this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2024
731 points (86.8% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
26705 readers
2637 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't really care. My dick works great, I wouldn't do this to my kids but my parents trusted the doctor. I still love my parents anyway.
E: also, this illustrated girl looks really weird, and this is a really weird conversation. Real women do not look like this, and I wouldn't get naked in front of a girl who looked like this. Eeesh.
oh, the parents? for the most part unknowing, the doctor on the other hand? ya, hate him
I don't hate the doctor either. It was a long time ago, and intent matters. I don't think the doctor wanted to hurt me, they likely bought into the studies and groupthink that were prevalent at the time.
The result is unfortunate, but it happened, and we all strive to do better with our own kids, especially now that we have things like the internet.
Supposedly is super safe and has health benefits, I once compared it to female genital mutilation and ooh boy was I corrected.
Edit: the above is far from an endorsement. Some of yall could use some practice critical reading.
The health benefits are overblown and the evidence is largely from flawed studies. While not as debilitating as clitoris circumcision, it's still genital mutilation and it's regularly done in the US for no good reason beyond cultural pressure.
Thanks. I researched circumcision extensively when my son was born. These comments are from people who have literally “no skin” in the game.
Same. Don’t let anyone make you feel bad for not doing it. I don’t know how old your son is,, but mine’s 25 and I’ve never heard any complaints. He never got an infection, and never got bullied over it.
It’s a simple procedure they can get done as an adult if they’re unhappy with their penis, and at that point it’s their choice, which imo it should be.
eta for anyone on the fence: they can always remove the foreskin if they want, but growing it back is another matter.
It is as safe as any similar procedure, and comes with inherent risk. There’s a reason people talk about “botched circumcisions” which do indeed happen.
The health benefits aren’t even a full percentage point difference. We are talking minuscule differences, and most of it is based on bad science. How can I know this? The studies were often done on grown adults, in third world countries. Disease is already rampant there, and considering rape is so prevalent in many of the areas that anti-rape condoms were created and distributed, there are no social barriers in place to prevent the spread of disease. And finally, they tested to see if there was disease spread almost immediately after the procedure had fully healed. Meaning the men who didn’t get circumcised had been fucking around for a much, much longer time than the circumcised men.
And FGM is a pretty good allegory. We are talking about Male Genital Mutilation, why wouldn’t Female Genital Mutilation be similar? Because it’s normalized in some first world countries? You’re removing double the nerve endings when you remove foreskin vs destroy the clit, I’d say they line up close enough.
Look at it this way, we all agree declawing cats is super safe and has health benefits. But it’s being outlawed all over the place because it’s barbaric. But we still cut baby dicks. It’s pretty fucked up.
If you were uncircumcised now, would you choose to have it done at your current age? No. Then, why do it to a baby without their consent? It’s a bodily autonomy issue.
Not a real comparison. A baby is given some sugar water and already lives in diapers. They don't even bleed after it's done, and you just put some jelly on the front of the diaper for the first few weeks. They experience no discernable discomfort.
An adult male has gone through puberty and has a life that doesn't involve sleeping through 18 hours of it and getting changed every couple of hours. The risk of infection is greater because you are an adult who doesn't get the luxury of having every single need met 24/7 and getting to rest through your entire recovery.
You are profoundly uninformed and clearly huffing copium to deal with the fact that you chose to mutilate your own newborn sons penis. Great work bro.
I trust the doctors over internet weirdos obsessed with kids penises.
Who's more obsessed, those who leave well enough alone or those who perform drastic, unnecessary, life-altering surgery as soon as a baby enters the world?
You seem pretty obsessed to me. You keep bringing it up.
Less than you have. And it takes zero action to not cut a babies dick. Whereas it takes a special kind of obsession to do so.
Some people believe in doctors, the CDC, the World Health Organization, and countless other institutions, and some people don't. You're the latter, and the last 4 years taught me that people in your camp are wrong about too many things, but also that you need to be told you are wrong before you get emboldened by your recklessness and idiocy.
It also showed me that you're depraved sycophants that are almost always projecting some weird perv shit.
There's more to science literacy than you are capable of, apparently. Otherwise, you know that there's a biological purpose foreskin serves and the choice to remove it is weighed against risk factors that are very low and able to be mitigated.
Grow up, wash your dick, and use a condom. Get a circumcision if you want when you're an adult. It's not that hard for the vast majority of the world and history. You aren't "right", you're just an asshole. Talking about genital mutilation in terms of camps, get over yourself.
I read just fine. You just can't accept that lots of people disagree with you. The person calling a medical procedure done in a hospital mutilation is obviously lying. You lie and exaggerate because telling the truth would mean you don't get to look down on people from the internet.
Our bodies having parts doesn't make them inherently useful or purposeful or superior to life without. We still have tail bones, we grow teeth that don't fit it our mouths, babies have razor-sharp nails that they slash their faces with, and we get auto-immune diseases. Our bodies are a minefield, constantly finding new and inspired ways to die or fail in spectacular fashion.
Repeated childhood infections that can be reduced to zero are hard to measure as people whose children suffer from repeated infections arr loath to self report for risk of being investigated for negligence.
The advice to wash your dick is a sure sign that you weren't heavily involved in raising a child. Getting them to brush their damn teeth, wash their hands, and just generally not be gross is hard enough without necessitating a genital check as well.
If that can be achieved with a common and safe procedure that has extra perks and downsides that are largely assumed instead of proven, all the better.
That’s quite an arrogant statement.
My son is 25, and happy with my decision not to have him circumcised. I know because I asked him based on this discussion.
He never once got any sort of infection, because I taught him basic hygiene.
The foreskin is not a vestigial trait. It’s a 100% relevant and useful organ today. (eta: I know about vestigial traits because I have one: Darwin’s tubercle. I’d also not have appreciated having my ears docked at birth.)
Ask anyone who has a foreskin. That’s a profoundly ignorant comparison.
That’s an adaptive trait that serves us quite well, because our hominid ancestors fed their young the most high-energy fruits, which also increased the risk of cavities in our young. Being able to shed and replace juvenile teeth meant we were able to commence adulthood without the risk of starving. Our wisdom teeth weren’t a problem until very, very recently, because the evolution of our bodies haven’t had time to catch up with our modern diet. That’s nothing like the foreskin, where our sexual activity has not changed in millions of years. You should learn some paleo-anthropology before making comparisons like that.
I have very severe autoimmune disease. Many recent studies point to environmental causes, which are recent and our evolution cannot account for.
None of that has anything whatever to do with the continued and relevant importance of the foreskin to sexual pleasure.
I am a mother who decided not to circumcise my child (who is now 25 and is happy to have his foreskin), a decision I made after talking to my father who had to have his removed in his teens after developing a rare condition. I know more about this topic than many people, and certainly more than you.
The reasons this procedure is commonly done in the US are questionable at best. We have learned better, and this archaic practice should not be advocated any longer.
If you had it done to you and/or had it done to your child, I’m not here to shame you. Until recently, it’s just what we did, but going forward, we should do better for our children and our species based on what we’ve learned. And we shouldn’t be a dick when presented with information that goes against our cultural norms (pun intended).
e: link to my 4 month old comment about my vestigial trait. I had to scroll through nearly a thousand comments to find it, whew.
It’s a totally valid comparison.
Removing the foreskin has real ramifications for not only looks but sexual pleasure (which, by the way, was why it was popularised by puritan Christians in the US – the original point was to stop teenage boys from masturbating by making it less pleasurable).
Cutting off the foreskin at birth takes something from a man that he can’t really restore later, whereas doing nothing gives him the bodily autonomy to make that decision later. You can always remove it if you want, but once it’s gone, you can’t just grow it back.
A baby is at your mercy and has no choice in the matter.
No, you only have a short window to make it a nothing surgery vs. a week+ recovery time.
A baby will always be at their parents' mercy. And if a parent feels the medical benefits outweigh the risks, they get to make that choice.
Also, I don't get why people keep bringing up Kellog and his ilk. It's irrelevant. WHO and the CDC both cite benefits. That's relevant enough for a person today without pretending the reasoning has to be based on old information.
Again, cite sources?
Yes, I’m aware it’s a week of recovery time later. I made the decision not to circumcise my son after talking to my father who had the procedure in his teens after he developed a condition. He told me exactly what it was like. (My father is 88 and was born before circumcision was common.)
You can do almost anything to an infant and they won’t remember the trauma. Infants have been subjected to near-fatal child abuse, including having their femurs broken, and they don’t remember it. That doesn’t make it right.
Having your wisdom teeth removed takes at least a week of recovery and we do that in late teens or early twenties. There are lots of things that take a week to recover from, and having to have your foreskin removed because it’s causing issues is far, far more rare. That’s not a reason to take that choice away.
Like I said, they can always have that procedure later if they want to, but once it’s done, that choice is basically gone.
Also like I said, I’m not trying to make people feel bad for having done it when we didn’t really know better. I’m not shaming anyone. It’s just what we did until recently. Going forward, though, it’s not justified and we shouldn’t be advocating for it now that we know better.
eta: and Kellogg isn’t irrelevant. That’s exactly why the practice has been embedded in American culture, so when we’re talking about why we do it, he’s extremely relevant.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/factsheets/MC-for-HIV-Prevention-Fact-Sheet_508.pdf
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/130/3/585/30235/Circumcision-Policy-Statement?autologincheck=redirected
https://www.who.int/teams/global-hiv-hepatitis-and-stis-programmes/hiv/prevention/voluntary-medical-male-circumcision
Yeah, my parents didn’t do it, and I ended up getting phimosis in my early twenties and having to get it done then.
On the one hand I do appreciate that they left it up to me, but on the other hand it was intense pain for a couple of weeks and at the time I was really wishing that they had just gotten it out of the way.
For me, it’s a wash. That may or may not be typical but it’s probably slightly better that they left me the choice? Can’t put the foreskin back on the penis I guess.
My son was born with hypospadias, so I didn’t really have a choice with him. Had to get it done or he would be peeing out of the bottom of his dick forever, which saved me and my wife a difficult decision.
All of this said though, I personally prefer being circumcised. Cleaning is way way easier, and in my own personal experience I have a lot more sensitivity when doing anything fun with my hog. My partners have also preferred it, and some of them shared with me that they had previously gotten UTIs from uncircumcised partners.
Like I said, I appreciate that my parents left it up to me, but at the same time I think the genital mutilation trope is way overblown in the majority of cases. Not all of course.
It's certainly close enough that we shouldn't be trying to butt into other people's lives over it.
You should need a strong reason to have the state invade people's lives. This ain't it. I wouldn't pierce my baby's ears either, but I'm not looking to put anyone in prison over it.
Oh, so you’re good with female circumcision then? Since we shouldn’t be trying to butt into other people’s lives?…
Same
It should be an individual’s choice as to whether you chop off part of their dick, not society’s.
What is foreskin if not part of your dick?
No you’re getting it wrong: you LOSE sensitivity because the head of your penis is getting direct stimulation all the time. Because of the resultant loss of sensitivity the expectation would be that you would take longer to finish.
But sex is a complex thing that involves a lot more than just the physical stimulation, so it’s not 1:1 with regards to speed. It IS howeve impactful for the pleasure of the person with the penis. It’s more intense and pleasurable for people that aren’t circumcised. Sex is obviously still great even if you are circumcised but it’s a little like being colorblind if you were circumcised at birth: you don’t really know what you’re missing so it’s kind of ok and not really bothersome for the majority.
Though rare, some people have had to have the procedure done as an adult, so they know the difference.
You know, some have had it done as adults
Right to one's own body and doing cosmetic or religious surgery on kids: non-issue
Lol
Preconception is a powerful drug. There's really no way you could have worded that in a way they wouldn't get emotionally charged over. It's just the simple fact they have a strong opposing view point so they'll read something completely different so it makes sense with their thinking.
It was just an incredibly poor phrasing or word choice if they didn't want to call it circumcision a non-issue. Happens.
What did you mean was a non-issue if you weren't talking about the circumcision done on kids?
Certainly possible, but also not even necessarily a bad thing.
I should note that there's another big knock on benefit.
Which, particularly back in the 60s-90s period, was a bfd given the stigma around contraception and other genital protection measures. Significantly less so now when condoms are so readily available. But even then...
It does feel like people are looking for something to fixate on as a rabble-rousing issue that's a-political-ish. But the loudest anti-circumcision advocates tend to have truly awful surrounding politics. It feels like a... trojan issue.
There is indeed an upside, though in my opinion, it does not justify the amputation of healthy, functional tissue in infants who clearly cannot consent to it and condoms are readily available even for these with allergies to natural latex rubber.
The most recent studies that I've read did elucidate a likely mechanism too. Making the glans an external organ, rather than be protected by the foreskin, causes the development of keratinous tissue (literally called "horny" tissue) on the glans in order to protect it from the environment, rubbing against clothing, etc. Effectively, it becomes callused. The horny layers are composed of dead and denucleated cells, creating a physical barrier that bacteria and viruses must pass in order to infect the underlying cells.
Note, though, that there were three studies conducted in Africa on the impact of male circumcision that was/is cited on HIV prevention that are so blatantly terrible tha PLoS Med and the Lancet, along with whatever IRB was in charge ought to see reparitive and punitive fines brought against them. The studies show extraordinarily poor study design, data collection, data analysis, and alarming degrees of multiple biases. The issues include, among others:
All HIV infections were assumed to be sexually transmitted and the result of heterosexual intercourse (bizarre assumptions). Conservative estimates from follow-up research puts the percentage at only 43.1% of the infection from all three studies being sexual transmission, with no extant data or tracking on partners involved. Due to not accounting for the vector of infection, it is impossible to draw the causative relationship that the researchers claim.
Improper controls: The test group were given sexual education around STI transmission and proper condom use. The control group were not.
Lead-time bias: Data collection began immediately, despite researchers instructing the study group not to have intercourse for 6-8 weeks and likely discomfort with intercourse and increased condom use occuring in some who undergo adult male circumcision up to 12 weeks following the procedure.
Attrition bias: Significantly more subjects dropped out of the studies than became infected, which was not accounted for appropriately, corrupting the dataset used for analysis.
Duration bias: The PLoS Med study was planned to take 21 months of data but only ran for 14 months. The Lancet studies (near identical to each other) lasted 24 months. Neither is sufficient to either remove tye statistical significance of the lead-time bias, nor to provide objective long-term efficacy rates for an irreversible treatment.
Expectation bias: A number of principal investigators involved in the studies had previously publicly called for mass circumcision campaigns. This alone is a major red flag that should have resulted in more critical review of the study protocols and required that they, at the very least, mak, clear disclosures of their personal biases but, to have actually trustworthy results, they should have had no role in data analysis due to clear lack of objectivity.
Referenced studies:
😎👉👉
“I love my parents , even though they were too ignorant to think for themselves,” is how genital mutilation perpetuates. People need to be held accountable for not questioning inane rituals and traditions. Education, not mutilation.
Shut the fuck up, low quality clown. Education is me not doing this to my kids.
Please learn how to read.