this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2023
350 points (100.0% liked)
196
16458 readers
2906 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 49 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
[deleted]
Sadly there are many otherwise progress people whom I've encountered that don't see the issue with it, or even like it because they prefer how it looks.
[deleted]
Which part?
[deleted]
My bad, I got confused looking at the colored lines on the Lemmy sidebar on who you were reply too. I think I still have the same question now though.
Or maybe you were just saying a great line from the movie "The Social Network".
I agree making the decision to circumcise based on appearance or ignorance about the benefits of having an intact foreskin is silly. I think there is an argument for circumcision at birth, in the US, where we don't have free health care.
I think the decreased risk of balanitis is worth the loss in nerve endings because it probably saves a decent number of uninsured families from having to pay expensive medical bills later. This national average is how much it can cost for adults apparently.
https://www.mdsave.com/procedures/adult-circumcision/d781f9ce/california
Just another reason for a single-payer healthcare system for the pile I guess.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCSWbTv3hng
Adam mostly convinced me with his video on why people get circumcised in the US, but I did have a friend who got this infection and had to be circumcised later in life, not as an adult. And no it wasn't me, I had a separate infection in one of my balls, but thankfully there was a pill for that. And neither of us live in biblical times, relative to us anyway.
I feel like forcefully mutilating people's genitalia is the wrong solution to poor healthcare provisions.
I agree the correct solution is socialized medicine. Unfortunately, we aren't likely to get that in the US anytime soon. Getting slapped with a 6k medical bill could be the difference between a roof over someone's head or living on the street. It comes off as a potential debt trap, where it is again somehow more expensive to be poor.
I'm not completely convinced it's the right solution, but we have perhaps collectively helped some people by doing this as a society. It seems like a choice between a better of quality of life for most people, but financial hardship for some or lower of quality of life for everyone, but helping some unlucky people who wouldn't be able to the handle potential financial burden. No one plans to be poor, so no one knows if they are going to be one of the people who ends up having to pay later in life. I would like to see more numbers honestly, to really be able to weigh the costs and benefits. edit: typos
This is all nonsense post hoc justification. Circumcision in the US isn't for disease prevention, it's because a bunch of religious freaks a century ago thought it'd stop masturbation.
Disease prevention is the only thing circumcision actually does, and how beneficial that is is debatable, so it's really the only thing worth discussing in relation to the topic.
The fact that the guy who was pushing for circumcision thought it would stop masturbation really has nothing to do with what the benefits potentially were/are. I don't see why the reason someone did something would matter in respect to whether or not the thing was/is beneficial.
I don't really consider myself pro-circumcision, but it seemed like to me whether or not circumcision is worth doing would solely come down to how many people benefited in reduced medical costs versus the cost in quality of life caused by mass circumcision. If not many people, who couldn't afford treatment, actually had reduced medical bills then circumcision isn't worth doing.
I had thoughts on this topic, but not really strong opinions. I didn't realize this was such a hot button issue for people. I thought it was a niche, weird thing we could talk about.
If circumcision wasn't a thing, and somebody proposed cutting bits off baby dicks to maybe possibly save them from some obscure disease nobody ever heard of, everyone would rightly call them a creep. But since it's a tradition, people like you will come up with all kinds of dumbass justifications to continue it.
I mean, that's probably true of anything people have never heard of, but regardless, I couldn't care less about tradition. I legit thought it would be an interesting topic of discussion. I'm not interested in defending circumcision. Is there someone who does I should know about? Is this like a right-wing talking point?
If you're not interested in defending circumcision, why have you been doing it all day?
I explained my thoughts on the topic. I made attempts to clarify what I was saying, so people understood. I wanted to know what other people thought, so I replied to other people's comments in order to get their thoughts about it. I wouldn't call that defending circumcision. This is the first time I've ever seen people display strong feelings about this topic at all.
Your argument here is that - based on one study suggesting that balanitis falls from 3-11% of males to 2-7.5% of genitally-mutilated males justifies the systemic mutilation of all males in the US?
This is not a medically or scientifically sound argument.
I think that's essentially the argument for vaccines. We all get the vaccines to lower the risk of infectious diseases. Cutting off part of a person's genitals is more extreme than getting a needle jabbed in the shoulder, but I think it's the same basic principal.
is worth the loss in nerve endings because it probably saves a decent number of uninsured families from having to pay expensive medical bills later
You're disgusting, what the fuck is wrong with you.
I've had poor friends and am a virgin.
Being a virgin is no excuse, why the fuck would you ever say that only insured boys should have sexual/bodily autonomy.
I'm saying all people with penises getting circumcised in the US may have saved some people financial hardship later in life. I have no frame of reference to what I'm missing, so it probably isn't as hard to think this for me. edit: typo
We should cut off everyone's hands so they don't develop arthritis.
I think it would be more analogous to say cutting off part of the skin off the tips of our fingers to prevent arthritis, not that that would work. Like arthritis, balanitis mostly causes discomfort and not death. edit: typo
https://www.vinmec.com/en/news/health-news/complications-of-balanitis-of-the-penis/
Usually, balanitis is not too serious.
lol fuck off
EDIT Okay, imagine that if you cut off the tip of your tongue you can never get the stomach flu. Would you do it?
Would you do it to a baby?
For reference, I'm circumcised. I don't remember it. I doubt very few if any people actually remember their circumcision as a baby. Not saying circumcision is super great or something. But the US spent the last 100 years, and counting, doing it to people, so we might as well learn about it from a cost benefit angle with all the data we have. Whether or not anyone actually benefited from the practice seems like a worthwhile question to answer with data.
Stomach Flu is an interesting one. Here are some stats for Norovirus which causes stomach flu.
Norovirus does kill some people every year. I'm not sure what the threshold is for us all to cut off the tips of our tongues, but I'm guessing it's greater than 900 people dying per year. I think it stands to reason if the mortality rate was high enough and cutting off the tips of our tongues saved a sizable portion of those people who would otherwise die, then people might do that to themselves, even babies. I guess it comes down to how we value our bodies and what is worth giving up for the sake of other people.
Yikes.
Actually! I've been having a different argument and I think your input would be interesting.
What do you think about inoculating babies with an alpha gal allergy so they grow up allergic to red meat? Red meat has many health and environmental and humane costs, so there would certainly be a societal benefit if no one consumed it. Surely there'd be no problem with taking that choice away from babies before they're old enough to even remember it!
I had to read up on what alpha gal allergy is and what causes it normally.
https://www.cdc.gov/ticks/alpha-gal/index.html
I also read about red meat and the various issues associated with red meat consumption. This included the nutritional benefits.
https://www.diabetes.co.uk/food/red-meat.html
https://sentientmedia.org/why-is-eating-meat-bad-for-the-environment/
What do you think about inoculating babies with an alpha gal allergy so they grow up allergic to red meat?
I don't particularly like the idea of giving people a life threatening allergy. Nor do I like the idea of forcibly restricting a person's diet, thereby restricting their personal autonomy. I try to stick with white meat and fish as much as possible. But I do like being able to eat red meat like pork, beef, and goat.
Scientists have come up with ideas for circular food economies that incorporate animals that produce red meat. We could all have some red meat in our diets, a lot less than what is currently consumed, and the system as a whole could be less resource intensive than if we were all on a vegan diet. So I'm not convinced that introducing a food allergy for red meat is strictly necessary if the goal is reducing the health, environmental, and humane costs or red meat consumption. I found out about circular food economies in this article:
That being said, climate change is going take drastic action to course correct at this point. Our current societies are not sustainable and something about the way we all live is going to have to change if we want to avoid the worse effects of climate change. That change doesn't have to be giving up red meat entirely, but it certainly could. I would rather we stop producing cattle entirely, then not be able to eat any form of red meat at all.
I'm in favor of it just because I think we need drastic action to not see the end of civilization due to climate change. I'd also favor other radical moves, like gasoline rationing.
Nor do I like the idea of forcibly restricting a person’s diet, thereby restricting their personal autonomy.
So! This actually brings me back to circumcision and is why I brought it up - because I am circumcised, it would be much harder for me to have vaginoplasty because there's literally less material to work with. This, in fact, restricts my personal autonomy.
About 1% of babies are going to be trans. Is whatever benefit you think comes from circumcision worth restricting their personal autonomy if they decide to transition and undergo genital reconstructive surgery?
It restricts my personal autonomy too, since it would make it harder for me to get a vaginoplasty. I still kind of want to have kids though and womb transplants probably aren't going to ready in time for me, and I'm not sure if I want to go the extra mile. You're in luck though, they can grow another penis on your arm to give you more tissue to work with. Although, you might be the first person to get a new penis just to add to an existing penis to then make it a vagina.
Edit: Also this article claims it can be done with distal shaft skin for circumcised patients, but doesn't really go into the details. Circumcision still made for additional hoops for the surgeons to jump through.
It all seems so pointless, when we could just stop mutilating baby penises. 🤨
Though tbh if they're just going to grow new tissue, why the hell can't they just grow a fkn vagina lol
The benefits seem to be too minimal to justify mass circumcision. Individuals should just make the call for themselves if they get infections.
Yeah, I think growing vaginas and wombs will happen at some point. It probably is less common to have a vagina fall off than a penis, so there hasn't been a demand for it. edit: typo
And cut off women's breasts so they don't get breast cancer! And cut off the criteria for some other reason!
I'll keep my foreskin and nerve endings thank you!
I’m saying all people with penises getting circumcised in the US may have saved some people financial hardship later in life
Yeah wow, having a part of your body clipped away (often without anesthetics) is such a hardship saved. You're a piece of shit.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=gCSWbTv3hng
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
And the risk to get it drasticly drops when you wash your dick. The fact that so many people get it, shows how few people wash their dick under the foreskin.
I was washing every night. And I assume my friend was too. Because we were kids, for better or worse, with helicopter parents. I assume people who live out on the street, don't get regular showers.
I'm still using mine but you can look at it and compliment it or draw it if you like.
Those Rebel helmets always seemed odd to me. Why have so much protection on the rear neck area? Wouldn't it make more sense to protect the frontal part of your head area more than the back?
Info dump no one asked for:
These are actually Alderaanian consular security, as they are the security force assigned to and responsible for escorting senators and other dignitaries. Many rebel troopers, primarily on Yavin 4, utilized the same uniform or variants thereof due to the the relaxed nature of the rebel uniform standard.
My best guess for why this helmet is seen a lot with the rebels is due to the (surviving) Alderaanian security force joining the rebels and bringing their equipment, however it's not really explained.
Regarding the actual functionality of the helmet, I have no clue and I'm sure it was just because it looked cool a futuristic, thanks George Lucas.
But if thet bend their head forward they are very aerodynamic. Maybe they ride their bikes a lot?
Feels like a trans fem meme