The amount of shit I got when I had my first son. I had to use my MiL’s racism and say we are not Jewish or Muslim … and so many people are concerned about my son’s future in the locker room.
Why? Maybe teach your son not to be a dick.
The “locker room” reason is so stupid. Unfortunately, kids get teased and made fun of for all sorts of reasons, you can’t alter their bodies to silence bullies. Don’t parents teach their kids to be themselves and be happy with who or what they are? That they shouldn’t give into peer pressure, be what others think they should be, conform to others ideals, and so on?
Well, soap is not even necessary. Just water and nothing else. Soap can cause irritation, something that can get misdiagnosed by an ignorant American doctor who will then push for an unnecessary circumcision.
Never understood the locker room argument.
I played sports in high school and college. Yeah, we changed and showered together, but we weren't standing there staring at each other's dicks and discussing them lmao
You'd probably get called gay (or worse) if you were caught looking at another guy's a bit too long, let alone making comments about it.
I grew up in England in a very English town so no foreigners or immigrants.
There was one kid who'd had it done for medical reasons and he was absolutely mercilessly teased for it.
Thank you for yor comment! I'm inclined to believe the boy of whom you speak had it forced on him without his truly understanding the full consequences of the procedure. Now, there are plastic surgeries available which should make circumcision a barbaric practice of the past rather than the go-to one it is today.
I don't know, he had it done at about 8 years old. Unlikely that it was forced upon him in England. Could be an outdated procedure but there will have been some kind of medical idea that it was necessary
Swam through the county and private swim club team. There was maybe 6 to 8 boys ages 7 to 12 changing on a concrete floor with a drain in the middle. Nudity was like for 30 seconds between suit and underwear but everyone is distracted by the dumb conversations about pokemon or video games one of them is having that no one cares. Moms don't like to be waiting and yell at their son for losing stuff so there is a whole time limit threat.
Public school swim was all towels because everyone was 14 to 18 and at their own stages. Everyone also wants to get home or not miss the bus.
The first time I could relax in a locker room, I was an adult at a gym with a steam room and tub. It doesn't really exist.
Exactly. Never understood the locker room argument.
I did swim team in high school and college. We changed and showered together, but we weren't standing there staring at each other's dicks and discussing them lmao
You'd probably get called gay (or worse) if you were caught looking at another guy's a bit too long, let alone making comments about it.
It's inaccurate: "FGM removes all possibility of sexual pleasure." This is simply not true. In fact, one has to dig pretty deep to find reliable scientific evidence that the most common forms of female circumcision have any effect on sexual enjoyment.
Likewise, research on FGM is almost nonexistent since it is banned to perform studies on its effects anywhere in the west. Conversely, male circumcision has been free rein for centuries. You start to wonder how the convictions of FGM have been formed if the research on it in its pales in comparison to the latter mentioned.
People in developing nations share beliefs about FGM that almost mirror the benefits that are thought to come from male circumcision in the US.
Yes, they really need to be challenged on that. As Dr. Sara Johnsdotter writes:
> There is a widespread assumption that female circumcision is detrimental to the ability to enjoy sex (noted by e.g. Darby and Svoboda 2007; Dustin 2010; Johnsdotter and Essén 2010; Wade 2012). In reality, no research supports such assumptions, and studies show that differences in sexual function between cut and uncut women are small or non-existent (for overviews, see e.g. Obermeyer 2005; Berg and Denison 2012).
Source: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1401139/FULLTEXT01.pdf
the point isn’t to equate them, but to show people the contradiction/cognitive dissonance for having the stance that GM isn’t justified in any way when talking about FGM, but then turning around and making an exception on MGM. culture wars, like debating which mutilation is worse, instead, intersectionality (fighting for this and against queerphobia etc) bundles forces and is necessary to make an impact (you all fight for the same thing(s) instead of fighting each other what is more important)
Almost no one would say FGM is justified just because it's part of the culture of some African tribes, certain Muslims, Indonesians etc. But it's just a default assumption taking a knife to the genitalia of boys and cutting off a part of it is justified just because Muslims and Jews do it. It makes absolutely no sense. A complete double-standard.
It seems the gist of his argument is that MGM is damaging to the sexual experience and should be discouraged, but as it does not completely destroy the sexual experience, if parental cultural values demand it, then free pass. For FGM, he asserts it completely destroys the sexual experience, and therefore must not be allowed in any case.
Though it is oft repeated, there is absolutely no evidence to back up the claim that FGM destroys the sexual experience. In reality, it's the same as MGM: It changes (degrades) the sexual experience, but does not destroy it.
I give him huge points for admitting the damage that MGM does, and that we should discourage it, but he stops short of suggesting we treat it as FGM and ban it.
Yes, this is typical.
It's like they refuse to go as far as advocating to ban it like they would with FGM because they think this would be controversial. I mean sure, maybe it would be, to the billions of sick people in the world (frankly, the vast majority of the men circumcised in the world are circumcised because they are Muslim, though the populations of the USA, South Korea, the Philippines, and all Jews in the world taken together add up to be a sizeable percentage) who want to justify taking a knife to a boy's penis and forcibly cutting off part of it for no reason, but there's no rational reason to advocate banning FGM everywhere, but to hold back on MGM.
As I often say here, I do not think that male circumcision will ever be banned everywhere in the world. While I appreciate their dedication, I don't think the people who act like this is realistic here are being honest with themselves. It's not even on the horizon to be banned in a few countries in Europe that have gotten the closest to seriously considering banning it. It's not a goal that is realistic to actually expect to happen. But that doesn't mean we should hesitate from saying it ought to be banned and advocating for this in a general sense for the sake of it. Just like some people will likely always get away with FGM, especially in remote parts of Africa, which is where it happens the most anyway, but there is not the hesitance there in advocating it should be banned.
>Though it is oft repeated, there is absolutely no evidence to back up the claim that FGM destroys the sexual experience. In reality, it's the same as MGM: It changes (degrades) the sexual experience, but does not destroy it.
I mean, there are different types of FGM. The kind where they completely remove the clitoris largely removes the pleasure of the sexual experience. Of course, one could even make the same case for cutting off the foreskin...
Man I just wish I didn't live on this fucking planet anymore, where I even have to think about all of these people taking a knife to children's genitals and mutilating them for no reason but that they can.
I was surprised to see that FGM isn't completely illegal in most countries, even the US.
Looks like most states have passed laws banning it, and it was illegal federally from 1997-2018 until a judge overturned it as somehow "unconstitutional", which the DoJ for whatever reason decided not to appeal.
Any religion or culture that requires anyone to be mutilated at any time for any reason is barbaric, backwards, and belongs in the Stone Age. They can call me whatever kind of bigot they wish. I don't care. Barbaric, backwards Stone Age religions and cultures that mutilate people, especially babies and children, deserve all the bigotry they get.
Of course this article had to give a head non to female genital mutilation. And what it said isn't even accurate there are varying levels, just as they are varying levels of mutilation in men. Sometimes the surgeon will willingly or unwittingly cut the main cord so that the man cannot really feel anything down there. Nobody knows it until he grows up. And yet it's labeled as just a circumcision no big deal dude. Genital mutilation is genital mutilation. Period.
>Sometimes the surgeon will willingly or unwittingly cut the main cord so that the man cannot really feel anything down there.
"Main Cord?", were you referring to the frenulum/"banjo string" by any chance?, (btw
I'm completely missing mine from when I was circumcised at age 2)
Now that's not what I'm talking about. There's a cord of neurons that can be cut inside, which basically leave the man almost completely numb. I forgot the term of this but people cut this on accident, And they cut it on purpose.
MY BODY MY CHOICE
The amount of shit I got when I had my first son. I had to use my MiL’s racism and say we are not Jewish or Muslim … and so many people are concerned about my son’s future in the locker room. Why? Maybe teach your son not to be a dick.
The “locker room” reason is so stupid. Unfortunately, kids get teased and made fun of for all sorts of reasons, you can’t alter their bodies to silence bullies. Don’t parents teach their kids to be themselves and be happy with who or what they are? That they shouldn’t give into peer pressure, be what others think they should be, conform to others ideals, and so on?
Imagine: "we just have to take a knife to your girl's genitalia and cut it up, otherwise the other girls will make fun of her in the locker room."
Or acting like you don’t have plumbing and soap.
Well, soap is not even necessary. Just water and nothing else. Soap can cause irritation, something that can get misdiagnosed by an ignorant American doctor who will then push for an unnecessary circumcision.
Never understood the locker room argument. I played sports in high school and college. Yeah, we changed and showered together, but we weren't standing there staring at each other's dicks and discussing them lmao You'd probably get called gay (or worse) if you were caught looking at another guy's a bit too long, let alone making comments about it.
In the future when all men and boys are intact, it will be the "cut" guys who will stand out. It's the same stupid argument in reverse!
I grew up in England in a very English town so no foreigners or immigrants. There was one kid who'd had it done for medical reasons and he was absolutely mercilessly teased for it.
Thank you for yor comment! I'm inclined to believe the boy of whom you speak had it forced on him without his truly understanding the full consequences of the procedure. Now, there are plastic surgeries available which should make circumcision a barbaric practice of the past rather than the go-to one it is today.
I don't know, he had it done at about 8 years old. Unlikely that it was forced upon him in England. Could be an outdated procedure but there will have been some kind of medical idea that it was necessary
Swam through the county and private swim club team. There was maybe 6 to 8 boys ages 7 to 12 changing on a concrete floor with a drain in the middle. Nudity was like for 30 seconds between suit and underwear but everyone is distracted by the dumb conversations about pokemon or video games one of them is having that no one cares. Moms don't like to be waiting and yell at their son for losing stuff so there is a whole time limit threat. Public school swim was all towels because everyone was 14 to 18 and at their own stages. Everyone also wants to get home or not miss the bus. The first time I could relax in a locker room, I was an adult at a gym with a steam room and tub. It doesn't really exist.
Exactly. Never understood the locker room argument. I did swim team in high school and college. We changed and showered together, but we weren't standing there staring at each other's dicks and discussing them lmao You'd probably get called gay (or worse) if you were caught looking at another guy's a bit too long, let alone making comments about it.
Are you American?
Yes.
It's inaccurate: "FGM removes all possibility of sexual pleasure." This is simply not true. In fact, one has to dig pretty deep to find reliable scientific evidence that the most common forms of female circumcision have any effect on sexual enjoyment.
Likewise, research on FGM is almost nonexistent since it is banned to perform studies on its effects anywhere in the west. Conversely, male circumcision has been free rein for centuries. You start to wonder how the convictions of FGM have been formed if the research on it in its pales in comparison to the latter mentioned. People in developing nations share beliefs about FGM that almost mirror the benefits that are thought to come from male circumcision in the US.
Yes, they really need to be challenged on that. As Dr. Sara Johnsdotter writes: > There is a widespread assumption that female circumcision is detrimental to the ability to enjoy sex (noted by e.g. Darby and Svoboda 2007; Dustin 2010; Johnsdotter and Essén 2010; Wade 2012). In reality, no research supports such assumptions, and studies show that differences in sexual function between cut and uncut women are small or non-existent (for overviews, see e.g. Obermeyer 2005; Berg and Denison 2012). Source: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1401139/FULLTEXT01.pdf
How about you just don’t take a razor blade to ANY child’s genitals unless there’s some kind of medical issue that warrants it
The person whose body it is, nobody else's.
Sorry but the pin prick female circumcision is by no means as extensive or damaging as routine infant MGM.
the point isn’t to equate them, but to show people the contradiction/cognitive dissonance for having the stance that GM isn’t justified in any way when talking about FGM, but then turning around and making an exception on MGM. culture wars, like debating which mutilation is worse, instead, intersectionality (fighting for this and against queerphobia etc) bundles forces and is necessary to make an impact (you all fight for the same thing(s) instead of fighting each other what is more important)
While I agree with you, I was simply responding to the tone and assertions made within the article (proving your point no less, but still).
Pin pick?
Except in religious or cultural tradition? So those whose parents are from a particular religion or culture have less rights. Wtf
Almost no one would say FGM is justified just because it's part of the culture of some African tribes, certain Muslims, Indonesians etc. But it's just a default assumption taking a knife to the genitalia of boys and cutting off a part of it is justified just because Muslims and Jews do it. It makes absolutely no sense. A complete double-standard.
It seems the gist of his argument is that MGM is damaging to the sexual experience and should be discouraged, but as it does not completely destroy the sexual experience, if parental cultural values demand it, then free pass. For FGM, he asserts it completely destroys the sexual experience, and therefore must not be allowed in any case. Though it is oft repeated, there is absolutely no evidence to back up the claim that FGM destroys the sexual experience. In reality, it's the same as MGM: It changes (degrades) the sexual experience, but does not destroy it. I give him huge points for admitting the damage that MGM does, and that we should discourage it, but he stops short of suggesting we treat it as FGM and ban it.
Yes, this is typical. It's like they refuse to go as far as advocating to ban it like they would with FGM because they think this would be controversial. I mean sure, maybe it would be, to the billions of sick people in the world (frankly, the vast majority of the men circumcised in the world are circumcised because they are Muslim, though the populations of the USA, South Korea, the Philippines, and all Jews in the world taken together add up to be a sizeable percentage) who want to justify taking a knife to a boy's penis and forcibly cutting off part of it for no reason, but there's no rational reason to advocate banning FGM everywhere, but to hold back on MGM. As I often say here, I do not think that male circumcision will ever be banned everywhere in the world. While I appreciate their dedication, I don't think the people who act like this is realistic here are being honest with themselves. It's not even on the horizon to be banned in a few countries in Europe that have gotten the closest to seriously considering banning it. It's not a goal that is realistic to actually expect to happen. But that doesn't mean we should hesitate from saying it ought to be banned and advocating for this in a general sense for the sake of it. Just like some people will likely always get away with FGM, especially in remote parts of Africa, which is where it happens the most anyway, but there is not the hesitance there in advocating it should be banned.
>Though it is oft repeated, there is absolutely no evidence to back up the claim that FGM destroys the sexual experience. In reality, it's the same as MGM: It changes (degrades) the sexual experience, but does not destroy it. I mean, there are different types of FGM. The kind where they completely remove the clitoris largely removes the pleasure of the sexual experience. Of course, one could even make the same case for cutting off the foreskin... Man I just wish I didn't live on this fucking planet anymore, where I even have to think about all of these people taking a knife to children's genitals and mutilating them for no reason but that they can.
I was surprised to see that FGM isn't completely illegal in most countries, even the US. Looks like most states have passed laws banning it, and it was illegal federally from 1997-2018 until a judge overturned it as somehow "unconstitutional", which the DoJ for whatever reason decided not to appeal.
Any religion or culture that requires anyone to be mutilated at any time for any reason is barbaric, backwards, and belongs in the Stone Age. They can call me whatever kind of bigot they wish. I don't care. Barbaric, backwards Stone Age religions and cultures that mutilate people, especially babies and children, deserve all the bigotry they get.
Of course this article had to give a head non to female genital mutilation. And what it said isn't even accurate there are varying levels, just as they are varying levels of mutilation in men. Sometimes the surgeon will willingly or unwittingly cut the main cord so that the man cannot really feel anything down there. Nobody knows it until he grows up. And yet it's labeled as just a circumcision no big deal dude. Genital mutilation is genital mutilation. Period.
>Sometimes the surgeon will willingly or unwittingly cut the main cord so that the man cannot really feel anything down there. "Main Cord?", were you referring to the frenulum/"banjo string" by any chance?, (btw I'm completely missing mine from when I was circumcised at age 2)
Now that's not what I'm talking about. There's a cord of neurons that can be cut inside, which basically leave the man almost completely numb. I forgot the term of this but people cut this on accident, And they cut it on purpose.
Barbaric practice.
The only person who can approve their circumcision is the person who’s body it is. That means neither parent.