Why are people so angry about circumcision

[B_VinylBoy]

Off topic VB. In fact it just shovels more coal on the fire.

http://www.lpsg.org/2970985-post311.html

The question is- Why are you so angry about it? Why are other's so angry? And why can't the topic be discussed in a civil way?

I already addressed that question 6 times in the earlier parts of this thread. If we do a search on this thread using terms referring to a "baby's rights" or a "baby's consent", it comes up several times. Also, considering that the topic has threaded to a number of relevant side points that do target the overall subject matter, I didn't see no harm in posting that piece.

But if I have to address why the topic can't be discussed in a civil way:
In order for us to have a real thorough discussion, the talking points from either side will eventually have to be addressed. That way a person's opinion can evolve and stimulate more valid questions. To have a thread go for 20+ pages where the only valid question(s) are the one provided by the OP (with no prospect of evolution) does nothing to spark continued discussion unless the OP is willing to provide so many different questions as if they were conducting research to create a collegiate dissertation.

Why this and so many other debates on this board get so heated is because some people (when forming a statement) don't pay attention to the cruel & bitter context of their statements while others view questions that challenges his or her beliefs to be a threat. Some people have become so caught up in the intellectual styling of their statements that almost any confrontation generated from it beckons the cries of "insulting". And then, there's the name calling, both directly and indirectly. From my angle, it seems as if those who are more deliberate get most of the scrutiny, while those who are coy enough to disguise such verbiage with big words are not reprimanded nearly as much. That ties directly into my point about context earlier.

I've never been angry about the subject of circumcision. I've always maintained my belief that parents should have the decision as to whether or not to circumcise their newborn boys. I have no preference or harbor any belief over whether or not a man looks better or has better sex with or without foreskin. After having sex with many men, I can say that there really isn't a difference (or at least one that requires 100 threads on the subject matter). However, I have been frustrated with the number of people who continue to debate with deceitfully formed moral arguments that indirectly take shots at a person's character. In many ways, watching some of the strong, anti-circumcision members debate this is like watching pro-lifers go after pro-choicers in an abortion argument by spinning their words to make it seem like they're the enemy. Although the radicals on either side will never see eye to eye, people who are somewhere in the middle get unfairly labeled and attacked from both angles. Because I believe expecting parents have a right to choose, I don't know how many times I have been relabeled as "pro circ", or have been told (in various tongues) that I'm sexually or morally inferior to someone who is uncut even after saying repeatedly that I don't have a preference. With things like this going on in almost 100 threads, the fact that someone will eventually get fed up with the constant distortions and misinterpretations and lash out in discontentment shouldn't surprise anyone.

This subject, like many other debates, have no definitive right or wrong answer. When the Hatfields & the McCoys figure this out, then perhaps tempers on this board will dwindle down? And although it's commendable that mods are starting to do something to tame down the rancor, we still have a long way to go before these discussions become more peaceful.

 

[vince]

Good point Vince, but I think it's a lost cause. Why do some people just find a reason to argue about everything and I mean everything. I am a fun person who likes life and enjoys life and thinks it is too short to spend your time depressed and hostile.



There are some people out there that no matter what you say to them it ends up in an argument and then you try to explain that maybe you both miscommunicated the conversation and they tend to argue some more. They delude themselves in the idea that argument means they are intelligent. You are left drained and wondering why you expended the energy.


I think it's a control issue and they are bound and determine to prove they are right. Or perhaps it is an inferiority complex. Some people have such emptiness in their lives the need to bring someone down daily so they feel comforted. We should feel sorry for them, but it's tough.


Check it out. Click on the profiles of some of these angry posters and then click the posts they've contributed to during their membership (I'm using the word “contributed” loosely here). You'll see what I'm talking about. No matter what the issue they don't agree with anybody and spend a good part of their day convincing you that they're right. I sure hope they're not doing it on company time. In closing, some people like to argue and some people are miserable bastards. I choose to walk away from both, thank you very much.

Then why did you post the following in this thread?

Just my opinion, but some may get defensive because they were cut as a child and didn't have a choice. They really don't know what it's like to have skin and never will, so they strike out at those who say it's better to be uncut. Human nature I guess. I only get upset when I hear that doctors do it automatically without asking or they talk the parents into having their son mutilated.

You are so right and I apologize if I offended anyone. There has to be a better word. Maybe we could get some suggestions from other members of this group? Unfortunately, when it comes to what happens in the operating room, I don't have a good substitute word to make people feel better. Mutilate, maim, mangle, amputate? Somehow these words don't sound better or make it right. Call it what you will, it's a plain fact that we as parents, don't have the right to make this choice for our boys. It has to stop and if I can stop one parent from making this bad decision, I will feel proud.

P.S. For the record, I like cock no matter what size, shape, with or without extra skin. I'm just glad my parents let me make the choice about mine.

My response is that your posts the thread have been just as inflamatory as VB's. More so perhaps and earlier.

Mr Cunning Stunt said it best:

Whilst I completely agree with your point of view on RIC I would have phrased it very differently. I would say that I completely disagree with RIC and feel that it should be left until a point where the child/young man is able to make an informed decision for himself. Whilst a lot might disagree with me no-one could possibly be offended by that view.

You see what you did was to use attacking, belittling, offensive words that would immediately invoke anger, counter attacks and defensiveness. The debate is then a complete none starter as the subject becomes lost in a heap of emotion where neither side has any respect for the other.

 

[D_Mephistophiles Scatlicker]

Then why did you post the following in this thread?



My response is that your posts the thread have been just as inflamatory as VB's. More so perhaps and earlier.

Mr Cunning Stunt said it best:

You are 100% right Vince. It's contagious and I'm not proud that I lowered myself and fell into the trap. That's why I quit posting on the subject.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Why this and so many other debates on this board get so heated is because some people (when forming a statement) don't pay attention to the cruel & bitter context of their statements while others view questions that challenges his or her beliefs to be a threat. Some people have become so caught up in the intellectual styling of their statements that almost any confrontation generated from it beckons the cries of "insulting". And then, there's the name calling, both directly and indirectly. From my angle, it seems as if those who are more deliberate get most of the scrutiny, while those who are coy enough to disguise such verbiage with big words are not reprimanded nearly as much. That ties directly into my point about context earlier.

I've never been angry about the subject of circumcision. I've always maintained my belief that parents should have the decision as to whether or not to circumcise their newborn boys. I have no preference or harbor any belief over whether or not a man looks better or has better sex with or without foreskin. After having sex with many men, I can say that there really isn't a difference (or at least one that requires 100 threads on the subject matter). However, I have been frustrated with the number of people who continue to debate with deceitfully formed moral arguments that indirectly take shots at a person's character. In many ways, watching some of the strong, anti-circumcision members debate this is like watching pro-lifers go after pro-choicers in an abortion argument by spinning their words to make it seem like they're the enemy. Although the radicals on either side will never see eye to eye, people who are somewhere in the middle get unfairly labeled and attacked from both angles. Because I believe expecting parents have a right to choose, I don't know how many times I have been relabeled as "pro circ", or have been told (in various tongues) that I'm sexually or morally inferior to someone who is uncut even after saying repeatedly that I don't have a preference. With things like this going on in almost 100 threads, the fact that someone will eventually get fed up with the constant distortions and misinterpretations and lash out in discontentment shouldn't surprise anyone.

This subject, like many other debates, have no definitive right or wrong answer. When the Hatfields & the McCoys figure this out, then perhaps tempers on this board will dwindle down? And although it's commendable that mods are starting to do something to tame down the rancor, we still have a long way to go before these discussions become more peaceful.

Thank you, genuinely, for returning to the actual topic of discussion. I hope sincerely for all concerned that you will continue in this vein and that no one will continue to disrupt thorough discussion and the stimulation of more valid points.

 

[darkbond007]

I already addressed that question 6 times in the earlier parts of this thread. If we do a search on this thread using terms referring to a "baby's rights" or a "baby's consent", it comes up several times. Also, considering that the topic has threaded to a number of relevant side points that do target the overall subject matter, I didn't see no harm in posting that piece.

But if I have to address why the topic can't be discussed in a civil way:
In order for us to have a real thorough discussion, the talking points from either side will eventually have to be addressed. That way a person's opinion can evolve and stimulate more valid questions. To have a thread go for 20+ pages where the only valid question(s) are the one provided by the OP (with no prospect of evolution) does nothing to spark continued discussion unless the OP is willing to provide so many different questions as if they were conducting research to create a collegiate dissertation.

Why this and so many other debates on this board get so heated is because some people (when forming a statement) don't pay attention to the cruel & bitter context of their statements while others view questions that challenges his or her beliefs to be a threat. Some people have become so caught up in the intellectual styling of their statements that almost any confrontation generated from it beckons the cries of "insulting". And then, there's the name calling, both directly and indirectly. From my angle, it seems as if those who are more deliberate get most of the scrutiny, while those who are coy enough to disguise such verbiage with big words are not reprimanded nearly as much. That ties directly into my point about context earlier.

I've never been angry about the subject of circumcision. I've always maintained my belief that parents should have the decision as to whether or not to circumcise their newborn boys. I have no preference or harbor any belief over whether or not a man looks better or has better sex with or without foreskin. After having sex with many men, I can say that there really isn't a difference (or at least one that requires 100 threads on the subject matter). However, I have been frustrated with the number of people who continue to debate with deceitfully formed moral arguments that indirectly take shots at a person's character. In many ways, watching some of the strong, anti-circumcision members debate this is like watching pro-lifers go after pro-choicers in an abortion argument by spinning their words to make it seem like they're the enemy. Although the radicals on either side will never see eye to eye, people who are somewhere in the middle get unfairly labeled and attacked from both angles. Because I believe expecting parents have a right to choose, I don't know how many times I have been relabeled as "pro circ", or have been told (in various tongues) that I'm sexually or morally inferior to someone who is uncut even after saying repeatedly that I don't have a preference. With things like this going on in almost 100 threads, the fact that someone will eventually get fed up with the constant distortions and misinterpretations and lash out in discontentment shouldn't surprise anyone.

This subject, like many other debates, have no definitive right or wrong answer. When the Hatfields & the McCoys figure this out, then perhaps tempers on this board will dwindle down? And although it's commendable that mods are starting to do something to tame down the rancor, we still have a long way to go before these discussions become more peaceful.

I could not say it better myself. Wonderfully articulated viewpoint that I share.

 

[wallaboi]

Then why did you post the following in this thread?



My response is that your posts the thread have been just as inflamatory as VB's. More so perhaps and earlier.

Mr Cunning Stunt said it best:

Wherevever this topic is raised, discussion inevitably becomes heated not just here at LPSG...absolutely everwhere. Why? I'm not really sure but cognitive dissonance is a theory in social psychology as to how and why people so passionately defend their opinion....My attempt to stay on topic.

But what I really wanted to say is that while I commend the moderators resolve to curb personal attacks and keep threads on the topic of the original post, it concerns me that we may be in danger of over sanitising the discussion.

If it is seen as inflamatory for one poster to describe male circumcision as mutilation, then should we only refer to female genital mutilation as circumcision or the medically correct term. The language may be inflamatory to those with a different point of view, but if the poster chooses terms or phrases which reflect their belief, must we really have to sanatise our posts to avoid possibly offending someome else?

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

But what I really wanted to say is that while I commend the moderators resolve to curb personal attacks and keep threads on the topic of the original post, it concerns me that we may be in danger of over sanitising the discussion.

If it is seen as inflamatory for one poster to describe male circumcision as mutilation, then should we only refer to female genital mutilation as circumcision or the medically correct term. The language may be inflamatory to those with a different point of view, but if the poster chooses terms or phrases which reflect their belief, must we really have to sanatise our posts to avoid possibly offending someome else?

We're not trying to sanitise discussion. We're trying to keep threads from being hijacked by endless, mind-numbing, pointless acrimony which has nothing to do with the original post and makes discussion, or merely reading a thread nigh on impossible.

But thanks for the advice and all. And now back to the topic at hand....

 

[mitchymo]

We're not trying to sanitise discussion. We're trying to keep threads from being hijacked by endless, mind-numbing, pointless acrimony which has nothing to do with the original post and makes discussion, or merely reading a thread nigh on impossible.

But thanks for the advice and all. And now back to the topic at hand....

Sanitise, i think so. Debates DO move around and this whole sticking on topic is unworkable in a one-to-one discussion, the whole threadjacking thing is just a way of trying to split up posters who clash when neither is prepared to ignore the other.

The constant reminders of this new infraction is as much distracting and off topic as the posts inspiring them.

 

[wallaboi]

We're not trying to sanitise discussion. We're trying to keep threads from being hijacked by endless, mind-numbing, pointless acrimony which has nothing to do with the original post and makes discussion, or merely reading a thread nigh on impossible.

But thanks for the advice and all. And now back to the topic at hand....

I didn't say you were trying to sanatise the discussion ...and stop being a sarcastic bitch.

 

[darkbond007]

I think the question after this thread is two fold...

1. Why are certain people so angry about circumcision?
2. What about the people who are so angry about circumcision make those who arent angry about it?

LOL

I think it boils down to the notion that other people want to force their beliefs on others. It's really that simple.

 

[canon]

Bingo...I agree with Darkbond.

I also believe that there may have been a social implication when circumcision became popular in the 50's and it carried over to other generations. It was one of the many things that separated the haves from the have nots. Health insurance plans made it affordable for most families and society accepted as normal and better? Thankfully this attitude has changed in the past several years and the pro-circumcision group have diminished. I read recently that circumcision rates have dropped below 30% which may partially be attributed to insurance companies rejecting the payment.

Its lumped right in with politics, religion etc.
There will be no end to the argument. This is what happens when you dont have factual evidence that will holistically remove emotion and human bias.

 

[vindicator]

I think the question after this thread is two fold...

1. Why are certain people so angry about circumcision?
2. What about the people who are so angry about circumcision make those who arent angry about it?

LOL

I think it boils down to the notion that other people want to force their beliefs on others. It's really that simple.

But isnt that the point? People (parents) are forcing their beliefs (pro circ) on a child that they cant possibly say no to and is permanant. (An unnessessary in almost all cases except for medical emergencies)

 

[darkbond007]

But isnt that the point? People (parents) are forcing their beliefs (pro circ) on a child that they cant possibly say no to and is permanant. (An unnessessary in almost all cases except for medical emergencies)

I disagree. Parents make decisions for their children all the time, therein lies the difference. For some of us this decision is small, for others its all encompassing. This also is susceptible to one's perception.

If you want to not circumcise your child then don't do it. However, why do you think telling someone else not to makes you right?

 

[mitchymo]

I disagree. Parents make decisions for their children all the time, therein lies the difference. For some of us this decision is small, for others its all encompassing. This also is susceptible to one's perception.

If you want to not circumcise your child then don't do it. However, why do you think telling someone else not to makes you right?

They do, and usually based on credible information.

What exactly do doctors in the US claim to be the benefit?

When i was a small boy, my dad chose to save money by never visiting the hairdresser, he had long hair by choice, i on the other hand had long hair because thats how things were, and i got the piss taken out of me all the time for looking like a girl. Parents don't always make the right decisions even when those decisions don't really matter in the end, it just would have been nice to be able to have my hair short cos i am always free to try the uncut look. With circumcision, its a one way thing. The foreskin has a function, whilst its not going to REALLY matter in the end because it won't render a guy from having a normal sex life etc, it does seem absolutely pointless to do it without real cause. An adult saying he heard it desensitises and could do with getting cut to combat premature ejaculation or something doesn't sound difficult to accept, especially if recommended by a doctor as a remedy to a medical problem. To do it to a child for no good reason serves no purpose. Thats what really makes anti circ peeps angry i guess.

 

[darkbond007]

I don't live in the US.

I dont care if it makes you angry. I am doing nothing illegal by having my son circumcised.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

I don't live in the US.

I dont care if it makes you angry. I am doing nothing illegal by having my son circumcised.

Not what this thread is for. The thread is precisely for discussing why discussions of circumcision make people angry, what is so difficult to understand about that?

So, "saying I don't care if it makes you angry" pretty much puts you well over a line which has been drawn too many times in this thread (by the Moderating Team) about dragging discussion off in to arguments about the rights and wrongs of circumcision. Are you clear about that? Because if you don't understand the position that you may be in now then you need to make yourself familiar with the rules of the board.

You will find the link in my sig.

 

[darkbond007]

Understood.

It's a viscous cycle. One side is angry over circumcision the other side is angry that people feel anger towards circumcision. No thread can adequately surmise the argument. I'll bow out of this one now.

 

[scottredleter]

Circumcision serves no practical purpose, it is also not detrimental to have no foreskin.

The issue about why really do it boils down to it being pointless. Its nothing more than body modification. As such, it should be the owner of the body that decides. The idea of some baby having its ears pierced might seem cute, but really its just icky. Imagine seeing a 6month old with a tattoo of the mommy on its arm.

Culturally i can understand why its a common practice, but the US? Its hard to understand how it ever took off there, and to continue to perpetuate for no good reason is just odd.

Do the right thing and let your kids grow as nature intended. Unless of course there is a specific medical problem requiring it, or your faith supposedly requires it.

Thank you. It is one of the most extreme body modification procedures that is performed today... Nothing this extreme is being perfomed in body piercing shops or satanic rituals for that matter... it all happens under the watchful eyes of new parents and trained professionals... the doctors. the doctors are who I really blame for all of this, if they followed their most basic principle, "to first, do no harm," then they would simply refuse to practice their scalpel work on innocent baby's penis'.
All for money, and all because of the psychological and sexual repression imposed on American males regarding their penis'. Honest to God, I think that if a doctor told you to, you'd let them remove your children's eye-lids... think how pretty they will lokk with those big eyes staring up at you. Of course only after they (if they) recover. This os not a parent right... it's child abuse at the hand of the parent.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

 

[deleted15807]

If you disapprove of abortion don't have an abortion.
If you disapprove of circumcision don't have a circumcision.

How is that so hard?