Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...

[welch]

Which makes me wonder if it's possible that the beginning of the downfall of ritual male circumcision might be in the courts, just like the bar on gay marriage. Especially once it's scientifically proven that circumcision diminishes sexual sensation (among other negatives), I can imagine lawsuits being launched that will at least be taken seriously. The actual legal situation would be different than gay marriage, since these were constitutional challenges, and I think the circumcision cases would be personal injury suits.

Probably not, though. Even if such a lawsuit is won, in today's environment it would likely be overturned on appeal on religious freedom grounds. And a law would probably be passed granting immunity and stopping further suits. But speculating out to a ridiculous extreme, this could then be the basis for a constitutional challenge.

Any way you look at it, like with gay marriage, things will only begin to change once public opinion does. The winds are blowing the right way, but it will take patience. I have little doubt the practice will diminish and become relatively rare in Canada and the US over the next 50 or so years.

That, and you then have to make things like piercing a small child's ears illegal, for the same reason. You can't allow a violation of bodily autonomy in situation A and disallow it in situation B. That would get challenged in a heartbeat.

You shouldn't drink before you post. Or maybe you are just stuck on stupid when it comes to certain topics.

And people wonder why I refuse to take anything seriously anymore. Welcome to what one considers discussion. Note: this is not new. Contrary to the desperate wishes of so many people, this is about what human disagreement has always been. The pretense of great intellectual discussion that was the norm in some magical bygone era is just that: pretense. Once you get past more advanced tool usage, humans are still very much baboons on the hunt.

I agree with Carlin on this: humanity is swirling the bowl, and I have two things i'm grateful for:

1) I've a ringside seat to the single greatest long-running act of self-genocide the universe has ever seen, and the fact that I shan't live long enough to watch the very end is truly depressing.

2) Whenever I get a chance to cheer the process on, I do.

So do go on Clarence. Prove to me that the only way I can possibly disagree with you is chemical intoxication, (personally amusing as I've not drunk in years. Not due to some problem with addiction, but because it started giving me pissah heartburn, and I took that as a reason to stop. Heartburn sucks more than a buzz is worth), or stupidity. Show me how any notion not in perfect alignment with yours is completely and utterly wrong. Reveal your intellectual and rhetorical majesty to us all. I'm sure it's huge.

With any luck, you'll sharpen your rhetorical skills to where you can bludgeon all disagreement from your world. Succeed or fail, watching you go about it will be glorious.

Here, something to help:

[John D]

Random Deepak Chopra quote generator. It really works!
http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/

[welch]

The post itself by Benson is illustrative of the poverty of her thinking.
Despite it's title about the use of 'social justice warrior' as an insult, it's really about an article involving the use of another pejorative phrase - 'brocialist' - a term designed to apply to left wing males who fail to live up to the neofem rulebook.

As such it probably applies to most secular men and indeed most left wing men.
It is at least interesting that questioning of the neofem dogma is not the preserve of conservatives or libertarians.

It says men on the Left who aren’t particularly feminist in their approach to thought, presentation, or behavior — often called “bros” or “brocialists” — should not be dismissed outright, and should also not be lumped in with outright misogyinists just for being, you know, men’s men. Frost basically argues that “bros” aren’t as bad as they’re reputed to be.

That article contains the following sentence:

"And I just don’t think the diminutive label of ‘bro’ should be [used] to describe more insidious sexism, let alone violent aggression like rape threats."

To me that makes sense. The world is not divided into those who send rape threats and those who are social justice warriors. Most of us inhabit the no-mans-land (ahem!) between these two extreme camps.

But, of course, that would introduce a nuance to the question.
And that, for Ophelia at least, will not do.

She firmly aligns herself with the neofem brigade who seem determined to expunge any grey areas from the debate.

From the original article quoted by Benson:

The controversy is over the fact that this sentence, when the piece originally appeared, contained a link to a tweet by Sarah Kendzior in which she referred to a “brocialist” who once leveled a rape threat against her.

The Sarah Kendzior seems an intellectually dishonest individual.
Brocialist is a rather nebulous term and like most pejoratives is not something anyone calls themselves.
Kendzior got a rape threat from someone on the internet and decided to label this threatener a 'brocialist'.

This seems quite enough for Ophelia to conclude that this is proof that 'brocialists' send rape threats and therefore all 'brocialists' (meaning left wing non-neofem men) are pretty much the same as the extremist rape threateners!

Bye-bye middle ground!

The following article gives a little more details and shows that this is now unfortunately a rather common problem within the left.
http://fredrikdeboer.com/2014/06/10/wha ... lly-wrote/

But, of course, this is an Ophelia article.
And that means whatever the article is about, it's really all about her.

Ah now that last is one of the details I didn’t get. Interesting. I had thought the feeding frenzy over that word was local to “the atheist community” and its brocialist hatred of feminism and feminists, but clearly that’s quite wrong. Interesting interesting. So it’s not just atheist assholes aka brocialists, it’s also asshole progressives and lefties aka brocialists. Good to know.

Anti-feminists hate me. I hate anti-feminists. No I’m not going to put all that aside for the sake of “the community.” Stalemate.

Dude, it's an ancient tactic. Demonize your opponents, dismiss any and all disagreement as bad, and create a situation where only complete agreement with your views can be considered "right". Oldest trick in the book.

[John D]

Just a thought... but I suspect that more children are permanently and seriously injured by ear piercings than injured by circumcision. I give the win to Welch. Carry on.

[welch]

That, and you then have to make things like piercing a small child's ears illegal, for the same reason. You can't allow a violation of bodily autonomy in situation A and disallow it in situation B. That would get challenged in a heartbeat.

You shouldn't drink before you post. Or maybe you are just stuck on stupid when it comes to certain topics.
1. If male genital mutilation is proven to cause some loss of sexual pleasure then that loss is a consequence of the procedure.
Piercing of ears, doesn't necessarily involve a loss of hearing. In short, one might very well do harm by default, whereas the other practice may not , as a matter of course, result in any harm at all.

2. Parents get to violate their minor children's autonomy all the time. However the reasoning behind this is that parents may do necessary things a child is unable to do or does not know need to be done.

Regardless, both are violations of a child's autonomy by means of unnecessary surgery and thus both pose unnecessary risks and forcing your child into unnecessary risks before said child even has an ability to have an opinion on the matter is the mark of a bad parent. This statement can be somewhat modified by the fact that most parents are ignorant when it comes to risk/benefit calculations in these circumstances.
2.

I still don't understand why one would want, or should be permitted to pierce an infants ears. Neither circumcision nor ear piercing are necessary medical procedures for the most part.

you said: '1. If male genital mutilation is proven to cause some loss of sexual pleasure then that loss is a consequence of the procedure.
Piercing of ears, doesn't necessarily involve a loss of hearing. In short, one might very well do harm by default, whereas the other practice may not , as a matter of course, result in any harm at all.' (bolding mine)

This is weasel language with so many ifs and mays that it reads like apologism.

2. Parents get to violate their minor children's autonomy all the time. However the reasoning behind this is that parents may do necessary things a child is unable to do or does not know need to be done.

Necessary being the operative word. the aesthetic fee-fees of the parents should not be a consideration.

I actually agree with you on the piercing things. A bit of research shows that the biggest "issue" for most is...do we wait until the kid is 2 months old first or just do it at birth.

What a fine welcome to the world outside the womb.

The circumcision thing I'm more in the middle on, because setting aside some of the more inane arguments from either side, the medical case for/against it is not settled enough yet for my tastes. I've no doubt that in a few years it will be and I'll have better data to go on. But for now, it seems to be in the "this is still really active research, and it may wander a bit, please stop taking every update we give out as the eleventh commandment on this issue" stage.

Which is frustrating, because uncertainty can suck, but such is life.

[Spike13]

Circumcision and ear piercing?

I'm surprised hospitals don't already have tattoo artists on call to give baby full sleeves.

[Pitchguest]

I think it's called a self-fulfilling prophecy, you fucking morons:

http://i.imgur.com/AlYpZs3.png

http://i.imgur.com/rfWFjfY.png

http://skepchick.org/2014/06/world-cup- ... the-worst/

The World Cup, eh? While I'm sick and tired of this shit, it got it's high points, for sure:

http://www.correio24horas.com.br/upload ... ep.jpg.jpg

Send this to Skepchicks Inc. and make them explode.

World Cups, don't you mean? Hey-o! :dance:

[welch]

On the question of MGM/FGM, it's useful to deconstruct this phenomenon to get to the bottom of the problem.

(1) A systemic argument against it, would be structured like this:

However practiced, MGM/FGM cannot exist without this assumption: That there exists a right to injur another person, and permanently remove a functional piece of his/her body in the process.

- According to our values, namely the right to bodily autonomy, such an action requires the consent of the person who is to undergo that procedure. A child cannot consent to it. As legal custodians, parents act on behalf of the child and can consent to such a procedure, but they're limited in their decisions by having to consider the well-being of the child.
- According to our cultural values, the well-being of a child includes a right to a non-violent upbringing, which means that parents are not allowed to engage in violent acts towards the child, or consent to anything that involves acts of violence against the child. Injuring a child and cutting off a part of his body violates that principle in the crudest possible way, barring parents from engaging in such behaviour or consenting to someone else performing such an action on the child.
- There is 1 exception to that rule: Imminent medical neccessity, making it neccessary for parents to consent to medical treatment for the child, including surgery. That exception is made because the treatment aims to prevent even greater bodily harm, which would be likely to follow if the procedure is not performed.

MGM/FGM is not a medical procedure which seeks to prevent imminent harm. Therefor, the parents cannot give consent to having this procedure performed on the child.

(2) Why certain "but" arguments fail

Detractors argue that if MGM/FGM cannot be justified, no violation of bodily autonomy can be justified. This is wrong. There are many different ways to violate someone's bodily autonomy, and many different grades of severity as well. Giving a child a slap on the back is not as severe in its consequences as getting the child an ear piercing. Getting the child an ear piercing is not as severe as (partly) removing one of its body parts through surgery.
Rule of thumb: The more painful, the more dangerous, the more longlasting the effects of an action towards a child, the higher the bars for justifying it. MGM/FGM reside at the upper end of that scale, and therefor only imminent medical neccessity is sufficiently important to justify such an action.

Detractors argue that MGM/FGM can be "useful" (HIV-Prevention,general hygiene,...). Firstly, this argument fails because "usefulness" does not constitute medical neccessity, and can therefor not justify a procedure of that severity. Secondly, the argument fails because there is no imminent reason to perform the procedure until the child is old enough to make its own decision on the matter, making it unneccessary for the parents to replace the child's consent with their own.

Detractors argue that MGM/FGM is an expression of the parents' right to their religious freedom. That argument assumes (a) that one person's (the parent's) religious freedom trumps another person's (the child's) religious freedom, and (b) that one person's religious freedom trumps another person's bodily autonomy. Both assumptions are antithetical to our system of values, and establishing them as a legitimate reasoning constitutes a systemic breach of our moral and legal order.

Question comes down to this: Do you want to allow such a systemic breach in favor of religious tradition ?
For a truly secular oriented person, the answer is "No!".

(3) Side question: How severe is the trangression against bodily autonomy by performing MGM/FGM ?

Imagine someone performed this procedure on children without the parents knowing about it. That person would inevitably face a double digit prison sentence.

(4) Side question: What is worse MGM/FGM ?

By their nature, both constitute a risk for the health/life of the child. While there's basically 1 way to perform MGM (with minor variety), there are several ways to perform FGM, with different consequences. While one can argue about these differences, it's important to note that you're actually talking about the severity of injuries that a person endures because of a crime that has been committed against him/her. Even if one of these crimes tends to have even more dire consequences than the other, that other one doesn't therefor become a non-crime. Argueing about the differences is argueing about very dark shades of grey.

It's not bad, but I think you're being overly dismissive of the medical issues. HIV prevention, given the severity of that condition, and the current effort and cost required to manage it is not a minor issue. It is perhaps better to say, and I think more accurate, that the science and data behind that argument is still somewhat nascent and so not immediately compelling. I'm also unaware of any legitimate medical justification for FGM, so lumping them both together in that category doesn't seem accurate.

Part of the overall problem is that your post treats FGM and Circumcision as precisely the same thing. I don't think that's going to fly terribly well, because to get to something resembling accuracy in that requires a LOT of work. As well, i don't think the arguments for/against circumcision actually need to use FGM as a justification beyond bodily autonomy. (which as you point out, is regularly violated anyway for some of the silliest reasons ever, and in some cultures, radically violated well beyond that of a simple ear piercing.) The arguments for circumcision, other than the medical ones are, as have been pointed out, rather stupid. Although this line:

Imagine someone performed this procedure on children without the parents knowing about it. That person would inevitably face a double digit prison sentence.

Doesn't seem to actually jibe with reality until somewhat recently in the case of circumcision, and I doubt it would even now. You might see the doc suspended, but double-digit sentences? Doubtful. (Note: this is not talking about if this is right or wrong. This is just talking about the likelihood of that happening.)

In addition, the "reduces sexual function/pleasure" arguments may be somewhat correct, but you're talking about something that's hard to measure objectively. "Sexual pleasure" is a highly individual thing. It's like measuring pain response. Some people are going to respond more to the same level of pain than others. Babies and ear infections are a great examples. Some start screaming at the first hint of one, others are almost at the MUST HAVE TUBES INSERTED stage before they acknowledge any discomfort at all. In addition, how do you measure it when the vast majority of circumcised men in the west have no baseline and identify as being happy with their sex lives? If they have a happy sex life in terms of physical sensitivity, what does "it could be better" really mean? How much better? How are you even defining "better"? is there some objective judgement besides "It feels really fucking good"? That's setting aside the fact that there's more to sex than penile stimulation. It feels like a compelling argument, but it's kind of a fragile one.

and that's setting aside the social/psychological parts of sexual pleasure, which are not small, and regularly override the basic physical response.

Adding FGM into the circumcision argument amps up the emotional level, to be sure, but it doesn't do much for examining the actual issues with circumcision, or allow for any real discussion of those issues beyond a lot of yelling. Reducing, not increasing the emotional levels in this would seem to be the desired tactic.

[welch]

Just a thought... but I suspect that more children are permanently and seriously injured by ear piercings than injured by circumcision. I give the win to Welch. Carry on.

LOL...I'd be disinclined to agree with it, but I raised the point to show that as a culture, we're pretty fucking hypocritical about bodily autonomy. If one is going to be absolutist about it, then let us raise the age for any form of bodily...modification that is not of an immediate medical necessity to 18, and be done with it.

But when I see the rage over a procedure that at least has SOME medical value, and then those same ragers seem okay with one that has nothing beyond decoration?

Oh Humanity.

[John D]

Just a thought... but I suspect that more children are permanently and seriously injured by ear piercings than injured by circumcision. I give the win to Welch. Carry on.

LOL...I'd be disinclined to agree with it, but I raised the point to show that as a culture, we're pretty fucking hypocritical about bodily autonomy. If one is going to be absolutist about it, then let us raise the age for any form of bodily...modification that is not of an immediate medical necessity to 18, and be done with it.

But when I see the rage over a procedure that at least has SOME medical value, and then those same ragers seem okay with one that has nothing beyond decoration?

Oh Humanity.

I like how you describe things as decoration. An interesting and correct choice. I think we can say that it is normally acceptable for a parent to force their child to have a safe, but painful procedure for purely "decorative" reasons.

My brother put his son through an operation to reduce his ears. They stuck out "too far" according to our cultural expectations. You can remove some cartilage and they fold back closer to the head. So... yeah.

Most people think circumscision is normally "harmless". I tend to agree.

[Spike13]

FGM is just that. It involves removing the clitoris, and in many cases binding of the vagina.( to be opened upon the consummation of marriage)

This procedure is normally done upon a young woman reaching puberty, without any anesthetic.
Needless to say it is a brutal, nightmarish practice.

Male circumcisions don't come anywhere close to the level of pain and loss.(as long as the practicioner doesn't totally fuck up and cut off half the guys penis.)

The male is still left with a fully functioning penis. ( as well as a very sleek look)

Comparing the two procedures is pathetic at best and I believe only serves to allow the rad fem types to show what whiners the MRA types are.( and yes anyone making this argument will be portrayed as an MRA)

[Spike13]

Just a thought... but I suspect that more children are permanently and seriously injured by ear piercings than injured by circumcision. I give the win to Welch. Carry on.

LOL...I'd be disinclined to agree with it, but I raised the point to show that as a culture, we're pretty fucking hypocritical about bodily autonomy. If one is going to be absolutist about it, then let us raise the age for any form of bodily...modification that is not of an immediate medical necessity to 18, and be done with it.

But when I see the rage over a procedure that at least has SOME medical value, and then those same ragers seem okay with one that has nothing beyond decoration?

Oh Humanity.

18? That age is the height of bad decision stupidity!

Minimum 21, better yet 23.... No make it 30.

[Spike13]

Just a thought... but I suspect that more children are permanently and seriously injured by ear piercings than injured by circumcision. I give the win to Welch. Carry on.

LOL...I'd be disinclined to agree with it, but I raised the point to show that as a culture, we're pretty fucking hypocritical about bodily autonomy. If one is going to be absolutist about it, then let us raise the age for any form of bodily...modification that is not of an immediate medical necessity to 18, and be done with it.

But when I see the rage over a procedure that at least has SOME medical value, and then those same ragers seem okay with one that has nothing beyond decoration?

Oh Humanity.

I like how you describe things as decoration. An interesting and correct choice. I think we can say that it is normally acceptable for a parent to force their child to have a safe, but painful procedure for purely "decorative" reasons.



My brother put his son through an operation to reduce his ears. They stuck out "too far" according to our cultural expectations. You can remove some cartilage and they fold back closer to the head. So... yeah.

Most people think circumscision is normally "harmless". I tend to agree.

I worked with a gentleman ( now deceased) who had that procedure done years ago, his right ear got infected and had to be removed.

He wore a prosthetic until he developed an allergy to the glue used to hold it on. From that point on he would tape a square of gauss over his ear (hole? Stump?) to avoid staring or upsetting folks and only wore the prosthetic for formal occasions.

There is always a danger when you go under the knife. In the case of vanity sometimes you may end up worse than before.

[John D]

FGM is just that. It involves removing the clitoris, and in many cases binding of the vagina.( to be opened upon the consummation of marriage)

This procedure is normally done upon a young woman reaching puberty, without any anesthetic.
Needless to say it is a brutal, nightmarish practice.

Male circumcisions don't come anywhere close to the level of pain and loss.(as long as the practicioner doesn't totally fuck up and cut off half the guys penis.)

The male is still left with a fully functioning penis. ( as well as a very sleek look)

Comparing the two procedures is pathetic at best and I believe only serves to allow the rad fem types to show what whiners the MRA types are.( and yes anyone making this argument will be portrayed as an MRA)

I disagree to some extent. There are many different FGM types and procedures. Some appear to be purely cosmetic. So.... I think we should allow any procedure that is purely cosmetic (as long as it has a low incidence of medical complications etc...).

[Spike13]

Agreed, a medical procedure to correct or repair something really shouldn't be an issue.( as I had stated in my previous post there may be remote chances of complications)

I was only referring the Northern/central African version of FGM.

[John D]

LOL...I'd be disinclined to agree with it, but I raised the point to show that as a culture, we're pretty fucking hypocritical about bodily autonomy. If one is going to be absolutist about it, then let us raise the age for any form of bodily...modification that is not of an immediate medical necessity to 18, and be done with it.

But when I see the rage over a procedure that at least has SOME medical value, and then those same ragers seem okay with one that has nothing beyond decoration?

Oh Humanity.

I like how you describe things as decoration. An interesting and correct choice. I think we can say that it is normally acceptable for a parent to force their child to have a safe, but painful procedure for purely "decorative" reasons.



My brother put his son through an operation to reduce his ears. They stuck out "too far" according to our cultural expectations. You can remove some cartilage and they fold back closer to the head. So... yeah.

Most people think circumscision is normally "harmless". I tend to agree.

I worked with a gentleman ( now deceased) who had that procedure done years ago, his right ear got infected and had to be removed.

He wore a prosthetic until he developed an allergy to the glue used to hold it on. From that point on he would tape a square of gauss over his ear (hole? Stump?) to avoid staring or upsetting folks and only wore the prosthetic for formal occasions.

There is always a danger when you go under the knife. In the case of vanity sometimes you may end up worse than before.

All medical procedures carry some risk... but... so does riding in a car. I don't know where the magic risk point is. We tend to rely on a "common Man" type of standard for such things. If the common man thinks something is a normal risk then we assume it is okay. Life is never risk free.

[Spike13]

Sometimes I think that for every photo of a perfect nose or a crease less face that a plastic surgeon shows a potential client, they should be forced to show a photo of Mickey Rourke, or Joan Rivers... Or Tara Reid's belly.maybe a progression of Michael Jackson....

[John D]

Sometimes I think that for every photo of a perfect nose or a crease less face that a plastic surgeon shows a potential client, they should be forced to show a photo of Mickey Rourke, or Joan Rivers... Or Tara Reid's belly.maybe a progression of Michael Jackson....

everyone knows what Michael Jackson looked like.... people are fairly warned.

[Barael]

Random Deepak Chopra quote generator. It really works!
http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/

I call bullshit on that unless they prove they get their RNG seeds from a bona fide quantum-random source (instead of the usual pseudo-RNG). It's not Chopra if it's not quantum!

On unrelated news, I just got properly dumped this weekend. As far as there are any positives, I had no fucking clue it was coming and there were no harsh words or other unpleasantries exchanged (mostly since I was too mentally floored to offer any).

[Aneris]

It ought to be a meme that Social Justice Warriors refuse to point to the original sources for flimsy reasons, yet these reasons somehow don't perturb them from anyway sharing the content and exaggerating it. It looks like a harmless practice, but is one of the most dubious behaviours they show. It allows them to whip up issues out of nowhere as it creates their own outrage feedback loop, where interpretations and impressions are reinforced by others. In a quote in Ms Benson's piece:

I won’t link to the original tweet, because that really upsets Kendzior, and I want to respect her wishes. But I will quote it in its entirety, something I’ve decided to do because Kendzior has personally definitely drawn far more attention to this tweet than I’ll ever be able to

[Southern]

And there it goes David Wong again, riding the Sarkeesian bandwagon on Cracked. What a shock.

Why, oh God why, when these idiots talking about videogames and female protagonists never talk about Final Fantasy XIII? Jesus fucking Christ, that's three whole AAA games with two different female protagonists! The way he talks, it's like nobody saw a female protagonist in a huge game in this current generation, barring Mirror Edge. Fucking Bayonetta apparently didn't happen, either.

I won't even comment on the Atelier series because it's such niche (althought it's on its fiftteenth installment, with the 16th one to be released next month in Japan), but since the series went to the PS3, it has been 4 whole games (Atelier Rorona,Atelier Totori, Atelier Meruru, and Atelier Ayesha) with female protagonists. The last one has two main characters, male and female. In fact, the whole series always had female protagonists until Atelier Iris on the PS2 (the 6th title on the series).

Fucking research, how do it work? Right, Mr. Wong?

[Tribble]

Just a thought... but I suspect that more children are permanently and seriously injured by ear piercings than injured by circumcision. I give the win to Welch. Carry on.

LOL...I'd be disinclined to agree with it, but I raised the point to show that as a culture, we're pretty fucking hypocritical about bodily autonomy. If one is going to be absolutist about it, then let us raise the age for any form of bodily...modification that is not of an immediate medical necessity to 18, and be done with it.

But when I see the rage over a procedure that at least has SOME medical value, and then those same ragers seem okay with one that has nothing beyond decoration?

Oh Humanity.

The argument for bodily autonomy for children is pretty much a laugh.. We immunize our children. We take them to the dentist and make them get their teeth cleaned and and sealed. We get them stitches when they bust open their chins and, in the case of my youngest daughter, it took myself and two nurses holding her down in a straight-jacket to get her stitches. She fought like we were trying to kill her.

We make them sit at the table until they eat their peas. We put them in time-out or even spank them. When they don't want to go to bed, we put them in bed anyway. When they don't want to sit in the car seat, we still strap the little fuckers in, even if it means pulling over on the side of the highway during rush hour.

It's called parenting. And as a parent, by gosh, you take these 'anti-body-autonomy' actions all the time. Because it's your job to make the decision and do what is necessary for the long-term health, safety and well-being of your child.

[Guestus Aurelius]

Random Deepak Chopra quote generator. It really works!
http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/

I call bullshit on that unless they prove they get their RNG seeds from a bona fide quantum-random source (instead of the usual pseudo-RNG). It's not Chopra if it's not quantum!

On unrelated news, I just got properly dumped this weekend. As far as there are any positives, I had no fucking clue it was coming and there were no harsh words or other unpleasantries exchanged (mostly since I was too mentally floored to offer any).

Sounds like you're taking it like a proper adult. Good on you.

Sorry to hear about this.

[welch]

Just a thought... but I suspect that more children are permanently and seriously injured by ear piercings than injured by circumcision. I give the win to Welch. Carry on.

LOL...I'd be disinclined to agree with it, but I raised the point to show that as a culture, we're pretty fucking hypocritical about bodily autonomy. If one is going to be absolutist about it, then let us raise the age for any form of bodily...modification that is not of an immediate medical necessity to 18, and be done with it.

But when I see the rage over a procedure that at least has SOME medical value, and then those same ragers seem okay with one that has nothing beyond decoration?

Oh Humanity.

I like how you describe things as decoration. An interesting and correct choice. I think we can say that it is normally acceptable for a parent to force their child to have a safe, but painful procedure for purely "decorative" reasons.

My brother put his son through an operation to reduce his ears. They stuck out "too far" according to our cultural expectations. You can remove some cartilage and they fold back closer to the head. So... yeah.

Most people think circumscision is normally "harmless". I tend to agree.

Objectively, in terms of "complications", I'd agree with you. As you point out, and that particular procedure was something I hadn't thought of, we, as a culture, really don't have a huge overall objection to whacking away at/puncturing someone's body parts, even for purely decorative purposes, for reasons that aren't even vaguely medically "necessary". Even if that person is unable to object or comprehend due to being too young to understand.

I'm pretty sure the primary reason for the exaltation of circumcision is due to what it is modifying, not the actual danger or risk involved, given the response to anyone not being absolutely against/for it. It's a very emotional issue, it will always BE a very emotional issue, as we've seen.

[Tribble]

And there it goes David Wong again, riding the Sarkeesian bandwagon on Cracked. What a shock.

Why, oh God why, when these idiots talking about videogames and female protagonists never talk about Final Fantasy XIII? Jesus fucking Christ, that's three whole AAA games with two different female protagonists! The way he talks, it's like nobody saw a female protagonist in a huge game in this current generation, barring Mirror Edge. Fucking Bayonetta apparently didn't happen, either.

I won't even comment on the Atelier series because it's such niche (althought it's on its fiftteenth installment, with the 16th one to be released next month in Japan), but since the series went to the PS3, it has been 4 whole games (Atelier Rorona,Atelier Totori, Atelier Meruru, and Atelier Ayesha) with female protagonists. The last one has two main characters, male and female. In fact, the whole series always had female protagonists until Atelier Iris on the PS2 (the 6th title on the series).

Fucking research, how do it work? Right, Mr. Wong?

Thing is, they really don't seem to play games. Otherwise they'd notice that unless there is good reason for it, most games are dual-gendered.

So, yes, Battlefield 4 didn't have a female soldier and Batman's not a woman. Get over it, that's correct within the confines of those game. Like or it not. Just like the main protagonists of Tomb Raider and Lollipop Chainsaw are women. Like it or not.

Yet every BioWare game from Baldurs Gate forward can be male or female. Every Elder Scrolls game can be male or female. Because, in those games, there is no reason for it to be mono-gendered. OTOH, the Witcher, which is about Geralt of Rivia, has a perfectly good reason to remain 'male protagonist.'

In fact, gaming has been moving forward in this way for a long. Even in shooters, probably the most 'male dominated' genre within gaming, you now have female protagonists, whether it's choices of an ensemble character, like Rochelle or Zoey from the LFD games, or Xian Mei (who is a TOTAL BAD ASS!!!) in Dead Island. And, with some games in the shooter genre, you're straight-up stuck playing a woman, like Chell from the Portal series or Johanna Dark from the "Perfect Dark" series.

And so it goes.

[welch]

Just a thought... but I suspect that more children are permanently and seriously injured by ear piercings than injured by circumcision. I give the win to Welch. Carry on.

LOL...I'd be disinclined to agree with it, but I raised the point to show that as a culture, we're pretty fucking hypocritical about bodily autonomy. If one is going to be absolutist about it, then let us raise the age for any form of bodily...modification that is not of an immediate medical necessity to 18, and be done with it.

But when I see the rage over a procedure that at least has SOME medical value, and then those same ragers seem okay with one that has nothing beyond decoration?

Oh Humanity.

18? That age is the height of bad decision stupidity!

Minimum 21, better yet 23.... No make it 30.

Hee. I'm going with legal age in the US. I don't disagree with you on the stupid level of your average 18 year old. Or 20 year old. or 21 year old for that matter.

[welch]

FGM is just that. It involves removing the clitoris, and in many cases binding of the vagina.( to be opened upon the consummation of marriage)

This procedure is normally done upon a young woman reaching puberty, without any anesthetic.
Needless to say it is a brutal, nightmarish practice.

Male circumcisions don't come anywhere close to the level of pain and loss.(as long as the practicioner doesn't totally fuck up and cut off half the guys penis.)

The male is still left with a fully functioning penis. ( as well as a very sleek look)

Comparing the two procedures is pathetic at best and I believe only serves to allow the rad fem types to show what whiners the MRA types are.( and yes anyone making this argument will be portrayed as an MRA)

I disagree to some extent. There are many different FGM types and procedures. Some appear to be purely cosmetic. So.... I think we should allow any procedure that is purely cosmetic (as long as it has a low incidence of medical complications etc...).

In general, I think we should be very, very, careful and cautious about what we ban. Because banning means you're predicting the future. Humans suck at that.

[jugheadnaut]

The argument for bodily autonomy for children is pretty much a laugh.. We immunize our children. We take them to the dentist and make them get their teeth cleaned and and sealed. We get them stitches when they bust open their chins and, in the case of my youngest daughter, it took myself and two nurses holding her down in a straight-jacket to get her stitches. She fought like we were trying to kill her.

We make them sit at the table until they eat their peas. We put them in time-out or even spank them. When they don't want to go to bed, we put them in bed anyway. When they don't want to sit in the car seat, we still strap the little fuckers in, even if it means pulling over on the side of the highway during rush hour.

It's called parenting. And as a parent, by gosh, you take these 'anti-body-autonomy' actions all the time. Because it's your job to make the decision and do what is necessary for the long-term health, safety and well-being of your child.

The bodily autonomy argument is about permanent bodily modification, not general parental discretion and certainly not about getting teeth cleaned. Yes, it isn't an all-or-none argument. But I think it's clear there must be compelling evidence that the modification is in the long term interests of the child. Of the examples you gave, only vaccinations qualify as permanent bodily modification. And, that easily meets the compelling evidence standard. Circumcision doesn't. The best one can say is that it's medically unnecessary, and it probably does have significant negative consequences.

The bodily autonomy argument is a very cogent one, not a laugh.

[ROBOKiTTY]

Spanking children is not okay.

[John Greg]

jugheadnaut said (http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 89#p191689):

I refer to him as Greg Dim Laden. Is this original?

I cannot recall seeing that before, so it might be.

Sometimes, some of us around here (thanks to the guy who used to make Clownfall videos, Goofon, or Getfun, or summat), refer to that ultimate twit as Lah-Den (or some Goddish name like that).

[AndrewV69]

[youtube]cUFVR5sgbt0[/youtube]

[katamari Damassi]

Richard 'Intellectual Artillery' Carrier's book about Jesus will become available in a few weeks. While making this announcement Carrier has revealed its official title: On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt.

Has there been a competition for the shittiest possible title and was this the winner?

If I'm charitable I could suppose that On the Historicity of Jesus is an allusion to Darwin's On the Origin of Species, although it is equally possible that it is just the kind of old-fashioned academic title that Carrier believes lends gravitas to his writing. But this sub-title!

Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt.

Look, either there is reason for doubt or there isn't. Claiming that we might, just might mind you, have reason for doubt is merely a verbose/cowardly/non-committal/hypercorrect way of saying that there is reason for doubt. In fact, saying that there is reason for doubt is already a timid way of stating that something is in doubt.

It is not the kind of title that will make Jesus worshippers lie awake with fearful anticipation. Nor does it fill me with the urge to obtain a copy as soon as possible.

The God Delusion.

God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason.

Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.

Also-ran:

On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/fil ... edium2.jpg

The cover design is commensurate in shittyness.

Dead in the water.

If that title is an indicator of his prose, then it should sell marvelously.

[Tribble]

The argument for bodily autonomy for children is pretty much a laugh.. We immunize our children. We take them to the dentist and make them get their teeth cleaned and and sealed. We get them stitches when they bust open their chins and, in the case of my youngest daughter, it took myself and two nurses holding her down in a straight-jacket to get her stitches. She fought like we were trying to kill her.

We make them sit at the table until they eat their peas. We put them in time-out or even spank them. When they don't want to go to bed, we put them in bed anyway. When they don't want to sit in the car seat, we still strap the little fuckers in, even if it means pulling over on the side of the highway during rush hour.

It's called parenting. And as a parent, by gosh, you take these 'anti-body-autonomy' actions all the time. Because it's your job to make the decision and do what is necessary for the long-term health, safety and well-being of your child.

The bodily autonomy argument is about permanent bodily modification, not general parental discretion and certainly not about getting teeth cleaned. Yes, it isn't an all-or-none argument. But I think it's clear there must be compelling evidence that the modification is in the long term interests of the child. Of the examples you gave, only vaccinations qualify as permanent bodily modification. And, that easily meets the compelling evidence standard. Circumcision doesn't. The best one can say is that it's medically unnecessary, and it probably does have significant negative consequences.

The bodily autonomy argument is a very cogent one, not a laugh.

No, it's crap. Even some of the most basic things we do to our children can have unexpected, life-long (or fatal) consequences. Yet we do them anyway without a thought.

[jugheadnaut]

jugheadnaut said (http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 89#p191689):

I refer to him as Greg Dim Laden. Is this original?

I cannot recall seeing that before, so it might be.

Sometimes, some of us around here (thanks to the guy who used to make Clownfall videos, Goofon, or Getfun, or summat), refer to that ultimate twit as Lah-Den (or some Goddish name like that).

Yes, I've seen that. Love it! :lol:

[Guestus Aurelius]

The argument for bodily autonomy for children is pretty much a laugh.. We immunize our children. We take them to the dentist and make them get their teeth cleaned and and sealed. We get them stitches when they bust open their chins and, in the case of my youngest daughter, it took myself and two nurses holding her down in a straight-jacket to get her stitches. She fought like we were trying to kill her.

We make them sit at the table until they eat their peas. We put them in time-out or even spank them. When they don't want to go to bed, we put them in bed anyway. When they don't want to sit in the car seat, we still strap the little fuckers in, even if it means pulling over on the side of the highway during rush hour.

It's called parenting. And as a parent, by gosh, you take these 'anti-body-autonomy' actions all the time. Because it's your job to make the decision and do what is necessary for the long-term health, safety and well-being of your child.

Yes. It's not that bodily autonomy for children counts for nothing—it's that there are many other considerations, and pretty much everyone agrees that some of those other considerations trump autonomy in certain situations.

That said, I'm against circumcision for now. I don't think purely aesthetic considerations should trump A) the pain the procedure causes; B) the loss of sexual sensation (that said, I'm cut and I'm not complaining); C) the associated risks (exacerbated when not performed by a pro); or D) the bodily autonomy of the child.

If future studies demonstrate that circumcision really is as effective at preventing the transmission of HIV as some researchers have claimed, then I'll reconsider my position.

As for the FGM comparison...

Obviously circumcision and FGM have something in common. The trouble is that analogies are limited. MRAs sometimes stretch the circumcision–FGM analogy too far, and even just a little bit of that is bound to upset the oversensitive SJWs, regardless of intent. This gives the SJWs ammunition to use in the war of public opinion.

Gotta be careful with analogies. It shouldn't be that way, but it is.

[another lurker]

Spanking children is not okay.

Spanking kitties is not OK.

I just tell mine "no" and she hisses at me. She turned my subwoofer off THREE times last week!!!11

[Guestus Aurelius]

What about spanking monkeys?

[welch]

And there it goes David Wong again, riding the Sarkeesian bandwagon on Cracked. What a shock.

Why, oh God why, when these idiots talking about videogames and female protagonists never talk about Final Fantasy XIII? Jesus fucking Christ, that's three whole AAA games with two different female protagonists! The way he talks, it's like nobody saw a female protagonist in a huge game in this current generation, barring Mirror Edge. Fucking Bayonetta apparently didn't happen, either.

I won't even comment on the Atelier series because it's such niche (althought it's on its fiftteenth installment, with the 16th one to be released next month in Japan), but since the series went to the PS3, it has been 4 whole games (Atelier Rorona,Atelier Totori, Atelier Meruru, and Atelier Ayesha) with female protagonists. The last one has two main characters, male and female. In fact, the whole series always had female protagonists until Atelier Iris on the PS2 (the 6th title on the series).

Fucking research, how do it work? Right, Mr. Wong?

While the majority of video games use male protagonists, to make it seem like it's the entire industry, or that female protagonists are some weird aberration, that's really not correct. Off the top of my head, major current and past releases with female protagonists (that i know about/have played):

Baldur's Gate (all)
Neverwinter Nights (all)
Mass Effect (all)
Tomb Raider*
Metroid (Prime)*
Dragon Age (All)
Icewind Dale (all)
Silent Hill 3
parts of King's Quest
Resident Evil (may be all, unsure)
Pretty much every MMO ever
Elder Scrolls, (may be all, unsure prior to oblivion)
The SSI Gold Box D&D series
Saint's Row 4 (May be the others, only played that one)

*no male protagonist option

Those are some pretty major releases, even the older ones. None of them are cooking or barbie games.

Could game producers do better? Sure. But again, let us work with the ACTUAL issue, not the issue we want it to be.

[welch]

Just a thought... but I suspect that more children are permanently and seriously injured by ear piercings than injured by circumcision. I give the win to Welch. Carry on.

LOL...I'd be disinclined to agree with it, but I raised the point to show that as a culture, we're pretty fucking hypocritical about bodily autonomy. If one is going to be absolutist about it, then let us raise the age for any form of bodily...modification that is not of an immediate medical necessity to 18, and be done with it.

But when I see the rage over a procedure that at least has SOME medical value, and then those same ragers seem okay with one that has nothing beyond decoration?

Oh Humanity.

The argument for bodily autonomy for children is pretty much a laugh.. We immunize our children. We take them to the dentist and make them get their teeth cleaned and and sealed. We get them stitches when they bust open their chins and, in the case of my youngest daughter, it took myself and two nurses holding her down in a straight-jacket to get her stitches. She fought like we were trying to kill her.

We make them sit at the table until they eat their peas. We put them in time-out or even spank them. When they don't want to go to bed, we put them in bed anyway. When they don't want to sit in the car seat, we still strap the little fuckers in, even if it means pulling over on the side of the highway during rush hour.

It's called parenting. And as a parent, by gosh, you take these 'anti-body-autonomy' actions all the time. Because it's your job to make the decision and do what is necessary for the long-term health, safety and well-being of your child.

Yep. This is all about what circumcision modifies.

[welch]

And there it goes David Wong again, riding the Sarkeesian bandwagon on Cracked. What a shock.

Why, oh God why, when these idiots talking about videogames and female protagonists never talk about Final Fantasy XIII? Jesus fucking Christ, that's three whole AAA games with two different female protagonists! The way he talks, it's like nobody saw a female protagonist in a huge game in this current generation, barring Mirror Edge. Fucking Bayonetta apparently didn't happen, either.

I won't even comment on the Atelier series because it's such niche (althought it's on its fiftteenth installment, with the 16th one to be released next month in Japan), but since the series went to the PS3, it has been 4 whole games (Atelier Rorona,Atelier Totori, Atelier Meruru, and Atelier Ayesha) with female protagonists. The last one has two main characters, male and female. In fact, the whole series always had female protagonists until Atelier Iris on the PS2 (the 6th title on the series).

Fucking research, how do it work? Right, Mr. Wong?

While the majority of video games use male protagonists, to make it seem like it's the entire industry, or that female protagonists are some weird aberration, that's really not correct. Off the top of my head, major current and past releases with female protagonists (that i know about/have played):

Baldur's Gate (all)
Neverwinter Nights (all)
Mass Effect (all)
Tomb Raider*
Metroid (Prime)*
Dragon Age (All)
Icewind Dale (all)
Silent Hill 3
parts of King's Quest
Resident Evil (may be all, unsure)
Pretty much every MMO ever
Elder Scrolls, (may be all, unsure prior to oblivion)
The SSI Gold Box D&D series
Saint's Row 4 (May be the others, only played that one)

*no male protagonist option

Those are some pretty major releases, even the older ones. None of them are cooking or barbie games.

Could game producers do better? Sure. But again, let us work with the ACTUAL issue, not the issue we want it to be.

I forgot Heavenly Sword. One main protagonist, one minor. Both women. No male option.

[jugheadnaut]

The bodily autonomy argument is a very cogent one, not a laugh.

No, it's crap. Even some of the most basic things we do to our children can have unexpected, life-long (or fatal) consequences. Yet we do them anyway without a thought.

So, where do you draw the line on parental discretion? Intentional infliction of injury? Some parents might argue that a good beating is just what a bad child needs. I would think reasonable people would not cover permanent bodily modification for ritualistic reasons under parental discretion. As I said previously, if circumcision hadn't been handed down to us from less enlightened times, and a cult was trying to start the practice now, the perpetrators would almost certainly be prosecuted under existing child abuse laws.

[katamari Damassi]

And there it goes David Wong again, riding the Sarkeesian bandwagon on Cracked. What a shock.

Why, oh God why, when these idiots talking about videogames and female protagonists never talk about Final Fantasy XIII? Jesus fucking Christ, that's three whole AAA games with two different female protagonists! The way he talks, it's like nobody saw a female protagonist in a huge game in this current generation, barring Mirror Edge. Fucking Bayonetta apparently didn't happen, either.

I won't even comment on the Atelier series because it's such niche (althought it's on its fiftteenth installment, with the 16th one to be released next month in Japan), but since the series went to the PS3, it has been 4 whole games (Atelier Rorona,Atelier Totori, Atelier Meruru, and Atelier Ayesha) with female protagonists. The last one has two main characters, male and female. In fact, the whole series always had female protagonists until Atelier Iris on the PS2 (the 6th title on the series).

Fucking research, how do it work? Right, Mr. Wong?

Wong's a persistent mother fucker. He got pushback from feminists when he published that white knighting list of "ways men are taught to hate women". He really wants those cookies though. He'll never get them because cookie seeking is patriarchal oppression.

[Casual Nemesis]

PZ links to an article by Jen Gunter, where she is responding to an article by George Will.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... survivors/

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/an-ob ... ape-column

At about 750 words, it is 45% anecdote, and 22% excuses for women not to report that they’ve been raped. It was pretty much an emotionally-based, condescending “you just don’t get it” pieces that is common among the SJL/radfem axis. It’s no surprise that PZ thought it was significant.

I’m not a fan of George Will, and his piece ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html )
is pretty much just a broad but shallow slap at SJL/radfem infection of universities. He bounces across the field between mirco-aggressions and victim privilege, trigger warnings and speech codes, to arguing against long debunked radfem rape statistics, to low campus standards of evidence in reported rape situations. There are no brilliant insights in it, but it highlights the main SJL pain in the ass points pretty well.

At least its nice to see some mainstream pushback on their BS.

[jimthepleb]

Just a thought... but I suspect that more children are permanently and seriously injured by ear piercings than injured by circumcision. I give the win to Welch. Carry on.

Depends how you are defining 'injury' to my mind it is the causing of in which case both qualify. But circumcision is likely more 'permanent and serious' if it can be shown that loss of sensation accompanies the scarring etc of the procedure itself it is many orders of magnitude worse than piercing which causes a small channel of scar tissue to form and is usually only likely to cause issues of infection. Piercing infants is still abusive in my book.

[jimthepleb]

Circumcision and ear piercing?

I'm surprised hospitals don't already have tattoo artists on call to give baby full sleeves.

Why aren't we dishing out Prince Alberts and piercing clits and labia? I bet there's a market for it.

[AndrewV69]

I think it's called a self-fulfilling prophecy, you fucking morons:

http://i.imgur.com/AlYpZs3.png

http://i.imgur.com/rfWFjfY.png

http://skepchick.org/2014/06/world-cup- ... the-worst/

The World Cup, eh? While I'm sick and tired of this shit, it got it's high points, for sure:

http://www.correio24horas.com.br/upload ... ep.jpg.jpg

Send this to Skepchicks Inc. and make them explode.

That looks like it came from this :

[youtube]cRoYDWG4Zbo[/youtube]

[John D]

Spanking children is not okay.

One thing can be said.... absolutes are usually not useful. While I very seldom struck my kids, I have hit them.

I used to slap my child's hand when they were about to play with the electrical chords. I didn't hurt them much... just a slap on the hand. Why? Because I wanted them to associate a strong negative with the electrical chord. I did the same when they ran into the street.

Of course, it is best to add a positive, so a slap can be followed by a pleasant distraction. Divert the kid away from the chord by finding them a better toy... or playing with them.

I never punished my kids by spanking. I think it makes no sense. It is better to just give them a symbolic time-out, or delay their treat for a while. It usually doesn't take much.

However, I do know many very normal healthy adults who where spanked as a kid.... including me. You tend to survive these things.

I once spanked my kid on the ass when I was angry and it was a really poor choice. I felt terrible about it and I appologised. I never did it a second time. Haha. Guilt works on me. A child should only be punished as a way to modify their behavior. If you are punishing a child because you are angry then you know you are doing it wrong!

[John D]

That looks like it came from this :

[youtube]cRoYDWG4Zbo[/youtube]

Fake boobs only look good in still photos. Balloons attached to pectoral muscles are just horrifying.

[jugheadnaut]

PZ links to an article by Jen Gunter, where she is responding to an article by George Will.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... survivors/

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/an-ob ... ape-column

At about 750 words, it is 45% anecdote, and 22% excuses for women not to report that they’ve been raped. It was pretty much an emotionally-based, condescending “you just don’t get it” pieces that is common among the SJL/radfem axis. It’s no surprise that PZ thought it was significant.

I’m not a fan of George Will, and his piece ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html )
is pretty much just a broad but shallow slap at SJL/radfem infection of universities. He bounces across the field between mirco-aggressions and victim privilege, trigger warnings and speech codes, to arguing against long debunked radfem rape statistics, to low campus standards of evidence in reported rape situations. There are no brilliant insights in it, but it highlights the main SJL pain in the ass points pretty well.

At least its nice to see some mainstream pushback on their BS.

It's too bad he included that stupid calculation from Mark Perry. It gave critics a club they can beat the column with. The rest is workmanlike criticism of SJW campus shenanigans. And because it's in the mainstream, destroying it and the reputation of George Will, has been a major SJW imperative this past week.

[windy]

Any aesthetic consideration is beyond the pale. We don't tattoo or usually pierce our kids until they can consent. If little Billy wants to look like daddy then maybe, just maybe he can have elective surgery but only by his own request.

I've never understood the "little Billy will feel bad if his willy looks different from Dad's" argument anyway. It's not like it's going to look like a grown man's cock either way!? (excepting some developmental oddity of Hornbeckian proportions in the family)
:cdc:

I wonder if those folks also present their prepubescent kids with merkins so they can look more like Mom and Dad...

[Casual Nemesis]

I’ve noticed a common theme in the rape anecdotes that the SJL/radfem axis likes to use. The favored lived experience seems to go like this;

Me and Corky Mitzenbaum used to date, but we decided that we would just be friends. One night we were out with friends, and I let him come back to my place to crash in my bed with me. Corky’s hands started to wander and he started dry humping me like a schnauzer with a couch cushion. I said ‘no’, and he stopped for a little bit. A few minutes later he started again. Corky had his fuck on and I was too tired (drunk, horny etc.) to stop him, so I just let him finish. A few days (or weeks) later, I started telling people that he raped me.

So, it starts with going out with an ex and bringing that ex back into your bed, which is not very ex-like.
Then, the big response to the ex wanting to go vaginal spelunking is a “no” followed by a “what-the-fuck-ever”, which is followed days or weeks later by RRAAEEPP!

I’ve always said that an ex is an ex for a reason, so why would you want to revisit that shit. It’s also interesting that the “I just let him finish” is never recognized as some form of consent.
…and these people are allowed outside unattended.

[jugheadnaut]

Fake boobs only look good in still photos. Balloons attached to pectoral muscles are just horrifying.

And even in pictures, that bolted-on half cantaloupes look is strange. When I see one, I frequently think I should be turned on by this, so why aren't I?

Fake boobs look good in clothes, unless the procedure was botched. And I think most women who get the procedure will gladly tolerate looking fake when nude in order to look great clothed.

[acathode]

Yes. It's not that bodily autonomy for children counts for nothing—it's that there are many other considerations, and pretty much everyone agrees that some of those other considerations trump autonomy in certain situations.

Then again, very few are "absolutists" when it comes to bodily autonomy. Being an absolutist about bodily autonomy is pretty much the sort of binary, black and white thinking that we usually see ideologues like the SJWs practicing (usually regarding abortion).

Others are quite happy to admit that there's shades of gray, and can for example see that genitalia is a much, much more sensitive* part of the human body than an earlobe, and thus cutting away at the genitalia is a invasion of the bodily autonomy several magnitudes worse than piercing an ear or vaccination. From there on it's simply judging pros and cons against each other:

Circumcision: Insignificant pros, severe invasion of bodily autonomy = bad.
Piercing: Insignificant pros, minor invasion of bodily autonomy = slightly bad, "meh".
Vaccination: Major pros, minor/medium invasion of bodily autonomy = not bad.

To argue that if we ban circumcision, we also need to ban earpiercings, is just being inane.

(*and with sensitive, I'm not talking about only the sensory sensitivity, but about the whole host of psychological, cultural, biological, and sexual stuff that comes with our genitalia)

If future studies demonstrate that circumcision really is as effective at preventing the transmission of HIV as some researchers have claimed, then I'll reconsider my position.

I can't see why this would be relevant. Babies don't get HIV from unprotected sex, and it just so happens, that around the time boys start having sex, they are also fairly close to the age where they are adult enough to decide for themselves if they want to be circumcised or not.

[Really?]

Agreed, a medical procedure to correct or repair something really shouldn't be an issue.( as I had stated in my previous post there may be remote chances of complications)

I was only referring the Northern/central African version of FGM.

Isn't it sad and telling that MGM is considered a "repair"? That the penis in its natural state needs to be corrected?

If it's okay to "correct" the penis, why not the vagina?

[TiBo]

It's not bad, but I think you're being overly dismissive of the medical issues. HIV prevention, given the severity of that condition, and the current effort and cost required to manage it is not a minor issue. It is perhaps better to say, and I think more accurate, that the science and data behind that argument is still somewhat nascent and so not immediately compelling. I'm also unaware of any legitimate medical justification for FGM, so lumping them both together in that category doesn't seem accurate.

I'm not dismissive of the potential usefulness, but the usefulness does not constitute a legitimate argument to justify the severity of the consequences of the procedure.

As a hypothetical : Let's assume that male circumcision (and some form of equal treatment for girls) would make an individual 100% immune to contracting HIV through normal intercourse - an immense gain. And still, the parents wouldn't be justified by making that decision for the child, because by the time the child is old enough to have intercourse (and potentially get infected), it it also old enough to make a decision whether it wants to undergo the procedure and benefit from it in the described way, or not.

Reality is a bit more bland. The benefits (HIV-argument) seem overblown, at best, and in addition easily surpassed by other methods of preventing infection (condoms). Hygiene is not even a topic for people in the western hemisphere, for everyone of us has access to water and soap. That means that the actual benefits from circumcision do not match its risks in any meaningful way. But again, that's a decision a person can make for him/herself when it's due time.

Part of the overall problem is that your post treats FGM and Circumcision as precisely the same thing. I don't think that's going to fly terribly well, because to get to something resembling accuracy in that requires a LOT of work. As well, i don't think the arguments for/against circumcision actually need to use FGM as a justification beyond bodily autonomy. (which as you point out, is regularly violated anyway for some of the silliest reasons ever, and in some cultures, radically violated well beyond that of a simple ear piercing.) The arguments for circumcision, other than the medical ones are, as have been pointed out, rather stupid. Although this line:

I think I made clear that FGM comes in a bunch of varieties, ranging from minor cosmetic changes, to circumcision, to severely disabilitating changes (a distinction completely lost with folks like Spike13, although they've been repeatedly told otherwise). Compared to that, changes to the male penis are rather simple (at least when we're talking about the main traditions we're confronted with, forgetting about the strange practices of some native tribes).

My argument can treat both equally, because it's a systemic one, and both practices, although potentially different in their consequences, violate the very same principles.

Doesn't seem to actually jibe with reality until somewhat recently in the case of circumcision, and I doubt it would even now. You might see the doc suspended, but double-digit sentences? Doubtful. (Note: this is not talking about if this is right or wrong. This is just talking about the likelihood of that happening.)

I think you've just switched between 2 cultural biases, one of them allowing religion to trample on peoples' rights, the other one society being way too lenient towards medical malpractice. Plus, you assumed that I was talking about a qualified medical doctor. I wasn't.

What distorts the images in our heads is the way MGM/FGM are usually exercised. While we in the West have gotten used to medical professionals performing MGM so often that it has become a routine surgery, FGM is (still?) an oddity. FGM is mostly practiced by unqualified people, under horrific circumstances, applying inept methods and using inappropriate tools, predictably resulting in more complications.
If a minor form of FGM were as routinely practiced as MGM, by medical professionals in hospitals, the entire discussion would indeed look a bit different, but that's only because the level of public discourse is low, and not because the nature of the transgression has changed.

In addition, the "reduces sexual function/pleasure" arguments may be somewhat correct, but you're talking about something that's hard to measure objectively. "Sexual pleasure" is a highly individual thing.

I made no such argument. Saying that the foreskin is a functional part of the body is based on facts (containing nerve cords, protecting the glans), not on merely subjective judgement. But if it's true (someone mentioned it) that there is a statistically significant number of circumcised people having problems performing the sex act, then their circumcision must be described as a disabilitating mutilation.

[jimthepleb]

Agreed, a medical procedure to correct or repair something really shouldn't be an issue.( as I had stated in my previous post there may be remote chances of complications)

I was only referring the Northern/central African version of FGM.

Isn't it sad and telling that MGM is considered a "repair"? That the penis in its natural state needs to be corrected?

If it's okay to "correct" the penis, why not the vagina?

'Cos patriarchy?

[Old_ones]

The post itself by Benson is illustrative of the poverty of her thinking.
Despite it's title about the use of 'social justice warrior' as an insult, it's really about an article involving the use of another pejorative phrase - 'brocialist' - a term designed to apply to left wing males who fail to live up to the neofem rulebook.

As such it probably applies to most secular men and indeed most left wing men.
It is at least interesting that questioning of the neofem dogma is not the preserve of conservatives or libertarians.

It says men on the Left who aren’t particularly feminist in their approach to thought, presentation, or behavior — often called “bros” or “brocialists” — should not be dismissed outright, and should also not be lumped in with outright misogyinists just for being, you know, men’s men. Frost basically argues that “bros” aren’t as bad as they’re reputed to be.

That article contains the following sentence:

"And I just don’t think the diminutive label of ‘bro’ should be [used] to describe more insidious sexism, let alone violent aggression like rape threats."

To me that makes sense. The world is not divided into those who send rape threats and those who are social justice warriors. Most of us inhabit the no-mans-land (ahem!) between these two extreme camps.

But, of course, that would introduce a nuance to the question.
And that, for Ophelia at least, will not do.

She firmly aligns herself with the neofem brigade who seem determined to expunge any grey areas from the debate.

From the original article quoted by Benson:

The controversy is over the fact that this sentence, when the piece originally appeared, contained a link to a tweet by Sarah Kendzior in which she referred to a “brocialist” who once leveled a rape threat against her.

The Sarah Kendzior seems an intellectually dishonest individual.
Brocialist is a rather nebulous term and like most pejoratives is not something anyone calls themselves.
Kendzior got a rape threat from someone on the internet and decided to label this threatener a 'brocialist'.

This seems quite enough for Ophelia to conclude that this is proof that 'brocialists' send rape threats and therefore all 'brocialists' (meaning left wing non-neofem men) are pretty much the same as the extremist rape threateners!

Bye-bye middle ground!

The following article gives a little more details and shows that this is now unfortunately a rather common problem within the left.
http://fredrikdeboer.com/2014/06/10/wha ... lly-wrote/

But, of course, this is an Ophelia article.
And that means whatever the article is about, it's really all about her.

Ah now that last is one of the details I didn’t get. Interesting. I had thought the feeding frenzy over that word was local to “the atheist community” and its brocialist hatred of feminism and feminists, but clearly that’s quite wrong. Interesting interesting. So it’s not just atheist assholes aka brocialists, it’s also asshole progressives and lefties aka brocialists. Good to know.

Anti-feminists hate me. I hate anti-feminists. No I’m not going to put all that aside for the sake of “the community.” Stalemate.

Its a case study in why I've never read her regularly, even when I was a reader and commenter at pharyngula. It reads like a first draft that she slapped together out of a sense of obligation, without really understanding what she was trying to say or why she would say it. She started with a title about the word "social justice warrior" and proceeded to segue into something unrelated and then she didn't change the title to match the article. Most of the article is someone else's writing, and she didn't even pick selections from that help you understand what the fuck that other author was talking about. Finally, what was the point of this writing?

Shorter Ophelia: I don't like "brocalists" and I'm going to keep calling them "brocalists". Oh yeah, and I just figured out that "social justice warrior" is an insult.

Jesus christ, congratulations. If there were awards for sloppiness and banality in blogging, Ophelia, you'd win them all. You'd be the Meryl Streep of the internet raspberries.

[jimthepleb]

All you cut guys just a quick question...where do you store marbles?

[Really?]

And if you're going to argue in favor of circumcision on the grounds that it decreases the risk of HIV transmission, aren't you also making the argument in favor of sewing the vagina shut or making chastity belts mandatory? I mean, we simply HAVE to sew those labia together in the best interest of the little girl, right? We don't want her to get HIV.

[Tony Parsehole]

So it turns out that the Twitter SJW's are only now coming to the shocking realisation that the #EndFathersDay hashtag was an elaborate troll by 4chan. A troll that they gladly went along with when they thought it was invented by one of their own.
Hence the new #YourSlipIsShowing tag where they can congregate and moan about how evil 4chan is for getting them to reveal their bigotry.
Check it out. Many LOLs and much butthurt abound.

https://twitter.com/hashtag/YourSlipIsShowing?src=hash