• Danish political party wants minimum age for male circumcision
    84 replies, posted
https://www.thelocal.dk/20180419/danish-political-party-wants-minimum-age-for-male-circumcision So recently there were a citizens proposal for a minimum age of 18 years to get circumsized, and suddenly all hell broke loose in the world of Danish politics
How the fuck have DF not taken a stance on something that's pretty blatantly 'fuck muslims' yet? Yes there are a lot of other things to consider in the circumcision-debate but that's not what it's about in Denmark, here it's all about 'fuck muslims' and 'no but muslims are rad tho!', just like the debate on being 'masked' in public not being about bankrobbers.
Bad intentions or not, this is pretty positive change that should happen. Something that borders very heavily on pure cosmetic procedure should not be done on someone without their explicit consent. It was mentioned that this could lead to rise of back alley circumcisions so eh, iunno.
I remember well when the first whispers of this turned up. Jewish leaders from all over the world began screaming about how it was anti-semitism, how it was effectively banning Jewdom, and even a few nutjobs comparing it to the Nazi prosecutions during the 30's. I'm all for it. It has nothing to do with "sticking it to them Jews!!", it is simply a matter of letting boys making it their choice, instead of it being forced upon them when they're just babies. I know someone here on FP even said that if it's such a big problem for the Jewish community if this gets banned, then the problem might be with their religion, and not the law.
It's not gonna pass. Venstre (and the rest of the government parties) is gonna vote against, and so are the Social Democrats. There's your simple majority already. It's very blatantly out of foreign relations concerns, so yeah.
I don't think it's going to pass, but it should. Someone on Denmark's reddit posted a video of 3 circumcision methods, and I had no idea it was that bad. If that's anywhere near accurate, then it is down right child abuse. One of the doctors in the video even says something to the effect of "Looks like we did the block pretty good today, normally they're not this calm" . It's insane.
Am I the only one that's utterly indifferent to this issue and feels it's far less important to worry about than the more pressing social and geopolitical ills facing Western society these days?
"but there's more important things" is a pretty apathetic and pointless response to anything, especially an issue like this.
This isn't a small issue though. This is about bodily mutilation on baby boys which is, for some reason, not only legal but also acceptable in some circles.
yet if it was female mutilation (which also happens in other parts of the world), now that would be unacceptable, but since it's just some boy's dick after all, fuck him right? what is freedom of choice, what is freedom over their own body?
he did not say that lol
The difference is it completely skullfucks the function of their bits, whereas male circumcision doesn't.
I understand, but I dont agree with the idea that since its not severe its not a priority we've let "religious freedoms" get away with so much throughout the centuries, I want to put a stop to it
Irrelevant. If you want to pretend that you're a free nation where people can make their own choices, then ban male circumcision until they're of an age where they can make their decision themselves.
Sorry I didn't realise the Danish parliament could only focus on a single issue and also decides the course the free world is gonna take politically. I guess as an extension I'll apologise for the apparently disproportionately Danish issues, such as elderly care and welfare programs, being discussed in place of the solution to world peace.
If back alley circumcisions start happening then shut that shit down honestly circumcision is one of the grossest offences that still propagates in modern society, nobody should ever be forced to undergo cosmetic surgery especially before they are even capable of any form of consent. Circumcision is a gross abuse of basic human rights.
We literally have cultures that normalize baby mutilation, how much worse can it get?
Good, ban this. No child should EVER have to grow up knowing they'll never be able to dock with their bros and fully sement their friendship
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/realistic_criteria.png
Banning FGM led to back-alley FGM. It was still impossible to allow nonconsensual cutting of children's genitals in a society that attempts to protect human rights/autonomy. The difference between these issues and stuff like drug use or abortion is that those are personal choices of the people who choose to engage in them, whereas this is in essence an act of assault. I suppose that the minimum age could be something like 6, 8, or 10, and we could allow young boys to consent and have the procedure done. That way these people would be encouraged to indoctrinate their children into actually wanting their genitals cosmetically altered for no real purpose, rather than simply forcing it upon them when they literally cannot even express disagreement, let alone fight back. That would be some progress, and some is better than none.
Those ages are still far too low for a child to consent to irreversible cosmetic surgery.
The main difference between FGM and Male Circumcision, at least in most cases, is that the latter is a fundamental part of a religious text's essential praxis, while the former is rooted in culture norms alone. As a consequence, Male Circumcision remains not only more prevalent, but more fanatically defended - as in the jewish faith one who is not circumcised is not yet truly a jew, and all true jews are required to at least try to circumcise their children as soon as possible (Traditionally, and cemented by the holy text, at eight days old). So not only is this likely to lead to back alley circumcisions for the poor, it's also likely to lead to people going abroad to get their kids circumcised, unless somehow the main text is challenged any time soon by religious authorities.
There's no real line between religious and cultural norms. Both are cultural norms. Explain the real difference between them. I think that they're really just cultural practices with cultural (rather than logical) reasons behind them. The desire for FGM is strong enough to cause the same exact occurrences you are warning about with banning circumcision, yet it's still worth having FGM banned, just as it is worth having at least a minimum age and consent required, for circumcision.
Cultural norms are (usually) not rooted in anything concrete that is unchanging, while religious norms (mostly) are rooted in some text that is taken as sacred. In the case of judaism, more so than other religions, as the very wording is considered sacred in the current interpretation. While one can change the interpretation of what gives rise to these religious norms, without tremendous effort and a dramatic change in how the religion operates currently one cannot change the reverence of the text as it stands, and as it stands it very clearly mandates the circumcision of the newborn as a fundamental part of jewish identity. It is not enough that desire is strong, but just what sustains this desire - which in this case this "what" is a lot harder to change. Banning Male Circumcision is well and good, but to believe it will somehow stop the practice in any real capacity on unwitting infants without cooperation from just about any other authority enabling the act is quite naive. I'm not saying its wrong; I'm saying it isn't enough.
Keep in mind this law wouldn't ask jews to get rid of male circumcision, just to wait until the person is old enough to choose. This should not be controversial, as it would both remove an element of child abuse from the tradition, and it would make the whole practice more true since the people getting circumcisions to confirm their faith would actually have a faith at that point to confirm. I agree that banning it won't be enough to start with, but I very much believe that the traditions will be pulled in the right way. I feel like the vast majority of people who aren't opposed to male circumcision just haven't thought about it, and every time something like this happens, more awareness is brought to the issue. Yeah, people will do back-alley operations, but they will rightfully be vilified and arrested, and those cases will further increase awareness until the tradition adapts.
Women like circumcised cocks.
My guy, I like my circumcised cock very much and so do the women who have interacted with it, but I still don't approve of removing body parts from babies.
I am glad I wasn't born into a jewish or muslim family. I have heard some babies lose their entire glans on this.
I understand it's also pretty common in America, FYI.
This isn't banning circumcision, it's about implementing a minimum age. You shouldn't be concerned with the attractiveness of a newborn baby's cock, the boy can do that himself when he is old enough.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.