Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
sorry, there are few occasions where circumcision could be necessary. But those reasons only effect 1 in 100,000 men. So still not justification for mutilating a male infants genital. 1 in 100,000 is hardly an epidemic.
Your numbers are WAY off.
One of my children had a hypospadias--a birth defect where the urethra doesn't reach to the end of the penis, or comes out in the wrong place on the penis. We adopted him at birth, and at birth the pediatrician told us we needed to wait to have him circumcised because his foreskin would be needed later (at age 9 months) to move his urethra to the end of his penis, vs. the side where it came out at birth. One out of every 125 boys are born with a hypospadias, and circumcision is medically necessary to gain the tissue for the reconstructive surgery. Unless the hypospadias is VERY mild, surgery is recommended. Without the surgery, he would have been faced with painful erections (and potentially reduced fertility) for the rest of his life. Hypospadias and Epispadias Association
I'm willing to listen to reasons to refuse circumcision for religious or "cosmetic" reasons, but it doesn't help your case to throw out false data on instances where it's medically necessary.
sorry, there are few occasions where circumcision could be necessary. But those reasons only effect 1 in 100,000 men. So still not justification for mutilating a male infants genital. 1 in 100,000 is hardly an epidemic.
Im sorry, did I say it was an epidemic. You stated there was NO reason for an adult male to have a circumsision. I merely pointed out there were actually medical reasons for it.
One of my children had a hypospadias--a birth defect where the urethra doesn't reach to the end of the penis, or comes out in the wrong place on the penis. We adopted him at birth, and at birth the pediatrician told us we needed to wait to have him circumcised because his foreskin would be needed later (at age 9 months) to move his urethra to the end of his penis, vs. the side where it came out at birth. One out of every 125 boys are born with a hypospadias, and circumcision is medically necessary to gain the tissue for the reconstructive surgery. Unless the hypospadias is VERY mild, surgery is recommended. Without the surgery, he would have been faced with painful erections (and potentially reduced fertility) for the rest of his life. Hypospadias and Epispadias Association
I'm willing to listen to reasons to refuse circumcision for religious or "cosmetic" reasons, but it doesn't help your case to throw out false data on instances where it's medically necessary.[/quote
At least I havent totally wasted my time reading this thread, I have learned more about circumcisim and penises than I knew.
At least I havent totally wasted my time reading this thread, I have learned more about circumcisim and penises than I knew.
I'd never heard of a hypospadias (and neither had my husband) until I had a child with one, and it's really common--as I said, one out of every 125 boys born in the US.
Methinks I see a very insecure male. What's the problem? You ain't gettin' any tail and you think it is because your were circumcized? I is probably because you are an insecure jerk.
So a man brings up valid concerns that effect men and he is accused of being insecure and not getting laid enough. Wow, I think that would count as sexism.
Quote:
IMHO - I think Male Advocacy Groups are just guys upset by having their assumed superiority questioned or even removed. Get used to competing with the girls as well as all the guys. It is a different world. It is one I like.
The best thing about opinions, not all are valid, just like yours. I have no problem competing with women in any way. Everyone deserves equal pay for working the same job if they have the same experience. A woman should have the right to choose when it comes to abortion. I don't fight against women's issues. I fight for them. I also fight for men's issues as they are no less important than women's issues.
That's something to take up with the medical profession and parents, not feminists.
This thread is no longer about feminist hating MRA's it has become about pointing out the legitimate men's rights issues that are denied by everyone, including feminists.
No less barbaric? What's wrong with you? Seriously. What's wrong with you?
Female genital mutilation is a non-issue in the United States. It is already illegal as it is not considered medically necessary and sexual abuse of a child. Male circumcision is still seen as medically necessary within hours of birth. This is a misconception. While circumcision can sometimes be necessary, it is not something that should be done unless absolutely needed. If it is not medically necessary, it should not be performed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
Im sorry, did I say it was an epidemic. You stated there was NO reason for an adult male to have a circumsision. I merely pointed out there were actually medical reasons for it.
The rate of necessity does not condone the rate of circumcisions being performed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb1547
Your numbers are WAY off.
I apologize, that was a typo.
Quote:
One of my children had a hypospadias--a birth defect where the urethra doesn't reach to the end of the penis, or comes out in the wrong place on the penis. We adopted him at birth, and at birth the pediatrician told us we needed to wait to have him circumcised because his foreskin would be needed later (at age 9 months) to move his urethra to the end of his penis, vs. the side where it came out at birth. One out of every 125 boys are born with a hypospadias, and circumcision is medically necessary to gain the tissue for the reconstructive surgery. Unless the hypospadias is VERY mild, surgery is recommended. Without the surgery, he would have been faced with painful erections (and potentially reduced fertility) for the rest of his life. Hypospadias and Epispadias Association
I am familiar with hypospadias. However the number in the United states is actually 1 in 250. This hardly gives valid reasoning for male circumcision. If anything it is an argument against male circumcision as the forskin can be used for repair or sugery needed later on in life.
Quote:
I'm willing to listen to reasons to refuse circumcision for religious or "cosmetic" reasons, but it doesn't help your case to throw out false data on instances where it's medically necessary.
The main reasons for male circumcision are for religious and cosmetic reasons, with medical myths not far behind. The claim that it reduces STD in men who are sexually active is not a valid reason to perform it as we now have condoms that can prevent most STD's. What we need to do is teach young men about is hygine.
Quote:
At least I havent totally wasted my time reading this thread, I have learned more about circumcisim and penises than I knew.
This thread is hardly a waste. Society refuses to accept valid men's issues and male discrimination, the refusal to accept that men can be discriminated against and abused is a form of male discrimination.
Edit: Once again, the rate of Hypospadias varies from source to source. The numbers conflict so much: 1 in 500, 1 in 250, 1 in 150, 1 in 125 and even 1 in 1000 on some sites. I would like to see a study to show how often this actually occurs I am sure it is around the 1 in 150 region.
The whole thing is worth a read, but this part is applicable to the discussion:
Quote:
Feminists do not want you to lose custody of your children. The assumption that women are naturally better caregivers is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not like commercials in which bumbling dads mess up the laundry and competent wives have to bustle in and fix it. The assumption that women are naturally better housekeepers is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to have to make alimony payments. Alimony is set up to combat the fact that women have been historically expected to prioritize domestic duties over professional goals, thus minimizing their earning potential if their "traditional" marriages end. The assumption that wives should make babies instead of money is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to be viewed with suspicion when you take your child to the park (men frequently insist that this is a serious issue, so I will take them at their word). The assumption that men are insatiable sexual animals, combined with the idea that it's unnatural for men to care for children, is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to be drafted and then die in a war while we stay home and iron stuff. The idea that women are too weak to fight or too delicate to function in a military setting is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want women to escape prosecution on legitimate domestic violence charges, nor do we want men to be ridiculed for being raped or abused. The idea that women are naturally gentle and compliant and that victimhood is inherently feminine is part of patriarchy.
Feminists hate patriarchy. We do not hate you.
If you really care about those issues as passionately as you say you do, you should be thanking feminists, because feminism is a social movement actively dedicated to dismantling every single one of them. The fact that you blame feminists—your allies—for problems against which they have been struggling for decades suggests that supporting men isn't nearly as important to you as resenting women.
The whole thing is worth a read, but this part is applicable to the discussion:
Yes, I have seen this. However, ask any feminist if MRA's or MIAG's should be allowed to speak out about these things and you will get mostly No as an answer. There are many areas where feminism does not cover the issue, when MRA's and MIAG's bring them up, we are told feminists are working on it. However, I have yet to see feminists fighting for a man to have custody. They more often support the woman in custody battles when both parents are decent people. A criminal or drug charge on a woman's record is less likely to affect the outcome than a man with a similar charge.
Originally Posted by weltschmerz No less barbaric? What's wrong with you? Seriously. What's wrong with you?
Quote:
Female genital mutilation is a non-issue in the United States. It is already illegal as it is not considered medically necessary and sexual abuse of a child. Male circumcision is still seen as medically necessary within hours of birth. This is a misconception. While circumcision can sometimes be necessary, it is not something that should be done unless absolutely needed. If it is not medically necessary, it should not be performed.
Now you're conveniently moving the goalposts. You initially stated that male circumcision is no less barbaric than female genital mutilation. You didn't care if it was a "non-issue in the United States" when you made the absurd comparison. It's a savage practice that ensures women will not stray and never experience a moment of sexual fulfillment. You can hardly compare the two.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
