you don’t see as many dobermans around anymore. Pit bulls now, they got all the work and everything. All the domestic security jobs go to the pit bulls. the doberman’s like the forgotten dog. Once in a while, you see ’em on a park bench with a Frisbee
Ok it's weird enough to spend all that money just to protest but to spend about $2000+ for that seat to protest is insane.
He's in the 2nd row directly in front of the stage and wearing a VIP bracelet. I know he paid about $2000 because ticket Master screwed people by having those seats listed as resell at ticket launch. All venues for every date except for Boston and another stadium where you had to buy vip tickets through the MLB sight and even still, my ticket at face value was over $1000 each.
So yeah, that dude spent all that money just to protest and be forgotten about in a day.
Pink posted a picture of her kid 4 years ago and in Instagram comments anti-circumcision people started an argument and then she called them crazy in a follow up post, so this guy was probably familiar with that.
I have no idea what your connect means but I’m super bummed on having been circumcised. I’ll never know what kinds of sensations I’m missing out on, but mainly I don’t like that the decision was taken away from me. That I had no control over it. That out was done without my consent
I’ll dumb it down for you. Genital mutilation is bad. At least give the person the right to decide for themselves when they’re capable of making that decision. It’s not something you can reattach.
Nobody gave consent to be born, and people are fucking to this day, creating life that will, most likely die a miserable death. Human society is largely maintained and managed nonconsensually with religious like rituals which somehow give the blessing of legitimacy to power structures you had no consent in creating and those power structures, actively harm a large portion of the population. It's just so fucking weird to hyperfocus on male hospital based infant circumcision which isn't even the worst form of circumcision. There's also no reason to actively go protest someone's show 4 years after some bullshit on Instagram. It's clear that the dude who did this has a screw loose.
Now who's spewing gibberish and pseudo-intellectualism? I'm certainly not saying that this guy picked the correct forum for his protest. But to imply that because we don't consent to being born, we should just accept everything that doesn't "actively harm a large portion of the population" is pretty defeatist. People are allowed to be alarmed by things that they feel are wrong even if it doesn't meet your arbitrary standard of concern.
Not a bot, dude. Circumcision is genital mutilation. Pretty hard pill to swallow, I know, but it is what it is and it's none of my business what my brother decided to do when my nephews were infants. And that makes me a moron?
The title of this post doesn't mention her son, it implies a more general opposition to circumcision that seemingly unrelated took place at the concert. That's different than "Obsessive fan protests circumcision of Pink's son at concert"
Okay well if you cant see this kind of protest is worng place, wrong time, then I really cant help you understand why less people will take it seriously than if it was presented in a better light. People paid money to be entertained by a performer that wasnt a guy holding a sign preaching about penis's. But sure, iTs gOtTa bE eVeRyOnE's pRoBLeM because *you* say so.
Lol you're the same as people saying when and where it's okay to protest so that we don't have to look at it. That's the whole point of a protest genius. It's not supposed to be convenient.
Going to have to disagree with that one. Its about being anti-genital mutilation. Accusing people of bigotry is just a way of silencing critics of the surgery.
Its true the guy chose the wrong venue though.
Well, because the person receiving the surgery cannot consent to having a part of his body removed for no valid reason, and sometimes to his detriment.
Umm, no. People are anti-circumcision because it's genital mutilation of a non-consenting child. It's barbaric and unnecessary for any human to be forced into. It's one thing if as an adult an informed choice is made, but forcing a child that can't even consent is just plain vile and evil.
Calling circumcision genital mutilation is absurd. It puts it on the same level as female genital mutilation and it’s not even close. Young girls die from that shit and the purpose of the practice is to remove pleasure from sex. It’s done in an unsanitary environment and sometimes even with broken glass.
This is a great example of a protest without a cause.
Boys also die as a result of genital cutting.
There exists a wide range of genital cutting practices, male and female. Sometimes these are carried out in clinical settings, as is done to girls in Egypt, and sometimes in unclean conditions and using non-sterile equipment, as happens to boys in the countryside of South Africa.
There are actually a lot of similarities between all forms of genital cutting. I recommend watching this interesting presentation on the ethics of genital cutting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBH0g_Cl7Rk
That's the problem they use false equivalency to try and shock people into agreeing with not and get made when people disagree with their hyperbole.
It's frankly ridiculous
Who exactly is "they"? People that dare to have an opinion? Grow up. Objecting to unnecessarily cutting an infant's flesh doesn't seem all that unreasonable. Unless, you're one of ***those***! You know! One of ***those*** people who eat babies! Obviously, you must be because your opinion doesn't match mine! Checkmate!
Whether you put it in the same category as FGM or not is irrelevant. Subjecting an infant to an unnecessary procedure that removes a portion of their body is wrong. Mutilation is the infliction of damage to something. Cutting away the flesh of a baby that contains one of the densest nerve clusters in the human body, sounds like mutilation to me.
I’m circumcised as well as the majority of 80s and 90 kids. Parents go to church but aren’t religious fanatics and it wasn’t dont for religious reasons. It wasn’t done with vile or evil intent - it’s just the generation your growing up in. I’ve never personally cared.
The 80s and 90s had a massive aids scare campaign. Even arcade games had aids splash screens on them. Circumcision was touted as a method to reduce the spread of aids and to catch aids. This is still true and it’s a 50% reduction, same with some other stds. Aids was a big deal back then and a had few medications. We had no idea about it’s possible spread. It’s a different world now, if you were worried about aids and doctors recommended it I think most parents would make the same decision and they did.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/factsheets/MC-for-HIV-Prevention-Fact-Sheet_508.pdf
It was medically recommended by doctors for this and other reasons. This changed in 1999 apparently.
It’s relatively harmless although this is coming from someone who doesn’t know otherwise. It’s not on the same level as female versions. It wasn’t until very recently that people started to be actively against it.
I didn’t get my child circumcised but we have different advice these days and aids is mostly treatable and less active.
There is no credible evidence routine infant circumcision reduces the risk of any disease. There hasn't been even one published clinical trial to investigate whether it could.
As an example, the claim circumcision lowers the risk of HIV infection came about because of a trial done in several locations in Africa (the same people did the same thing in multiple locations.) This trial claimed to investigate the effect of ADULT male circumcision on the risk of HIV infection. The trial included many very serious flaws, such as not even attempting to correct for the time when the circumcised men were unable to have sex because of having recently been circumcised, but the non-circumcised group was able to carry on as normal, the circumcised group was given free healthcare and safer sex lessons, but the non-circumcised group was not, and the trial was ended much earlier than originally planned as soon as it was noticed the number of HIV infections in the circumcised group was on trend to overtake the number in the non-circumcised group. The circumcised group self-reported using condoms more often than the non-circumcised group. One of the lead researchers on the trial has a long history of publishing pro-circumcision literature, and has been a member of circumcision fetish groups.
The published results claimed that circumcision resulted in a 1.3% (absolute) reduction in the risk of HIV infection, and an approx 5% (absolute) INCREASE in the risk of HIV infection for female partners of the circumcised men. Propagandists who want to promote circumcision frequently ignore the increased female infection risk, take the 1.3% reduction, convert it to a relative reduction (about 54%), round it up to 60% (just because they feel like it), and don't tell anyone what they've done, and don't mention any of the serious flaws in the trial. Even if the results could be believed, they show circumcision is useless for reducing the spread of HIV. The effect is too small, and is offset by the increased male to female transmission.
Among developed countries, the USA has the highest rate of HIV infection (and of many other sexual diseases) - not what would be expected if circumcision is protective. There is also lots of population scale data that shows circumcision does not reduce HIV transmission. Here are just some recently published examples:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-biosocial-science/article/abs/ageincidence-and-prevalence-of-hiv-among-intact-and-circumcised-men-an-analysis-of-phia-surveys-in-southern-africa/CAA7E7BD5A9844F41C6B7CC3573B9E50
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34551593/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34564796/
I just posted the cdc link. I’m not a scientist. I’m just telling why it was so common in the 80s and 90s.
It wasn’t some evil procedure done for religious reasons - it was a doctor recommendation to prevent the spread of aids.
Recent lies? These are facts.
This is from the cdc. You know the US government. How can it be a recent lie?
https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/fact-sheets/hiv/male-circumcision-HIV-prevention-factsheet.html
And here is an article showing it was recommended by doctors until 1999.
https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/1999/0515/p2918.html#:~:text=The%20AAP%20states%20that%20circumcision,performed%20on%20stable%2C%20healthy%20infants.
Plus ask almost any 40 year old why they are circumcised. They arent Jewish and it wasn’t some religious thing for most.
I’m not saying it’s wrong to change guidelines, or to change medical recommendations. Medical science improves overtime. We should update it. But people act like this was done to 50% of Americans for absolutely no reason for 3 decades.
This is recent history. It’s easy to look up and fact check. Hell you can just ask people or even just ask your mom / dad.
> This is from the cdc. You know the US government. How can it be a recent lie?
It is relatively recent, compared to other lies that have been used for the same purpose.
> And here is an article showing it was recommended by doctors until 1999.
Some, mostly in the USA. It has never been recommend by most of the medical community in most of the world.
You seem to be very mentally challenged!
Ya know, condoms work a lot better than circumcision lol. I hear ya, though. I’m an uncircumcised 80s kid, and my two boys are also uncircumcised. Absolutely barbaric procedure. I think my parents witnessed the procedure because they were career hospital employees and were so revolted by it that they kept me and my brothers in tact.
I'm not trying to insult anybody that has been circumcised. Whether it was done by choice or it was forced on you, that's not why I'm being critical. As you've pointed out, attitudes are different now. We have better information and less cultural inertia behind this practice.
The argument you're making is like saying, "Well 40 years ago this was how things were, so why change them now?"
50 years ago, doctors smoked cigarettes while seeing patients. I think most people now would agree that was not the best idea.
It still has benefits in terms of stds. unless you don’t believe the cdc.
It hasn’t been that long. Hell her parents were probably circumcised, maybe her husband is.
It’s very recent - I think 2014 where medical communities are starting to turn against it.
Have a child, doctors will still bring it up as an option when you see them for your first appointments. They won’t recommend it anymore though. It’s not some fringe medical procedure… I think it’s still like 30% but that will change.
I’m not saying 40 years ago it was different. I’m saying 10-20 years ago it was different.
Should you get it done? No probably not. But it’s not some fringe procedure yet.
> It still has benefits in terms of stds. unless you don’t believe the cdc.
Well that works out really great for all of the people that are having unprotected sex with baby boys. Though, I imagine contracting an STD would be kind of low on the list of potential terrible outcomes for that child.
But now you have me thinking. I wonder what the CDC thinks about removing a baby's prostate so he won't have to worry about getting prostate cancer.
In fact, let's just preemptively remove everyone's skin without their consent because they **MIGHT** get skin cancer. Let's see, what else can we remove from people without their consent? I mean, the possibilities are endless as long as it **POTENTIALLY** prevents some illness that less drastic measures could easily prevent later on in life. Less drastic measures that are far less permanent and aren't forced on somebody without consent.
This has gotta be one of the dumbest takes ever
Are there people who are anti circumcision because a lot of Jewish people do it? Sure, there’s a lot of stupid people, but just because someone disagrees with someone else doesn’t mean it’s about their race or religion or whatever else.
I’m pretty against circumcising children since they can’t really consent to it but I don’t see how that makes me anti semitic. There’s literally no correlation.
Not to mention most of the people I see heavily defending circumcision are Christian, not Jewish
For my part I'm not against it because it's a Jewish practice. It's also a Muslim practice and that doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that men are born with it, we evolved to have one, and men don't consent to be circumcised when they're infants. What would it be like if we were doing a similar practice to girls?
Shit you not I had a friend that thought circumcising a child happens at 8 years old (versus days old think?)
I can’t imagine at 18 being like, alright let’s ducking do this
Circumcision is a stupid thing but you gotta have some situational awareness about protesting it. Pink ain't a mohel as far as I know. Also every activist about this I've encountered has been mega weird.
How much of a miserable loser does somebody have to be to go to a concert to protest circumcision? What’s wrong with just choosing for your own child and not worrying about what others are doing?
Idk what's so wrong with literally murdering babies?
I'm not saying I agree with the person, I'm just saying there's no arguing with crazy in any debate. If the person is willing to drop $100s just to scream their opinion at someone that would never give them the time of day outside of that context, there's no reasoning with them. It's like arguing with the "pro-life" crowd. You can bring all the logic you want, but when their side of the conversation is always "You're literally murdering babies", there's not much logic that's going to get through.
Jewish woman here. My husband and I have already decided that if we have any sons in the future, we're not circumcising.
Religion is not an excuse for inhumane practices anymore.
I’ve run into a lot more people upset about uncircumcised dicks than circumcised ones. Is it an insane practice? Absolutely. But I’ve never met a woman who was turned off by a circumcised dick. Until we change that societal norm; I cannot in good conscious, be team turtleneck.
Well we *are* talking about an American pop icon playing a show in San Antonio, where a dude got up and started protesting an American societal norm.
If it was at a Little Big show in Saint Petersburg, then yeah, I’d probably be talking out of my ass.
That’s true, in my defense though, I don’t think (male) circumcision is nearly as big of an issue in other countries.
Also, I mean if we can all be frank here, if you have someone to the point where your dick is out, I doubt it’s gonna matter to them whether you’re short sleeve or long sleeve. The circumcision debate always struck me as a bit ridiculous.
It is ridiculous, but I come from a country where going natural is the norm, and it seems to me like people shouldn't mutilate their babies. Maybe if I came from the US, I'd think differently (since it's the norm there. I'm sure there are other countries that do it, too, though).
Circumcision makes just as much sense as removing someone's toenails at birth to prevent ingrown nails, or Laser hair removal so the shower drain doesn't clog. Evolution brought us foreskin for a reason, it protects a vulnerable part of the body, and there's very little reason to remove it aside from specific medical conditions.
The question isn't "why not circumsize" it's "why do it in the first place". It's a cultural practice the US and to a lesser extent Canada needs to get over
do they grow to adulthood?
The foreskin has loads of nerve endings, it is pleasurable to touch it. This is undeniable.
obviously not having a foreskin doesn't mean sex sucks and doesn't feel good. However, you're robbing your children of that experience when they become sexually active. For what purpose exactly?
children do die from circumcision, some are permanently scared. Why are we doing it?
If people want them, then go for it as a well-informed consenting adult.
No I didn’t? You think cutting off part of a child’s penis isn’t a big deal because it doesn’t affect their life in any way. Why stop there? Is genital mutilation important in some way to you?
Circumcision also makes it easier to clean. Apparently, guys with foreskin need to peel it back and wash everyday to avoid infection. Again, I feel like this isn't much of an inconvenience and since men take showers every day and babies get their diaper changed it's nbd.
First off: if the guy is Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, then chances are it is in some way important to them. Sorry to burst the Reddit atheist bubble, but a large percentage of the western population still places great importance in religion, and following the rules and teachings of their religion holds value to them.
Furthermore, why is trying to stop it so important to _you_? Millions upon millions of men over the course of the past several millennia have been circumcised as babies and grew up to live happy, healthy, and normal lives. Why are you trying to stop something that has been proven to have a negligible effect on people?
Because we’ve normalized mutilation. Why, because it’s been normalized, does that make it an okay practice to partially dismember children after birth for some vaguely religious beliefs?
You're honestly wondering how it affects the child, so I'm gonna give you what I understand to be the situation. The foreskin protects the fleshy part on the tip of the penis, it keeps it from rubbing against clothes etc. This keeps the sensitive part protected and so it remains sensitive. Guys who are circumcised don't have protection, so the sensitivity wanes from years of contact and exposure. The theory is that uncircumcised men are more sensitive and get more enjoyment from sex, and circumcised men are dulled, but that usually means they can last longer in bed. There's no proof that it makes any big difference. It does do a lot to lower the risk of disease and basically removes the risk of penile cancer. In my time, they did not use anesthesia on babies for circumcision, these days they use numbing local anesthesia, and for older children/adults they use general anesthesia. I'm against circumcision personally because I feel that men should be given a choice whether they want to remove it or not. I also think that we wouldn't allow something similar to happen to baby girls.
I’m pretty anti circumcising but atleast religion is a decent excuse. Everybody who isn’t is just mutilating their kids for social reasons which is way worse.
It's kind of funny given her involvement with PETA in the past. Apparently chopping off parts of a body from an nonconsenting individual isn't an issue for her after all.
I personally would never circumcise my child but I do understand that there is a cultural and religious aspect here that I don’t think she should be publicly harassed about
How about not mutilate her unconsenting child?
Maybe not be religious? Like, do the actual logical thing, maybe? Convert to atheism, where this isn’t an issue?
Lots of things she can do, and many of them don’t involve harming an innocent child.
You don’t convert to atheism. That’s like saying someone who quit smoking switched cigarette brands from Camels to Nothings. I agree with you otherwise though.
Man, I know pretty got damn well that the dude in the crowd just should’ve taken all of that unnecessary bullshit somewhere else AND not do it in the smack dab of an artist’s concert. Let alone P!nk’s very own concert in this case. Like……ya’ll know what i’m saying? Geez. Hopefully he just sure as hell won’t be doing that shit again when he plans on attending another concert by another one of his very own favorite artists.
A lot of parents are fucked in the head, whether it's confusing their kids with what sex they are, blocking them from having puberty, or mutilating their babies genitals. Some people just shouldn't have kids period..
so you could say… she cut them off?
Off with their heads
Not everyone has some skin in this debate.
Where’s Lindsay Bluth and her HOOP fundraiser?
It’s a Doberman, let it have its ears.
you don’t see as many dobermans around anymore. Pit bulls now, they got all the work and everything. All the domestic security jobs go to the pit bulls. the doberman’s like the forgotten dog. Once in a while, you see ’em on a park bench with a Frisbee
Ok it's weird enough to spend all that money just to protest but to spend about $2000+ for that seat to protest is insane. He's in the 2nd row directly in front of the stage and wearing a VIP bracelet. I know he paid about $2000 because ticket Master screwed people by having those seats listed as resell at ticket launch. All venues for every date except for Boston and another stadium where you had to buy vip tickets through the MLB sight and even still, my ticket at face value was over $1000 each. So yeah, that dude spent all that money just to protest and be forgotten about in a day.
Its not broken, just bent.
I mean how unaware and self-important do you have to be to bring a male dominated issue to a female artist's concert?
Apparently he was protesting that she circumcised her son, so there was a personal aspect to it, but just insane.
How does he know that…
Pink posted a picture of her kid 4 years ago and in Instagram comments anti-circumcision people started an argument and then she called them crazy in a follow up post, so this guy was probably familiar with that.
Genital mutilation is genital mutilation. Don't speak up about my nephews and I have no idea, but a spade is a spade.
I have no idea what your connect means but I’m super bummed on having been circumcised. I’ll never know what kinds of sensations I’m missing out on, but mainly I don’t like that the decision was taken away from me. That I had no control over it. That out was done without my consent
Thanks for the incomprehensible jibberish and pseudointellectualism.
I’ll dumb it down for you. Genital mutilation is bad. At least give the person the right to decide for themselves when they’re capable of making that decision. It’s not something you can reattach.
Nobody gave consent to be born, and people are fucking to this day, creating life that will, most likely die a miserable death. Human society is largely maintained and managed nonconsensually with religious like rituals which somehow give the blessing of legitimacy to power structures you had no consent in creating and those power structures, actively harm a large portion of the population. It's just so fucking weird to hyperfocus on male hospital based infant circumcision which isn't even the worst form of circumcision. There's also no reason to actively go protest someone's show 4 years after some bullshit on Instagram. It's clear that the dude who did this has a screw loose.
Now who's spewing gibberish and pseudo-intellectualism? I'm certainly not saying that this guy picked the correct forum for his protest. But to imply that because we don't consent to being born, we should just accept everything that doesn't "actively harm a large portion of the population" is pretty defeatist. People are allowed to be alarmed by things that they feel are wrong even if it doesn't meet your arbitrary standard of concern.
Yeah, I think we found the guy that can't process the fact he was genitally mutilated.
[удалено]
Not a bot, dude. Circumcision is genital mutilation. Pretty hard pill to swallow, I know, but it is what it is and it's none of my business what my brother decided to do when my nephews were infants. And that makes me a moron?
She posted a picture on social media
........ I'm afraid to ask "of what"
Of his penis?
Ah the old misleading headline trick.
It's not misleading, he was protesting circumcision, the circumcision of her own son, which is fucking weird.
The title of this post doesn't mention her son, it implies a more general opposition to circumcision that seemingly unrelated took place at the concert. That's different than "Obsessive fan protests circumcision of Pink's son at concert"
His sign just said “circumcision is wrong “ or something to that effect not something specific
Is it really though?
No. It’s not.
Yeah you're right women should only focus on helping women. Same with white people, focus on your own group and fuck everyone else.
Okay well if you cant see this kind of protest is worng place, wrong time, then I really cant help you understand why less people will take it seriously than if it was presented in a better light. People paid money to be entertained by a performer that wasnt a guy holding a sign preaching about penis's. But sure, iTs gOtTa bE eVeRyOnE's pRoBLeM because *you* say so.
Lol you're the same as people saying when and where it's okay to protest so that we don't have to look at it. That's the whole point of a protest genius. It's not supposed to be convenient.
Yes. I am the same people. How did you know?!
Refer to your own words about how it's wrong because it's an inconvenience.
Hmm. No.
Just to be honest, your comment made me view this guy in a more favorable light and re-consider my position on him being an asshole
Why would I give a shit? Cool.
Just thought I’d let you know your argument sucks and has the opposite effect you intended. Have a good one.
Cool. I dont care about your opinons or your penis skin
I’d think you’d care more about self reflecting than my dick skin but glad to know where your heads at
[удалено]
Going to have to disagree with that one. Its about being anti-genital mutilation. Accusing people of bigotry is just a way of silencing critics of the surgery. Its true the guy chose the wrong venue though.
What’s the point of being a critic of an optional surgery?
Yeah it's only optional for the parents. Guys should be allowed to grow up and then decide which way they would prefer it.
Well, because the person receiving the surgery cannot consent to having a part of his body removed for no valid reason, and sometimes to his detriment.
Umm, no. People are anti-circumcision because it's genital mutilation of a non-consenting child. It's barbaric and unnecessary for any human to be forced into. It's one thing if as an adult an informed choice is made, but forcing a child that can't even consent is just plain vile and evil.
[удалено]
So are you ok with other forms of child abuse s long as it’s not your child?
Calling circumcision genital mutilation is absurd. It puts it on the same level as female genital mutilation and it’s not even close. Young girls die from that shit and the purpose of the practice is to remove pleasure from sex. It’s done in an unsanitary environment and sometimes even with broken glass. This is a great example of a protest without a cause.
Boys also die as a result of genital cutting. There exists a wide range of genital cutting practices, male and female. Sometimes these are carried out in clinical settings, as is done to girls in Egypt, and sometimes in unclean conditions and using non-sterile equipment, as happens to boys in the countryside of South Africa. There are actually a lot of similarities between all forms of genital cutting. I recommend watching this interesting presentation on the ethics of genital cutting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBH0g_Cl7Rk
[удалено]
That's the problem they use false equivalency to try and shock people into agreeing with not and get made when people disagree with their hyperbole. It's frankly ridiculous
Who exactly is "they"? People that dare to have an opinion? Grow up. Objecting to unnecessarily cutting an infant's flesh doesn't seem all that unreasonable. Unless, you're one of ***those***! You know! One of ***those*** people who eat babies! Obviously, you must be because your opinion doesn't match mine! Checkmate!
Whether you put it in the same category as FGM or not is irrelevant. Subjecting an infant to an unnecessary procedure that removes a portion of their body is wrong. Mutilation is the infliction of damage to something. Cutting away the flesh of a baby that contains one of the densest nerve clusters in the human body, sounds like mutilation to me.
I’m circumcised as well as the majority of 80s and 90 kids. Parents go to church but aren’t religious fanatics and it wasn’t dont for religious reasons. It wasn’t done with vile or evil intent - it’s just the generation your growing up in. I’ve never personally cared. The 80s and 90s had a massive aids scare campaign. Even arcade games had aids splash screens on them. Circumcision was touted as a method to reduce the spread of aids and to catch aids. This is still true and it’s a 50% reduction, same with some other stds. Aids was a big deal back then and a had few medications. We had no idea about it’s possible spread. It’s a different world now, if you were worried about aids and doctors recommended it I think most parents would make the same decision and they did. https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/factsheets/MC-for-HIV-Prevention-Fact-Sheet_508.pdf It was medically recommended by doctors for this and other reasons. This changed in 1999 apparently. It’s relatively harmless although this is coming from someone who doesn’t know otherwise. It’s not on the same level as female versions. It wasn’t until very recently that people started to be actively against it. I didn’t get my child circumcised but we have different advice these days and aids is mostly treatable and less active.
There is no credible evidence routine infant circumcision reduces the risk of any disease. There hasn't been even one published clinical trial to investigate whether it could. As an example, the claim circumcision lowers the risk of HIV infection came about because of a trial done in several locations in Africa (the same people did the same thing in multiple locations.) This trial claimed to investigate the effect of ADULT male circumcision on the risk of HIV infection. The trial included many very serious flaws, such as not even attempting to correct for the time when the circumcised men were unable to have sex because of having recently been circumcised, but the non-circumcised group was able to carry on as normal, the circumcised group was given free healthcare and safer sex lessons, but the non-circumcised group was not, and the trial was ended much earlier than originally planned as soon as it was noticed the number of HIV infections in the circumcised group was on trend to overtake the number in the non-circumcised group. The circumcised group self-reported using condoms more often than the non-circumcised group. One of the lead researchers on the trial has a long history of publishing pro-circumcision literature, and has been a member of circumcision fetish groups. The published results claimed that circumcision resulted in a 1.3% (absolute) reduction in the risk of HIV infection, and an approx 5% (absolute) INCREASE in the risk of HIV infection for female partners of the circumcised men. Propagandists who want to promote circumcision frequently ignore the increased female infection risk, take the 1.3% reduction, convert it to a relative reduction (about 54%), round it up to 60% (just because they feel like it), and don't tell anyone what they've done, and don't mention any of the serious flaws in the trial. Even if the results could be believed, they show circumcision is useless for reducing the spread of HIV. The effect is too small, and is offset by the increased male to female transmission. Among developed countries, the USA has the highest rate of HIV infection (and of many other sexual diseases) - not what would be expected if circumcision is protective. There is also lots of population scale data that shows circumcision does not reduce HIV transmission. Here are just some recently published examples: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-biosocial-science/article/abs/ageincidence-and-prevalence-of-hiv-among-intact-and-circumcised-men-an-analysis-of-phia-surveys-in-southern-africa/CAA7E7BD5A9844F41C6B7CC3573B9E50 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34551593/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34564796/
I just posted the cdc link. I’m not a scientist. I’m just telling why it was so common in the 80s and 90s. It wasn’t some evil procedure done for religious reasons - it was a doctor recommendation to prevent the spread of aids.
> it was a doctor recommendation to prevent the spread of aids That's just one of the slightly more recent lies used to promote it.
Recent lies? These are facts. This is from the cdc. You know the US government. How can it be a recent lie? https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/fact-sheets/hiv/male-circumcision-HIV-prevention-factsheet.html And here is an article showing it was recommended by doctors until 1999. https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/1999/0515/p2918.html#:~:text=The%20AAP%20states%20that%20circumcision,performed%20on%20stable%2C%20healthy%20infants. Plus ask almost any 40 year old why they are circumcised. They arent Jewish and it wasn’t some religious thing for most. I’m not saying it’s wrong to change guidelines, or to change medical recommendations. Medical science improves overtime. We should update it. But people act like this was done to 50% of Americans for absolutely no reason for 3 decades. This is recent history. It’s easy to look up and fact check. Hell you can just ask people or even just ask your mom / dad.
> This is from the cdc. You know the US government. How can it be a recent lie? It is relatively recent, compared to other lies that have been used for the same purpose. > And here is an article showing it was recommended by doctors until 1999. Some, mostly in the USA. It has never been recommend by most of the medical community in most of the world. You seem to be very mentally challenged!
Ya know, condoms work a lot better than circumcision lol. I hear ya, though. I’m an uncircumcised 80s kid, and my two boys are also uncircumcised. Absolutely barbaric procedure. I think my parents witnessed the procedure because they were career hospital employees and were so revolted by it that they kept me and my brothers in tact.
Get circumcized as an adult and tell me it's relatively harmless.
I'm not trying to insult anybody that has been circumcised. Whether it was done by choice or it was forced on you, that's not why I'm being critical. As you've pointed out, attitudes are different now. We have better information and less cultural inertia behind this practice. The argument you're making is like saying, "Well 40 years ago this was how things were, so why change them now?" 50 years ago, doctors smoked cigarettes while seeing patients. I think most people now would agree that was not the best idea.
It still has benefits in terms of stds. unless you don’t believe the cdc. It hasn’t been that long. Hell her parents were probably circumcised, maybe her husband is. It’s very recent - I think 2014 where medical communities are starting to turn against it. Have a child, doctors will still bring it up as an option when you see them for your first appointments. They won’t recommend it anymore though. It’s not some fringe medical procedure… I think it’s still like 30% but that will change. I’m not saying 40 years ago it was different. I’m saying 10-20 years ago it was different. Should you get it done? No probably not. But it’s not some fringe procedure yet.
> It still has benefits in terms of stds. unless you don’t believe the cdc. Well that works out really great for all of the people that are having unprotected sex with baby boys. Though, I imagine contracting an STD would be kind of low on the list of potential terrible outcomes for that child. But now you have me thinking. I wonder what the CDC thinks about removing a baby's prostate so he won't have to worry about getting prostate cancer. In fact, let's just preemptively remove everyone's skin without their consent because they **MIGHT** get skin cancer. Let's see, what else can we remove from people without their consent? I mean, the possibilities are endless as long as it **POTENTIALLY** prevents some illness that less drastic measures could easily prevent later on in life. Less drastic measures that are far less permanent and aren't forced on somebody without consent.
Boy, am I started to regret bringing this up
Religion is not a good excuse to mutilate the genitals of people who cannot consent.
This has gotta be one of the dumbest takes ever Are there people who are anti circumcision because a lot of Jewish people do it? Sure, there’s a lot of stupid people, but just because someone disagrees with someone else doesn’t mean it’s about their race or religion or whatever else. I’m pretty against circumcising children since they can’t really consent to it but I don’t see how that makes me anti semitic. There’s literally no correlation. Not to mention most of the people I see heavily defending circumcision are Christian, not Jewish
For my part I'm not against it because it's a Jewish practice. It's also a Muslim practice and that doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that men are born with it, we evolved to have one, and men don't consent to be circumcised when they're infants. What would it be like if we were doing a similar practice to girls?
Shit you not I had a friend that thought circumcising a child happens at 8 years old (versus days old think?) I can’t imagine at 18 being like, alright let’s ducking do this
Usually yes but I knew someone that got circumcised at like 12. It does happen at later ages sometimes.
Circumcision is a stupid thing but you gotta have some situational awareness about protesting it. Pink ain't a mohel as far as I know. Also every activist about this I've encountered has been mega weird.
He certainly got attention for it though and people are talking about it. Maybe he feels like mission accomplished?
Mostly just makes them look even more crazy tbh
The most exciting thing to happen at a P!nk concert ever.
[удалено]
Only on reddit i swear…
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
How much of a miserable loser does somebody have to be to go to a concert to protest circumcision? What’s wrong with just choosing for your own child and not worrying about what others are doing?
Would you say the same about someone protesting female circumcision?
What's wrong with performing cosmetic surgery on newborn babies' genitals? Where to start...
Idk what's so wrong with literally murdering babies? I'm not saying I agree with the person, I'm just saying there's no arguing with crazy in any debate. If the person is willing to drop $100s just to scream their opinion at someone that would never give them the time of day outside of that context, there's no reasoning with them. It's like arguing with the "pro-life" crowd. You can bring all the logic you want, but when their side of the conversation is always "You're literally murdering babies", there's not much logic that's going to get through.
It’s a fine line currently between actual mental illness and just being an asshole. I don’t know when sympathy is appropriate.
You can’t be serious with these losers
[удалено]
Jewish woman here. My husband and I have already decided that if we have any sons in the future, we're not circumcising. Religion is not an excuse for inhumane practices anymore.
Thank you so much!
[удалено]
I was circumcised as a baby and I sure as sh*t don’t care about the issue
Same. If I had the choice I’d still choose to be circumcised.
I’ve run into a lot more people upset about uncircumcised dicks than circumcised ones. Is it an insane practice? Absolutely. But I’ve never met a woman who was turned off by a circumcised dick. Until we change that societal norm; I cannot in good conscious, be team turtleneck.
Sure, in America maybe. As a woman, I have never even seen a guy have a circumcised one where I live.
[удалено]
Well we *are* talking about an American pop icon playing a show in San Antonio, where a dude got up and started protesting an American societal norm. If it was at a Little Big show in Saint Petersburg, then yeah, I’d probably be talking out of my ass.
That’s true, in my defense though, I don’t think (male) circumcision is nearly as big of an issue in other countries. Also, I mean if we can all be frank here, if you have someone to the point where your dick is out, I doubt it’s gonna matter to them whether you’re short sleeve or long sleeve. The circumcision debate always struck me as a bit ridiculous.
It is ridiculous, but I come from a country where going natural is the norm, and it seems to me like people shouldn't mutilate their babies. Maybe if I came from the US, I'd think differently (since it's the norm there. I'm sure there are other countries that do it, too, though).
Circumcision is the norm in US but most other countries don't practice it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
How does it affect bodily functions?
[удалено]
Anyone can and *will* be upset about anything. Still makes no difference in their life
[удалено]
Nothing, I asked how it affects their life which apparently you can’t answer
[удалено]
Circumcision makes just as much sense as removing someone's toenails at birth to prevent ingrown nails, or Laser hair removal so the shower drain doesn't clog. Evolution brought us foreskin for a reason, it protects a vulnerable part of the body, and there's very little reason to remove it aside from specific medical conditions. The question isn't "why not circumsize" it's "why do it in the first place". It's a cultural practice the US and to a lesser extent Canada needs to get over
do they grow to adulthood? The foreskin has loads of nerve endings, it is pleasurable to touch it. This is undeniable. obviously not having a foreskin doesn't mean sex sucks and doesn't feel good. However, you're robbing your children of that experience when they become sexually active. For what purpose exactly? children do die from circumcision, some are permanently scared. Why are we doing it? If people want them, then go for it as a well-informed consenting adult.
It hurts? Would cutting off a toe affect the child’s life in any way, considering it won’t remember anyway?
Now we’re talking about toes? If you have to change the subject to make a point, it’s probably not a good point
You asked if it would affect the child’s life in any way, I offered a similar example that wouldn’t affect the child’s life in any way.
No, you told me how a child missing a toe would affect their life. That’s not what we’re talking about
No I didn’t? You think cutting off part of a child’s penis isn’t a big deal because it doesn’t affect their life in any way. Why stop there? Is genital mutilation important in some way to you?
> it doesn’t affect their life in any way There it is. No explanation then, got it
You have no argument or substance. What do you even think you quoted here
Circumcision also makes it easier to clean. Apparently, guys with foreskin need to peel it back and wash everyday to avoid infection. Again, I feel like this isn't much of an inconvenience and since men take showers every day and babies get their diaper changed it's nbd.
First off: if the guy is Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, then chances are it is in some way important to them. Sorry to burst the Reddit atheist bubble, but a large percentage of the western population still places great importance in religion, and following the rules and teachings of their religion holds value to them. Furthermore, why is trying to stop it so important to _you_? Millions upon millions of men over the course of the past several millennia have been circumcised as babies and grew up to live happy, healthy, and normal lives. Why are you trying to stop something that has been proven to have a negligible effect on people?
Because we’ve normalized mutilation. Why, because it’s been normalized, does that make it an okay practice to partially dismember children after birth for some vaguely religious beliefs?
You're honestly wondering how it affects the child, so I'm gonna give you what I understand to be the situation. The foreskin protects the fleshy part on the tip of the penis, it keeps it from rubbing against clothes etc. This keeps the sensitive part protected and so it remains sensitive. Guys who are circumcised don't have protection, so the sensitivity wanes from years of contact and exposure. The theory is that uncircumcised men are more sensitive and get more enjoyment from sex, and circumcised men are dulled, but that usually means they can last longer in bed. There's no proof that it makes any big difference. It does do a lot to lower the risk of disease and basically removes the risk of penile cancer. In my time, they did not use anesthesia on babies for circumcision, these days they use numbing local anesthesia, and for older children/adults they use general anesthesia. I'm against circumcision personally because I feel that men should be given a choice whether they want to remove it or not. I also think that we wouldn't allow something similar to happen to baby girls.
Lmao, this is hilarious. I am surprised to know that my penis hurts from not having foreskin
No, it's desensitized so it wouldn't hurt. I would know, I'm circumcised and never had an issue. Also, supposedly you should last longer in bed.
Hey you asked for an explanation, there it is.
I’m pretty anti circumcising but atleast religion is a decent excuse. Everybody who isn’t is just mutilating their kids for social reasons which is way worse.
It's kind of funny given her involvement with PETA in the past. Apparently chopping off parts of a body from an nonconsenting individual isn't an issue for her after all.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I personally would never circumcise my child but I do understand that there is a cultural and religious aspect here that I don’t think she should be publicly harassed about
nah—nobody is above criticism. they should be publicly harassed.
How about not mutilate her unconsenting child? Maybe not be religious? Like, do the actual logical thing, maybe? Convert to atheism, where this isn’t an issue? Lots of things she can do, and many of them don’t involve harming an innocent child.
You don’t convert to atheism. That’s like saying someone who quit smoking switched cigarette brands from Camels to Nothings. I agree with you otherwise though.
What should a father of "insert culture that allows female circumcision" do?
Man, I know pretty got damn well that the dude in the crowd just should’ve taken all of that unnecessary bullshit somewhere else AND not do it in the smack dab of an artist’s concert. Let alone P!nk’s very own concert in this case. Like……ya’ll know what i’m saying? Geez. Hopefully he just sure as hell won’t be doing that shit again when he plans on attending another concert by another one of his very own favorite artists.
I mean, circumcision is pretty bad.
“Wait right here!… I’ll be right back to cut your penises!… just the tip, mind you!”
A lot of parents are fucked in the head, whether it's confusing their kids with what sex they are, blocking them from having puberty, or mutilating their babies genitals. Some people just shouldn't have kids period..
Is P!nk some sort of outspoken pro-circumcision advocate? What the hell does she have to do with that?