• SuddenDownpour@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    70
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    To the ~33% people who have downvoted this: you’re literally arguing against a person’s right not to have their body receive unnecessary surgical manipulations until they’re old enough to actually consent to it. Babies are not their parents’ property. Let people decide when they’re adults.

    • WhollyGuacamole@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Unfortunately a lot of Americans believe children are the property of their parents. We need a children’s bill of rights.

      • float@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Children don’t pay taxes and cannot vote so good lol with that :-/

      • Captain_Waffles@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        The UN already has that, the convention on the rights of a child. Every UN country except the United States has signed.

    • vingetcxly@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yah this should be true for any action except stuff like important medical surgery due to complications and surgery for facial defects BUT IRREVERSIBLE FORESKIN REMOVAL WITHOUGHT MEDICAL REASONS IS MORALLY WRONG

    • Audbol@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      Do you think that anyone born with a cleft palate, cleft lip, hemangiomas, craniosynostosis, facial palsy, or any corrective jaw surgeries should be told to wait until 18 when all of these procedures are far less effective and far more difficult to do?

        • applejacks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          For a community that claims to hate religion, atheists sure do carry a lot of water for Judaism, and Islam to a lesser extent.

          Seems that Christianity is the only acceptable religion to bash.

          • Asafum@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s a problem felt throughout society because of the reaction we were taught to give in relation to Islam and Judaism and because of a power dynamic.

            You’re a Nazi antisemitic dickhole if you criticize Judaism in the US and you’re a xenophobic islamaphobe if you criticize Islam in the US, but because Christianity has enjoyed the position of power it has in the US it’s ok to “punch up” as it were.

            I hate them all equally, but just hope people separate the people practicing the religion from the religion itself. I hate organized religion, not religious people of any religion.

            • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’d quibble with you here that there actually are an alarming number of antisemitic nazis and xenophobic islamophobes in the US, primarily among Christians. Criticisms of all heinous religious practices will quickly devolve into bigots chiming in to complain about their personal ignorance. There is so much overlap between various religious beliefs and practices that practically any criticism of faith is valid against just about all religions. So most of the time, if you are singling out one particular sect or ethnicity, it’s because of prejudice against those people.

              Targeting Christianity ensures that you’re not singling out one particular ethnicity or nationality, and it’s far less likely to attract bigoted sympathies.

          • vingetcxly@thelemmy.club
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Idk why maybe cause the us is more popular on the internet and Christianity is the most popular religion there? When I used rrddit and had traveled to India there was this united states of India subreddit and many people were complaining about stuff like forced ear piercing in females due to religion and stuff.

      • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Unless you got yours done by a rabbi using his teeth, your opinion doesn’t matter on this topic.

        And I’m sorry, but a parent’s religion shouldn’t be more important than the child’s right to choose if they have their whole dick.

  • thantik@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Broke the cycle with my son. It was insane the amount of people who didn’t even belong to a religion that this is a symptom of, who were pushy about me having it performed. If my son wants to be cut, he can make that decision for himself later in life. All of the atheists I know, were the ones that were anti-mutilation.

    • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      If my son wants to be cut

      Why the hell would he want to? If there’s no medical reason, there’s no reason at all.

      • 6daemonbag@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        At that point, he would be an adult making a decision. It doesn’t matter why for us in regards to his choice. Maybe he becomes religious or succumbs to social pressure. He could get a Prince Albert, too, or those weird beads.

        As a parent it’s their job to protect him from harmful societal norms and religious indoctrination until he becomes an adult. Hopefully the education sticks long enough for him to deeply understand and respect his body, to seek out more helpful mentorship when needed, and pass along that education and protection to his future potential children.

    • Kraivo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      36
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m from muslim family but atheist and have nothing against it. Like, it is just operation that become too popular at some point. Or was forced on people to prevent an epidemy of some sort. It is still recommended across many surgeons at least as far as i know. It is just easier to recover from when you are younger. Similar to recovering from smallpox.

      • Boinketh@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        1 year ago

        Or you could never recover from being mutilated by not being mutilated. Also, you never fully recover anyway because it doesn’t grow back.

        • Kraivo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          34
          ·
          1 year ago

          I am surprised by amount of negativity on this sub. Like it is almost impossible to have a decent conversation. People just go nuts about operation which is about hygiene. Good luck, guys. I just don’t see myself here

          • OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            25
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, why would so many people have negative views on chopping off part of a baby’s body?

            Weird.

          • 4lan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m cut, and like it that way. But your position is flawed.

            If you believe in evolution then you can agree that foreskin exists for a biological function, right? It’s not about hygiene, that’s dogma. It’s wild that it’s based in religion originally because if ‘god’ made you in his image it’s pretty fucked up to immediately alter a baby to be different.

            It’s funny when people assign the term ‘negative’ to anything they don’t want to hear about.
            You don’t have to read anything you don’t want to. Move on if you don’t have anything to contribute

            • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              So I actually have no dog in this fight but I read this

              If you believe in evolution then you can agree that foreskin exists for a biological function, right?

              Counterpoint: that was before “pants.”

              Good question though, most of the animal world has retractable peni, why’d we lose that ability? Now I’m curious.

              Also, shouldn’t the religious oppose it because it is fucking with “God’s creation?” Frankly them supporting it seems like flawed logic to me.

              • jerry@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                No, mutations are mutations, they have no purpose, some are beneficial and are prioritized by evolution.

                • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  So you’re saying we lost retractable penises “just because?”

                  Cause I looked into it, and it seems that since we walk upright there’s less of a chance at scraping it on the ground, so we can trade dicksheaths for extra room in our hips which would likely help moving around on two legs, which makes sense.

              • SuddenDownpour@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Let’s note here that evolution doesn’t care for “functions” or “utility” as much as it cares for “reasons”. We won’t be the first nor the last animal to get screwed in a shitty trade-off that natural selection deemed necessary. Humans are notorious for being born far more defenseless than most other mammals - evolution forced it upon us because otherwise our larger heads would kill far too many mothers.

              • legion02@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I hadn’t even thought about pants as being a compounding factor. It seems unlikely that cavemen had better cleanliness education than we do but smegma build up would be a problem even for them… Unless underwear/pants are what cause it to build up.

            • jerry@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It was originally the Jewish convent with God. Idk why I was sliced, but it became common in the U.S.

              • 4lan@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s an oddly barbaric tradition to keep around for so long without a religious rationalization. Most circumcised Americans are not Jewish

          • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            If you’re an absolute pig that doesn’t wash his penis, yeah it’s better for hygiene. I have a better solution than chopping of your peepee, though: how about you fucking wash it?

          • dtc@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You aren’t required to comment, but thanks for letting us know how unhappy you are here.

            Guys, its working

      • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        The smallpox analogy is false. It is a simple procedure as an adult. There is no reason to force it on people who can’t consent.

        • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Wait can we say retard again? I thought that was one of the no-no words adults have been forbidden to say by other adults.

  • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    1 year ago

    My wife is European Jewish but not religious. I’m Hispanic. The number of her relatives who asked us about or had an opinion about our baby’s penis was infuriating and alarming. I got a bit harsh with my replies after a while and they clued in and shut up about it.

    • fkn@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The amount of concern trolling that happens in here is astonishing… And frankly the amount of anti trans, anti gay replies and up votes in the replies here is concerning.

      People like to concern troll about how their specific religion gets targeted while simultaneously bashing on the gays. It’s infuriating. We need much more stringent/frequent bans. Reddits r/atheism was like this too before they actively started banning people for it.

      • ArxCyberwolf@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        There was an entire subreddit dedicated to the sheer amount of concern trolling, JAQing off, and other crap that r/atheism had to endure. It was r/ShitAtheismTakes and was set up by one of the moderators, iirc. I don’t believe this community is safe from those same trolls, and more moderation will be needed to keep them at bay. Religious folk attack in droves.

  • justaveg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    My only issue with this is that it is specifically directed at jewish people. This is common practice in america regardless of whether you’re jewish or not. For example I’m circumcised and my parents have never been jewish. Otherwise yes, stop circumcising your kids.

    • Rouxibeau@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes, but this is pointed at Judaism because of the whole ‘mouth on penis’ bit, hence the straw.

  • KrisND@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Interesting comments and opinions. I know that coming from a non-religious family, I was circumcised after birth because the doctors stated that it was better for hygiene. However, I got an infection (from the surgery) and spent 3 extra weeks in the hospital, nearly dying.

    Thankfully, my following siblings were not put in that situation (and I had no long-term issues). And although I do believe that it is better for hygiene, it also takes the majority of nerves out.

    Today, I believe that it should be an optional surgery or when medically required. In today’s world, it is largely unnecessary.

    • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not better for hygiene if you just wash your dick when you shower.

      • starman2112@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hundreds of thousands of years of evolution vs one dude a couple thousand years ago who really wanted a piece of that baby’s dick

        Idunno man, I gotta side with the millenia old shaman, he assures me that God wants my son’s dick hacked up

      • player2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yes! Humans literally evolved to have a foreskin so it has to provide an advantage beyond any added risks, even under pre-historic hygiene conditions.

        If it truly posed a health risk then that would immediately impact an individual’s ability to reproduce and it would have shrunk and disappeared over thousands of years of breeding.

        • starman2112@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you’re a desert tribe with scarce resources, maybe don’t be performing unnecessary surgical procedures on infants? Just a thought

          • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            As a general rule, I don’t presume to tell people living under wildly different and much harsher circumstances that I know better survival methods than they do.

            Well, I might recommend they use some of their scarce water supplies and soap instead of spit for this particular example, but other than that.

            • starman2112@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              What a dumb thing to say. I am more than comfortable telling people living under wildly different and much harsher circumstances that cutting their babies dicks is not conducive to a thriving society. It turns out people with foreskins drink and eat just as much as those without, and they have the added benefit of never dying from their penis getting infected because someone really wanted to cut part of it off.

      • KrisND@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not that it doesn’t have any benefits, but also doesn’t offset the downsides but seems easier to keep proper hygene as I’ve heard horrible stories like guys who were never taught proper hygene.

        • a 10 times lower risk of a baby getting a urinary tract infection (UTI) in his first year of life (1/1000 odds)
        • no risk of infants and children getting infections under the foreskin
        • easier genital hygiene
        • much lower risk of getting cancer of the penis (1/10,000+)
        • a possibly lower risk of men getting sexually transmissible infections (STIs) than men who are not circumcised (although these studies have not been scientifically confirmed and safe sex practices are far more effective in preventing these infections).

        https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/conditionsandtreatments/circumcision

        • OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          26
          ·
          1 year ago

          Fingernails cause problems too. Let’s rip those off at birth.

          • No more hangnails
          • No more cleaning dirt from under them
          • No more ingrown nails

          Let’s also take off the auricle, the outer part of the ear. If people aren’t taught how to properly clean behind it, it can get dirty.

          • Don’t have to wash behind it anymore
          • No more risk of cauliflower ear
          • KrisND@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            Read back, like I said several times I don’t support circumcision. However, there are benefits that don’t just disappear because of the cons. Everything has pros and cons that should be accounted for.

            And the fact of bringing unrelated debate into it just makes it look unorganized and unfounded basis. But you can message me if you want to debate about finger nails and removing parts of the ear…

            • player2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I think we’re all on the same side here but I think that person’s analogy is valuable because it demonstrates the disconnect in logic between the perceived value of the “health risks” that are being avoided versus the risks, harm, and morals of permanently modifying someone’s body against their will under false pretenses.

        • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          And an infinitely increased risk of a baby getting an infection and dying from having a piece of their body cut off, yay!

          • KrisND@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I mean, like I said I nearly died and don’t support it. Although, there are benefits and chance of infection is very low at least in a 1st world country. There are many other things with higher chance that could impact a child, like the high chance of foreskin infection.

            Balanitis in a small degree nearly affects all men with an intact foreskin. The vast majority of cases are quite mild. Most child get what’s called chemical balanitis which is just a small amount of redness associated with the foreskin releasing. True infected balanitis occurs in approximately 5% of the population of boys of less than 5 years of age.

            And I guess its a common problem, go figure people and kids especially don’t practice proper hygene.

            https://www.londonchildrensurgery.co.uk/balanitis.php

            • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Having had that, it’s extremely mild, a tiny bit of discomfort for a couple days. Not worth removing the foreskin for. We don’t cut off people’s ears because kids often get ear infections.

              • KrisND@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                And that’s your experience and opinion. The article states that 5% have more than mild cases, and some should be medically removed for medical reasons.

                Everything has pros and cons, but I’m not making the choice for anyone else. That’s their choice, but it should still be a choice.

                And I don’t see how cutting off an ear would reduce ear infections, as it’s typically the canal that’s infected, not the ear. A lot more involved, and I can’t find any benefits like I could for circumcision. Although, you could be onto something as I’m sure there is data for piecing infections? Is this the reason for changing topic?

                I’ve purely stated facts with supported links and haven’t seen the same. Constructive discussion is great but that has yet to be seen yet. So I’m probaby gonna move along with my day and hope you have a great day as well.

                • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The point is removing body parts before they get infected, because there is a small chance they’ll get infected is idiotic. There’s plenty of downsides to being circumcised, like caratanized glans, leading to reduced sensitivity, and difficulty finishing. Not to mention the many times too much skin is taken off, which can make all erections for said dicks owner very painful.

                  And a choice, sure, for adults, who’ve lived with their foreskins and understand what they are losing, not babies or young children who’re not at an age to understand what’s being taken away.

                  As for the ear, not having an outer ear would make it easier to clean the ear canal, and for wax to drip out, so it would reduce canal infections. But we don;t do that, because it’s better to just treat the few infections, than to remove someone’s organs as a baby.

              • Killer@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Terrible analogy, the outer part of the ear isn’t what allows the infection to happen.

                • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Lacking an outer ear would allow wax to drop out more easily, and make the canal easier to clean, so it should reduce infections.

  • set_secret@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    that map has to be wrong. it’s rare in Australia, it was deemed unnecessary and cruel in the 70s. only people over 50 have it here unless they suffer from certain religious affliction.

  • alex_02@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    casually sips their water while they read the comments unfold over a weewee meme I love the internet.

    • willya@lemmyf.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      We’re truly Reddit now. This always causes a comment filled thread lol

  • nxfsi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    It should, but it won’t because every time someone tries to outlaw circumcision Jews will kvetch about it and call them a nazi

  • Geek_King@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    No comment on gential mutilation, but that picture just put the uncomfortable phase of “meat straw” into my head. Thank you for that gift.

  • dtc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Brought to you by the same folks who introduced you to: considering a woman’s rape to NOT be a violent crime against the woman, but instead a property crime against her husband/father.

    Antiquated bullshit doesn’t belong in this world. If you disagree, go walk across a desert or something.

  • Kevin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I agree it should not be done unnecessarily. I’ve hooked up with plenty of men in my lifetime and have seen some grotesque circumcisions.

    The worst botched ones I’ve seen are when the skin bridges to the head or when the circumcision was done too tight (and causes issues when erect). More commonly, I’ve seen some pretty gnarly scar tissue along the shaft, but that seems to be less problematic. I am curious if folks with botched circumcisions are still supportive of it, since it’s so ingrained in their culture.

    • PutangInaMo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oh shit! I’ve been wondering all my life why my shaft has that scar going down it. My shit got straight up vandalized on top of mutilated. The fuck…

  • ike@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The title aside. I thought the meme was joking about the crazy ass “mohalim” ritual aka rabbis sucking off babies. And so I find the meme alone a success.