Hacker News Reader

Comment by ionwake | Hacker News Reader

Location. Like male circumcision it simply doesnt exist outside of the USA, unless you count random african countries like Ghana.

No idea why, if anyone wants to enlighten me let me know.

View on HN

It’s very common in South Korea as well as in Jewish and Muslim populations globally.

Your comment reflects a very Europe-centric view of the world.

That is because I live in Europe.

> if anyone wants to enlighten me let me know.

Cut off the tip of your ding dong and get to eat bacon. Or not. Easy choice. /s

Isn't it the opposite?

Kinda a naive statement. Around 1/3 of males in the world are circumcised with highest rates in the US, Middle East, and South Korea.

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/16194-circu...

Just to be clear, because the intro to that article is not, it's much more rare for circumcision to be required for purely medical or hygiene reasons. Let's not prepare that excuse.

This form of genial mutilation is most often performed on babies for no reason other than perpetuating religious or cultural expectations of the parents.

I made no statement or determination on whether the practice was right or wrong or why it may be done. I only refuted the statement that it was only seen in the US and Africa. Your positions on the genitalia of American men sound very well thought out and I encourage you to pursue that further!

No, that is incorrect, linking to a study discussing the benefits of circumcision implies bias. If you had linked to both a positive and negative article, such as one regarding how it permanently destroys male sensitive at the head of penis both producing discomfort for female partners during initial penetration, aswell as permanent trauma in child in other studies, then you would have not made a biased statement with your link pasting.

You are obviously passionate about other people’s genitalia, but putting words in his mouth and accusing him of bias when it’s clear from context what he meant is a bad look.

The article did not present the criticisms enough. It's mostly about bodily autonomy.

Imagine if 1/3 of the world gave their babies botex or other face modifications after birth because they thought their babies looked ugly and I was on here defending the baby's rights to not be unnecessarily modified without their consent.

Then you come on here and joke about how passionate I must be about other people's faces. It's not about the faces or genitalia, it's about one's right to bodily autonomy.

Although you are being a bit rude calling me naive, you are not wrong regarding your percentage, and I was wrong in my general attitude that few people do outside the USA, however I meant, most countries that practice circumcision other than the USA ( western / developed ). However you are right regarding all countries, and for this I thank you for opening my eyes.

I am from Europe where it isn't a thing, this table should help explain the difference in opinion in the West.

Top 5 Countries by Circumcision Rate High and Low

United States 50-60%

Indonesia >90%

Pakistan >90%

Bangladesh >90%

Egypt >90%

(European Countries with Lowest Circumcision Rates)

Finland <1%

Denmark <2%

Norway <2%

Sweden <3%

Iceland <1%

PS - it was unprofessional to add a link to a random article on reasons for circumcision, it makes you sound butthurt, no one asked or cares to discuss genital mutilation reasons. If you are interested in sharing your vague opinion and articles about it then Ill bite. Not anyone cares in this thread about my opinion on this matter (understandably) but I find it barbaric and have only pity for any man subjected to it as a child.

TLDR We were just talking about how its unheard of in western democracies outside the US

The article was the source for the top countries and overall percentage I used in my statement. It’s fine if you would like to make unsubstantiated claims but I felt it was better to provide a source for my claim.

Is Ghana a western democracy or did you just toss them in for some extra bias/flair? Maybe you just had trouble staying on track with the thread which was about televangelists and didn’t mention male genitalia at all.

To be honest, I just mentioned it was uncommon due to location I had no idea someone was going to reply with links to articles about the benefits of male circumcision, I felt compelled to reply as a result.

But it is a fair enough comment to say I should stay on track when I called you out on it too ( I edited that out as I felt it was a bit rude to comment on your attitude ).

Regarding Ghana I dont think you understood my point, I don't believe Ghana is a Western Democracy, but I do believe it has a high right of circumcision, my point is simply that noone in the West circumcises, only the USA. I guessed Ghana was a poor country with comparatively poorer and lower levels of education and GDP with a high percentage rate of circumcision and it seems I was right - its over 95%

PS - you are again being rude by suggestion I am trying to add flair to look cool. You clearly are having trouble understanding by basic point and instead guessing its because I am trying to sound cool. If you look at my account its over a decade old with barely any points on it, I dont care about upvotes.

Do not worry as that is not what I meant by flair, I would never suggest that you look cool. Especially after ragging on the good people of Ghana.

lol

> lol

Racists always have such a way with words.

I thought you were joking, when you said I was "ragging on the good peole of Ghana".

You are now saying I was "ragging" on Ghana by stating their 94% circumcision rate, when I was just stating a statistic. But your comment does belie that you agree circumcision is bad, hence your perception its insulting to mention countries with high circumcision rates. Aleast we can put this conversation behind us now.

I'm glad we finally reached common ground.

Regarding the racism comment, I dont quite understand what circumcision has to do with racism, but if it helps I am a minority.

You're being trolled.

Nah there people as cursed as the commenter irl

Traditional: a word used to apply a veneer of legitimacy. Deligitamizing adjacent alternatives.

Like referring to public school as "traditional education" in comparison with the implied "non-traditional" home schooling (which is the actual tradition).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com