Piss tier memes, lower than shitposts. Brain damaging stuff.
For those who don't know, the US systematically mutilates the genitals of baby boys and young boys.Sciences points to the foreskin being a protective and erogenous dual layered membrane.
It is not 'one side' pushing this. This is how the American people take their aggression out on males.
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!
Insurance companies should do what they do and make it be a cosmetic surgery and not cover it. It should cost thousands in cash.
At a minimum. Also, the law should make it illegal.
Unless it's out of medical necessity
Correct. And preventative doesn’t count as “necessary” unless it’s preventing seriously elevated risk of death in the near term.
Leveraging the broken health care system to attack the revanchist cultural system?
I mean, maybe. But when child birth already runs into the $20k-$50k range, I doubt anyone is going to notice the $150 they charge for foreskin removal until the bill arrives.
That's what they're saying. The typical cost is $20k-$50k, with all but ~$3k covered by insurance.
If insurance doesn't cover it it's now $1200 out of pocket.
Making it illegal would be better, but that requires convincing people. Even if you approve of circumcision, you're still not going to be surprised when your insurance company drops what you consider to be something important.
If insurance doesn’t cover it it’s now $1200 out of pocket.
Where does a routine circumcision cost $1200? That's the same as Lasik.
Making it illegal would be better
Maybe you could try this by leveraging all the anti-Trans legislation.
I can honestly tell you I did not search very hard. First results for how much it cost said $500 cash price, and up to $4000 as billed to insurance. I picked a number in the middle.
Honestly it didn't seem that weird to me that removing skin from the genitals of a newborn would be along the same price as non-invasive outpatient surgery.
I did not search very hard.
:-/
It's an online discussion. I'm not going to go price shopping for average circumcision costs by state broken down by insurance coverage.
Random urologist lists cash and insurance prices for infant circumcision? Done, that's the range I'm using.
An eye for an eye is pretty aggressive when it comes to penis mutilation, especially as the babies haven't done anything (wrong) yet.
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.
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.
there isn't conflicting data, there's people without foreskins not knowing what they've lost and people with foreskins who don't know how to jerk it properly.
as someone with a foreskin i can tell you with the utmost certainty that it is an erogenous zone and makes the experience infinitely better, it is unfathomable to me how circumcized people are even capable of masturbation and intercourse, it's like trying to swim without feet.
Wasn't it the point of religious nutter ? To prevent kids and people in general from masturbating because they think it is sin ? IMO it ls very obvious that it reduces sexual pleasure.
False. Educate yourself on the ridged band and frenulum
I mean. I provided an actual source for my statement with aggregated data supporting my point. You, however, have not.
Sounds like you need to be educated.
And also the frenulum is not the foreskin.
Propaganda and bad faith. Get out of here with your pseudoscience
Brian Morris is a proven fraud
who says pro choice people demand circumcision. most pro-choice people would probably leave the choice to the kid when they grow up enough to have an opinion on it. and if they don't actively think that, I'm sure most can be very easily convinced to do so.
I have 3!!!😎😎😎
where do you keep them
Big jar
Straw man argument
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.
I mean I'm against circumcision Like Im circumcised and it doesn't really bother me, it's just a really weird practice that makes no sense to me
That's perfectly fair. I feel like where a lot of anti-circumcision activists go wrong is they focus too much on telling circumcised people that their body is wrong and they should feel mad, rather then focusing on the actual issue at hand.