Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TSRUsername99)
    Potential health benefits of fgm.
    The NHS website and World health organisation (WHO) have both stated that there aren't any benefits to FGM. I don't know of any studies conducted on FGM about benefits..

    It shouldn't be painful, if it is then it's time to visit the GP.
    And if it reoccurs after treatment, a circumcised is advised.

    With my eyes?
    What does a 'disgusting' vagina look like?

    A dirty vagina is a hygiene issue but a dirty penis is a foreskin issue?
    A painful infection is a foreskin issue yes, which is why men with persistent balantis may opt for circumcision.

    Is removing the clitoris the only type of fgm that's illegal? What about labia removal?
    What is the benefit of a labia removal though?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    So, to clarify, do you think that the negligable (and contested) health benefits justify non-essential circumcision - especially considering the risks; death, infection, disfigurement, reduced sensitivity, post-op discomfort and psychological issues. And the ethical issue - mutilating the genitals of an infant!
    The death/disfigurement and infection argument is weak, because complications can occur from all procedures, no matter how minor. When performed correctly, there is a very slim chance of a serious complication arising, especially in today's society, so this argument wouldn't be a deciding factor for me. Like I said before, I would probably allow my partner to make the decision, because I wouldn't care if my son is circumcised or not. I just don't see it as a big issue at all, but that's just me..
    Reduced sensitivity is a subjective one. Nobody can know for certain whether circumcision will definitely result in reduced sensitivity. There have been studies conducted and the findings cannot necessarily be relied on because of the subjectivity.
    Moreover, the STI argument is a red herring, because people engaging in sex with partners with unknown sexual history must use condoms - thus rendering any marginal risk reduction of circumcision meaningless. In fact, the commonly used claim that circumcision reduces the risk of contracting STIs could well lead to circumcised men not using a condom - which would far outweigh any negligable risk reduction.
    I know this, which is why I didn't mention anything about STDs.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    And if it reoccurs after treatment, a circumcised is advised.

    A painful infection is a foreskin issue yes, which is why men with persistent balantis may opt for circumcision.
    These are medical conditions requiring circumcision, so not relevant to the discussion.

    We are talking about routine, non-medical circumcision, performed for religious or cultural reasons.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    The death/disfigurement and infection argument is weak, because complications can occur from all procedures, no matter how minor. When performed correctly, there is a very slim chance of a serious complication arising, especially in today's society, so this argument wouldn't be a deciding factor for me. Like I said before, I would probably allow my partner to make the decision, because I wouldn't care if my son is circumcised or not. I just don't see it as a big issue at all, but that's just me..
    Reduced sensitivity is a subjective one. Nobody can know for certain whether circumcision will definitely result in reduced sensitivity. There have been studies conducted and the findings cannot necessarily be relied on because of the subjectivity.
    The point is: the risk is still there so why risk the life of your beloved son simply to carry out a procedure that is completely unnecessary?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    The NHS website and World health organisation (WHO) have both stated that there aren't any benefits to FGM. I don't know of any studies conducted on FGM about benefits..
    So we may just not have looked hard enough?

    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    And if it reoccurs after treatment, a circumcised is advised.
    A bit like tonsillitis then.

    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    What does a 'disgusting' vagina look like?
    Full of grumphies.

    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    What is the benefit of a labia removal though?
    Well it would make it easier to clean for one. One of the main arguments put forward for male circumcision. Maybe it could reduce the chances of developing vaginal cancer, reduce incidence of UTIs?
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    The death/disfigurement and infection argument is weak, because complications can occur from all procedures, no matter how minor. When performed correctly, there is a very slim chance of a serious complication arising, especially in today's society, so this argument wouldn't be a deciding factor for me.
    So if the statistical incidence of an outcome is negligible, you would not consider it as a good reason for influencing your decision.

    Like the health benifits then?

    Like I said before, I would probably allow my partner to make the decision, because I wouldn't care if my son is circumcised or not. I just don't see it as a big issue at all, but that's just me..
    I find it somewhat disturbing that you wouldn't care if your child was subjected to an unnecessary surgical procedure, or not. Are there any other unnecessary injuries that you wouldn't bother to attempt to stop your child from suffering?

    Reduced sensitivity is a subjective one. Nobody can know for certain whether circumcision will definitely result in reduced sensitivity. There have been studies conducted and the findings cannot necessarily be relied on because of the subjectivity.
    On the odd occasion where my helmet has popped out in my pants, the discomfort has been almost unbearable. To be able to function normally, the sensitivity must be reduced. Hardly rocket science.

    I know this, which is why I didn't mention anything about STDs.
    Sorry, that was someone else. You mentioned UTIs. To quote a paper in the BMJ...
    "the most frequently cited benefit of circumcision is a reduced incidence of UTI"
    "Assuming equal utility of benefits and harms, net clinical benefit is likely only in boys at high risk of UTI."
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    On the odd occasion where my helmet has popped out in my pants, the discomfort has been almost unbearable. To be able to function normally, the sensitivity must be reduced. Hardly rocket science.
    You just triggered me!!1!!

    Flash back to my several weeks of walking like i'd **** myself whilst waiting for my helmet to desensitise after circumcision.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Legendary Quest)
    The point is: the risk is still there so why risk the life of your beloved son simply to carry out a procedure that is completely unnecessary?
    The risk of UTIs/penile cancer/foreskin related conditions such as balantis are also there so why risk the health and well being of your beloved son?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    On the odd occasion where my helmet has popped out in my pants, the discomfort has been almost unbearable. To be able to function normally, the sensitivity must be reduced. Hardly rocket science.
    (Original post by TSRUsername99)
    You just triggered me!!1!!

    Flash back to my several weeks of walking like i'd **** myself whilst waiting for my helmet to desensitise after circumcision.
    Pretty much this. We know how sensitive that area is because of this fact. How these circumcized guys who "haven't lost any sensitivity" aren't walking around in a constant state of agitation I will never know... Things would HAVE be less sensitive down there.

    Masturbation must be a pain in the ass, too. They gotta use lube.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    The risk of UTIs/penile cancer/foreskin related conditions such as balantis are also there so why risk the health and well being of your beloved son?
    And then there are the risks associated with circumcision. For instance, increased risk of injury to the penis, irritation of the glans, risk of bleeding and infection, etc... As several people have mentioned numerous times, the 'benefits' are minimal and does not justify a young child being mutilated.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    Masturbation must be a pain in the ass
    Mix me a metaphor, and make it a strong one!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    I'm not implying that -- that's exactly what I've said. 'It has health benefits because I said it has health benefits' is no better an argument than 'Santa exists because I said he exists.' If that wasn't an accident, then I do worry that much of your time in D&CA is wasted by definition.
    I think she was saying, it objectively has health benefits.
    Santa is not even real how can you compare?

    (Original post by QE2)
    So, to clarify, do you think that the negligable (and contested) health benefits justify non-essential circumcision - especially considering the risks; death, infection, disfigurement, reduced sensitivity, post-op discomfort and psychological issues. And the ethical issue - mutilating the genitals of an infant!

    Moreover, the STI argument is a red herring, because people engaging in sex with partners with unknown sexual history must use condoms - thus rendering any marginal risk reduction of circumcision meaningless. In fact, the commonly used claim that circumcision reduces the risk of contracting STIs could well lead to circumcised men not using a condom - which would far outweigh any negligable risk reduction.
    bolded: studies have shown otherwise lol.

    "psychological issues" well that's subjective, also let's look up how many circumcised men have psych issues because they don't have their foreskin anymore and are sad about it lol



    (Original post by Legendary Quest)
    The point is: the risk is still there so why risk the life of your beloved son simply to carry out a procedure that is completely unnecessary?
    lol are you kidding "risk the life" I know that you've seen stats posted about the death rate if not on this thread, others, it's something like 0-2% fgs, stop making bullsh1t arguments.
    even crossing the road has a death risk.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Its not subjective that breasts form from puberty and continue to develop. It's not subjective that a teenage girl undergoing a double masectomy would take around 4-6weeks to heal. It's not subjective that male circumcision in newborns would take around 5-10days to heal.
    It is subjective that I don't view circumcision to be some kind of horrific procedure. That's my opinion. Just like you have your opinion..

    I've clearly explained why I don't view FGM as equivalent to circumcision. I'm not repeating myself.
    ...are you kidding? are you actually not aware of the stupidity of your message?
    you're saying that it's not subjective that it's a certain time that it takes to heal but the TIME ITSELF IS THE SUBJECTIVE PART ALTOGETHER -_- the objective part is the PAIN. and the lack of consent! jesus christ.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alkaline.)
    lol are you kidding "risk the life" I know that you've seen stats posted about the death rate if not on this thread, others, it's something like 0-2% fgs, stop making bullsh1t arguments.
    even crossing the road has a death risk.
    Because crossing the road is the same as cutting off part of a human being's body. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    ...are you kidding? are you actually not aware of the stupidity of your message?
    you're saying that it's not subjective that it's a certain time that it takes to heal but the TIME ITSELF IS THE SUBJECTIVE PART ALTOGETHER -_- the objective part is the PAIN. and the lack of consent! jesus christ.
    pain is subjective bc pain tolerance.


    (Original post by Legendary Quest)
    Because crossing the road is the same as cutting off part of a human being's body. :rolleyes:

    okay well it's not, but I'm not saying it is. I'm saying your point is stupid because the death rate is so tiny and there are loads of procedures with way higher death rates.

    Ethics argument is valid but that's not the point you were making in that, so don't bring that up now when I was talking about death rate.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    btw are you and loveleest the same person?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alkaline.)
    okay well it's not, but I'm not saying it is. I'm saying your point is stupid because the death rate is so tiny and there are loads of procedures with way higher death rates.

    Ethics argument is valid but that's not the point you were making in that, so don't bring that up now when I was talking about death rate.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    btw are you and loveleest the same person?
    Do you support circumcision?
    Spoiler:
    Show
    No..
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alkaline.)
    bolded: studies have shown otherwise lol.
    Got some links?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TSRUsername99)
    Got some links?
    earlier on this thread.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...1#post64259961

    "" However, it has been shown that there is no difference between circumcised and uncircumcised men in their ability to sense extroceptive and tactile stimuli on the ventral and dorsal surfaces of the glans.[3] This definitely counters the idea of loss of penile sensation.""
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alkaline.)
    earlier on this thread.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...1#post64259961

    "" However, it has been shown that there is no difference between circumcised and uncircumcised men in their ability to sense extroceptive and tactile stimuli on the ventral and dorsal surfaces of the glans.[3] This definitely counters the idea of loss of penile sensation.""
    That references some book from 1966 for that. Plenty more recent studies showing the opposite. Having experienced it i'm calling ******** on anything that claims no change in sensitivity.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I've noticed whenever this discussion comes up, most of the people defending circumcision and saying "it doesn't decrease sensitivity!" are circumcised guys. You're in denial, dudes. I'm sorry your foreskin was taken from you. It's not your fault. It's okay. But you probably have lost some sensitivity. The fact that you aren't walking around all day making faces and grabbing at your groin trying to re-adjust suggests you're somewhat less sensitive down there than the rest of us. An exposed, uncircumcised helmet rubbing up against boxers is damn irritating. Even the air on it tickles.

    Stop citing these 'studies' by circumcised Jewish doctors also in denial and move on to the acceptance phase.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.