Choice posting

That’s not what a strawman is. They’re not saying pro choice people are for circumcision, and then arguing against that falsely constructed opinion.

They’re making a joke that pro “choice” people should be against circumcision, as the babies who get them aren’t given the choice.

A strawman specifically means that they’re claiming that this is those people’s opinion, and then arguing against it.

You had me until the last sentence. There are a lot of deeply misguided—and plain fucking stupid—reasons that circumcision has become seen as the 'norm' in the US, but I don't think it's how the American people takes its aggression out on men?? That's a pretty unhinged thing to think. I understand the anger and frustration at genital mutilation of babies (bc that's what it is, in my opinion), but let's come back to earth a bit.

EDIT: since this comment is getting attention, I just wanted to add that it really does seem like people are waking up to how fucked circumcision is. We just had a baby, and as part of our stack of information brochures given to us by the hospital (in Oklahoma, a deeply red state), there was a whole page dedicated to circumcision pros and cons. You could tell it heavily favored not circumcising, and preserving bodily autonomy was it's own full bullet point on the cons side, as well as busting myths that people perpetuate trying to justify it still.

Also, in our infant care courses, they showed some really awful pictures of freshly-circumcised baby penises. We had already decided not to circumcise for obvious moral reasons, but that made us feel even more secure in our decision. I feel like more parents need to see that stuff to make them realize what's actually going to be done to their baby with the procedure.

All that to say, I think there's hope for decreasing the occurrences of this deeply awful cultural practice!

While I whole heartedly disagree with the practice of circumsizing babies. (babies can't consent therfore an unnecessary procedure is just flat out unethical) It's not really true to say science shows that the foreskin is erogenous or even that circumcision affects sexual pleasure.

There is a bit of conflicting data out there so there is still some debate over the fact but right now the data leans heavily toward there being little to no adverse affects on sexual pleasure. And in fact some anecdotal evidence actually seems to show that the opposite may be true; that circumsized penises may actually be more sensitive to sexual stimuli.

Again though, I can't stress enough how much I believe circumsicion is wrong.

Source

Edit: hey guys. Coming back to this and uh, have learned some things. I'd like to retract this statement pretty please. Please forgive me.

Relevant post https://lemmy.world/comment/7949837

It is all coming from the Puritan ideology pushing the completely outdated and unrealistic idea that sexuality should be exclusively within the confines of marriage. Even the majority of the people pushing this ideal aren't following it themselves.

Circumcision is a way to discourage masturbation. This also means that they are against contraception which, according to them, promote extramarital sex. Abortion is only the tip of the iceberg of what they would ban if they were even given the chance and we've already seen them move on to attacking contraception in some places where they've already banned abortion.

No matter how they're trying to dress it as it is obviously a religion-motivated movement and should not be allowed to force its views on the people. It pisses me off that through their ideological reasoning they have also decided to fight stem cell research. We could have cured so many diseases and disabilities if it wasn't for these religious zealots.

maybe... she was forced to give birth before her menopause. or maybe she just has empathy for her fellow women