You're viewing a single thread.
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.
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.
:-/
It's an online discussion. I'm not going to go price shopping for average circumcision costs by state broken down by insurance coverage.
Random urologist lists cash and insurance prices for infant circumcision? Done, that's the range I'm using.
Even better would be to simply banun, unless there are proven medical reasons.
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.
Fuck you.
As somebody who was circumcised at a young age as so many of us were, no, fuck you.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes it really blew my mind when I actually did the experiment. I suspect it’s the same for others as well. Until I tested it, I wouldn’t have predicted it at all.
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??
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:
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
Propaganda and bad faith. Get out of here with your pseudoscience
Brian Morris is a proven fraud
You are the biggest cunt so far.