I’ll start, I missed the outdoor cats struggle session so i don’t know what its deal was except a vague idea that outdoor cats were bad, so I’ve let my two cats stay being outdoor cats because I feel bad locking them inside, like I want to give them some experience of freedom to go where they please so they can live more fulfilling lives

Edit: also kruschev is imo a lot better than most hexbear users give him credit for

    • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      There’s not really anything to argue about here, I think everyone can agree that altering a babies genitals is bad. I don’t see how it becomes contentious unless you start including stuff like male initiation rituals into the mix

    • edge [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Permanently cutting off a body part (especially such a sensitive one, especially on a literal baby) without consent or medical necessity is bad, there’s no good argument against that.

      The best argument I’ve heard for circumcision in general is hygiene, but like, just pull your foreskin back and wash well, it’s not that hard.

      Also reminder that it’s only a thing in America because the Kellogg’s cereal guy thought it would stop masturbation, which it doesn’t even do.

      And now the most contentious part:

      I feel like most defenders just can’t accept that their dick got messed up for no good reason. Which yeah, it must suck, but don’t do it to others because it was done to you.

    • iridaniotter [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      Do we even have enough people that are pro-circumcision? I think the most contrarian take you’ll get is that it’s not equivalent with FGM like some redditors would say.

      • edge [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s definitely nowhere near as bad as FGM, afaik the male equivalent would be cutting off the entire head, but it’s still comparable in that it’s a permanent genital modification done to a baby. I consider it to still technically be mutilation, but I understand using that word can imply equivalence between the two.

        • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I actually have some nuance to throw on the fire, and I’m going to put this behind a CW: because it’s not nice to talk about, but it deals with NGOs misrepresenting cultural practices to further NGO imperialism.

          spoiler

          Liberal NGO imperialism uses, or at least used to use, FGM as a bludgeon. There are a great diversity of “female circumcision” practices. Some, like infibulation, are horrible and cause enormous damage and trauma. Some involve or more less destructive surgical mutilation, including some practices which are directly analogous to male circumcision. And some, and this is where the NGO imperialism becomes more obvious, don’t involve any cutting or removal of tissue. In some cases a needle is used to produce a drop of blood which is considered sufficient to achieve the necessary ritual cleanliness or whatever. In some cases there’s no blood at all - In one example a needle is held near the clitoral hood and a drop of chicken blood is dabbed on the body - The “circumcision” has become entirely symbolic with no actual harm to the child.

          But infibulation and other practices where there is actual cutting are so horrifying to westerners (and many people from the cultures where it’s practiced) that NGOs found if they inform westerners about infibulation, then use the broad term “FGM” to encompass many different practices from across a broad swath of the world. All those cultures would be stained by the association with infibulation, and NGOs could use this to justify whatever interventions they wanted to carry out under a “save the women” campaign.

          Okay that’s my take. Carry on.

          And unfortunately I don’t have any sources on hand. I looked in to this once, but it was years and years ago.

      • ICantStopSuckingDick [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think the most contrarian take you’ll get is that it’s not equivalent with FGM like some redditors would say.

        That would only be an appropriate response to saying “what about men” in a thread about FGM, which I have seen a million times, but I’ve never seen a stray post on circumcision that would warrant it.