I have long thought that this focus on how parents punish their kids is to obfuscate the sexual abuse and exploitation the media, politicians and 'elite' classes do all the time. Spanking a kid for smashing a vase is nowhere near as bad as trying to groom them into being medically maimed or just raping them.
I'm surprised they even included sexual abuse, since they seem to think adults having, uh, relations with children is totally alright, and even to be celebrated.
Also, off topic, but I like how there are four comments about the topic...and then forty comments arguing about circumcision, for some reason.
Reminds me of all the circumcision haters that unironically started linking studies done by…. John money and his students to claim emotional trauma from circumcision. Anything can be “just as” traumatic as anything if someone is convinced of the damage. This is why we have millions of women claiming ptsd from a bad date and saying it’s equal to ptsd that came from war experiences.
Are you saying removal of the tonsils is bad in children? How about the appendix? What about surgical removal of clitoromegaly or other non functional sex organs at birth?
Removing tonsils or an appendix serves a medical purpose if they become inflamed. Circumcision is cosmetic, and even if it were true that the foreskin is "non-functional," that would still be true.
An intact foreskin has 20000 nerve endings, which is four times as many as there are in the glans of your penis. First of all, it is absolute bullshit cope when doctors tell you that removing a body part that sensitive from an infant without anesthetic doesn't hurt them. Secondly, if you have been permanently disfigured in this way, you will never enjoy sex as much as a man who has not. It is genital mutilation, period.
Circumcision is cosmetic, and even if it were true that the foreskin is "non-functional," that would still be true.
So is removing non functional sex organs, there’s far more data showing positive long term health outcomes from removing the foreskin than keeping it.
An intact foreskin has 20000 nerve endings, which is four times as many as there are in the glans of your penis.
Meissner’s corpuscles, the exact same type in your fingertips.
First of all, it is absolute bullshit cope when doctors tell you that removing a body part that sensitive from an infant without anesthetic doesn't hurt them.
Anesthesia on Neonatals cause far more harm long term than short term pain that heals extremely quickly, in fact faster than any other point in a persons life, which is why they do it then. The “pain trauma” line is again sad copium done by John Money the pedophile.
Secondly, if you have been permanently disfigured in this way, you will never enjoy sex as much as a man who has not. It is genital mutilation, period.
And if you don’t receive anal penetration you aren’t enjoying “sex” as much as a man who is, as the prostate is far more sensitive than the foreskin.
So is removing non functional sex organs, there’s far more data showing positive long term health outcomes from removing the foreskin than keeping it.
Ah yes, Men are too stupid to know what soap and condoms are, so the only solution is to cut off the perfectly healthy body parts of infants. You sound like a feminist.
Meissner’s corpuscles, the exact same type in your fingertips.
You say that like it changes something.
Anesthesia on Neonatals cause far more harm long term than short term pain that heals extremely quickly, in fact faster than any other point in a persons life, which is why they do it then
There is not a single good reason to do it at all, and so mutilating the genitals of defenseless infants who don't have a choice in order to make it easier on them later on is about as logical as dropping a nuke on a city full of people so they don't have to die of old age.
The “pain trauma” line is again sad copium done by John Money the pedophile.
Since we're throwing around pedophile comparisons with such irresponsible abandon, why is it so important to you that we continue to sanction the cosmetic genital mutilation of little babies?
Ah yes, Men are too stupid to know what soap and condoms are, so the only solution is to cut off the perfectly healthy body parts of infants. You sound like a feminist.
Sorry I must be mistaking the hilariously higher quality of life outcomes like lower rates of penile cancer and lower std rates with soap and condoms. Circumcision in Africa reduced the HIV risk from intercourse by 51-60%. Almost every sti/std rate is reduced by 28% or more when the male is circumcised. Also condoms completely negate the extra sensitivity of the foreskin….
There is not a single good reason to do it at all, and so mutilating the genitals of defenseless infants who don't have a choice in order to make it easier on them later on is about as logical as dropping a nuke on a city full of people so they don't have to die of old age.
I would say dropping HIV and STI/STD risk by 28-60% is a pretty good reason.
Since we're throwing around pedophile accusations with such irresponsible abandon, why is it so important to you that we continue to sanction the cosmetic genital mutilation of little babies?
Are you saying calling John Money a pedophile is “irresponsible abandon”? I would say citing any work done by him and his ilk without providing that caveat is the irresponsible abandon…
Circumcision achieves nothing that abstinence, condoms and regularly washing your genitalia with soap does not.
Comparing people who oppose mutilating the genitals of defenseless infants to a pedophile like John Money is not just irresponsible: it is ludicrous and fundamentally dishonest. You are not arguing in good faith.
Right… the people demanding more pleasure from sex with no other health benefits are the “normal” ones. Are you going to start getting pegged in the ass because that’s even more sensitive and produces a better orgasm?
The foreskin isn’t a functional part of the penis, it’s the same as arguing that you should get fucked in the ass because the prostate is more sensitive than the foreskin…
Really? Why do we have an appendix/ caecum still if we don’t use it anymore? Every mammal has a foreskin, that doesn’t make it vital or necessary for humans, the same as the appendix or caecum.
It really is and the lack of it is the entire reason why USA media include so much lubricant in sex scenes. Men with a foreskin don't need lube to masturbate because the entire purpose of the foreskin is to facilitate motion.
Notice how I said background, not degree. He has literally never done anything medical related other than give a lecture on circumcision. If we’re going to “speak sense” do you take medical advice from Harvard business administrators often? Do you deny hospital care from places that perform circumcisions?
Sure, why not? I like to believe my eyes and I see a healthy, non-bitter young man with confident body language who doesn't argue on the internet like it's special olympics.
No 😂, what’s disingenuous is people who know how absolutely fraudulent Money and his ilk were/are and yet bandwagon behind his research when it comes to circumcision.
John Money was a degenerate "sexologist" who tried to prove gender was a social construct using a barbaric experiment. It's extremely ironic to use Money to poison the anti-circumcision well considering Money justified his perverse experiment with a botched circumcision in the first place.
Yes the guy with the last name of the popular cereal brand
It's not just a name. It was the same guy. There was a weird movie about him called The Road to Wellville. It was outlandish and, I can only imagine, wildly inaccurate.
He also sexually abused infants immediately post circumcision to produce trauma and claim it was entirely circumcisions fault, but hey, it’s not like he had a track record of doing things like that…
Lower std/sti rates, lower penile cancer risk, higher long term health outcomes in nearly every study done versus slightly more sexual sensitivity during sex if not using a condom…
I’m not surprised, you don’t strike me as the type to actually read medical studies
there's plenty of other research that shows brain scans of psychological harm done by circumcision to infants.
Using the same methodology done to “prove” trans kids have similar brain scans to their preferred gender, another ruse created by…. Students of John Money
If someone wants to have their dick chopped up/off, they should be an adult making their own decisions. This applies equally as it does to foreskins as it does to trannies.
Any other opinion is retarded and based on playing "my camp vs your camp" games, as you've demonstrated clearly by basing your entire argument on "you'd be in bad camp if you disagree with me."
I get you’re too retarded to realize that was the argument you made, comparing vestigial to non-vestigial. But hey, I’m sure you can make a real good argument for why the foreskin is as necessary as an entire sex organ 😂😂😂
Interesting, do you believe people born with clitoromegaly and non-functional sex organs should be forced to wait until 18 to remove them when the surgical risks are far higher as well, or are you a hypocrite?
Are they going to die or live in intensive suffering without? Then you act in their best interests, which is to perform. As you do with all those "vestigial" organs you keep trying to use an a gotcha. We don't just cut open toddlers to remove the appendix as soon as they are born either.
You know what has high surgical risks? Performing surgery, the thing you are advocating to do to all people no matter what. So you probably shouldn't start trying to act like you care about that now either.
As someone that has actually lost a finger tip, trust me, you don’t even notice the difference, still works just fine. Good luck coping with the fact you’re too retarded to realize your spewing sexual revolution talking points made up by pedophiles 😂.
So you're actually fine (or at the very least neutral) if we cut the finger tips of all newborn from now on then, right? There's no difference, and it's just skin, so why bother keeping it?
Also let's cut some skin around the ears, while we're at it.
Do you have kids? I have and sometimes they need to be yelled at. Kids are not that fragile, they test their boundaries all the time and they have very little to no perspective to long term consequences. They also need structure and authority, we are not their friends, we are their parents, we need to force compliance as logic and wisdom will not work.
A small introspect from a close friend of mine, she has a daughter that she treated nice, tried to explain to her when she did bad, talked to her as an adult. The girl is now older, I think 8th grade, and now she blames the mother for her being unhappy and wishes her dead, my friend regularly cries to cope with the abuse she has from her daughter. Her big regret is not spanking her when she was younger.
Yes, raising them via peaceful parenting. They are very frustrating and constantly making me angry. Obviously an infant has to be physically picked up and carried as they have no ability to do otherwise, but even a 2 year old is capable of understanding basic explanations. Sure they might cry and mis behave but that's not them defying you, that's them emotionally upset and needing comfort.
But if they grow up with their first memories of being talked too and reasoned with not told "because I said so" which is fundamentally relying on the fact that they don't have a choice. It tends to build up and get easier as they know that what you say makes sense and that if they disagree, the way to do that is with words not actions/misbehaviour.
I honestly don't agree, I was raised like you describe and I resented it. I look at friends that were raised with strict parents and they all are better adjusted and happier then those that were raised by peaceful parenting. Not only that, I'm looking at what personalities kids that are now 8-10 have in respect to how they are raised.
The ones from strict parents that even smack them every once in a while are better behaved and independent. If you wonder about the independent part, this is because kids will have more confidence in themselves if you enforce a structure that they must conform to. They can go explore and do things with confidence because as long as they follow the rules they are safe.
Kids that don't have an enforced environment are more narcissistic, they expect attention from everyone and they seem more frightful of new environments without a parent figure to mediate.
I do agree that there are extreme cases were parents are actually abusive, but that is not yelling or even spanking. It is an entire different level. Abuse leads to resentment but tough parents do raise faithful and loving children.
This is just my experience in real life and is clouded by my resentment of how I was raised. I expect it also differs from girls to boys and boys need an authority figure more then girls.
it's using your disparity in size and strength to force compliance.
I'd really like to hear how you would educate children correctly then. Do you prepare a meeting through emails and prepare some powerpoints presentation for them or something?
Also, there are times when you will yell at your child simply because he's doing or playing with something dangerous and needs to be stopped immediately. Those can happen at any moment with children.
I wonder what interest they could possibly have in trying to downplay the harmful effects of sexual abuse.
yeah. also more work breaking down the authority of parents.
we're all going to be so very equal, soon.
Our definition of physical and sexual abuse or their definition of physical and sexual abuse
It's very important
The correct response to CNN trying to downplay child abuse
I have long thought that this focus on how parents punish their kids is to obfuscate the sexual abuse and exploitation the media, politicians and 'elite' classes do all the time. Spanking a kid for smashing a vase is nowhere near as bad as trying to groom them into being medically maimed or just raping them.
Don't shoot, let em burn
Relevant XKCD?
https://xkcd.com/1035/
I love Twitter's community notes, I think it vastly improved it. Even though I don't use Twitter, I like that the bulshitters get called out
I'm surprised they even included sexual abuse, since they seem to think adults having, uh, relations with children is totally alright, and even to be celebrated.
Also, off topic, but I like how there are four comments about the topic...and then forty comments arguing about circumcision, for some reason.
They’re trying to trick YOU into thinking it.
Yeah, that's the point all right.
Saying "shouting at kids is as bad as sexual abuse" is equivalent to saying "sexual abuse is no worse than shouting".
Reminds me of all the circumcision haters that unironically started linking studies done by…. John money and his students to claim emotional trauma from circumcision. Anything can be “just as” traumatic as anything if someone is convinced of the damage. This is why we have millions of women claiming ptsd from a bad date and saying it’s equal to ptsd that came from war experiences.
As opposed to who? People who think it's reasonable to rip functional bits off of baby boys' genitalia?
(((people)))
Are you saying removal of the tonsils is bad in children? How about the appendix? What about surgical removal of clitoromegaly or other non functional sex organs at birth?
Removing tonsils or an appendix serves a medical purpose if they become inflamed. Circumcision is cosmetic, and even if it were true that the foreskin is "non-functional," that would still be true.
An intact foreskin has 20000 nerve endings, which is four times as many as there are in the glans of your penis. First of all, it is absolute bullshit cope when doctors tell you that removing a body part that sensitive from an infant without anesthetic doesn't hurt them. Secondly, if you have been permanently disfigured in this way, you will never enjoy sex as much as a man who has not. It is genital mutilation, period.
So is removing non functional sex organs, there’s far more data showing positive long term health outcomes from removing the foreskin than keeping it.
Meissner’s corpuscles, the exact same type in your fingertips.
Anesthesia on Neonatals cause far more harm long term than short term pain that heals extremely quickly, in fact faster than any other point in a persons life, which is why they do it then. The “pain trauma” line is again sad copium done by John Money the pedophile.
And if you don’t receive anal penetration you aren’t enjoying “sex” as much as a man who is, as the prostate is far more sensitive than the foreskin.
Ah yes, Men are too stupid to know what soap and condoms are, so the only solution is to cut off the perfectly healthy body parts of infants. You sound like a feminist.
You say that like it changes something.
There is not a single good reason to do it at all, and so mutilating the genitals of defenseless infants who don't have a choice in order to make it easier on them later on is about as logical as dropping a nuke on a city full of people so they don't have to die of old age.
Since we're throwing around pedophile comparisons with such irresponsible abandon, why is it so important to you that we continue to sanction the cosmetic genital mutilation of little babies?
Sorry I must be mistaking the hilariously higher quality of life outcomes like lower rates of penile cancer and lower std rates with soap and condoms. Circumcision in Africa reduced the HIV risk from intercourse by 51-60%. Almost every sti/std rate is reduced by 28% or more when the male is circumcised. Also condoms completely negate the extra sensitivity of the foreskin….
I would say dropping HIV and STI/STD risk by 28-60% is a pretty good reason.
Are you saying calling John Money a pedophile is “irresponsible abandon”? I would say citing any work done by him and his ilk without providing that caveat is the irresponsible abandon…
Circumcision achieves nothing that abstinence, condoms and regularly washing your genitalia with soap does not.
Comparing people who oppose mutilating the genitals of defenseless infants to a pedophile like John Money is not just irresponsible: it is ludicrous and fundamentally dishonest. You are not arguing in good faith.
good thing we're not in africa
Africa has a rape problem, not a lack-of-circumcision problem.
Right… the people demanding more pleasure from sex with no other health benefits are the “normal” ones. Are you going to start getting pegged in the ass because that’s even more sensitive and produces a better orgasm?
Not "more," standard. The procedure is circumcision, the alternative is just not doing that.
This is like the "high capacity magazine" language. Beware the assault foreskins!
And with that, I'm out of this discussion. I just thought the phrasing was interesting, calling people degenerates for not cutting bits off...strange.
Notice he said "functional" and you reply with occasionally medically necessary surgeries of things that aren't functioning.
I gotta say, I'm disappointed. Defending Jewish pedo-sadism is the last take I excepted from you.
The foreskin isn’t a functional part of the penis, it’s the same as arguing that you should get fucked in the ass because the prostate is more sensitive than the foreskin…
if it doesn't do anything, why did we evolve it? biology isn't rich enough to evolve random bullshit for no reason.
Really? Why do we have an appendix/ caecum still if we don’t use it anymore? Every mammal has a foreskin, that doesn’t make it vital or necessary for humans, the same as the appendix or caecum.
the appendix serves as a lifeboat for the bacteria that live in the intestines.
It really is and the lack of it is the entire reason why USA media include so much lubricant in sex scenes. Men with a foreskin don't need lube to masturbate because the entire purpose of the foreskin is to facilitate motion.
Eric Clopper completely debunks all supposed benefits of circumcision in autistic detail
Fascinating, let me know when he actually writes and conducts a medical study instead of a lecture.
If your father comes to you and say "I fucked your mom" will you respond with "Source?".
You wont be wrong if you do :-]
Sorry what does that have to do with a Harvard administrator with no medical background at all giving a lecture about circumcision?
You don't need a fancy piece of paper or nebulous stamp of approval to speak sense.
Notice how I said background, not degree. He has literally never done anything medical related other than give a lecture on circumcision. If we’re going to “speak sense” do you take medical advice from Harvard business administrators often? Do you deny hospital care from places that perform circumcisions?
Sure, why not? I like to believe my eyes and I see a healthy, non-bitter young man with confident body language who doesn't argue on the internet like it's special olympics.
No 😂, what’s disingenuous is people who know how absolutely fraudulent Money and his ilk were/are and yet bandwagon behind his research when it comes to circumcision.
John Money was a degenerate "sexologist" who tried to prove gender was a social construct using a barbaric experiment. It's extremely ironic to use Money to poison the anti-circumcision well considering Money justified his perverse experiment with a botched circumcision in the first place.
It's not just a name. It was the same guy. There was a weird movie about him called The Road to Wellville. It was outlandish and, I can only imagine, wildly inaccurate.
He also sexually abused infants immediately post circumcision to produce trauma and claim it was entirely circumcisions fault, but hey, it’s not like he had a track record of doing things like that…
I wouldn't relay on "muh trauma" to argue against circumcision anyway. There's just no reason to mutilate normal baby penises.
Lower std/sti rates, lower penile cancer risk, higher long term health outcomes in nearly every study done versus slightly more sexual sensitivity during sex if not using a condom…
I’m not surprised, you don’t strike me as the type to actually read medical studies
Using the same methodology done to “prove” trans kids have similar brain scans to their preferred gender, another ruse created by…. Students of John Money
No, I never claimed any of that, but you go on believing science done by a proven pedophile and his acolytes 😂
If someone wants to have their dick chopped up/off, they should be an adult making their own decisions. This applies equally as it does to foreskins as it does to trannies.
Any other opinion is retarded and based on playing "my camp vs your camp" games, as you've demonstrated clearly by basing your entire argument on "you'd be in bad camp if you disagree with me."
Sorry, I’ll validate your opinion when you don’t compare a vestigial piece of skin to the entire removal of your sex organs
Dang, this homie went with the "its just a clump of cells bro" argument. We dealing with a real strong position.
I get you’re too retarded to realize that was the argument you made, comparing vestigial to non-vestigial. But hey, I’m sure you can make a real good argument for why the foreskin is as necessary as an entire sex organ 😂😂😂
I stated a principle not an argument. The thing about principles is they apply from top to bottom. It doesn't matter if its vestigial or not.
I don't need to argue why its necessary, as you've yet to prove why it is.
Interesting, do you believe people born with clitoromegaly and non-functional sex organs should be forced to wait until 18 to remove them when the surgical risks are far higher as well, or are you a hypocrite?
Are they going to die or live in intensive suffering without? Then you act in their best interests, which is to perform. As you do with all those "vestigial" organs you keep trying to use an a gotcha. We don't just cut open toddlers to remove the appendix as soon as they are born either.
You know what has high surgical risks? Performing surgery, the thing you are advocating to do to all people no matter what. So you probably shouldn't start trying to act like you care about that now either.
I mean, do you really need the tip of your pinky finger?
I bet if you never had it in the first place, it wouldn't even bother you.
Anyway, good luck coping with the fact that someone carved up your genitals without your consent, that must suck.
As someone that has actually lost a finger tip, trust me, you don’t even notice the difference, still works just fine. Good luck coping with the fact you’re too retarded to realize your spewing sexual revolution talking points made up by pedophiles 😂.
So you're actually fine (or at the very least neutral) if we cut the finger tips of all newborn from now on then, right? There's no difference, and it's just skin, so why bother keeping it?
Also let's cut some skin around the ears, while we're at it.
Why even bother mentioning emotional trauma when you're straight up mutilating babies?
Do you even bother to look at your own stupidity? You’re literally making the exact same leftist talking point about intersex kids…
Broken clock is kind of right twice a day.
You shouldn't be yelling at your kids, it's not physical abuse or sexual abuse but it's using your disparity in size and strength to force compliance.
The only people that should be yelled at are CNN employees.
Do you have kids? I have and sometimes they need to be yelled at. Kids are not that fragile, they test their boundaries all the time and they have very little to no perspective to long term consequences. They also need structure and authority, we are not their friends, we are their parents, we need to force compliance as logic and wisdom will not work.
A small introspect from a close friend of mine, she has a daughter that she treated nice, tried to explain to her when she did bad, talked to her as an adult. The girl is now older, I think 8th grade, and now she blames the mother for her being unhappy and wishes her dead, my friend regularly cries to cope with the abuse she has from her daughter. Her big regret is not spanking her when she was younger.
Yes, raising them via peaceful parenting. They are very frustrating and constantly making me angry. Obviously an infant has to be physically picked up and carried as they have no ability to do otherwise, but even a 2 year old is capable of understanding basic explanations. Sure they might cry and mis behave but that's not them defying you, that's them emotionally upset and needing comfort. But if they grow up with their first memories of being talked too and reasoned with not told "because I said so" which is fundamentally relying on the fact that they don't have a choice. It tends to build up and get easier as they know that what you say makes sense and that if they disagree, the way to do that is with words not actions/misbehaviour.
I honestly don't agree, I was raised like you describe and I resented it. I look at friends that were raised with strict parents and they all are better adjusted and happier then those that were raised by peaceful parenting. Not only that, I'm looking at what personalities kids that are now 8-10 have in respect to how they are raised. The ones from strict parents that even smack them every once in a while are better behaved and independent. If you wonder about the independent part, this is because kids will have more confidence in themselves if you enforce a structure that they must conform to. They can go explore and do things with confidence because as long as they follow the rules they are safe. Kids that don't have an enforced environment are more narcissistic, they expect attention from everyone and they seem more frightful of new environments without a parent figure to mediate.
I do agree that there are extreme cases were parents are actually abusive, but that is not yelling or even spanking. It is an entire different level. Abuse leads to resentment but tough parents do raise faithful and loving children.
This is just my experience in real life and is clouded by my resentment of how I was raised. I expect it also differs from girls to boys and boys need an authority figure more then girls.
I'd really like to hear how you would educate children correctly then. Do you prepare a meeting through emails and prepare some powerpoints presentation for them or something?
Also, there are times when you will yell at your child simply because he's doing or playing with something dangerous and needs to be stopped immediately. Those can happen at any moment with children.
It's peaceful Parenting. Obviously grabbing them to prevent them walking into traffic is acceptable.
But overall don't use force against your Children. It's just the Libertarian NAP in a non retarded way.
Shouting at your Kids in anger is using the threat of force as you are intimidating them with Anger. Raising your voice is not always anger obviously.