@jpclemens@HazelAppleyard I appreciate you taking the time to actually read the study.
Yeah it's flawed and limiteld but every study has limits.
Yeah I don't believe in using antisemitism or personal attacks, I genuinely believe male circumcision is scientifically unnecessary and harmful.
@nayana317668@Paraplane100 I think the developing countries should have more running water instead. I don't think men in developing countries deserve fewer body parts than men in the most developed.
@nayana317668@Paraplane100 Oh no, they are not "extremely rare" they happen and are underreported.
See this is why I'm challenging you. You can say it's not as bad as FGM, fine. But here you're saying that it's a greater risk to keep a whole body than to have cosmetic surgery. That's not factual.
@nayana317668@Paraplane100 Bodily autonomy is one reason. I also believe the practice is harmful because it's painful, unnecessary, and actually increases certain health risks. It has been done to decrease sexual pleasure, just like FGM, even if that's not the outcome. Look up Kellogg
@nayana317668 That's likely referring to the African extreme forms.
In Malaysia and Indonesia, it's not done for those reasons. There are Sheikhs who support female circumcision but not FGM because they think female pleasure is a right.
@nayana317668@Paraplane100 It is harmful if it decreases sensitivity, causes pain, risks injuries and deaths.
I believe all forms of FGM are harmful as well. There may be "benefits* if they were studied for them but Western medicine would never fund those studies. Still must be banned.
@nayana317668@Paraplane100 If it's objectively beneficial, then why do the healthiest and cleanest countries avoid it?
It's similar to some forms of FGM but not all.
@nayana317668@Paraplane100 It's not an "objectively beneficial procedure" and it should be considered torture because it's placing babies in unnecessary pain for cosmetic and cultural reasons.
Why are you against people who oppose both of them?
@TennesseeDx@adkisojk@PocketAcesFPL@AndrewKaufmanMD Why do you fantasize about being an abusive son who spits in his father's face for saving him?
The fact you had it done to your sons doesn't mean it's ok. There are amazing parents who acknowledge their mistakes. You're not one of them.
If circumcision were a decision left to men themselves—something that could only happen once they reached an age of consent—the practice would fade away on its own.
Because when you strip away tradition, routine, and decisions made on behalf of infants, you’re left with a simple question: would an informed adult voluntarily choose to surgically remove part of their own body?
Most wouldn’t. Especially part of your genitals!
The persistence of the practice depends largely on the fact that the choice is made before the individual has any say in the matter. Once consent enters the equation, the calculus changes entirely.
What's especially crazy is that ancient circumcision left the foreskin almost completely intact and was far less invasive and therefore far less dangerous. The foreskin was pulled forward and only the uppermost tip--the skin extending beyond the head of the penis--was removed. When flaccid, the penis would have looked barely distinguishable from an uncircumcised penis.
@nayana317668@Paraplane100 I showered this morning but do you desire to personally check yourself? I'm not in the mood to indulge your femdom humiliation fetish today.
Baby boys should not be cut based on misandrist stereotypes.
@jpclemens@HazelAppleyard Those HIV studies were only in certain African populations and those studies were flawed. Others you cited are from Brian Morris who has clear conflicts of interest.
Here's one that doesn't help your case:
https://t.co/SePN8YxDNy