• voltaric@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    206
    arrow-down
    63
    ·
    5 days ago

    For those who don’t know, the US systematically mutilates the genitals of baby boys and young boys.Sciences points to the foreskin being a protective and erogenous dual layered membrane.

    It is not ‘one side’ pushing this. This is how the American people take their aggression out on males.

    • iheartneopets@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      179
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      You had me until the last sentence. There are a lot of deeply misguided—and plain fucking stupid—reasons that circumcision has become seen as the ‘norm’ in the US, but I don’t think it’s how the American people takes its aggression out on men?? That’s a pretty unhinged thing to think. I understand the anger and frustration at genital mutilation of babies (bc that’s what it is, in my opinion), but let’s come back to earth a bit.

      EDIT: since this comment is getting attention, I just wanted to add that it really does seem like people are waking up to how fucked circumcision is. We just had a baby, and as part of our stack of information brochures given to us by the hospital (in Oklahoma, a deeply red state), there was a whole page dedicated to circumcision pros and cons. You could tell it heavily favored not circumcising, and preserving bodily autonomy was it’s own full bullet point on the cons side, as well as busting myths that people perpetuate trying to justify it still.

      Also, in our infant care courses, they showed some really awful pictures of freshly-circumcised baby penises. We had already decided not to circumcise for obvious moral reasons, but that made us feel even more secure in our decision. I feel like more parents need to see that stuff to make them realize what’s actually going to be done to their baby with the procedure.

      All that to say, I think there’s hope for decreasing the occurrences of this deeply awful cultural practice!

      • brlemworld@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        35
        ·
        4 days ago

        Insurance companies should do what they do and make it be a cosmetic surgery and not cover it. It should cost thousands in cash.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          Leveraging the broken health care system to attack the revanchist cultural system?

          I mean, maybe. But when child birth already runs into the $20k-$50k range, I doubt anyone is going to notice the $150 they charge for foreskin removal until the bill arrives.

          • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            That’s what they’re saying. The typical cost is $20k-$50k, with all but ~$3k covered by insurance.

            If insurance doesn’t cover it it’s now $1200 out of pocket.

            Making it illegal would be better, but that requires convincing people. Even if you approve of circumcision, you’re still not going to be surprised when your insurance company drops what you consider to be something important.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              4 days ago

              If insurance doesn’t cover it it’s now $1200 out of pocket.

              Where does a routine circumcision cost $1200? That’s the same as Lasik.

              Making it illegal would be better

              Maybe you could try this by leveraging all the anti-Trans legislation.

              • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 days ago

                I can honestly tell you I did not search very hard. First results for how much it cost said $500 cash price, and up to $4000 as billed to insurance. I picked a number in the middle.

                Honestly it didn’t seem that weird to me that removing skin from the genitals of a newborn would be along the same price as non-invasive outpatient surgery.

      • iaMLoWiQ@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 days ago

        An eye for an eye is pretty aggressive when it comes to penis mutilation, especially as the babies haven’t done anything (wrong) yet.

      • tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        58
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        5 days ago

        None of that has anything to do with the US “taking aggression out on males”. Circumcision should be stopped but you’re grasping for reasons here–there’s no countrywide conspiracy to continue pushing it. The reasons are from historical pseudoscience and it’s been in decline for 30 years.

        • Denvil@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          61
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          As somebody who was circumcised at a young age as so many of us were, no, fuck you.

        • ArxCyberwolf@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          37
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 days ago

          You speak like a kid who just learned how to use swear words… is this really the best trolling attempt you can do? C’mon, I’m sure you can do better than just hurling F-bombs everywhere.

          • MeaanBeaan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            20
            ·
            5 days ago

            Did they just create an account just to attack this guy? Is that a thing people do? Like, why? Seems like a lot of trouble.

            • ArxCyberwolf@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              5 days ago

              I don’t really know what their problem was. Could legitimately be a kid or someone who’s never grown past the “swearing at people is funny” stage. Whichever it is, I hope this got it out of their system. Or we’ll see another brand new account doing the same thing, who knows?

          • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            5 days ago

            Indeed. But unlike the sea lions and concern trolls at least you don’t have to read 5 paragraphs before figuring out that you should’ve blocked this person before you wasted your 30 seconds.

            Sometimes they make it easy on you

          • Klear@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            5 days ago

            The linked comment offers three options and I bet it’s right:

            Warning that this topic draws a lot of insane people with genital mutilation fetishes. Any of the comments advocating for circumcision are either men who were circumcised against their will, women who circumcised their children and haven’t accepted the truth, or weirdos who want others to suffer.

    • aidan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      4 days ago

      Just to add: its not unique to the US, its even more common in many African, Middle Eastern, and majority Muslim countries

    • MeaanBeaan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      70
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      While I whole heartedly disagree with the practice of circumsizing babies. (babies can’t consent therfore an unnecessary procedure is just flat out unethical) It’s not really true to say science shows that the foreskin is erogenous or even that circumcision affects sexual pleasure.

      There is a bit of conflicting data out there so there is still some debate over the fact but right now the data leans heavily toward there being little to no adverse affects on sexual pleasure. And in fact some anecdotal evidence actually seems to show that the opposite may be true; that circumsized penises may actually be more sensitive to sexual stimuli.

      Again though, I can’t stress enough how much I believe circumsicion is wrong.

      Source

      Edit: hey guys. Coming back to this and uh, have learned some things. I’d like to retract this statement pretty please. Please forgive me.

      • Dasus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        39
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        The studies around this are very often heavily biased.

        The main reason it was pushed in the states in the first place was because of an anti-masturbatory craze.

        Growing up (like 25 years ago) it was a bit weird how lotion was so strongly shorthand for masturbation in American TV and movies. Didn’t really get it until I learned a lot of circumcised guys prefer or even require lotion for masturbation.

        • Stalinwolf@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          I’m circumsized, but apparently they didn’t go too short, as I’ve never needed lotion to jerk off. I would hate to get it in the urethra anyway…

      • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 days ago

        there isn’t conflicting data, there’s people without foreskins not knowing what they’ve lost and people with foreskins who don’t know how to jerk it properly.

        as someone with a foreskin i can tell you with the utmost certainty that it is an erogenous zone and makes the experience infinitely better, it is unfathomable to me how circumcized people are even capable of masturbation and intercourse, it’s like trying to swim without feet.

        • BlueMagma@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          4 days ago

          Wasn’t it the point of religious nutter ? To prevent kids and people in general from masturbating because they think it is sin ? IMO it ls very obvious that it reduces sexual pleasure.

      • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        It’s not really true to say science shows that the foreskin is erogenous or even that circumcision affects sexual pleasure.

        https://bjui-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06685.x

        “The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.”

        https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23374102/

        "This study confirms the importance of the foreskin for penile sensitivity, overall sexual satisfaction, and penile functioning. Furthermore, this study shows that a higher percentage of circumcised men experience discomfort or pain and unusual sensations as compared with the uncircumcised population. Before circumcision without medical indication, adult men, and parents considering circumcision of their sons, should be informed of the importance of the foreskin in male sexuality. "

        Source

        Heads up, that source is written by Brian J. Morris, who is rather infamous having a circumcision fetish, and has a habit of peddling shitty studies meant to skew cultural acceptance of circumcision. Nine times out of ten, when people post pro-circumcision studies, they’re from him. He is downright obsessed with it, constantly pumping out studies and publications solely about circumcision.

        https://en.intactiwiki.org/wiki/Circlist

        Take this above link with a grain of salt, it is literally from intact wiki, but still.

        Here is a more educated breakdown:

        https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1078529309478838272.html

      • LANIK2000@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        5 days ago

        Curious study. I personally only have my self as a test subject, so it’s quite subjective, however I use the foreskin quite a bit for stimulation, not really as an erogenous zone, more of a way to slide it in, it also helps prevent lubricants from drying up, since without at least spit it just hurts. It’s REALLY sensitive under there and fucking hurts when rubbed by just about anything else, if I didn’t have foreskin, it would have to become significantly more numb before I could rejoin society. Actual sex might not be as affected, but masturbation as I know it would cease to be.

        • MeaanBeaan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 days ago

          That’s really interesting actually. Might be why there’s reports of things being more sensitive after adult circumsion. You’re removing a protective layer that’s been covering that super sensitive part of you all your life. All of a sudden it’s gone and now that part is exposed.

          This is gonna be a silly anology but I wonder if it’s anything like playing guitar. When you first start, your fingertips hurt a bunch but as you play you build up calluses in addition to the fingertips just becoming partially numb so it stops hurting as much.

          • BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            5 days ago

            If I remember correctly, the top layers of the glans keratinize (in a similar way to your hands may form callouses) causing a long term loss in sensitivity. Adult circumcisions are probably more sensitive post op because the glans is left completely exposed when it was once covered and hasn’t had the time to adapt. I’m uncircumcised and the thought of boxers brushing up against my bits while my heads’ exposed sounds fucking awful haha

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 days ago

          I’m circumcised, and my glans is the least sensitive flesh on my body.

          When I scrape gently with a toothpick, I can feel it more clearly on the bottom of the heel of my foot than I can on the head of my penis.

          It’s supposed to be ultra sensitive, yet the only way I can determine it’s being touched is visually, or by sensing the vibrations of contact deeper in the shaft.

          • LANIK2000@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 days ago

            Damn, wouldn’t think I’d be that insensitive. Yea no for me, just pulling back the foreskin and putting it back into my pants as is kinda hurts.

            • intensely_human@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 hours ago

              Yes it really blew my mind when I actually did the experiment. I suspect it’s the same for others as well. Until I tested it, I wouldn’t have predicted it at all.

      • Mango@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 days ago

        You’ve gotta be batshit insane to deny such an obvious fact. You gonna show me a study that says the sky may or may not be blue next?

        • iaMLoWiQ@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          4 days ago

          The sky isn’t blue, it just appears to be blue because of space.

          • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            Like how we don’t say that blue glass is blue because it’s really just the light that’s blue?

            Appearing blue when looked at is what it means for something to be blue.

            If you’re gonna be that type of pedantic, just jump straight to “nothing has color but light”.

            • iaMLoWiQ@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              4 days ago

              Sounds to me that lemmings never go outside and converse with people. Damn people here are pedantic as a motherfucker. The only joke you know is the one staring back at you in the mirror.

              • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                4 days ago

                Or your joke was just so unfunny that it wasn’t recognizable as a joke and was mistaken for your honest opinion.

                If no one laughed at your joke, maybe it’s because it wasn’t funny.

          • syaochan@feddit.it
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 days ago

            No, it appears to be blue due to blue light being scattered more than longer wavelengths.

      • sparkle@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        Cymraeg
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        Brian Morris is a sadistic fundamentalist Christian creep and a fraud

        There’s also this comment that goes into it well

        He was also an advocate for female circumcision (which is illegal in most of the non-muslim world and is mostly used as a mechanism to prevent women from having sex or to remove the pleasure from sex, it’s a very cruel act)

        In the same thread you can find this (the link doesn’t work anymore though)

        Another person already wrote about the academic bias that Brian Morris has, and how he’s trying to tilt the body of research to support circumcision. It’s also important to note that Brian Morris has a circumcision fetish, he gets sexual pleasure from seeing people getting circumcised and he is a member of the Gilgal Society, a circ fetish group. His name has been included in Gilgal pamphlets and in some of his early research papers he thanked the Gilgals for providing information and support.

        You can verify some of the information I wrote on this page https://www.circumstitions.com/morris.html

        I recently found a sub called r/DebunkingIntactivism (a “pro-circumcision” sub) and it’s… it’s fucking nutters. The people there talk like they’ve completely lost their minds. It’s basically where a bunch of insecure circumcised dudes go to fume over other people not being mutilated, and make “slurs” for them and stuff. Anyways the few weirdos that are active in that sub love to cite that guy and only that guy a lot.

        • sparkle@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          Cymraeg
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          Here’s some posts from that weird fetishist cult community btw. These guys are obsessed… maybe Morris’ alt accounts? lol

          spoiler

        • MeaanBeaan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 days ago

          Yeaaah. Seems I’ve unintentionally sited some weird fucking guy. That’ll teach me to not look into the writers of a study before I post about it. Fucking yikes…

        • MeaanBeaan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          32
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          5 days ago

          I mean. I provided an actual source for my statement with aggregated data supporting my point. You, however, have not.

          Sounds like you need to be educated.

          And also the frenulum is not the foreskin.

          • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 days ago

            And also the frenulum is not the foreskin.

            While the other user hasn’t explained why it is relevant, they are correct in that it is relevant. This is because circumcision usually removes the frenulum, or at least a large chunk of it. And it’s downright criminal because the frenulum is very sensitive. What little left I have is the most sensitive part of mine.

          • voltaric@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            41
            ·
            edit-2
            5 days ago

            Propaganda and bad faith. Get out of here with your pseudoscience

            Brian Morris is a proven fraud

            • kaykay720@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              28
              ·
              5 days ago

              Brian Morris is a proven fraud

              Enlighten us with some sources, you debate deficient dickfuck. Who the fuck do you think you are?

              Can you refute any of the points made without calling something a fallacy? It’s glaringly obvious you have no fucking idea how to begin to behave.

              It’s really unfortunate because I agree with you about circumcision, and yet you’re such a huge cunt full of shit. You need to fuck off and go touch grass. And before you just cry “ad hominem”, I’m not debating you about anything, I’m only attacking you. You’re not worth the time or effort to even consider having an educated argument. You’ve failed to provide any SHRED of a source for anything.

              Science points to the foreskin being…

              Show us where science says that, because honestly, it’s big “Ancient Astronaut theorists” energy.

              Fuck off and chortle our collective balls, you absolute husk of a cunt.

  • moistclump@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    146
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    5 days ago

    I feel like the same people who are antiabortion are pro circumcision. This meme makes it sound like it’s the pro choice crowd are also the ones pushing circumcision, which is misleading no?

    • DaddleDew@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      76
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      It is all coming from the Puritan ideology pushing the completely outdated and unrealistic idea that sexuality should be exclusively within the confines of marriage. Even the majority of the people pushing this ideal aren’t following it themselves.

      Circumcision is a way to discourage masturbation. This also means that they are against contraception which, according to them, promote extramarital sex. Abortion is only the tip of the iceberg of what they would ban if they were even given the chance and we’ve already seen them move on to attacking contraception in some places where they’ve already banned abortion.

      No matter how they’re trying to dress it as it is obviously a religion-motivated movement and should not be allowed to force its views on the people. It pisses me off that through their ideological reasoning they have also decided to fight stem cell research. We could have cured so many diseases and disabilities if it wasn’t for these religious zealots.

      • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        5 days ago

        Circumcision is a way to discourage masturbation.

        I got bad news for them. My record is 5 in a day during puberty. Granted, it did chafe like hell, and for that we must destroy religion.

        • blady_blah@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          “Those are rookie numbers!”. And if you weren’t circumcised it wouldn’t chafe as much. The reality is that circumcision was invented to make you masturbate less, to make it less pleasurable, to make it more difficult. And it probably has an effect on sex too.

          Make genital mutilation sucks. It’s all about religion controlling your sexuality. Fuck that!

      • borari@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 days ago

        Do you have a source on the circumcision being a tool to deter masturbation? I grew up understanding that it was yet one more thing that the Christians co-opted from the Jewish faith, and it was done because Christians wanted to cosplay gods chosen people.

        Anecdotally, I’ve never heard a single person complain about masturbation difficulties due to being circumcised. I mean I guess if you performed the procedure at puberty it would be even more horrifying and traumatizing than doing it at birth, but I’m just not making the connection here.

          • borari@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            5 days ago

            Thanks for that! I guess my parents and their religious “leadership” just invented reasoning for it after the fact in order to justify the practice without having to think about the why of it.

        • Droggelbecher@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          5 days ago

          I know from someone who had to get circumcised at 18 for medical reasons that you do lose a good bit of sensitivity. Not saying that necessarily means that that’s the reasoning. What’s interesting though is that circumstances among Christians isnt really a thing in Europe. I wonder how it became so big in the US.

          • borari@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            5 days ago

            Somebody sourced supporting documentation that it was originally done to prevent masturbation. My thought process was that, from experience, jerking off still feels good regardless, and if you perform the procedure on an infant they’ll never know it could feel better, so where’s the deterrent?

            I’m glad we’re still practicing genital mutilation in 2024 just because some guy from a time when we treated people with hacksaws and leeches said so though.

            • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 days ago

              but does it feel good without external lubrication? when you have a foreskin you don’t need any sort of lube, even just the foreskin itself effectively acts as a lubricant before even accounting for how it enables pre to not instantly evaporate

        • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 days ago

          I’ve never heard a single person complain about masturbation difficulties due to being circumcised

          I’ve seen posts with people saying that if you’re uncircumcised you can do it without lube. I don’t know if it’s true or not because I am circumcised and definitely can’t. At least not for very long. If it’s true I’d consider that a big enough drawback to complain about.

          • Sonicdemon86@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            5 days ago

            Not circumcised and I’ve never use lube or lotion. It always confused me why in me, myself, and Irene why he had lotion next to his bed and I didn’t connect it with masterbation as I said I never used anything.

          • docoptix@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            5 days ago

            I (not circumsized) don’t think the lube/non-lube thing is relevant that much. It works but lube is definitely still a good idea.

            What I do think makes a difference is the missing sensitive skin though. The inside of the foreskin is very sensitive, much like the glans. And when you pull it back, that skin is on the outside of quite a bit of your shaft.

            • Schmoo@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 days ago

              I think for people like myself who were circumcized at birth the brain just compensates for the reduced sensitivity. Hell, even people who are literally missing their penis can still orgasm by jerking an imaginary penis. Circumcision’s still a completely unnecessary medical procedure for most, but it has surprisingly little effect on the subjective experience of sex.

    • borari@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      I don’t know where you live, if it’s in Europe maybe it’s different. In the US, I know many pro-choice people who have gone the circumcision route for the own kids. For those who don’t want or have kids, quite a few have said they prefer cut guys. It’s still very much a normalized societal thing in the US.

      • loutr@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        36
        ·
        5 days ago

        Yeah, in Europe (or in France at least), if you’re circumcised you’re either Muslim, Jewish or had a medical issue.

        • d00ery@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          I’m from the UK and can confirm It’s not standard here, perhaps in other parts of Europe (but not France.)

          Edited to clarify that the United Kingdom has not physically moved location, nor has the continent of Europe been redefined (at least not that I’m aware of)

      • greenskye@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 days ago

        Yep, the US is still very much in the ‘most people (of all political ideologies) don’t even see it as an issue’ phase. Based on other political or cultural movements, I think we’re still decades away from it even being seen as a real issue to address by most of society. We’re maybe at a similar stage as the 50s were gay people?

    • xantoxis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      Yeah I don’t entirely follow the logic here, but I think the idea is:

      • women complain about abortion rights
      • but men also have body autonomy grievances
      • if men choose to accept their own grievances as unresolvable, then women should, too.

      I don’t know the poster in question, so it could also be “this argument, but ironically”

    • EvilEyedPanda@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 days ago

      Exactly, circumcision isn’t mandatory by law, unlike some of the draconian laws some states have and/or are trying to pass.

  • pyre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    who says pro choice people demand circumcision. most pro-choice people would probably leave the choice to the kid when they grow up enough to have an opinion on it. and if they don’t actively think that, I’m sure most can be very easily convinced to do so.

  • Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    5 days ago

    If I had a son he’d keep his foreskin until he can decide. I was there when they did my nephew’s and fuck all of that.

    • CaptainEffort@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      That’s not what a strawman is. They’re not saying pro choice people are for circumcision, and then arguing against that falsely constructed opinion.

      They’re making a joke that pro “choice” people should be against circumcision, as the babies who get them aren’t given the choice.

      A strawman specifically means that they’re claiming that this is those people’s opinion, and then arguing against it.

      • EvolvedTurtle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        I mean I’m against circumcision Like Im circumcised and it doesn’t really bother me, it’s just a really weird practice that makes no sense to me

        • Emerald@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          That’s perfectly fair. I feel like where a lot of anti-circumcision activists go wrong is they focus too much on telling circumcised people that their body is wrong and they should feel mad, rather then focusing on the actual issue at hand.

      • xorollo@leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        Thanks for laying it out. I am curious about identifying logical fallacies. But after your description, strawman is exactly how I read the picture. Here’s how it goes in my head: there’s an unstated assumption that since circumcision in America is so common, that pro choice people are for it. And then they point out that circumcision at birth is against bodily autonomy. So yeah, strawman.

        To me, the fact that it’s intended as a joke is besides the point, but still supports strawman. Why is it funny? Because you contrast the pro-choice bodily autonomy ascribed to the pregnant woman with the lack of bodily autonomy for the circumcised child. But this juxtaposition ascribes the decision to circumsize the child to the pro choice person. Meaning, they’re claiming that this is those people’s opinion. And arguing against it. If instead we said that person A is pro-choice and person B circumcised their child then it isn’t funny or clever anymore.

  • Wilzax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    49
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    Why the fuck is a postmenopausal women giving this presentation? Neither issue pertains to her.

    (This is a commentary on a male-dominated supreme court overturning Roe v. Wade)