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!
Insurance companies should do what they do and make it be a cosmetic surgery and not cover it. It should cost thousands in cash.
At a minimum. Also, the law should make it illegal.
Unless it’s out of medical necessity
Correct. And preventative doesn’t count as “necessary” unless it’s preventing seriously elevated risk of death in the near term.
Even better would be to simply banun, unless there are proven medical reasons.
Leveraging the broken health care system to attack the revanchist cultural system?
I mean, maybe. But when child birth already runs into the $20k-$50k range, I doubt anyone is going to notice the $150 they charge for foreskin removal until the bill arrives.
That’s what they’re saying. The typical cost is $20k-$50k, with all but ~$3k covered by insurance.
If insurance doesn’t cover it it’s now $1200 out of pocket.
Making it illegal would be better, but that requires convincing people. Even if you approve of circumcision, you’re still not going to be surprised when your insurance company drops what you consider to be something important.
If insurance doesn’t cover it it’s now $1200 out of pocket.
Where does a routine circumcision cost $1200? That’s the same as Lasik.
Making it illegal would be better
Maybe you could try this by leveraging all the anti-Trans legislation.
I can honestly tell you I did not search very hard. First results for how much it cost said $500 cash price, and up to $4000 as billed to insurance. I picked a number in the middle.
Honestly it didn’t seem that weird to me that removing skin from the genitals of a newborn would be along the same price as non-invasive outpatient surgery.
I did not search very hard.
:-/
Meh, it’d be a $200 add-on charge.
An eye for an eye is pretty aggressive when it comes to penis mutilation, especially as the babies haven’t done anything (wrong) yet.
Relevant post https://lemmy.world/comment/7949837
None of that has anything to do with the US “taking aggression out on males”. Circumcision should be stopped but you’re grasping for reasons here–there’s no countrywide conspiracy to continue pushing it. The reasons are from historical pseudoscience and it’s been in decline for 30 years.
That was a rabbit hole of reading.
Removed by mod
As somebody who was circumcised at a young age as so many of us were, no, fuck you.
You speak like a kid who just learned how to use swear words… is this really the best trolling attempt you can do? C’mon, I’m sure you can do better than just hurling F-bombs everywhere.
Did they just create an account just to attack this guy? Is that a thing people do? Like, why? Seems like a lot of trouble.
I don’t really know what their problem was. Could legitimately be a kid or someone who’s never grown past the “swearing at people is funny” stage. Whichever it is, I hope this got it out of their system. Or we’ll see another brand new account doing the same thing, who knows?
Indeed. But unlike the sea lions and concern trolls at least you don’t have to read 5 paragraphs before figuring out that you should’ve blocked this person before you wasted your 30 seconds.
Sometimes they make it easy on you
What? What are you so mad about?
The linked comment offers three options and I bet it’s right:
Warning that this topic draws a lot of insane people with genital mutilation fetishes. Any of the comments advocating for circumcision are either men who were circumcised against their will, women who circumcised their children and haven’t accepted the truth, or weirdos who want others to suffer.
Just to add: its not unique to the US, its even more common in many African, Middle Eastern, and majority Muslim countries
While I whole heartedly disagree with the practice of circumsizing babies. (babies can’t consent therfore an unnecessary procedure is just flat out unethical) It’s not really true to say science shows that the foreskin is erogenous or even that circumcision affects sexual pleasure.
There is a bit of conflicting data out there so there is still some debate over the fact but right now the data leans heavily toward there being little to no adverse affects on sexual pleasure. And in fact some anecdotal evidence actually seems to show that the opposite may be true; that circumsized penises may actually be more sensitive to sexual stimuli.
Again though, I can’t stress enough how much I believe circumsicion is wrong.
Edit: hey guys. Coming back to this and uh, have learned some things. I’d like to retract this statement pretty please. Please forgive me.
The studies around this are very often heavily biased.
The main reason it was pushed in the states in the first place was because of an anti-masturbatory craze.
Growing up (like 25 years ago) it was a bit weird how lotion was so strongly shorthand for masturbation in American TV and movies. Didn’t really get it until I learned a lot of circumcised guys prefer or even require lotion for masturbation.
I’m circumsized, but apparently they didn’t go too short, as I’ve never needed lotion to jerk off. I would hate to get it in the urethra anyway…
Curious study. I personally only have my self as a test subject, so it’s quite subjective, however I use the foreskin quite a bit for stimulation, not really as an erogenous zone, more of a way to slide it in, it also helps prevent lubricants from drying up, since without at least spit it just hurts. It’s REALLY sensitive under there and fucking hurts when rubbed by just about anything else, if I didn’t have foreskin, it would have to become significantly more numb before I could rejoin society. Actual sex might not be as affected, but masturbation as I know it would cease to be.
That’s really interesting actually. Might be why there’s reports of things being more sensitive after adult circumsion. You’re removing a protective layer that’s been covering that super sensitive part of you all your life. All of a sudden it’s gone and now that part is exposed.
This is gonna be a silly anology but I wonder if it’s anything like playing guitar. When you first start, your fingertips hurt a bunch but as you play you build up calluses in addition to the fingertips just becoming partially numb so it stops hurting as much.
If I remember correctly, the top layers of the glans keratinize (in a similar way to your hands may form callouses) causing a long term loss in sensitivity. Adult circumcisions are probably more sensitive post op because the glans is left completely exposed when it was once covered and hasn’t had the time to adapt. I’m uncircumcised and the thought of boxers brushing up against my bits while my heads’ exposed sounds fucking awful haha
Lol, could be xD
I’m circumcised, and my glans is the least sensitive flesh on my body.
When I scrape gently with a toothpick, I can feel it more clearly on the bottom of the heel of my foot than I can on the head of my penis.
It’s supposed to be ultra sensitive, yet the only way I can determine it’s being touched is visually, or by sensing the vibrations of contact deeper in the shaft.
Damn, wouldn’t think I’d be that insensitive. Yea no for me, just pulling back the foreskin and putting it back into my pants as is kinda hurts.
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:
there isn’t conflicting data, there’s people without foreskins not knowing what they’ve lost and people with foreskins who don’t know how to jerk it properly.
as someone with a foreskin i can tell you with the utmost certainty that it is an erogenous zone and makes the experience infinitely better, it is unfathomable to me how circumcized people are even capable of masturbation and intercourse, it’s like trying to swim without feet.
Wasn’t it the point of religious nutter ? To prevent kids and people in general from masturbating because they think it is sin ? IMO it ls very obvious that it reduces sexual pleasure.
As the owner of a foreskin, fuck science. Yes, it is erogenous.
But where’s the data indicating the nose is where smelling happens? Where’s the science??
I’m willing to accept scientific BJs to attest where it happens.
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.
Here’s some posts from that weird fetishist cult community btw. These guys are obsessed… maybe Morris’ alt accounts? lol
spoiler
Yeaaah. Seems I’ve unintentionally sited some weird fucking guy. That’ll teach me to not look into the writers of a study before I post about it. Fucking yikes…
You’ve gotta be batshit insane to deny such an obvious fact. You gonna show me a study that says the sky may or may not be blue next?
The sky isn’t blue, it just appears to be blue because of space.
No, it appears to be blue due to blue light being scattered more than longer wavelengths.
Like how we don’t say that blue glass is blue because it’s really just the light that’s blue?
Appearing blue when looked at is what it means for something to be blue.
If you’re gonna be that type of pedantic, just jump straight to “nothing has color but light”.
Sounds to me that lemmings never go outside and converse with people. Damn people here are pedantic as a motherfucker. The only joke you know is the one staring back at you in the mirror.
Or your joke was just so unfunny that it wasn’t recognizable as a joke and was mistaken for your honest opinion.
If no one laughed at your joke, maybe it’s because it wasn’t funny.
False. Educate yourself on the ridged band and frenulum
I mean. I provided an actual source for my statement with aggregated data supporting my point. You, however, have not.
Sounds like you need to be educated.
And also the frenulum is not the foreskin.
And also the frenulum is not the foreskin.
While the other user hasn’t explained why it is relevant, they are correct in that it is relevant. This is because circumcision usually removes the frenulum, or at least a large chunk of it. And it’s downright criminal because the frenulum is very sensitive. What little left I have is the most sensitive part of mine.
Propaganda and bad faith. Get out of here with your pseudoscience
Brian Morris is a proven fraud
Removed by mod
You sure make a lot of requests and claims for someone that created an account just for this post. And just to clarify, pointing out fallacies IS a valid argument. You don’t get to spit out shit and expect people to accept it at face value.
Idk man he threw out a couple of terms and googling really isn’t that hard.
I didn’t know about “the ridged band”.
https://en.intactiwiki.org/wiki/Ridged_band
Now I do.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
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.
‘Discouraging the act of male masturbation quickly became a “major reason why doctors, educationists and childcare experts sought to introduce widespread circumcision.”’
https://journals.troy.edu/index.php/test/article/download/386/302
This was the 1800s, and then after it was more of “this is just what we do now”.
Thanks for that! I guess my parents and their religious “leadership” just invented reasoning for it after the fact in order to justify the practice without having to think about the why of it.
Religion and lying about why they do things, name a more iconic duo.
I know from someone who had to get circumcised at 18 for medical reasons that you do lose a good bit of sensitivity. Not saying that necessarily means that that’s the reasoning. What’s interesting though is that circumstances among Christians isnt really a thing in Europe. I wonder how it became so big in the US.
Somebody sourced supporting documentation that it was originally done to prevent masturbation. My thought process was that, from experience, jerking off still feels good regardless, and if you perform the procedure on an infant they’ll never know it could feel better, so where’s the deterrent?
I’m glad we’re still practicing genital mutilation in 2024 just because some guy from a time when we treated people with hacksaws and leeches said so though.
but does it feel good without external lubrication? when you have a foreskin you don’t need any sort of lube, even just the foreskin itself effectively acts as a lubricant before even accounting for how it enables pre to not instantly evaporate
I’ve never heard a single person complain about masturbation difficulties due to being circumcised
I’ve seen posts with people saying that if you’re uncircumcised you can do it without lube. I don’t know if it’s true or not because I am circumcised and definitely can’t. At least not for very long. If it’s true I’d consider that a big enough drawback to complain about.
Not circumcised and I’ve never use lube or lotion. It always confused me why in me, myself, and Irene why he had lotion next to his bed and I didn’t connect it with masterbation as I said I never used anything.
I (not circumsized) don’t think the lube/non-lube thing is relevant that much. It works but lube is definitely still a good idea.
What I do think makes a difference is the missing sensitive skin though. The inside of the foreskin is very sensitive, much like the glans. And when you pull it back, that skin is on the outside of quite a bit of your shaft.
I think for people like myself who were circumcized at birth the brain just compensates for the reduced sensitivity. Hell, even people who are literally missing their penis can still orgasm by jerking an imaginary penis. Circumcision’s still a completely unnecessary medical procedure for most, but it has surprisingly little effect on the subjective experience of sex.
I can attest to it being true.
Circumcision is a way to discourage masturbation.
I got bad news for them. My record is 5 in a day during puberty. Granted, it did chafe like hell, and for that we must destroy religion.
“Those are rookie numbers!”. And if you weren’t circumcised it wouldn’t chafe as much. The reality is that circumcision was invented to make you masturbate less, to make it less pleasurable, to make it more difficult. And it probably has an effect on sex too.
Make genital mutilation sucks. It’s all about religion controlling your sexuality. Fuck that!
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.
Yeah, in Europe (or in France at least), if you’re circumcised you’re either Muslim, Jewish or had a medical issue.
I’m from the UK and can confirm It’s not standard here, perhaps in other parts of Europe (but not France.)
Edited to clarify that the United Kingdom has not physically moved location, nor has the continent of Europe been redefined (at least not that I’m aware of)
UK is still in Europe.
Don’t tell the British.
I already know!
The previous post mentioned Europe and specifically France. I was just clarifying that it’s the same for the UK. 😁
I was just making a joke, since the UK left the EU even though a majority of Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to stay. Seems like the British are in denial about being part of Europe.
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.
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.
If the cutter was traditional, he mightve eaten it
I went to an expensive traditional no-knife circumcisor. It was a rip-off.
Hrm
Or turned into cosmetics. Shit ain’t wasted, everything but the squeal gets used.
Thank you for reminding me that’s a thing. Now why don’t you take those teeth and go castrate some sheep.
Wait is that actually a real practice Like not a joke /gen
I have 3!!!😎😎😎
Give mine back then! 😡
Sorry, already ate it
where do you keep them
Big jar
Ok, but how did they taste?
jummy
Correct!
Where are my [FORESKIN], Summer?
https://www.adultswim.com/videos/rick-and-morty/where-are-my-testicles-summer
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.
deleted by creator
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.
I mean I’m against circumcision Like Im circumcised and it doesn’t really bother me, it’s just a really weird practice that makes no sense to me
That’s perfectly fair. I feel like where a lot of anti-circumcision activists go wrong is they focus too much on telling circumcised people that their body is wrong and they should feel mad, rather then focusing on the actual issue at hand.
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.
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
saved
Hey it’s trans erasure
Not trans erasure, he’s just an egg and I don’t want to out him yet
