Woodsey said:
So are you now circumcised?
I'm looking into it but what would have been a simple low risk procedure as an infant is now much more complicated, dangerous and painful now I am adult. As bad as it is now I could lose a LOT more, I don't want to go into risking THAT until I have exhausted all other options.
So much for the "they can just wait till they are a consenting adult"
You know that video loves to pile on the fallacies when it falls for the biggest one of them all: Straw man argument.
It chose the dumbest TV show which is NOT really debating, it's entertainment. It's a straw man to be torn appart.
It is a fallacy in itself to obsess over the fallacies of the opposing argument. Fallacies should be dismissed as fallacies not held up in editing freeze frames and rewind repeats as somehow proof of anything about the opposing argument.
They obsess over "sexually active" nerve cells which is kind of a simplistic way of looking at human sexuality as in more-nervation = better. There are something like 10x more nerves in the tip of your finger than in your back (try reading Braille with your back), yet a back rub is FAR more sensual and arousing than any finger to finger contact (dim lights, scented candles and some Barry White helps as well).
This obsession with nerve density goes around the issue of the actual in vivo statistics, that of ALL the studies there is no clear indication of any significant difference in sexual satisfaction between circumcised and uncircumcised males. One study will find circumcised men take slightly longer on average to reach orgasm, yet another study will say they take slightly less time. All of it barely significant differences.
And it follows common sense to any man, it is the glans and the body of the penis that responds to sexual stimulation. My foreskin is as about as responsive to sexual stimulation as as my scrotum, it's sensitive but it's not like the prostate, you can do what you like to my foreskin it's not going to give me an orgasm nor I think even contribute.
[small](I can't believe I'm actually discussing this on this forum. Jebus, but this is important to me and I sure appreciate my anonymity or this would just be WAY too embarrassing)[/small]
And then you've just got to take a step back and think about this, not in "equivalence" but what circumcision actually is. Is this actually wrong in itself. Will the ban cause more harm that good.
You have to realise, that the effects of circumcision are so benign, but the results of banning a religious practice will only disrupt the community. I don't believe in god but I know that others do, and banning their religious practices is the wrong thing to do, it isn't disrespectful of their god, it is disrespectful of THEM! It wouldn't be the secular thing to do. It isn't right either for French police to be sent chasing down Muslim women to pull their veils off their face.
I also realise how this campaign is trying to drum up support:
-genital cutting = a direct allusion to female castration in East Africa, something with no parallel in practicality
-Age of consent, protect children = this doesn't say circumcision is child sexual assault but they use the same language as used to describe paedophilia
People vote on these referendums based on inflammatory innuendo like this.