• voltaric@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months 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
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months 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
        0
        ·
        4 months 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.

      • iaMLoWiQ@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months 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.

    • CaptainEffort@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months 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
        0
        ·
        4 months 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
          1
          ·
          4 months 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.