Motte: "I’m a bigot because I oppose circumcision and also rubbing your cock while looking at your parents?"
Bailey: " they make it even worse when they compare penile circumcision to vaginal circumcision"
You're defending your sexist subtext that one act of mutilation against a helpless lump of stem cells is worse than another because lol look at this freak incel amirite?
i kind of agree with you that female circumcision is worse, but you're doing a shitty job of explaining to them why.
most female circumcision removes the entire clitoris and leaves many women incapable of orgasm, which isn't the same for male circumcision, so it is in most cases much worse. but you need to explain your reasonings otherwise they'll continue to attack you as a sexist.
The reason I haven't spent time on this with @PaulRyansWorkoutTape is because we've already been through it. I'm going to summon him to the thread so he can give you his nuclear, fucking weapons-grade bad takes on circumcision. Trust me, he's going to make me look like a fucking saint once he starts talking about vaginal versus penile circumcision. Unless he's changed it, it ain't pretty.
I think that's missing the point of what people are generally comparing. I'm no expert on the community, but the way I've generally heard the argument go is that the ethical implications are very similar. Both are involuntary procedures that are normally performed on babies-toddlers. Both procedures cause irreparable bodily alterations that CAN have serious side effects, up to and including chronic pain and discomfort, infection, reduced sexual satisfaction and libido, and all manner of bad stuff. (Maybe here is where you think it's not comparable because of severity of symptoms? I think that's missing the point still, so I'll move on.) Both procedures generally have no medical use or benefit, and are associated with cultural or religious norms towards the human body and sexuality.
Given how many similarities there are, it seems perfectly rational to compare the two, and appropriate to condemn both on the grounds that we aren't respecting the bodily autonomy of children and are causing permanent physical harm. Pointing out problematic parts of a community is one thing, but to suddenly imply the entire discussion of moral equivalence is illegitimate belittles the experience of those who have, arguably, suffered a great harm. It only serves to silence voices trying to raise awareness on an issue that you yourself acknowledge is bad.
A vaginal circumcision is comparable to penile circumcision if they literally cut the penis off, perhaps, but that's why it's not comparable. And there are practices that make vaginal circumcision even more extreme than penile circumcision, like removing the labia as well, or sewing the vagina mostly shut. That's why I think it's a bad idea to compare the two, but to still consider them both unacceptable practices.
The thing is, a penis may at some point need a circumcision due to rare medical issues, whereas a vaginal circumcision would never be necessary.
Again, you can wait for @PaulRyansWorkoutTape where he's about to pull out some data on how vaginas actually don't lose THAT much sensation and it's all really just fucking horrifying.
So there's a history between you two that I don't have context for, and maybe I'm just seeing it from too limited an exposure. I'll acknowledge that.
Yet I still think you're missing the point. I agree, fgm is generally speaking worse in terms of quantity of harm done. However, at least when I've heard the argument, people aren't making a direct equivalence in terms of harm done. They are saying that the practice of genital mutilation, regardless of gender, violates bodily autonomy in the same way.
This is kind of a shitty analogy so I apologize in advance, but we can think of it like speeding. If someone is going 60 in a 40 zone, that's reckless endangerment and bad/condemnable. Going 100 in a 40 zone is worse for sure, but it's 'bad' for the same reasons/in the same way. It's still reckless endangerment, so it's violating the same moral imperative. In the case of reckless driving it's an obligation to behave in a way that doesn't put other lives in an unreasonable amount of danger. In the case of genital mutilation it's a violation of bodily autonomy and performance of non-medically productive procedures.
Now I know you could say "but sometimes male circumcision IS medically useful." I know very well, my little brother was circumcised when he was 16 because he had too tight of foreskin. That's not what we're talking about here nor in context of the greater conversation, though. We're talking about the standard practice of genital mutilation at birth, long before the patient has the wherewithal to give consent or even to realize there's a problem that might need medical attention.
Again, admitting that I lack the context from your previous discussion, it seemed like you were confusing the point of arguments that compare the two. I've mostly heard it in the moral context, so that's the angle I looked at the exchange from.
Yes, and I get the bodily autonomy argument, and I agree on that level, but I think it's where you start to see this grand difference in anti-circumcision arguments.
I think the reasonable part of the argument is like, respect bodily autonomy. I get that. But these fucking anti-circumcision activists, and literally 99% of them are guys who are worried about foreskins, will try to argue that penile circumcision is JUST AS BAD as vaginal circumcision. And that's what I'm reacting to. Poorly worded? Absolutely. Unclear? 100%. The problem is I have a History with some of these assholes so I already know where they're at and I'm meeting them on our previous battlefield, so I get how that can come off.
Like I have a dick, I don't have a vagina, but I know that my sexual enjoyment is diminished. To the level of your average recipient of vaginal circumcision? GOD NO. But then that's where these guys will pull out these insane studies about actually how people who have had their clitorises excised really don't mind it all that much and still feel sexual pleasure! While at the same time bemoaning the chitinous layer of skin on their glans like it's a missing limb or some shit.
It's a highly toxic community and I'm not part of it for myriad reasons. There's a main one though.
Yeah I feel that. I guess I've learned to mostly shrug at that as human nature. We seem predisposed to exaggerate the importance of our own experiences. I for one see more voices speaking out against male circumcision as a net positive all the same. Very few people are going to seriously reconsider their attitudes towards fgm based on the situation as you've described it. Most people already find it revolting, and the people who are likely to perpetrate it aren't going to be in a niche anti-circumcision community to begin with lol, so they're not going to be emboldened either.
But if the community makes enough noise, and the good arguments have a chance to shine without being knee-jerk belittled, then it seems like more people will become increasingly aware of the harms of male circumcision with relatively few downsides in terms of fgm.
I'm just thinking out loud now, but I almost see criticizing communities like that as punching down, or useless purity testing. Like, the people who end up there are wrestling with a feeling of loss and victimization. They are in a vulnerable state and looking for a way to have their feelings validated. Yeah that's sometimes going to happen in a problematic way, but they are all genuinely in pain and trying to use it to affect positive change. As long as they don't really have power such that their problematic trauma coping is going to reduce efforts to combat fgm, I don't see the point in policing how they rationalize their personal motivations for being a part of the anti-circumcision movement, if it can be called as much.
I feel like as a member of the community (at least as someone who has had a deep circumcision and is undoing its effects) that I retain rights to criticize it. I mean maybe I'm not a member because I refuse to take part in their weird misogyny and Islamophobia and shit, but I think that their attempts to compare penile to vaginal circumcision in terms of pain is such a bad move. The point is to talk about bodily autonomy and argue from that position.
Honestly I wish I could go back to this morning before I knew about misogyny and islamaphobia in the circumcision restoring community. I just now paid enough attention to the original community you referenced and realized that you're conflating the restoration community with antii-circumcision activists in general.
I'm rubbed the wrong way (heh) by your depiction of the WORST elements of a super niche community as being indicative of circumcision activists in general. Your entire post seems drastically more harmful than helpful in retrospect. Smearing an entire group of people who are morally in the right, (automatic circumcision IS bull shit, as we agree) by likening them to sexual predators (to be clear, I see the act described in the OP as potentially predatory or abusive, not restoring in general) or people who are, quite frankly, not mentally well, is a pretty shitty thing to do.
Like, I learned what I responded with from people who probably consider themselves anti-circumcision activists. They're smart, reasonable, and caring people who are doing good in the world by spreading awareness. Based on their help educating me on the issue, I won't circumcise my kids should the choice arise. I recommend the same to my friends and family when the serious discussion of children comes up. I'm a cut man myself (likely have reduced sensitivity but that's besides the point) and my family comes from a Jewish background, so I probably would have maimed my kid for no good reason had it never been explained to me. Yet here you are, trying to tar and feather them in a public forum because of the toxic culture in a men's issue reddit community. It seems so unnecessary, I guess? And probably turning off a bunch of people who don't know much about the issue from taking it seriously if someone tries to educate them in the future.
I don't know. I've already spent too much time and energy on this today. I hope you take my comments as critical support. No hard feelings or anything like that. It seems like we're on the same page as far as ethical assessment of the big issues go, I just find this post to be in extremely poor taste and likely a net harm. But what the fuck do I know - shrugs-. I'm just some schmuck on the internet. (last dick pun I promise)
There's a lot of overlap with the restoration community and anti-circumcision activists, who call themselves uh intactivists. And there's definitely people in that space doing good work but from my time as an uh intactivist there were a lot of daddy issues and shit And there were some guys who were really excited to show you their dicks without asking. Obviously they're in the right but it's a mess, man. Not a fun group.
And again they're doing this shit to themselves and discrediting themselves. I am not the asshole for pointing out what they do.
Fuckin wild my man. I absolutely believe you, and again I wish I could have skipped this thread in the morning. I'm too online if I had to learn about this today.
I'm a bigot because I oppose circumcision and also rubbing your cock while looking at your parents?
Stop acting like a chud and pulling this motte and bailey shit, please
How is this motte and bailey? I oppose circumcision, but I recognize there are substantial difference between penile and vaginal circumcision.
Motte: "I’m a bigot because I oppose circumcision and also rubbing your cock while looking at your parents?"
Bailey: " they make it even worse when they compare penile circumcision to vaginal circumcision"
You're defending your sexist subtext that one act of mutilation against a helpless lump of stem cells is worse than another because lol look at this freak incel amirite?
You're way over the 'fuck you' line of bad faith.
lmao you are proving very loudly and proudly that anti circumcision folks are incel as fuck by claiming I'm sexist
Dude I was with you generally until reading this thread. This has been an absolute garbage of line of reasoning on your part.
Edit: for anyone arriving late we talked it out, I think we're more on the same page now.
Tell me what's garbage.
i kind of agree with you that female circumcision is worse, but you're doing a shitty job of explaining to them why.
most female circumcision removes the entire clitoris and leaves many women incapable of orgasm, which isn't the same for male circumcision, so it is in most cases much worse. but you need to explain your reasonings otherwise they'll continue to attack you as a sexist.
deleted by creator
yeah. that sounds about right.
The reason I haven't spent time on this with @PaulRyansWorkoutTape is because we've already been through it. I'm going to summon him to the thread so he can give you his nuclear, fucking weapons-grade bad takes on circumcision. Trust me, he's going to make me look like a fucking saint once he starts talking about vaginal versus penile circumcision. Unless he's changed it, it ain't pretty.
I mean, the other poster did and you just started insulting him. That ain't how I wanna spend my morning fam.
The other poster did what? He claimed I'm doing a sexism because I think vaginal circumcision is not comparable to penile circumcision.
I think that's missing the point of what people are generally comparing. I'm no expert on the community, but the way I've generally heard the argument go is that the ethical implications are very similar. Both are involuntary procedures that are normally performed on babies-toddlers. Both procedures cause irreparable bodily alterations that CAN have serious side effects, up to and including chronic pain and discomfort, infection, reduced sexual satisfaction and libido, and all manner of bad stuff. (Maybe here is where you think it's not comparable because of severity of symptoms? I think that's missing the point still, so I'll move on.) Both procedures generally have no medical use or benefit, and are associated with cultural or religious norms towards the human body and sexuality.
Given how many similarities there are, it seems perfectly rational to compare the two, and appropriate to condemn both on the grounds that we aren't respecting the bodily autonomy of children and are causing permanent physical harm. Pointing out problematic parts of a community is one thing, but to suddenly imply the entire discussion of moral equivalence is illegitimate belittles the experience of those who have, arguably, suffered a great harm. It only serves to silence voices trying to raise awareness on an issue that you yourself acknowledge is bad.
A vaginal circumcision is comparable to penile circumcision if they literally cut the penis off, perhaps, but that's why it's not comparable. And there are practices that make vaginal circumcision even more extreme than penile circumcision, like removing the labia as well, or sewing the vagina mostly shut. That's why I think it's a bad idea to compare the two, but to still consider them both unacceptable practices.
The thing is, a penis may at some point need a circumcision due to rare medical issues, whereas a vaginal circumcision would never be necessary.
Again, you can wait for @PaulRyansWorkoutTape where he's about to pull out some data on how vaginas actually don't lose THAT much sensation and it's all really just fucking horrifying.
So there's a history between you two that I don't have context for, and maybe I'm just seeing it from too limited an exposure. I'll acknowledge that.
Yet I still think you're missing the point. I agree, fgm is generally speaking worse in terms of quantity of harm done. However, at least when I've heard the argument, people aren't making a direct equivalence in terms of harm done. They are saying that the practice of genital mutilation, regardless of gender, violates bodily autonomy in the same way.
This is kind of a shitty analogy so I apologize in advance, but we can think of it like speeding. If someone is going 60 in a 40 zone, that's reckless endangerment and bad/condemnable. Going 100 in a 40 zone is worse for sure, but it's 'bad' for the same reasons/in the same way. It's still reckless endangerment, so it's violating the same moral imperative. In the case of reckless driving it's an obligation to behave in a way that doesn't put other lives in an unreasonable amount of danger. In the case of genital mutilation it's a violation of bodily autonomy and performance of non-medically productive procedures.
Now I know you could say "but sometimes male circumcision IS medically useful." I know very well, my little brother was circumcised when he was 16 because he had too tight of foreskin. That's not what we're talking about here nor in context of the greater conversation, though. We're talking about the standard practice of genital mutilation at birth, long before the patient has the wherewithal to give consent or even to realize there's a problem that might need medical attention.
Again, admitting that I lack the context from your previous discussion, it seemed like you were confusing the point of arguments that compare the two. I've mostly heard it in the moral context, so that's the angle I looked at the exchange from.
Yes, and I get the bodily autonomy argument, and I agree on that level, but I think it's where you start to see this grand difference in anti-circumcision arguments.
I think the reasonable part of the argument is like, respect bodily autonomy. I get that. But these fucking anti-circumcision activists, and literally 99% of them are guys who are worried about foreskins, will try to argue that penile circumcision is JUST AS BAD as vaginal circumcision. And that's what I'm reacting to. Poorly worded? Absolutely. Unclear? 100%. The problem is I have a History with some of these assholes so I already know where they're at and I'm meeting them on our previous battlefield, so I get how that can come off.
Like I have a dick, I don't have a vagina, but I know that my sexual enjoyment is diminished. To the level of your average recipient of vaginal circumcision? GOD NO. But then that's where these guys will pull out these insane studies about actually how people who have had their clitorises excised really don't mind it all that much and still feel sexual pleasure! While at the same time bemoaning the chitinous layer of skin on their glans like it's a missing limb or some shit.
It's a highly toxic community and I'm not part of it for myriad reasons. There's a main one though.
Yeah I feel that. I guess I've learned to mostly shrug at that as human nature. We seem predisposed to exaggerate the importance of our own experiences. I for one see more voices speaking out against male circumcision as a net positive all the same. Very few people are going to seriously reconsider their attitudes towards fgm based on the situation as you've described it. Most people already find it revolting, and the people who are likely to perpetrate it aren't going to be in a niche anti-circumcision community to begin with lol, so they're not going to be emboldened either.
But if the community makes enough noise, and the good arguments have a chance to shine without being knee-jerk belittled, then it seems like more people will become increasingly aware of the harms of male circumcision with relatively few downsides in terms of fgm.
I'm just thinking out loud now, but I almost see criticizing communities like that as punching down, or useless purity testing. Like, the people who end up there are wrestling with a feeling of loss and victimization. They are in a vulnerable state and looking for a way to have their feelings validated. Yeah that's sometimes going to happen in a problematic way, but they are all genuinely in pain and trying to use it to affect positive change. As long as they don't really have power such that their problematic trauma coping is going to reduce efforts to combat fgm, I don't see the point in policing how they rationalize their personal motivations for being a part of the anti-circumcision movement, if it can be called as much.
I feel like as a member of the community (at least as someone who has had a deep circumcision and is undoing its effects) that I retain rights to criticize it. I mean maybe I'm not a member because I refuse to take part in their weird misogyny and Islamophobia and shit, but I think that their attempts to compare penile to vaginal circumcision in terms of pain is such a bad move. The point is to talk about bodily autonomy and argue from that position.
Honestly I wish I could go back to this morning before I knew about misogyny and islamaphobia in the circumcision restoring community. I just now paid enough attention to the original community you referenced and realized that you're conflating the restoration community with antii-circumcision activists in general.
I'm rubbed the wrong way (heh) by your depiction of the WORST elements of a super niche community as being indicative of circumcision activists in general. Your entire post seems drastically more harmful than helpful in retrospect. Smearing an entire group of people who are morally in the right, (automatic circumcision IS bull shit, as we agree) by likening them to sexual predators (to be clear, I see the act described in the OP as potentially predatory or abusive, not restoring in general) or people who are, quite frankly, not mentally well, is a pretty shitty thing to do.
Like, I learned what I responded with from people who probably consider themselves anti-circumcision activists. They're smart, reasonable, and caring people who are doing good in the world by spreading awareness. Based on their help educating me on the issue, I won't circumcise my kids should the choice arise. I recommend the same to my friends and family when the serious discussion of children comes up. I'm a cut man myself (likely have reduced sensitivity but that's besides the point) and my family comes from a Jewish background, so I probably would have maimed my kid for no good reason had it never been explained to me. Yet here you are, trying to tar and feather them in a public forum because of the toxic culture in a men's issue reddit community. It seems so unnecessary, I guess? And probably turning off a bunch of people who don't know much about the issue from taking it seriously if someone tries to educate them in the future.
I don't know. I've already spent too much time and energy on this today. I hope you take my comments as critical support. No hard feelings or anything like that. It seems like we're on the same page as far as ethical assessment of the big issues go, I just find this post to be in extremely poor taste and likely a net harm. But what the fuck do I know - shrugs-. I'm just some schmuck on the internet. (last dick pun I promise)
There's a lot of overlap with the restoration community and anti-circumcision activists, who call themselves uh intactivists. And there's definitely people in that space doing good work but from my time as an uh intactivist there were a lot of daddy issues and shit And there were some guys who were really excited to show you their dicks without asking. Obviously they're in the right but it's a mess, man. Not a fun group.
And again they're doing this shit to themselves and discrediting themselves. I am not the asshole for pointing out what they do.
Fuckin wild my man. I absolutely believe you, and again I wish I could have skipped this thread in the morning. I'm too online if I had to learn about this today.
Hey at least you didn't learn about Tubgirl today
Yeah you right. Gonna save that one for tomorrow. Good vibes only comrade.
I'm not claiming you're sexist. I'm observing your sexism. Claiming that categorically identical brutality against one sex is better than another.
And that's a hell of a chud argument again. "lol the fact that you're arguing with me is proof that you're wrong"
Are you mad about the woman Ghostbusters still
All ghostbuster movies are capitalist propaganda against the necroproletariat