Kicking. Squealing.
Commenter Trouble points me to Andrew Sullivan who has linked to my piece from Good Men Project on neonatal male circumcision.
Sullivan agrees with the anti-circ position and the one espoused by the academic in my piece – that it is silly to cite conditions germane to heterosexuals in Africa as support for domestic policies on circumcision. Scientist Jesse Bering, who is gay, supports the pro-circumcision position saying that even a marginal reduction in the likelihood of contracting HIV is worth the brief, painless procedure even if it does hinder male sexual pleasure. Sullivan responds:
It’s rare to read a gay man who still echoes the HIV-phobia of the 1980s – but Bering’s irrational panic is pretty glaring. And the notion that in order to prevent infection via a body part, you just remove that body part after birth is equally bizarre. Can you imagine post-birth removal of tonsils? Or forcible prophylactic mastectomies to prevent breast cancer? This whole thing is madness. Mutilation of any part of an infant’s body should only be for vital immediate health dangers, not nebulous future threats, which the person could choose for himself later, if he so wanted.
It is indeed strange that someone who has fought for certain freedoms such as the right to marry a person of the same sex would be so flippant when it comes to choosing whether or not to have foreskin removed without consent. The right to be safe from bodily harm from another person should trump the right to engage in a socially constructed relationship such as marriage. Given their civilly libertarian premise, Sullivan’s argument is the more logical one.
Jews, that’s all
But aborting that child is fine?
“The right to be safe from bodily harm from another person should trump the right to engage in a socially constructed relationship such as marriage.”
Seems to me there’s a bigger trump out there.
Anyway, you guys are fucking silly. My son was circumcised with my approval and under my direct request. Why? B/c it’s socially normal, more hygienic, and I’m his fucking father and that’s what I wanted. We do not need more state intervention in parent-child relationships. You can go take a leap on this one.
And of course Sullivan’s against it. He’s the type of faggot for whom sex trumps everything and loss of any “sexual pleasure” is an anathema–it’s all he has, all he can aspire to, all he is. He’s nothing more ambulatory drool. Disgusting.
Hinks, sorry you’re so hysterical over this.
I think Hinks is/will be a miserable father/husband.
lol @ “socially normal” aka ” i did it because everyone else does it”
hinks:
“Anyway, you guys are fucking silly. My son was circumcised with my approval and under my direct request. Why? B/c it’s socially normal,”
how many boys interact socially on a day to day basis with their dicks hanging out?
“more hygienic,”
so is locking yourself in a hermetically sealed chamber and never stepping out into public spaces.
“and I’m his fucking father and that’s what I wanted.”
if a father wants his kid to have one arm, would you object to the amputation?
Alluding to your tweet on the meathead reason for circumcision, the rise in American males not cicumcised has risen almost in lockstep with the rise of out of wedlock births. I do think having dad there and saying ‘sure, mine is clipped’ is a deciding factor on something women would have no real experience or personal use preference.
Using African HIV results is a lame cop out for making it covered by medical plans here. HIV has such a low incidence rate that it shouldn’t be a significant part of the discussion.
I’m definitely an Andrew Sullivan hater, but I’m glad to see he is definitely on the sane side of the issue, though the “AIDS-phobia” bit is a little odd, especially from an HIV-positive faggot, unless he is talking about the made up heterosexual AIDS epidemic that never happened (which would be surprising, but welcome).
Regarding Hinks’ post – I understand and agree with his opposition to government intervention between father and child, but I don’t think there’s any conflict between that and also thinking that parents should stop circumcising their boys at birth and that people should advocate for it. There will obviously be some pain because circumcised men will be reluctant to accept that they wish they’d had a choice – this is a general phenomenon in social change. I’m circumcised myself and I don’t feel strongly about whether I wish I was or I wasn’t, but I just don’t see any strong reason to do it so young rather than wait. I’m no expert, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was done at a young age historically because the process was so bloody, intimate, and painful that it could only be done on a person who could not say no. These days I think the medical technology is to the point where none of those things would prevent a man from having the procedure done if it was his choice.
So what is it? Are you advocating against fathers having their sons circumcised, or are you advocating for making circumcision illegal?
And if the latter, are you also proposing to ban cosmetic surgery on sixth fingers, large moles or floppy ears until adulthood?
I think the anti-circ advocates should focus on the medical associations and doctors not the government. When we had to determine whether or not to circumcise our son we got no help from his pediatrician who said some people do and some people don’t. Ultimately, I came down on the side of circumcision. I believe this was based on a number of factors but the most important being I don’t know anybody who didn’t circumcise their children and who aren’t circumcised themselves. If I had to make the decision today, I would more than likely not have him circumcised. Though honestly this is more than I have ever thought about it except when we had to make the decision many years ago. I think in ten to twenty years most people won’t circumcise their children, unless it is a religious thing or unless studies show that it is beneficial to do so.
If you pay attention, most people who want to ban circumcision, a thousands of years old religious practice, are anti-religious.
I didn’t have it done to our son, but people who want to ban it very clearly have a problem with religion.
If you care so much about kids, you would ban no-fault divorce. Recent studies show that it lops of 5 years of life expectancy.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/children-of-divorce-separation-die-5-years-earlier-study
If you care so much about kids, you would prevent kids from being adopted in gay households. A recent study shows very poor outcomes.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5933
Negative outcomes of the circumcised in relation to their intact gentile bretheren:
* Disproportionate affliction with Nobel prizes
* Disproportionate suffering of excessive wealth, with the added risk of possible billionaire-dom
* Tragic anguish of undue and disproportionate political influence, all out of proportion to numbers
“If you pay attention, most people who want to ban circumcision, a thousands of years old religious practice, are anti-religious.”
and some people want to ban it because it’s barbaric, regardless of its religious origins.
btw, isn’t clitoridectomy a ritual derived from tribal religions thousands of years old?
Well, CR has not replied yet, so I will go with this
“because it’s barbaric, regardless of its religious origins”
Do you find the procedure barbaric, or the mutilation?
Because the procedure, as a surgery, is no different from any other cosmetic surgical procedure. If you want to ban all cosmetic surgical procedures on minors, such as the deformities I mentioned previously, come out and say that.
If it is specifically circumcision, I wonder why. Especially, because circumcision a long time ago used to be a victory of men over women.
All debate aside, think why you want the state to enforce your – to me somewhat sissy – preferences on me – at gunpoint.
“the procedure, as a surgery, is no different from any other cosmetic surgical procedure”
Not exactly. Cosmetic surgeries are generally a repair of a flaw or an atypical anatomical feature. Circumcision is a mutilation (I use the term clinically) of normal anatomy.
I guess we should leave the umbilical cord alone too after birth.
“Not exactly. Cosmetic surgeries are generally a repair of a flaw or an atypical anatomical feature. ”
No. I have performed circumcisions, and I do cosmetic procedures. The actual surgical *procedure*, i.e. the cutting of the skin, disruption of anatomy, bleeding, pain management (if at all), scarring etc are no different between these.
You, find a foreskin “normal anatomy”. I do not. Who gets to define what is “normal anatomy”? The state? You? Or the father?
All of this energy spent on trying to outlaw something I and my ancestors have been doing for thousands of years.
Maybe you should spend some of this energy instead on sex change operations on minors. Is the penis of a boy who looks like a boy and is genetically a boy a “normal anatomical feature” or an abhorrent appendage that needs to be removed as soon as possible, just because that boy ‘feels he is a girl’ and the state and his parents have been reinforcing that?
“I guess we should leave the umbilical cord alone too after birth.”
the umbilical cord will eventually detach on its own. the foreskin stays with a man for life.
the amount of male rationalization for the continued practice of circumcision in this thread is quite telling. if circ was only practiced by ooga booga pygmies, i wonder how many of you would be singing its praises?
ps sullivan is a self-contradicting tool who sees the world through hivvy glasses, but even a gaywad sucking on roid fumes can be right once in a blue ball.
“Who gets to define what is “normal anatomy”?”
This is the type of deconstructionist-critique question upon which I reframe or disengage.
Hey guys circumcises your girls.
People who compare circumcision to clitoridectomy are retarded.
The analogy would be more reasonable if male circumcision involved cutting off the glans.
People who compare circumcision to clitoridectomy are retarded (cont).
Circumcised men have no problem with intercourse. Clitoridectomy removes moves of the nerves in that area.
I am uncut, so I suppose I should be trying to make it so more people are like me, but I don’t see why fools need to get in other people’s business about something so trivial.
I’m surprised that many of you don’t see the fundamental argument here. Dan above says “I don’t see why fools need to get in other people’s business about something so trivial.”
Precisely. If a foreskin is trivial, why do it in the first place? Why get up in the baby’s “business”?
Did a little more reading, and I stand corrected. It seems the research shows function can sometimes be diminished.
So?
It sure as heck isn’t the government’s job to fix every percieved minor flaw in the world. Almost every time, such thinking makes things much worse.
Step 1: Abolish circ and instigate religious and cultural warfare far and wide.
Step 2: Hilarity ensues.
“Why get up in the baby’s “business”?”
Everything single parents do is getting up in a baby’s or child’s business. Every lesson, every act of discipline, every notion of what norms should be.
I assume next you want to abolish religious teaching to children because parents might ‘indoctrinate’ etc. Sounds like the USSR, Red China, et al.
Chuck, people filled with righteous concern make useful idiots for the state to expand its power. Many people who think like this have made the world a very much less free place to live in.
Last comment should begin ‘Every single thing’
As far as my writing on this is concerned, I’m more interested in having people think about and be knowledgeable about the reasons that circumcisions take place in this society. Myself, I haven’t called for outlawing it. But I think it is mostly pointless, and when you sit and think about what is actually happening – you’re holding down a screaming baby boy and cutting into his flesh – it’s hard for me to justify why it occurs. The tradition isn’t even that strong here in the West. Why do we do it?
The people who want the practice to spread are relying on poor science to justify their proscriptions. I, and others, are pushing back on that. This isn’t Africa and something else besides just the foreskin is lost when the foreskin is removed. Let’s understand all sides of it instead of just cutting off the foreskin because that’s how it’s been done for the past 100 years. And when you think of how males’ genitals have been mutilated throughout human history and about the fact that the practice almost always stems from a desire to control male sexuality, that’s another reason to oppose it or at least examine it. Further, I grow tired of hearing about how it is only women’s sexuality that “the patriarchy” tries to limits. Happens to boys and men too; it’s just that because men are more likely to “suck it up”, we don’t talk about it.
Female circumcision is illegal.
http://imgur.com/43h3P
Dan,
you’re throwing around arguments that can be turned on themselves. USSR wanted to replace the indoctrination of Christianity with the indoctrination of communism. Snuff out the competition.
I’m not really in favor of “indoctrinating” kids; I’d rather make them knowledgeable and give them the tools to decide for themselves. The same with circumcision.
If at first you don’t succeed, you’re not Chuck Norris.
“it is silly to cite conditions germane to heterosexuals in Africa as support for domestic policies on circumcision”
I’m not so sure.
If I had to name a current part of the world that will resemble domestic sexual conditions in say 20 years, Africa would probably be first on my list.
The sexual dystopia continues . . . be prepared
Sullivan, a fag obsessed about how a dick looks