Men's Rights Movement

[Deleted]

I'm looking for the study it was posted in the locked topic. I don't think it matters though... not to you.

Why? Because I don't accept Edimology studies as true facts unless they have a biological founding shown as proof also?

Hell, I already found proof for that, I have found a reason why circumcision can be used to benefit. Both sexes.

So tell me again why Circumcision is not the same as FGM?

- - - Updated - - -

You're the one that refuted "it's because of removal of cells" with "no, it is removal of Langerhans cells!".

I don't recall writing that it has an effect on all STIs. Could you quote that for me? It actually does have an effect on HSV-2 and HPV though: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0802556

Check your first link, all it was was claiming it helped with STIs, and then it was a google search of various studies. You were vauge beforehand.

[Kathranis]

That's because women aren't free to murder babies at all.

Quite a few women actually can and do get pregnant (sometimes without even recognizing their own pregnancy), then kill the babies after private childbirth (or what they think is a painful bowel movement), then dispose of the bodies (sometimes not too inconspicuously).

I mean, it's not like an epidemic or anything. More a problem of a gross lack of sexual education. But it's definitely something that could use at least a little bit of attention, to help prevent it from happening as much as it does. Abortion is -- whatever. These are fully formed human beings, capable of suffering, and completely helpless, being outright killed or, worse, left to die in garbage cans or on the bathroom floor or in toilets.


As to male rights in abortion, I feel like mandatory disclosure to the father would probably be a good thing most of the time, at least after a certain amount of time has passed in the pregnancy. The decision should ultimately fall to the woman, but I think the father at least deserves to be a part of the conversation; it's always best to look at all sides of an issue before coming to a decision. It would naturally be extremely difficult to enforce, but as a societal courtesy, at least, I think it would be worth trying to promote.


Re: Circumcision. I imagine if our society had never engaged in traditional, ritual circumcision, everyone would be against it. As it stands, it's like it's been grandfathered into our society as a normal, appropriate thing to do. Most Americans probably think uncircumcised dicks look weird. I certainly do, but that's been imposed by culture and my parents who made the decision to circumcise me. And even if it does confer some health benefits, or doesn't cause harm, does that mean it's morally acceptible to perform purely elective surgery on an individual who cannot give their consent? If you were to apply it to other parts of the body, would you still feel it's acceptible?

[Deleted]

You just said all gays are bad people basically and they're all dramatic then said that gay parents are bad parents because humans need male and female pheromones and kept going on about that... then you slowly ducked out of that topic because you were so off base and just kept quoting studies and links that you weren't even reading yourself as none of them agreed with you...

I remember that thread, if I recall, half of it was you personally jabbing at me, and half of it went of tangent to discuss about the validity of pheromones in development of children and the more base developments of children as a talk. I rather liked it. I "ducked out" of the topic because we reached a decent impass and left it at that.

I said my dues and my opinions like I just said in this thread, I find the promoted sterotypes of homosexuals abhorrent and hateful to Homosexuality at large, making it some sort of counter culture instead of a natural part of humanity.

- - - Updated - - -

Quite a few women actually can and do get pregnant (sometimes without even recognizing their own pregnancy), then kill the babies after private childbirth (or what they think is a painful bowel movement), then dispose of the bodies (sometimes not too inconspicuously).

I mean, it's not like an epidemic or anything. More a problem of a gross lack of sexual education. But it's definitely something that could use at least a little bit of attention, to help prevent it from happening as much as it does. Abortion is -- whatever. These are fully formed human beings, capable of suffering, and completely helpless, being outright killed or, worse, left to die in garbage cans or on the bathroom floor or in toilets.


As to male rights in abortion, I feel like mandatory disclosure to the father would probably be a good thing most of the time, at least after a certain amount of time has passed in the pregnancy. The decision should ultimately fall to the woman, but I think the father at least deserves to be a part of the conversation; it's always best to look at all sides of an issue before coming to a decision. It would naturally be extremely difficult to enforce, but as a societal courtesy, at least, I think it would be worth trying to promote.


Re: Circumcision. I imagine if our society had never engaged in traditional, ritual circumcision, everyone would be against it. As it stands, it's like it's been grandfathered into our society as an acceptible. Most Americans probably think uncircumcised dicks look weird. I certainly do, but that's been imposed by culture and my parents who made the decision to circumcise me. And even if it does confer some health benefits, or doesn't cause harm, does that mean it's morally acceptible to perform purely elective surgery on an individual who cannot give their consent? If you were to apply it to other parts of the body, would you still feel it's acceptible?

Thank you for showing an unbias and perfectly reasonable insight into this discussion. I find you were able to express the argument I have much better than I could ever have done so.

[Spectral]

Check your first link, all it was was claiming it helped with STIs, and then it was a google search of various studies. You were vauge beforehand.

Right. I said it reduces STI transmission. It does, in fact, reduce STI transmission. It does not reduce transmission of all STIs. Your poor reading comprehension in not a personal failing of mine.

- - - Updated - - -

And even if it does confer some health benefits, or doesn't cause harm, does that mean it's morally acceptible to perform purely elective surgery on an individual who cannot give their consent? If you were to apply it to other parts of the body, would you still feel it's acceptible?

I am generally against it on a personal level, but I view it as almost entirely irrelevant. I think elective cosmetic surgeries that have little positive or negative impact, performed on infants, are not something that I want the government to be involved in banning or requiring.

[Catta]

Something can have archaic roots and still have demonstrable medical benefits.

Indeed - i just find it fascinating the rest of the medical community cant find it.

[Spectral]

Indeed - i just find it fascinating the rest of the medical community cant find it.

People usually don't find things they're not looking for.

[Catta]

People usually don't find things they're not looking for.

Its not that they dont look. Its that they have not reached the same conclusions.

[Velaniz]

People usually don't find things they're not looking for.

So it does certainly seem that circumcision has been conclusively linked to reducing STIs, but I find it curious that this link is premised on circumcised men having less bacteria on their penis. The fact that these studies were also dubiously only done in third-world countries, many of which probably have questionable hygienic facilities for their inhabitants to utilise, tends to suggest that this really might be another "circumcised men are cleaner" conclusion being marketed under a different name, a conclusion which might not apply to men in first world-countries owing to readily available washing facilities/hygiene products, and probably also somewhat more common sense. It would more likely occur to a man in a first-world nation to pull back his foreskin and clean the glans sufficiently than it would to a man in a third-world country.

[Sorrior]

If we are talking about circumcision in america it was propagated by the cereal guy to make people stop masturbating. Less infection my ass...

Welllllll THAT doesn't work.....I can top most teenagers at my peak.....

Also anyone ever notice how it's the uncurcumsized who complain not the circumsized?

Other then that I feel until more people can support equalitarian views both groups are needed just for different things and both groups of course have nutjobs.

- - - Updated - - -

So it does certainly seem that circumcision has been conclusively linked to reducing STIs, but I find it curious that this link is premised on circumcised men having less bacteria on their penis. The fact that these studies were also dubiously only done in third-world countries, many of which probably have questionable hygienic facilities for their inhabitants to utilise, tends to suggest that this really might be another "circumcised men are cleaner" conclusion being marketed under a different name, a conclusion which might not apply to men in first world-countries owing to readily available washing facilities/hygiene products, and probably also somewhat more common sense. It would more likely occur to a man in a first-world nation to pull back his foreskin and clean the glans sufficiently than it would to a man in a third-world country.

Could also be that it just doesn't keep the STI trapped as long(speaking of when did the term STD go away)....

[Velaniz]

Also anyone ever notice how it's the uncurcumsized who complain not the circumsized?

Well, you circumsized folks do a phenomenal job convincing yourself it's "cleaner", because pulling back the foreskin is a mightily difficult task, and going "lololol, anteater" at the appearance of a regular, non-mutilated one.

[Underverse]

Right. I said it reduces STI transmission. It does, in fact, reduce STI transmission. It does not reduce transmission of all STIs. Your poor reading comprehension in not a personal failing of mine.

A bandaid fix to a broader problem. In this case, a bandaid fix that comes with strings attached - cost of procedure (not just money, pain sensitization studies have also been done in infants) and possibly reduced sensitivity (and possibly other effects we don't see because of our cultural and technological practices). I say it's a bandaid fix because it is not addressing the cause of such high susceptibility to STIs, which I'm going to hypothesize is a change/simplification of epidermal flora, similar to the change that has occurred in post-agri times to our digestive flora, which has in part led to a dependence on oral hygeine to prevent caries. I don't buy this tradeoff idea - that it's there to protect the glans, but at the cost of increased susceptibility to infections. We have many, many places on and in our bodies that are harbors for microorganisms.

[Sorrior]

Well, you circumsized folks do a phenomenal job convincing yourself it's "cleaner", because pulling back the foreskin is a mightily difficult task, and going "lololol, anteater" at the appearance of a regular, non-mutilated one.

.......Actuallllly we can go without even focusing down there and be just fine.....

And again wht do only the uncircumsized bitch about it?

[Stir]

.......Actuallllly we can go without even focusing down there and be just fine.....

And again wht do only the uncircumsized bitch about it?

My hypothesis: Because nobody wants to be mutilated. And when you've got a population that has the majority subject to such a procedure, they wish to cling to the thought (whether correct or not is irrelevant for my point, so please don't go there) that it's fine, proper, and even better. Because the alternative is that you lost something, and are therefore less.

[Wells]

My hypothesis: Because nobody wants to be mutilated. And when you've got a population that has the majority subject to such a procedure, they wish to cling to the thought (whether correct or not is irrelevant for my point, so please don't go there) that it's fine, proper, and even better. Because the alternative is that you lost something, and are therefore less.

Or maybe they just don't care and think this whole thing is kind of ridiculous.

[Deleted]

Uh, hint; The male & female sexual organs aren't the same.

What's this, a feminist trash claiming that men and women are not equal? It's about fucking time. It's a good thing that you being pedantic is more of an important aspect than the act of circumcision. I am sure you also believe that you are a special snowflake for having a vagina.

[Sorrior]

What's this, a feminist trash claiming that men and women are not equal? It's about fucking time.

Mooneye is no feminist trash....We have several of thpse here but she's definitely one of the more reasonable/moderate ones.

[Deleted]

Mooneye is no feminist trash....We have several of thpse here but she's definitely one of the more reasonable/moderate ones.

Based on the things I've seen on this thread months ago and not only, I'll call bullshit. Hell, I'll call bullshit a thousand times.

[Stir]

Or maybe they just don't care and think this whole thing is kind of ridiculous.

A valid point, but not (directly) applicable to my hypothesis.
What is applicable to my hypothesis, however, is the fear of non-circumcised males of having bits (they enjoy greatly) cut off in the name of religion. Whether or not this fear is rational is not for me to decide.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Mooneye is no feminist trash....We have several of thpse here but she's definitely one of the more reasonable/moderate ones.

Feminist trash no. Has a good amount of bias? Yes she does but not on this topic.

[Themius]

What's this, a feminist trash claiming that men and women are not equal? It's about fucking time. It's a good thing that you being pedantic is more of an important aspect than the act of circumcision. I am sure you also believe that you are a special snowflake for having a vagina.

There is a glarring difference between male and female circumcision... if you choose to be blind to that fact, then your own ignorance of these matters are on you.