you are cutting off a part of the genitals for no necessary reason. Mutilation is kind of a charged word, granted. Just as "intact" implies something, even though it is absolutely accurate.

The fact of the matter is that there is no compelling reason to do it to a child. Even if there is no negative sexual effect (something I think is disputable), even if there is hypothetical "benefit" (something I think is even more disputable), it's still a permanent decision being taken out of the hands of the child. There's evidence that there are a host of possible harms; and note that a poor study doesn't necessarily disprove the things the study finds (barring true fraud), it simply fails to prove them.

Kellogg was among the folks who worked to "bring back" circumcision. I believe he also advocated for female circumcision, too; why are we are bothered by the idea of carbolic acid to the clitoris more than a scalpel to the penis? Just because it's common?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 4:15:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 3:49:22 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
The biggest problem is not the debate over the possible harm, but the fact that parents are making permanent decisions about their child's body.

It IS genital mutilation by definition: you are cutting off a part of the genitals for no necessary reason. Mutilation is kind of a charged word, granted. Just as "intact" implies something, even though it is absolutely accurate.

The fact of the matter is that there is no compelling reason to do it to a child. Even if there is no negative sexual effect (something I think is disputable), even if there is hypothetical "benefit" (something I think is even more disputable), it's still a permanent decision being taken out of the hands of the child. There's evidence that there are a host of possible harms; and note that a poor study doesn't necessarily disprove the things the study finds (barring true fraud), it simply fails to prove them.

Kellogg was among the folks who worked to "bring back" circumcision. I believe he also advocated for female circumcision, too; why are we are bothered by the idea of carbolic acid to the clitoris more than a scalpel to the penis? Just because it's common?

Kellogg invented Cornflakes in order to stop masturbation (some weird belief about diet affecting sexual urges), so I don't think it's exactly fair to use him as an example any more than I could use a neo-Nazi who claims that circumcision is a Jewish mind-control technique.

Not responding to the FGM comparison. Use The Google if you aren't sure why the two are considered different, kiddo.

The rest of your argument doesn't appear to have a point other than a few arbitrary assertions about parental control and some rambling about how dubious the health benefits to circumcision are.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 5:28:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 4:15:18 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:


Kellogg invented Cornflakes in order to stop masturbation (some weird belief about diet affecting sexual urges),

Kellogg invented corn flakes as part of his attempt to create a bland vegetarian diet to keep the "passions" low. It wasn't explicitly to prevent masturbation.

so I don't think it's exactly fair to use him as an example any more than I could use a neo-Nazi who claims that circumcision is a Jewish mind-control technique.

Well, that misses the point that circumcision had actually been rather on the decline for quite some time prior to the Victorian age.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The English explorer Sir Richard Burton observed that "Christendom practically holds circumcision in horror". This attitude is reflected in the ninth edition of the Encyclop"dia Britannica (1876) which discusses the practice as a religious rite among Jews, Moslems, the ancient Egyptians and tribal peoples in various parts of the world. The author of the entry rejected sanitary explanations of the procedure in favour of a religious one: "like other body mutilations ... [it is] of the nature of a representative sacrifice". (R. Darby)

So, no, it's not the same type of claim at all.

Not responding to the FGM comparison. Use The Google if you aren't sure why the two are considered different, kiddo.

Uh huh. That's one of those "I don't have an argument, but you're wrong" type of arguments that you love so much.

The rest of your argument doesn't appear to have a point other than a few arbitrary assertions about parental control and some rambling about how dubious the health benefits to circumcision are.

I like how dismissive you are. Do you acutally disagree that the health benefits are dubious? Do you disagree with the parental control points I brought up? A wandwave is not an argument.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 10:43:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 2:44:12 PM, llamainmypocket wrote:
Subject seems to confuse sensitivity for pleasure.

Pleasure comes from the climax.

The pleasure of the climax comes from the duration of the sexual act.

It can therefore be inferred that reducing sensitivity can lead to longer sex and therefore more pleasure.

This is true, here are some supporting studies, articles, & papers. http://dbp.idebate.org...
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 11:44:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 3:49:22 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
The biggest problem is not the debate over the possible harm, but the fact that parents are making permanent decisions about their child's body.

Parents make decisions on much more important matters that have much greater consequences. It's an inevitable part of the parenting unless you have a communist system where parents are told how to raise their children.

It IS genital mutilation by definition: you are cutting off a part of the genitals for no necessary reason. Mutilation is kind of a charged word, granted. Just as "intact" implies something, even though it is absolutely accurate.

The fact of the matter is that there is no compelling reason to do it to a child. Even if there is no negative sexual effect (something I think is disputable), even if there is hypothetical "benefit" (something I think is even more disputable), it's still a permanent decision being taken out of the hands of the child. There's evidence that there are a host of possible harms;

Such as?

and note that a poor study doesn't necessarily disprove the things the study finds (barring true fraud), it simply fails to prove them.

Does true fraud disprove the things the study finds?

Kellogg was among the folks who worked to "bring back" circumcision. I believe he also advocated for female circumcision, too; why are we are bothered by the idea of carbolic acid to the clitoris more than a scalpel to the penis? Just because it's common?

Perhaps, but the reason for why people are bothered by one and not the other is really irrelevant genetic herring (a combination of red herring & genetic fallacy).

On the outside, FGM seems really similar to Circumcision, they both involve removing something from the genital area.
But that's about it, other than that there is no real comparison. One of the main arguments for circumcision is the numerous studies which have found several health (not to mention pleasure) benefits, this is inapplicable to FGM. FGM is worse in just about every way possible; pain, risk, disfiguration, disabeling, etc.

"Female circumcision is not required by any religious group and is a traditional practice prevalent in Africa, Southeast Asia and South America.
It's far more disfiguring, disabling and potentially dangerous than male circumcision so cannot be viewed in the same light. The original author fully supports the World Health Organisation's policy that this procedure should cease throughout the world." http://www.netdoctor.co.uk...
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 1:25:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 11:44:00 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
At 7/24/2013 3:49:22 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
The biggest problem is not the debate over the possible harm, but the fact that parents are making permanent decisions about their child's body.

Parents make decisions on much more important matters that have much greater consequences.

Such as? We're talking permanent body modification here.

It's an inevitable part of the parenting unless you have a communist system where parents are told how to raise their children.

Again, we're talking permanent body modification for no necessary reason.

It IS genital mutilation by definition: you are cutting off a part of the genitals for no necessary reason. Mutilation is kind of a charged word, granted. Just as "intact" implies something, even though it is absolutely accurate.

The fact of the matter is that there is no compelling reason to do it to a child. Even if there is no negative sexual effect (something I think is disputable), even if there is hypothetical "benefit" (something I think is even more disputable), it's still a permanent decision being taken out of the hands of the child. There's evidence that there are a host of possible harms;

Such as?

The OP, for example.


and note that a poor study doesn't necessarily disprove the things the study finds (barring true fraud), it simply fails to prove them.

Does true fraud disprove the things the study finds?

No, it doesn't. It does, however, utterly invalidate the assertion of possibility (or at least brings it to the same state as if there were NO study at all).


Kellogg was among the folks who worked to "bring back" circumcision. I believe he also advocated for female circumcision, too; why are we are bothered by the idea of carbolic acid to the clitoris more than a scalpel to the penis? Just because it's common?

Perhaps, but the reason for why people are bothered by one and not the other is really irrelevant genetic herring (a combination of red herring & genetic fallacy).

It's a red herring, but you can't answer the question except to assert a genetic fallacy? Both things were brought back for essentially the same reasons. It's not a genetic fallacy to question why one continues to be accepted while another does not. Simply handwaving it away doesn't answer the question.

On the outside, FGM seems really similar to Circumcision, they both involve removing something from the genital area.
But that's about it, other than that there is no real comparison. One of the main arguments for circumcision is the numerous studies which have found several health (not to mention pleasure) benefits, this is inapplicable to FGM. FGM is worse in just about every way possible; pain, risk, disfiguration, disabeling, etc.

Whoa, there, friend. First off, I don't know of ANY studies in developed countries of FGM, because it's seen as so terrible (and rightly so). If you've got some, provide 'em please. Comparing genital surgery done in third world countries against that done in first-world medical facilities is rather ridiculous, don't you think?

Pain, risk, and disability are all pretty equal when circumstances are equal (look up the results of third-world equivalent procedures). Disfiguration is purely social; the appearance of both clearly changes, but ONE appearance is acceptable only because the procedure is accepable.

"Female circumcision is not required by any religious group and is a traditional practice prevalent in Africa, Southeast Asia and South America.
It's far more disfiguring, disabling and potentially dangerous than male circumcision so cannot be viewed in the same light.

No, it isn't. It's only not performed in first world countries and so doesn't have the benefit of having its effects in first world countries observed.

The original author fully supports the World Health Organisation's policy that this procedure should cease throughout the world." http://www.netdoctor.co.uk...

I agree it should cease. That's irrelevant considering it isn't the point.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 3:53:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 5:28:48 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/24/2013 4:15:18 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:


Kellogg invented Cornflakes in order to stop masturbation (some weird belief about diet affecting sexual urges),

Kellogg invented corn flakes as part of his attempt to create a bland vegetarian diet to keep the "passions" low. It wasn't explicitly to prevent masturbation.

So? Your example was ridiculous in any case. Kellogg advocated circumcision. He also advocated FGM. Therefore, circumcision advocates approve of FGM as well/it's an inevitable slippery slope!

so I don't think it's exactly fair to use him as an example any more than I could use a neo-Nazi who claims that circumcision is a Jewish mind-control technique.

Well, that misses the point that circumcision had actually been rather on the decline for quite some time prior to the Victorian age.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The English explorer Sir Richard Burton observed that "Christendom practically holds circumcision in horror". This attitude is reflected in the ninth edition of the Encyclop"dia Britannica (1876) which discusses the practice as a religious rite among Jews, Moslems, the ancient Egyptians and tribal peoples in various parts of the world. The author of the entry rejected sanitary explanations of the procedure in favour of a religious one: "like other body mutilations ... [it is] of the nature of a representative sacrifice". (R. Darby)

So, no, it's not the same type of claim at all.

I'm afraid I don't follow your analogy?

Not responding to the FGM comparison. Use The Google if you aren't sure why the two are considered different, kiddo.

Uh huh. That's one of those "I don't have an argument, but you're wrong" type of arguments that you love so much.

And, hey presto!: http://www.who.int...

The rest of your argument doesn't appear to have a point other than a few arbitrary assertions about parental control and some rambling about how dubious the health benefits to circumcision are.

I like how dismissive you are. Do you acutally disagree that the health benefits are dubious? Do you disagree with the parental control points I brought up? A wandwave is not an argument.

"Hurr durr the benefits sound dumb to me and I think that it's debatable that circumcision doesn't cause permantent harm or trauma to a child. Please refute my argument."

And why should I respect the taken-for-granted "right" of the child to have his body perfectly intact and unaffected by parental decisions in regard to health/aesthetics? If it really does harm a child, than it should be banned. But otherwise, I'm afraid you've missed the point of rights entirely.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 3:59:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 1:35:00 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
http://www.csun.edu...

http://www.psychologytoday.com...

Wonderful, a list of adverse side affects (half of which don't sound remotely inherent to circumcision), which, once again, I find myself unable to verify or check whatsoever. Why is this a pattern?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 10:34:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 3:59:43 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/25/2013 1:35:00 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
http://www.csun.edu...

http://www.psychologytoday.com...

Wonderful, a list of adverse side affects (half of which don't sound remotely inherent to circumcision), which, once again, I find myself unable to verify or check whatsoever. Why is this a pattern?

So you can't read that both of them are clearly sourced? Why is this reading comprehension problem a pattern?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 10:52:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 3:53:18 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/24/2013 5:28:48 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/24/2013 4:15:18 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:


Kellogg invented Cornflakes in order to stop masturbation (some weird belief about diet affecting sexual urges),

Kellogg invented corn flakes as part of his attempt to create a bland vegetarian diet to keep the "passions" low. It wasn't explicitly to prevent masturbation.

So? Your example was ridiculous in any case. Kellogg advocated circumcision. He also advocated FGM. Therefore, circumcision advocates approve of FGM as well/it's an inevitable slippery slope!

What? Not at all. I explicitly said FGM WASN'T considered acceptable. The question was why one is, when one is not.

so I don't think it's exactly fair to use him as an example any more than I could use a neo-Nazi who claims that circumcision is a Jewish mind-control technique.

Well, that misses the point that circumcision had actually been rather on the decline for quite some time prior to the Victorian age.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The English explorer Sir Richard Burton observed that "Christendom practically holds circumcision in horror". This attitude is reflected in the ninth edition of the Encyclop"dia Britannica (1876) which discusses the practice as a religious rite among Jews, Moslems, the ancient Egyptians and tribal peoples in various parts of the world. The author of the entry rejected sanitary explanations of the procedure in favour of a religious one: "like other body mutilations ... [it is] of the nature of a representative sacrifice". (R. Darby)

So, no, it's not the same type of claim at all.

I'm afraid I don't follow your analogy?

Well, in your "neo-Nazi claims circumcision is a Jewish mind-control technicque", you'd be suing him as essentailly an association fallacy, right?

Whereas the point here is that Kellogg was one of the reasons circumcision was made "popular" again. He did so specificically for masturbatory reasons, or the prevention thereof at least. He sadi the same thing about FGM. They are very similar procedures (albeit on different anatomy), yet one is clearly and obviously awful to pretty much everyone in the developed world, and the other is just "business as usual". I think it's perfectly appropriate to question why that is.

Not responding to the FGM comparison. Use The Google if you aren't sure why the two are considered different, kiddo.

Uh huh. That's one of those "I don't have an argument, but you're wrong" type of arguments that you love so much.

And, hey presto!: http://www.who.int...

I wish you'd look at your sources. First off, because FGM is so uncommon (and therefore so generally done only by awful people), a wide range of mutilations are all swept up together, as opposed to circumcision, which is generally one specific type of mutilation. The sample size is factors of ten smaller in terms of general population, and strongly skewed towards poorer/third world countries.

In other words, the primary reason the two things don't compare well (and, in case I wasn't clear, since I think you and I often talk a bit past each other, I agree that statistically there are far greater harms...but only because the statistics are skewed) is that one is socially acceptable in first world countries, and one is not.


The rest of your argument doesn't appear to have a point other than a few arbitrary assertions about parental control and some rambling about how dubious the health benefits to circumcision are.

I like how dismissive you are. Do you acutally disagree that the health benefits are dubious? Do you disagree with the parental control points I brought up? A wandwave is not an argument.

"Hurr durr the benefits sound dumb to me and I think that it's debatable that circumcision doesn't cause permantent harm or trauma to a child. Please refute my argument."

Do you not know the difference between "dubious" and "dumb"? Dubious means questionable. In other words, my point is that there is reason to question the stated benefits, and reason to question whether there are harms.

You still haven't answered, and a handwave is still not an argument.

And why should I respect the taken-for-granted "right" of the child to have his body perfectly intact and unaffected by parental decisions in regard to health/aesthetics? If it really does harm a child, than it should be banned. But otherwise, I'm afraid you've missed the point of rights entirely.

Oh? So you'd have no problem with a parent tattooing a child, to look at a relatively neutral body modification, when they're an infant, without having any benefit or reason for doing so other than whim?

I think, rahter, that you have missed the point of rights. Do you think children are property?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!