That's not irony, that's idiocy. I thought your comment was well-stated and not at all obscene. I'm sure the real reason they won't print it is because you have clearly and logically pointed out facts that completely disagree with the opinion they're trying to push on their readers (for whatever reason).
Yes, circumcision might lower the transmission rate of AIDS and STD's a tiny, tiny little bit.
Know what lowers the transmission rate a lot more?
Condoms.
And even ONE guy complaining that he is NOT o.k. with having been circumcised as a kid for religious or aesthetical purposes is enough reason for me not to do it to kids.
There's this thing called "basic human rights" and the right to physical integrity is one of them.
(And boy, I think I still have the 40+ pages saved somewhere about a discussion I've had with people on the subject)
I think I am a little skeptical about the studies that claim that circumcision doesn't affect genital sensitivity. I know my "case" is individual-empiric and anecdotal and so on but yeah, really not a single one of my circumcised partners were "unaffected". Either I managed to attract the exceptions :D or these studies aren't complete.
It's an emotional topic. The comment section at Slate went wild ...
Absolutely! Anyway, I thought everything and everything else gets published in comments sections, including spats between commenters.
As a non-circ mom, I appreciate your POV, though. My feeling was not super strong on it, but I figured that since it was a piece of my son't body, he should be allowed to dispose of it by choice, not us.
I think a lot of the pro-circumcision people argue, that once men can decide about it, they decide against it, because of the pain and the increased recovery time. Apparently it's no big deal when done as a baby, but a major surgery once you're grown up. Or so.
A lot of people argue also about the hygiene aspect ("It's smells much better!" was one comment!) so ... hm. Not sure if I would get rid of my outer labia or so just because some guy wants me to "smell nicer" but well ... as the English say, whatever rocks your boat (or was it whatever floats your boat?)
Just seems so unnecessary-costly, bloody, painful :P
Pretty sure they are objecting to the fact that you were talking about your own sexual experiences not just penises in general.
That said, I think until there is overwhelming evidence that it does more harm than good, leave it alone. You can't put it back on. When I was in about 6th grade I knew a girl who resented having had her ears pierced as a child and it contributed to my decision to wait until my daughter wanted it done before getting hers pierced. This is an even bigger decision.
Well, the comment section of Slate doesn't seem very moderated and there are other comments that I'd have found way more problematic. Then again, I think the world will survive without everyone knowing about my affairs d'amour hahaha :D
Oh, interesting anecdote about the ear piercing! ... Were there any problems? I remember girls who pierced their own ears, like in the lunch-break or during boring geography lessons. It seemed like no big deal at all ...
Esp. with something more decorative like ear piercing it's really nice to leave that decision up to your kid.
Well, Torino pointed out that it may have to do with the sex-related TMI.
Still the "article"'s enraged prose was hilarious, although I seem to remember that the Slate once employed better writers in the past.
The intactivists also obsess about sex to an alarming degree. Still, some of their tactics are shrewd.
Anti-circumcision activists then deploy a two-pronged attack on some of humanity’s most persistent weaknesses: sexual insecurity and resentment of one’s parents.
Intactivists pummeled the Amazon rankings of a book about the history of AIDS that mentioned circumcision as a proven preventive measure.
Comments 10
Reply
Reply
Yes, circumcision might lower the transmission rate of AIDS and STD's a tiny, tiny little bit.
Know what lowers the transmission rate a lot more?
Condoms.
And even ONE guy complaining that he is NOT o.k. with having been circumcised as a kid for religious or aesthetical purposes is enough reason for me not to do it to kids.
There's this thing called "basic human rights" and the right to physical integrity is one of them.
(And boy, I think I still have the 40+ pages saved somewhere about a discussion I've had with people on the subject)
Reply
I think I am a little skeptical about the studies that claim that circumcision doesn't affect genital sensitivity. I know my "case" is individual-empiric and anecdotal and so on but yeah, really not a single one of my circumcised partners were "unaffected". Either I managed to attract the exceptions :D or these studies aren't complete.
It's an emotional topic. The comment section at Slate went wild ...
Reply
As a non-circ mom, I appreciate your POV, though. My feeling was not super strong on it, but I figured that since it was a piece of my son't body, he should be allowed to dispose of it by choice, not us.
Reply
A lot of people argue also about the hygiene aspect ("It's smells much better!" was one comment!) so ... hm. Not sure if I would get rid of my outer labia or so just because some guy wants me to "smell nicer" but well ... as the English say, whatever rocks your boat (or was it whatever floats your boat?)
Just seems so unnecessary-costly, bloody, painful :P
Reply
That said, I think until there is overwhelming evidence that it does more harm than good, leave it alone. You can't put it back on. When I was in about 6th grade I knew a girl who resented having had her ears pierced as a child and it contributed to my decision to wait until my daughter wanted it done before getting hers pierced. This is an even bigger decision.
Reply
Oh, interesting anecdote about the ear piercing! ... Were there any problems? I remember girls who pierced their own ears, like in the lunch-break or during boring geography lessons. It seemed like no big deal at all ...
Esp. with something more decorative like ear piercing it's really nice to leave that decision up to your kid.
Reply
Reply
Well, Torino pointed out that it may have to do with the sex-related TMI.
Still the "article"'s enraged prose was hilarious, although I seem to remember that the Slate once employed better writers in the past.
The intactivists also obsess about sex to an alarming degree. Still, some of their tactics are shrewd.
Anti-circumcision activists then deploy a two-pronged attack on some of humanity’s most persistent weaknesses: sexual insecurity and resentment of one’s parents.
Intactivists pummeled the Amazon rankings of a book about the history of AIDS that mentioned circumcision as a proven preventive measure.
Reply
Leave a comment