Yes, really. And you ARE the one trying to compare them when you are the one to claim male circumcision has medical benefits that FGM does not share. That is exactly what YOU are doing. And your last statement above is a straw man. I have nothing to show as never made the claim you’re insinuating I did.
Which is what I was claiming.
I can quote what the benefits of breast buds removal would be in an infant. That there are no medical bodies endorsing such a procedure IS the point of the cite I provided. Which makes asking for the endorsement nonsensical.
Sure. So has the AAP, AAFP, AUA & the CDC. They all agree that the benefits outweigh the risks and that access to the procedure should be expanded even as the final decision remains that of the parents.
I haven’t seem similar statements about breast buds or clitoral hoods or appendixes or little toes or ear lobes or left lungs or whatever other random body part you want to prattle on about “But if you remove your nose you don’t get nose cancer – AH HA!!!”
They do endorse it. Not to the extent of saying it should happen 100% of the time but certainly to the extent of stating that it’s a net positive, that access should be expanded and that physicians should be explaining these benefits to parents.
That is leagues different than anything about FGM. So, to answer the OP in a word: Nope. If someone else thinks otherwise, let them start by showing how FGM has the same benefits and support from the medical community.
“Outweight the risks of the procedure” isn’t the same as “outweight the risk of the procedure and the other negative consequences during life” (loss of sensitivity).
Besides, someone mentioned removal of breast buds in girls. I strongly suspect that the health benefits here too would outweight the risks of the procedure. If it were the case, would you support it? Of course not.
The reason why the removal of the clitoridal hood of infants is widely considered as unacceptable while the rempoval of the prepuce in infants is widely considered as acceptable is blatantly obvious and has nothing to do with a careful weighing of health benefits vs procedure risks. One isn’t traditional in western societies and the other is. Arguing about the medical benefitsz is disingeneous and just a fig leaf used to cover up the obvious.
Golly, I bet no one from the medical community ever heard of those claims.
Loss of sensitivity or pleasure isn’t a factor in neonatal circumcision. Even those studies that were getting thrown around in the other thread stated that “Studies of circumcision and sexual function have been mostly done on neonatally circumcised males, and little difference was found in sexuality in these studies.”
Of course not. The medical benefits are a primary difference between the two procedures. And, let’s be honest here, anyone arguing that male circumcision is analogous to prohibiting formation of the breasts doesn’t get to use the word “disingeneous”.
Where do “most women prefer cut men”? Could it possibly be in a country where most men are circumcized? Of course, it would be totally coincidental, and there would be no cultural factor at all involved in this preference :rolleyes: in the same way that there’s no cultural factor at all involved in allowing genital mutilations in boys :rolleyes: because it’s of course entirely based on objective medical benefits :rolleyes:
We’re so lucky that our cultural preferences just so happen to coincide with what is objectively better.
Oh, and by the way :
Sure, let’s discuss the same benefits in FGM. This isn’t a thread about “Does male circumcision make you stomping mad?”, it’s to compare male circumcision to FGM. So unless you’re going to explain how FGM has measured benefits acknowledged by the medical community, even if those benefits can be claimed via alternate means, you don’t really have much to add.
Also, you don’t really understand what an Appeal to Authority is…
“My doctor says smoking causes cancer”
“No it doesn’t! Appeal to authority! Argue with me about it instead!”
…isn’t how it works.
The study claiming that was based on 138 survey participants who were recruited, in part, through an anti-circumcision newsletter (and also through unnamed “magazines”).
Because, you know, anyone would find THAT to be a credible study group. :rolleyes:
In other words, you don’t want to discuss the benefits of male circumcision, but start your sentence with “sure.” Fantastic.
Clairobscur listed authorities that have contrary opinions to your authorities. Any opinion on that?
I’ll ask you again:
Cite?
Once again, you’re not following along.
CarnalK said ‘that “natural lube” is why most women prefer cut men.’ Clairobscur is asking where that is so. It obviously wouldn’t be in the study you’re claiming.
Oh, sorry. I thought it had been done by Jews for centuries and had been the default practice in the USA for decades.
But I’m surely mistaken. Presumably it’s a novelty that has been recently imported by some brown people from Tasmania or somesuch, and people weighted carefully the pros and the cons before allowing it.
Would you seriously argue that the main reason why circumcision is allowed is its alleged medical benefits? Would you seriously argue that if such flimsy medical benefits were shown to apply too to breast buds removal, clitoridal hood removal of nose spliting those practices would receive any support? Would you seriously argue that the denial, dismissal or acceptance of the loss of sexual sensations has nothing to do with the fact that the practice is culturally accepted?
And can you give me a list of body parts whose removal at birth you would support if it was shown that “the health benefits outweight the risks of the procedure”? Say, nails, middle toes, a bit of the nose, lthe left nipple, whatever? And if you can’t give such a list, doesn’t it strike you as odd that there’s this specific body part whose removal at birth doesn’t bother you at all? And that generally speaking, people would have issues with removing any body part except this one?
The organizations that Jophiel cited were all U.S. based, so the bottom stays attached to the argument just fine if you change “western societies” to “the U.S.”
I don’t know that you can actually say this about “most” women. Many American women will have never even seen an uncut guy unless they really get around.
Before marriage I really got around. And actually my early experiences were with a guy who was born at home, in the American midwest, and who was uncut. It being the first one I ever had intimate experience with, I assumed it was the norm, and I thought the next one I encountered looked odd.
But I had plenty of others, circumcised and un-. No preference. His body, his choice. (Well of course it usually was somebody else’s choice either way.)
YOU brought up US organizations regarding benefits and risks of male circumcision. Attempting to claim that I am not sticking to the thread topic now is so obviously disingenuous. Nice ignoring the rest of my post, too. Also obvious.
Which means when I mention discussing what YOU brought up, you can’t claim with a straight face that I am at fault for not sticking to the thread topic.