I disagree @DerHasisttot, the push for legislation can be a fantastic way of grabbing people's attention, thereby legislating and educating simultaneously. Despite the fact that every professional medical organization in the world (such as the AMA) finds no medical justification for circumcision, it is still routinely performed without question. A legal rumpus may be just what this issue needs to enter the public consciousness.

But you may be right in that this will take several attempts to pass before enough people realize what barbaric bullshit they are using as justification for mutilating their children. Perhaps it will morph into a bill where there are special exemptions for religious purpose. I'd be fine with that. The point is to get people to stop thinking of it as normal and medically justified. In fact just the opposite, the procedure carries the risk of death (rare as it may be). All of the supposed risks that are used to justify circumcision can be remedied by basic hygiene, and it's long past time that people were aware of that.

Fuck all the religions, cultures, parents and doctors that support and perform these BODY MUTILATIONS!

Medical claims of health and hygiene are bullshit! If any of that was real, natural selection would eliminate foreskin. Alas, it still exist.
As for "following tradition" or "following religion", FUCK YOU SAVAGES!

Can't say I disagree with anything you say!

I was talking shorthand. Nuance gets lost in shorthand.



>> ^NetRunner:

@bareboards2, I think you're putting a bit too much emphasis on this natural vs. artificial thing. Everyone does something unnatural to enhance their appearance from "the way we evolved". Some of it is just personal hygiene like showering, washing your hair, brushing your teeth, using deodorant, etc. Some of it is clearly about improving your appearance to others, like getting your hair cut, shaving, combing or styling your hair, what have you.
To some degree, you need to do this stuff, just to signal to the world that you care about your appearance. If you're looking to attract a romantic interest, then you need to do more than what the expected norm is.
When it comes to these sorts of extra cosmetic efforts, it's not so much about whether they actually make the woman look better according to some objective standard of beauty, it's about the knowledge that they put the effort into make themselves look the best they could. Obviously the goal is to actually succeed in making yourself look better, but it's really the thought that counts.
As for removal of body hair, I think the conceptions of the ideal has actually changed for both genders. Compare Tom Selleck in his heyday to more modern male heartthrobs. These days they are universally clean shaven with waxed chests. I'd be willing to bet that change happened around the same time Playboy started making all their models shave their pubic hair.
As for these women who turn themselves into some grotesque barbie, I don't get the sense that they're doing it to try to satisfy some unreasonable man in their life. I think most of the time, they're doing it to try to feel better about themselves (and often driving away the men in their lives in the process). I agree that's probably a symptom of a problem with our culture generally, but I don't think it's the availability of images of impossibly perfect looking women that's causing it. I think it's got to do with all the subtle and not so subtle ways our culture tends to tie a woman's appearance to her worth as a person.

@bareboards2, I think you're putting a bit too much emphasis on this natural vs. artificial thing. Everyone does something unnatural to enhance their appearance from "the way we evolved". Some of it is just personal hygiene like showering, washing your hair, brushing your teeth, using deodorant, etc. Some of it is clearly about improving your appearance to others, like getting your hair cut, shaving, combing or styling your hair, what have you.

To some degree, you need to do this stuff, just to signal to the world that you care about your appearance. If you're looking to attract a romantic interest, then you need to do more than what the expected norm is.

When it comes to these sorts of extra cosmetic efforts, it's not so much about whether they actually make the woman look better according to some objective standard of beauty, it's about the knowledge that they put the effort into make themselves look the best they could. Obviously the goal is to actually succeed in making yourself look better, but it's really the thought that counts.

As for removal of body hair, I think the conceptions of the ideal has actually changed for both genders. Compare Tom Selleck in his heyday to more modern male heartthrobs. These days they are universally clean shaven with waxed chests. I'd be willing to bet that change happened around the same time Playboy started making all their models shave their pubic hair.

As for these women who turn themselves into some grotesque barbie, I don't get the sense that they're doing it to try to satisfy some unreasonable man in their life. I think most of the time, they're doing it to try to feel better about themselves (and often driving away the men in their lives in the process). I agree that's probably a symptom of a problem with our culture generally, but I don't think it's the availability of images of impossibly perfect looking women that's causing it. I think it's got to do with all the subtle and not so subtle ways our culture tends to tie a woman's appearance to her worth as a person.

>> ^peggedbea:

When my son was born I was a radiology tech in a hospital. I was not for circumcision, I thought it seemed totally unnecessary. Then I got bombarded with horror stories from all the nurses I worked with and actually ended up having to do a procedure on a little boy whos foreskin looked like it had NEVER EVER been cleaned. It was 1. the only foreskin I'd ever seen and 2. totally traumatic. In the end my sons father INSISTED he have it done, and I was a little too fucked up from having just given birth to argue anyway. So the doc gave my son a chocolate dum dum and stuck that little plastic bell thing on his penis. He was maybe 3 hours old. He didn't cry, or even seem to care. The foreskin fell a few days later.
If I ever have another kid, I won't circumcise him. But I don't feel like a horrible person because I let my son get circumcised. I used to watch a lot of things about female circumcision, the mother's who do this to their daughters think they're doing the right thing. Because in that culture, no one will want her if she isn't cut. In that culture, women don't generally get to lead lives without men. In the end, I don't begrudge parents too much for wanting to raise children who will be accepted in their respective societies.
Yeah, I get it, it's altering someones body without their consent. But individual parents aren't horrific monsters for doing things within in their respective cultural norms. It's the cultures that are fucked up and wrong. And it's complete ignorance that lets these practices continue, not malice.


You are absolutely right about ignorance and tradition being at the core of the problem, and your story illustrates my point about community pressure. (Far from me the will to guilt-trip you, Ryjkyj or anyone else for circumcision(s) already performed, in optimal circumstances. Preventing future occurrences and raising awareness on the issue is the idea here.)

There is quite a big difference between the constraints of tribal culture in the deserts of Sudan and those of Americans, between "civilised" societies and those living in bronze age cultures. For one, we are (or at least can be) aware of such notions as "rights of the individual" and the like. Secondly, HYGIENE. @Kofi summed it up neatly, and your story adds to the illustration. Parents who "NEVER EVER" clean their child's weewee are guilty of child abuse (in the form of neglect), and should be regarded with horror and disdain, in an age when access to information has never been easier. That bronze age desert-dwellers with no running water would practice circumcision makes some sense, but that it be culturally accepted elsewhere is untenable.

FGM enrages and disgusts me far more than circumcision, and I argue strongly against the cultural relativism and cowardice (vis-à-vis Islam) which allows it to go one in "civilised" countries, while supporting its eradication worldwide. Male circumcision is a far lesser evil, but the one should not be used to dismiss/excuse the other.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^hpqp:
@apologists: you have NO ethical nor medical arguments on your side

Pfft...
It seems your opinion was considered very popular back in 1971. I had no idea.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/118/1/385.full


Did you read the part about cultural bias? The article you linked starts off promisingly:

"The American public remains resolute in its support of newborn circumcision despite negative recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)." Oh, so if the majority wants it...

The writer of the article: Edgar Schoen, Jew, maintainer of medicirc.org and member of the "Hill of Foreskins" society (Gilgal society). Noooo bias whatsoever there.


As for the actual "medical benefits" of circumcision, give me a f*cking break. "Prevents phimosis"? That's exactly like saying removing your toes prevents ingrown toenails. Phimosis is not only rare, but usually easily cured, as are most cases of UTI (btw, all the other fancy names that follow phimosis in the article are variations of the same thing). No need for mutilating your baby.


The most horrible and aberrant argument is the one concerning STDs and HIV... seriously, wtf?

Kids should not be having sex before the age of consent*; argument null!

(*that includes not being sucked off by some herpes-infested mohel.)



After that, it comes down to three things: hygiene, condoms and choice. Personal choice, not parental or communal pressure.

If it's all about prevention (a big effing lie), why not take out their tonsils? Or appendix? Or cut off the earlobes? Why not sterilize anyone who already has HIV? See where this goes?

@apologists: you have NO ethical nor medical arguments on your side; you irretrievably mutilated a* child. Worse: the child's sexual organs. Worser still: for the sake of an ancient, barbaric tradition. It is an ethno-cultural branding that that child will never be able to reverse. It is worse than tattooing your name on the child's buttcheek, because at least those are removable (tattoos, not buttcheeks).

If an adult wants to get circumcised, retighten her vagina or change sexes altogether, may they feel free to do so. BUT KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF OF CHILDREN'S BODIES! It is bad enough that many kids have to endure the poisonous bile of their parents' beliefs (racism, homophobia, etc.), but once again, at least that is not incurable.


(*not "yours" to mutilate)

On circumcision and HIV "study"
Where the tradition of circumcision comes from in the west (excluding Jews/Muslims)


/rant


@chilaxe I upvoted your comment for its cynical irony, but just to be clear about the second point for those who might take its origins seriously: the "study" that claims circumcision reduces possibility of contracting STDs is far from scientific. Moreover, it was conducted in three African countries with a poor record hygiene-wise. I doubt such a study would yield the same results in western countries. (the US has the highest rates of circumcision and HIV for a western country... but correlation is not causation, I know)

Yeah I realize, but they would bring food into the labs because they literally spent 8-10 hours a day in the labs. Due to all the body heat and food that place smelled like that forever.

Anecdotal, but there was a guy from I believe Israel who lived with a couple of local college students, they told him to stop cooking and eating his food in the house because it made their clothes smell. So he switched to eating what they ate, and eventually he began to notice how bad the other middle easterners smelled. He said it was because they cook that stuff and it gets in their clothes, but also because many of them didn't shower daily or wear strong deodorants. He got to the point where he couldn't stand to be around them, and he used to eat that kind of food. So I suspect it's more than just the dislike of the smell of that food but hygiene related.

Just like heavy smokers don't notice how bad they smell...and they quit smoking and notice how bad their house/car/jacket smell. It's like they are so exposed to that scent all day and night they become unable to notice it anymore. Like people who sleep soundly when the train comes if they've lived near a train track long enough.

>> ^westy:

>> ^Porksandwich:
At my college it was Indians, in hot cramped computer labs. So when the heat started to get bad the BO would be off the charts. What was the worst, you had to use those labs for your projects and it was like the Indian club house...they'd bring food with them. The place smelled like a gym locker even when it was empty. After two years of that I got access to an upper floor lab where the chairs and carpet didn't smell like someone's shoes or armpit.
I can definitely see the girls point, but this video was great. Although with Indians, they hated Indians born in the US, so........the US-born ones were some of their loudest critics.

Intresting thing with that is that Indeans dont generally have more BO than westerners , but your BO smells of what you eat , and most people are less aware of there BO or there cultures back ground BO , To Indians westerners that have a prodiminatly dairy dait smell like off milk , where as indeans to westerners tend to smell like curry / spicy BO.
I know allot of western people that complain about smell of Indians , its not something that bothers me I evan have one friend that would refuse to go into indean shops because they hated the smell of the spice so much.
Its also a scientific fact that all russans smell of vodka

you obviously live in canada or somewhere else where public school teaches kids science, math, sex ed and healthy lifestyle choices.. instead of simply the skills they need to work in retail or join the military.

also, humanity as whole doesn't really understand nutrition. there are plenty of decent, resonable parents who don't have a clue what a balanced diet actually looks like and actually try to raise their kids to have good habits.

also, i don't think taking away a 5 cent toy is going to do anything about the people who eat fast food often enough for it to be a major problem. it has already become a habit .. my son probably wouldnt care about going to mcdonalds ever again if he wasnt going to get a toy, but we also eat mostly plants at home and grab fast food less than once a month on average.

banning high fructose corn syrup would do more to curb obesity. this is epicly stupid. like throwing a bigger warning label on a carton of cigarettes and felating yourself for combating lung cancer.
In reply to this comment by Sagemind:
"So basically everyone should be responsible for raising the kids...except their parents? Who's driving the kids to McD? Who's paying for the food? Who ultimately decides to celebrate a kid's birthday at McD? And who fails to provide a healthy diet at home that would lessen the negative impact of an occasional McD meal?" - campionidelmondo



You also have to realize that Education is education. That's what school is there for. I don't teach my kids everything they need to know, some things they learn in school or on their own. Like mine, most kids are smart. Mine will call me on something I get wrong. They do have differing opinions that I don't always share.

As an adult, If I like McDs (though I don't), and I go there all the time. My kids should have that opportunity to learn facts contrary to my habits and be able to call me on it.

The school system is there to help guide our kids in their education in the areas the parents fall short. This is true for science, math and even shop class. If I hate sports, should my kids not be allowed to take Phys Ed? They already have health and nutrition in school (part of science class I believe) why not show them the film and make it part of the curriculum.

We already do it with "Family life" class (or what ever your town calls it) - kids learn all about sex, STDs, personal health and hygiene and are better off for it.
Why should Nutrition be different?

"So basically everyone should be responsible for raising the kids...except their parents? Who's driving the kids to McD? Who's paying for the food? Who ultimately decides to celebrate a kid's birthday at McD? And who fails to provide a healthy diet at home that would lessen the negative impact of an occasional McD meal?" - campionidelmondo



You also have to realize that Education is education. That's what school is there for. I don't teach my kids everything they need to know, some things they learn in school or on their own. Like mine, most kids are smart. Mine will call me on something I get wrong. They do have differing opinions that I don't always share.

As an adult, If I like McDs (though I don't), and I go there all the time. My kids should have that opportunity to learn facts contrary to my habits and be able to call me on it.

The school system is there to help guide our kids in their education in the areas the parents fall short. This is true for science, math and even shop class. If I hate sports, should my kids not be allowed to take Phys Ed? They already have health and nutrition in school (part of science class I believe) why not show them the film and make it part of the curriculum.

We already do it with "Family life" class (or what ever your town calls it) - kids learn all about sex, STDs, personal health and hygiene and are better off for it.
Why should Nutrition be different?

Ugh, this is disgusting. The so-called "scientific studies" that "prove" that circumcision diminishes AIDS infection were done in three African countries (Uganda, Kenya and S. Africa), where basic hygiene is still a major problem (amongst many others).

Besides, why do it to non-consenting infants? Does one expect them to have sex in their childhood??

Why did he tape it?!?!?!?!!?!?
In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
Please don't share your personal hygiene with the rest of the world.

Please don't share your personal hygiene with the rest of the world.

For some reason this makes me want to buy a trailer home , do donuts in the parking lot, get an underpaid job at Walmart, and throw away all my dental hygiene products.... and drink a 30 pack of Miller high life.... while crushing each can on my forehead.

>> ^mentality:

Seems like a cheap and contrived way to manipulate the audience's emotions. How many homeless people (with great dental hygiene!) have perfect loving beautiful families waiting for them?
Kinda belittles the complexities of a serious problem, but a nice fantasy despite it all.


Totally agree...this would've been a lot cooler if it:

A. Had something to do with reality
B. Had nothing to do with a giant corporation such as LG

Then maybe it would've actually moved me instead of setting off my bullshit alarms. It was really well made, and I was on board until the mom/daughter/whatever actually showed up. The random bums and guy in the car cheering really sealed the fail...praying on the empathy of people who can't hold their emotions back for half a second and use their brains. That's the kind of crap that happens in Michael Bay movies, OK?