Didn't know you were serious. Of course I don't support an abhorrent mutilation practice with no clinically-proven medical benefit and its roots set firmly in the horrific practices associated with backwards tribal mentalities. Female circumcision is a horrific thing for the same reasons. The only thing that makes male circumcision remotely acceptable is the fact that it has a proven medical benefit with very little tangible downside. I sure as hell wouldn't do it outside of an area where condoms were considered pariah by the culture, even with the hygienic benefit.
But ultimately, I've read a ton of material on the subject, and have come to the conclusion that arguing one way or the other is stupid, and I have Sexual Neuroscientist friends who hold the same opinion and can back me up.
Have I sufficiently proven that I do not call for the unwarranted mutilation and destruction of pleasure in children?
Obligatory (and NSFW, being full of penises): Evil Boy, the guy rapping about his penis, refused ritual circumcision as a kid and was ridiculed for it. Then he grew up and wrote a song saying "fuck you, I'm still a man even if I don't want you to cut part of my dick off with an unsterilized knife".
Not that this is related to the debate, or anything. I just think it's a cool story, and I have a weird love for Die Antwoord.
Yeah. Stuff like that is why Doctors Without Borders and similar groups are like, "PLEASE do not do this in a tribal setting if you want it done. At least let us use scalpels and autoclaves and avoid accidental septic emasculation."
Didn't know you were serious. Of course I don't support an abhorrent mutilation practice with no clinically-proven medical benefit and its roots set firmly in the horrific practices associated with backwards tribal mentalities. Female circumcision is a horrific thing for the same reasons. The only thing that makes male circumcision remotely acceptable is the fact that it has a proven medical benefit with very little tangible downside. I sure as hell wouldn't do it outside of an area where condoms were considered pariah by the culture, even with the hygienic benefit.
But ultimately, I've read a ton of material on the subject, and have come to the conclusion that arguing one way or the other is stupid, and I have Sexual Neuroscientist friends who hold the same opinion can back me up.
Have I sufficiently proven that I do not call for the unwarranted mutilation and destruction of pleasure in children?
I am going to summarize my position in one sentence. Mutilation, especially of children, is bad and should never be done. I cannot support circumcision as you do because of this. I also do not believe that we can support such practices even when it is expedient.
I am going to summarize my position in one sentence. Mutilation, especially of children, is bad and should never be done. I cannot support circumcision as you do because of this. I also do not believe that we can support such practices even when it is expedient.
I don't blame you. I don't plan on doing it to my son, if and when I'm presented with the choice. I would never medically advise a patient to circumcise either his self or his son.
However, the immediate circumstances determine a medical choice as much as anything else. Remember that medical lines aren't always as clear cut under the knife as they are in the written word.
I would never medically advise a patient to circumcise either his self or his son.
I know you mean Getting someone else qualified to circumcise them or their son, but I can't help but think if they need to be advised not to circumcise themselves, it's a bit of a lost cause reasoning with them.
I'm circumcised, and I don't see the problem with it. I don't remember having any extra skin down there to begin with, but at the same time my memorey is incredibly messed up, so maybe I'm a special case?
Then again, I also don't see a point in it. I mean, I'd rather be cut less often in my life, so now it seems unnecessary, but not detrimental.
I would never medically advise a patient to circumcise either his self or his son.
I know you mean Getting someone else qualified to circumcise them or their son, but I can't help but think if they need to be advised not to circumcise themselves, it's a bit of a lost cause reasoning with them.
As much as I'm knowledgeable and enthusiastic about Body modification, I've got no fucking idea why someone would chop their cock in half. DOUBLE PENETRATION, YOU'RE DOING IT HORRIBLY WRONG.
Tattooing is indelible dermal staining. Scarification is the destruction of large amounts of material in order to force the generation of (usually raised) scar tissue. Scarification itself can be safe-and-sane if done professionally, but unprofessionally, its really dangerous. Take ink rubbing. I knew emo kids who used to do that when I was younger. You could see the green discoloration of the skin where the metal compounds in Bic ink was wreaking havoc on their flesh. Plus, you create a massive open wound whenever you scarify. It's like turning your back into a petri dish unless you are religious about dressing changes, and you can bet some body artists don't know some of the protocols hospitals use to keep wounds clean.
Having seen both snipped and unsnipped schwangs, I prefer the aesthetic of the modified as the unmodified looks like an animal's to me. Also, you'll never hear of a snipped tip TEARING. Good lord.
Um, if not those of other animals, what is it people's body parts ought to look like? Granted, a robot wang could be vastly superior, as I'm sure Dave and Joel would agree.
Faux News reports that Bulletstorm will make your kids all rapey.
God, bulletstorm has caused so many arguments at the studio. The point was "the developers meant it ironcally" is countered with "But frat boys will laugh and not see it as tongue and cheek art art blah blah." I keep my head down and work on texture hue shifts.
In other news, Bill O'Reilly still isn't sure where the moon came from.
Nice ignorant generalization. Do some reading before you attempt to invalidate an argument.
CDC, WHO: "A number of observational studies indicate that circumcised men have lower levels of HIV infection than uncircumcised men. The trials being carried out in Kisumu, Kenya, and Rakai District, Uganda revealed at least a 53% and 51% reduction in risk of acquiring HIV infection, respectively. These results support findings published in 2005 from the South Africa Orange Farm Intervention Trial, sponsored by the French National Agency for Research on AIDS, which demonstrated at least a 60% reduction in HIV infection among men who were circumcised."
Comments
But ultimately, I've read a ton of material on the subject, and have come to the conclusion that arguing one way or the other is stupid, and I have Sexual Neuroscientist friends who hold the same opinion and can back me up.
Have I sufficiently proven that I do not call for the unwarranted mutilation and destruction of pleasure in children?
Evil Boy, the guy rapping about his penis, refused ritual circumcision as a kid and was ridiculed for it. Then he grew up and wrote a song saying "fuck you, I'm still a man even if I don't want you to cut part of my dick off with an unsterilized knife".
Not that this is related to the debate, or anything. I just think it's a cool story, and I have a weird love for Die Antwoord.
Die Antwoord is totally awesome.
However, the immediate circumstances determine a medical choice as much as anything else. Remember that medical lines aren't always as clear cut under the knife as they are in the written word.
Then again, I also don't see a point in it. I mean, I'd rather be cut less often in my life, so now it seems unnecessary, but not detrimental.
Spoilers for TMI. Also, my post looks silly now.
I do love tattoos, though. I'll probably have four by the time I'm out of school. Not really one for anything more than ink.
Here's some awesome professional scarification:
Granted, a robot wang could be vastly superior, as I'm sure Dave and Joel would agree.
also
CDC, WHO: "A number of observational studies indicate that circumcised men have lower levels of HIV infection than uncircumcised men. The trials being carried out in Kisumu, Kenya, and Rakai District, Uganda revealed at least a 53% and 51% reduction in risk of acquiring HIV infection, respectively. These results support findings published in 2005 from the South Africa Orange Farm Intervention Trial, sponsored by the French National Agency for Research on AIDS, which demonstrated at least a 60% reduction in HIV infection among men who were circumcised."
Findings are for penile-vaginal sex only.
There's still no reason to circumcise anyone in a civilized place.