Lurker > Zonbei

KI_Simpson posted...

Your views directly support imposing a permanent physical change on someone before they can consent, you can't just call them personal opinion and ask for everyone to respect them. This isn't about attacking you.

Yes, Ive said repeatedly that imposing a permanent physical change on someone before they can consent is called normal parenting in regards to medicine. I am saying that as a person who had this done to them, I could not care less that it was without my consent. Because I couldnt consent. I was a child. Sometimes parents do things for their childs benefit. My parents did MUCH worse things to me without my consent, things that were not beneficial and actually caused lasting psychological harm.

KI_Simpson posted...

No one, anywhere (criminally abusive cases aside), defends causing pain to babies because "they won't remember it anyway" in normal circumstances, so leave that out of it. The only actual reason anyone has babies circumcised is because (whether for cultural or cosmetic reasons) they like how it looks better. It creates a completely needless insecurity (whether you are or aren't circumcised) that you are admitting has no reason to exist because no one would actually want to be circumcised as a healthy adult otherwise. If a statistically significant portion of people with penises were born without foreskin I would absolutely say it didn't matter and both should just be accepted, but the context of forcing it on infants is not something I'm okay with.

I wouldnt want to be circumcised as an adult because I dont like pain and Im squicked out by surgery in general. Otherwise Id be all for it because of the benefits, especially if I knew what I know now, I.e my current lived experience. Please stop imposing your view of my thoughts onto me like theyre my thoughts.

KI_Simpson posted...

If it's not worth doing as an adult, it is not justified to do it to a child and take away their choice. I care less about my penis than most people who have one (I'm nonbinary and am basically neutral on which genitals I want to have, although that means I'll probably keep the ones I have unless we make miraculous advances in technology that make going back and forth quick and simple) but I would still feel violated if cosmetic surgery was performed on me and I was shamed for expressing discontent over it.

I mean. I am literally telling you that its not worth doing as an adult so Im GLAD it was done as a child. If it was worth doing as an adult it would be less meaningful that it got done as a newborn (although it would still be easier so Id still be fine with it.) Im not shaming you though. Just giving you my own stance and experience.

Personally, I actually value the experiences and comfort of actual thinking people over newborn babies, because newborn babies arent going to remember that shit anyways.

(which is not advocating for just doing anything to babies; some things actually do harm development, and harming babies just for the sake of it is insane behavior. I dont believe thats the case with circumcision though.)

CSCA33 posted...

I am not a dude, thank you very much.

The source of the statement is of no consequence in this case.

Dude is gender neutral, but sure, if you dont want to be called that I wont.

It literally is of consequence. What was the purpose of posting it if not to use it as some sort of proof? You had no one to back you up so you had to go to a different comment section?

KI_Simpson posted...

Well that would be easy to prove, show some evidence of all the non-American men who choose to be circumcised as adults. If it's so common to want that, it must happen pretty often, right?

As one data point, Im glad I was circumcised. I would still not choose to do it as an adult. Its not worth it. It IS worth having it done as a baby when I didnt remember it because I was basically not yet sapient.

Tanthalas posted...

Again you pretend that I said something else.

Circumcision culture was indeed started in the USA by crackpots that claimed it could cure everything, just like how people thought that bloodletting was also a cure all.

Its a relic of the past thats kept in the USA due to sheer stupidity.

I assume you didnt respond and verify its Kellogg because you wanted plausible deniability and werent certain you were right, but given thats the only possible answer

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/d/d5b56787.jpg

Wow, not only did the guy you called a crackpot not do what you said he did, he AGREES with you and is against what doctors said. With a nice dose of anti-semitism tossed in. Fun fact, the guy agreeing with you was a racial purist. AND a crackpot!

It is actually impressive how wrong youve managed to be in every conceivable way, here.

KI_Simpson posted...

Regardless of whether you call it mutilation or not, shaming people for not having cosmetic genital surgery is indefensible and it's much worse to apply that to infants and perform the cosmetic surgery because you speculate that it will be more attractive sexually. Would anyone actually think it wasn't disgusting if there was an equivalent surgery to cosmetically change vaginas and people encouraged parents to do it to infant girls because it would make men think their vaginas looked better?

Yeah, the shit Sonixs is saying is ridiculous.

Tanthalas posted...

Again you pretend that I said something else.

Circumcision culture was indeed started in the USA by crackpots that claimed it could cure everything, just like how people thought that bloodletting was also a cure all.

Its a relic of the past thats kept in the USA due to sheer stupidity.

I assume youre talking about Kellogg, right? @Tanthalas

Tanthalas posted...

Oh yeah, this coming from the guy claiming that having a foreskin makes it harder to wash your dick.

If only Id repeatedly addressed that as I dont have a foreskin, I can only go off what Ive been told by people that do, and cant claim to know for sure. Sadly, youve got nothing else to latch onto, so you keep ignoring that.

Prestoff posted...

Why the fuck is this topic still going?

The anti-circumcision folks are rabid, and I have too much free time. I just came back and started replying because my girlfriend just left for her dance event and Im putting off starting FF7 Rebirth.

I dunno why anyone else is still posting.

Enclave posted...

Look, if you're going to compare foreskin to an abnormal growth you already have no argument and are beyond easily ignored. Don't be like Zonbei.

Dont compare us, I dont agree with most of their arguments either.

Tanthalas posted...

Explain why you insist on a procedure that has no meaningful benefit.

Seriously, the culture of circumcision in the USA started in the 19th by people who believed it could could cure diseases like masturbation. Its a stupidity.

It has been repeatedly explained to you that there is a benefit. Circumcision has been around longer than the USA has, and thats because it was a religious custom, likely for health reasons like many other religious customs of that time. The first line it comes from is literally Five are the acts quite akin to fitrah: Circumcision, shaving the pubic hair, cutting the nails, plucking the hair under the armpits and clipping (or shaving) the moustach. Its a commandment about hygiene.

But hey. Keep saying whatever you think sounds good. Circumcision was invented by Kellogg or whatever.

Sonixs posted...

Both are necessary pieces of skin that can be removed with no problem.

I assume you meant unnecessary, before you get jumped on.

CSCA33 posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/1/16ea74ce.jpg

Did you seriously just try to use a cropped screenshot of a passage from what is essentially a comment written by a random student as proof that its mutilation?

For clarity to those who dont go to the link, that comment is a rapid response under an article in a medical journal. Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com

Essentially the dude just cited a comment section.

Enclave posted...

Reminder because apparently people who like cutting body parts off of infants don't seem to understand this.

Toe nails? Hair? They grow back and I don't recall the last time somebody had medical complications from getting a basic hair cut.

As mentioned in my post, my toe nail did not in fact grow back, because of the acid. There was a lot of bleeding. Turns out the part of your toenail that isnt already dead is quite painful to operate on, even though it was a helpful but non-necessary procedure.

Sonixs posted...

"Post surgery wound care" what are you even talking about. My kids had it done in 5 minutes at the hospital when they were born and they required zero "wound care"

I mean. Im pretty sure theres a little wound care. I just dont think thats a big deal.
welcome to medicine.

These people are going to say the procedure I got done at the podiatrist to fix my ingrown toenail was mutilation because they cut part of my nail off and cauterized the nail bed with acid and I had to do some minor wound care.

VirtuousWrath posted...

lmao

Is the funny part that COVID killed a lot of people? Or the fact porn was a difficult industry to prevent the spread of COVID in due to the necessity of contact? Not sure what you think the joke here is.

(to be clear, the joke HERE is that Im aware youre just being an awful human being spreading your idealogical opposition to facts, and Im pretending not to know for effect.)

Sonixs posted...

Relax dude. They're the ones being all dramatic calling it MUTILATIONNNNN.

They can be wrong and you can also be wrong. Calling circumcision mutilation is wrong. Calling uncircumcised penises weird looking and gross is wrong. The two statements are not mutually exclusive.

CSCA33 posted...

literally nobody asked this

I was not aware people need to be asked things to say them. Someone earlier in the topic was talking about how great women have said their uncircumcised dick feels sliding into them. I didnt see you whining like a fucking baby then.

CSCA33 posted...

Reminder this person is in favor of mutilating the genitals of newborns.

Reminder this person relies on emotional appeals using charged language to describe medical procedures.

Youre also mutilated when you get your appendix removed, but I doubt you call it that, because youre not being consistent, youre trying to get an emotional or visceral response.

Rika_Furude posted...

Why not just follow the advice of the medical professionals? Ask them for their recommendation and then follow that

Their recommendation is nearly always its your personal choice, its nonessential and there are pros and cons, but unfortunately people in this topic and elsewhere have decided scientists and doctors are wrong because of reasons.

sometimes their recommendation is to do it to fix certain issues, but thats apparently also mutilation or something.

Sonixs posted...

It really comes down to two choices.

Do you want your dick to be weird looking and fully functional or not weird looking and fully functional.

Bud Im not on board for all this shaming of uncut dicks. While yes, some women do tend to like circumcised better, and Ive had a lot of compliments personally, theres no reason to perpetuate this idea that uncut is weird looking. Its not, its just another option. Stop it.

ryudo500 posted...

the thing is throughout history males have been uncut like 1000x longer than cut no?

Probably, but Im not clear why you think that means anything. Weve had cancer treatments for much less time than we didnt. Obviously cancer treatments are far, far, far more beneficial (and have worse downsides!), but the point here is that how long something was done is meaningless.

Gwynevere posted...

Nah, you just don't want people to call it that because it makes it harder to defend when it's described accurately. It's cosmetic genital mutilation done with little more reason than "my parents did it to me"

No, I dont want people to call it that because I think people shouldnt sensationalize and exaggerate to make their point. (To be clear, I am responding as if you addressed everyone. I am not that other user.) My dick isnt mutilated, sorry. You can say it all you want, but its really not.

FunWithAFryPan posted...

It doesnt. Zonbei is lying

Tell me you havent read what I said without telling me you havent read what I said.

I said that based on what other people have told me, its saving me some time cleaning. Others claimed this is not the case. I said well I wouldnt know, so I can only go off what Ive been told.

then you go zonbei is lying because youre disingenuous. The only claims Ive made as fact are about STI and cancer prevention, and those claims are true.

Enclave posted...

No, what's going to make you less likely to spread STIs are fucking condoms.

Why is it every single pro-circumcision person is like this? Does anybody know why?

Yes, that ALSO makes you less likely to spread STIs. Its almost like multiple things can make a thing less likely. why did you think this was some kind of rebuttal?

its also cute that you seem to think condoms prevent all STI spread.

Treatment prevents the spread of STIs, universal health care makes treatment more likely. This is not hard to grasp.

Cheetaluv posted...

RIP, sad this topic couldn't go all the way through on the subject without politics getting a raging boner.

mine was a joke about sex positions bud. Calm down.

DragulaRULEZ posted...

It's weird how many Pornstars are Trump supporters though.

PS: I'm still messed up over Adriana Chechik and the fake foam pit.

Its not that weird, Trump loves pornstars, and being a Trump supporter basically requires holding numerous contradictory positions in rapid succession.

UnfairRepresent posted...

That doesn't really fit. Star Wars: A New Hope was a complete story.

It would be more Akin to if Star Wars ended after they left Tatooine but they threw in 40 minutes of running around corridors and a Darth Vader fight

Or if it ended after they rescued Leia from the Death Star and then the movie just stops.

You say " The game has a clear beginning, middle, and end." as if that means anything.

If RDR1 ended with Bill's henchmen shooting John in the opening scene, that would have a clear clear beginning, middle, and end.

Beginning: John goes to Fort Mercer
Middke: John talks to Bill
End: John is shot

Not to mention the end fight and ghosts of FF7R were pulled so far out of their ass just so they could have a climatic final boss fight. It didn't fit at all, was awkwardly inserted just to create a bad climax in the opening of a story and was 100% predicated on you already knowing the original game and who Sephiroth was.

Makes me think of that Zero Puntuation quote: "I feel sorry for anyone playing this game with no knowledge of the original. Blimey, my pretty anime sword boy daydreams about Gwyneth Paltrow a lot. "

You know square enix and the games industry doesn't care if you live or die right? You're white knighting the anti consumer practices of an industry that's standing on your face and pressing it into the mud

man, wild that youd unfairly represent the story of a game to prove your point, and then unfairly represent my behavior as white knighting. If only there had been some warning that youd act this way.

lmao. Standing on my face and pressing it into the mud. News flash? Not everyone is as dramatic and whiny as you are about videogames. I buy games, I enjoy playing them, thats basically the end of the process. Get some perspective.

BlackOmnimon posted...

wait now we cant say that other 2D Zeldas were better?

aged impressively badly and other 2D Zeldas were better are wildly different statements, especially in tone. You know what you did.

Axiom posted...

People come in to shit on pornstars and their lifestyle and her death doesn't even have anything to do with it

What the fuck is wrong with you people

one of them literally said jezebels even though they probably watch porn, so whats wrong with these people is pretty apparent. Id say more but some mod or other is heavily on my ass about never saying anything negative about anyone ever.

Hornezz posted...

I propose we cut off our infants noses shortly after birth.

Facts:
- It reduces the chance of a nose break by 100%
- Less snot accumulation in the middle of your face
- Safe significant times by not having to trim nose hair
- No future romantic partner is going to love boogers and nose hair

Rhinectomies are a win-win really.

What a super cool false equivalence.

Enclave posted...

Not pretending to be a psychologist, look at your freakin' replies, you are absolutely ignorant on this issue.

Also I don't really care if you've "addressed" anything since your addressing it is all nonsense. You're making wild reaches to try to excuse performing unnecessary and non-consensual cosmetic surgery on babies and likely because it was done to you so that's why you're taking that side. It's nonsensical.

I mean seriously, it's apples to fucking apples, especially when you're comparing Europe to North America (which includes Canada by the way which DOES have public healthcare). Having access to free healthcare is not going to make it less likely for penis cancer to show up nor make you less likely to catch an STI, it'll help with treatment of those issues but it won't stop them from actually happening.

Free healthcare is absolutely going to make it less likely for you to spread STIs. Please use your brain.

as for the rest of what you said, more assumptions about me personally and armchair psychology. Shush.

FunWithAFryPan posted...

Not all elective surgeries carry the same risk. Making comparisons like this is moronic.

That first part is true, although seems irrelevant given the risk for circumcision is pretty negligible.

Scardude posted...

This debate still going on? Maybe I should have said what I meant earlier. In Canada, they stopped enforcing circumcision at birth. For most of my life it wasn't an issue. As an adult, getting the procedure done for medical reasons is justified. People can go their entire lives without actually needing intervention. If I didn't have unusual circumstances, I would never have needed it. It's not required at birth and friends who have it at birth from other countries didn't realize it wasn't a thing. In all cases, it's mixed results but no study has been conclusive. It's more psychological in nature and depression affects it way more. In my opinion and some studies have found. Should you do it at birth? Not really. Will it make a big impact if you do? Not really.

to be clear, it isnt required at birth here either.

Enclave posted...

Correcting literal visible birth defects like a cleft lip results in the recipient having a measurably improved quality of life, correcting crooked teeth not only results in the same but it can also help avoid potential (and far more likely than the very rare penis cancer) health impacts (especially regarding wisdom teeth).

Vaccines prevent spread of major communicable disease and helps protect people who are immune compromised who are unable to get vaccinated, again this is not comparable to the alleged and minor benefits around circumcision as rates of penis cancer and HIV are not wildly different between North America and Europe and thus circumcision is clearly not actually a very relevant factor in those.

Of course your more recent posts seem to suggest that you're on the side you're on not because you're actually informed on the subject at all but rather you're defensive about the fact that your parents had an unnecessary cosmetic procedure done on you when you were a baby and now you're trying to rationalise it, this seems apparent from the fact that you seem incredibly ignorant about the foreskin in general.

Cool pretending to be a psychologist you did there. Im not defensive about it at all; I legitimately am glad it was done and feel better off, personally. You can believe whatever you want, but its a story youre telling yourself.

Ive said multiple times I dont know much about the experience of having a foreskin, because I dont have one, and can only speak on what others have told me.

The only thing Ive said that may be objectively wrong that I didnt get from uncircumcised friend and women who have been with uncircumcised men was that the glans shouldnt be eternally moist; I was talking more about dampness, water, sweat, etc, but I was surprised to find uncircumcised penises actually secrete what is essentially mucus, which I presume is what the other guy meant. (Although that is less a function of the foreskin and more the glans, the foreskin does keep the mucus membrane from keratinizing, so in a roundabout way it keeps it moist, in terms of gross dick mucus.)

the incidence of HIV and STDS isnt wildly different between these two counties so clearly circumcising has no impact has been addressed MULTIPLE times already. That isnt how that works. You cant possibly draw that conclusion, many factors affect those rates. Europe has public health care, but by your logic, that has zero effect on std spread, despite the fact thats obviously not true.

Also, nobody has ever said it was a huge impact. Its a minor benefit.

reincarnator07 posted...

You know who could? People who have had the surgery as an adult. You know who couldn't? People who literally had it done so early that they never knew anything else.

If only I had addressed that exact point and you hadnt ignored it.

you cant compare someone having it done in adulthood to someone at birth. I can absolutely believe theres a loss of feeling if you do that, because its a much more difficult and impactful procedure as an adult. And brains are malleable, youd be used to different nerves and feelings.

that said, when it comes to doing it at birth, several studies have found that theres no actual difference in sensitivity. Youre in luck, I even found one for you.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7691872/

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Because people are making weird, inaccurate claims about other peoples experiences, and specifically mine, duh. Youll notice that I was responding to someone, that context may help. Im pretty secure about my life as a promiscuous poly person, so I dont mind telling the truth, and I dont particularly care if people disbelieve or whatever other nonsense. No cope here, regardless of what you think.

JimmyFraska posted...

You can never know that if you had it done to you as a baby.

What I do know is guys who have made the choice to have it done as an adult (some for personal reasons, and some out of pressure from partners). They say it is not as pleasurable. Which makes sense, there's less nerves with it gone, less sensitivity, not to mention how it helps in sex aside from outright pleasure.

My guy, I can be one hundred percent sure my sex life isnt gimped, because my sex life is awesome. (Yes, its gamefaqs, everyone is lying, blah blah I dont care.) I dont feel the need to feel any more pleasure. Conversely, people who arent circumcised cant know that it feels worse.

Being circumcised in adulthood is not the same thing, and pleasure isnt some sort of number scale. Human brains are malleable.

JimmyFraska posted...

It's maming the child. As far as concerns over hygeine, yes, your child like any other person needs to be hygenic in their life to stay healthy. Any stories of problems with "cleanliness" down there resulting in infections/diseases is a result of people who DO NOT WASH there AT ALL.

You'll be gimping your son's sex life in adulthood. It's there for a reason.

You describe this as if it is incredibly difficult. What you're talking about literally takes two seconds and is something you learn very quickly growing up as you bathe yourself. You NOTICE if it's not clean, like any other part of your body.

Allegedly, a bunch of dudes absolutely do not. But as Ive already said, I dont have a foreskin and am only going off what Ive been told by men who do and women who have dealt with gross dudes.

regardless, Id rather not have to worry about it.

also: gimping your sons sex life is insane shit only people who arent circumcised say because they have no clue what theyre talking about. My sex life is very far from gimped.

Nirvanas_Nox posted...

Um for one it protects the glans and keeps it moist like its supposed to be. it also helps to reduce friction when your having sex. Seems to me you don't really know what the foreskin actually does.

lol. Keeps it moist. Okay bud. Its actually gross you think thats the case. Spoiler: it isnt, and warm and moist is literally Bacteria City. There also shouldnt be any need to reduce friction while having sex unless youre doing it wrong.

Good thing I just made up what I said instead of actually looking it up. Oh wait

Nirvanas_Nox posted...

The foreskin totally serves a purpose. You have no idea what your talking about dude. It's not just a loose piece of skin you should just cut off.

Pretty sure many researchers believe its vestigial, and the rest believe the purpose is to prevent irritation to the head of the penis. (Something I have never had an issue with personally.) Although that doesnt make much sense evolutionarily.

The only thing that does sort of make sense is is that its to help sexual pleasure, which would technically be passed down preferentially. (Again a thing Ive never had an issue with personally.) assuming people wouldnt have sex anyways, which seems completely untrue given all the sex having circumcised people.

ai123 posted...

I'm from the UK.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/inverted-commas

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/in-inverted-commas

gross, the uk
:p
(Im joking the uk is cool)

ai123 posted...

It's different because it's unnecessary. They aren't saving a child's life, preventing psychological trauma, improving their function, or correcting a birth defect.

No need for inverted commas. Unless there is a clinical issue, circumcision is unnecessary. Once people can give informed consent, I have no objection.

If elective circumcision wasn't a thing, and doctors suddenly introduced it at $4k a a time, claiming some marginal and disputed health and aesthetic benefits, it would be denounced as a predatory scam.

But for those with generations of emotional investment in the procedure, the view is somewhat different.

you mean quotation marks?

as Ive pointed out, many unnecessary procedures are decided on by parents. And many life decisions. Thats the purpose of a parent.

my issue is saying parents simply arent allowed to make a beneficial choice for their children because its a medical intervention.

my other issue is pretending its some insane mutilation when its a minor medical procedure that has literally never caused me any trouble.

Zwijn posted...

Might as well take out a babys prostate eh.

Given the prostate serves an actual function thats important, no. The appendix though? Yeah go wild, its probably going to save lives.

Enclave posted...

Are you seriously comparing foreskin to deformities and diseases/viruses?

No, Im comparing an elective surgery to an elective surgery. If youre against one because of consent and not being necessary youre against all of them. The HPV vaccine isnt a necessity for children. ( it you should get it.) Cleft lip and other surgeries arent medically necessary for all children.

Im not the one making blanket statements to justify my opposition to something here. Im just point out its silly to make those blanket statements, which you clearly
agree with given you understand these things arent the same.

Zwijn posted...

Had to dig deep for that didnt you? Also in my country children have bodily autonomy after theyre 12 and before that age it is advised to not always go against the childs wishes.

no, those ones were pretty much off the top of my head. Babies dont have wishes.

Zwijn posted...

Yes?

So youre against all nonessential medical
procedures that change the body for anyone under 18? So you oppose cleft lip being fixed when its not medically necessary? Braces? Vaccines? Any sort of surgery to correct a disability or deformity? Theres a
lot of different commonly
performed elective pediatric surgeries.

Or do you have some other threshold thats lesser than necessary?

ai123 posted...

Alleged health benefits, ease of maintenance, and parental rights.

To be clear, ease of maintenance was only my personal reason for being happy with being circumcised, among other reasons. Its certainly not a reason to choose circumcision on its own.

parental rights is also a weird misrepresentation. Ive only said that it makes sense its up to parents. Im not saying circumcise because parental rights. I HAVE said that most of the medical community believes its a choice, and that choice falls to parents.

ai123 posted...

I think the idea is that someone has to make the choice. The baby can't, so it falls to the parents.

And that, for me, is why the whole thing is mad. When it comes to unnecessary surgical procedures without consent, the default should be 'no'. Not 'well, there are arguments on both sides, so let the parents decide'.

there are arguments on both sides so let the parents decide is how basically all of parenting works, especially medical stuff. I dont understand why its suddenly different when its a penis. I doubt youre against every other unnecessary but beneficial medical procedure.