Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Big C: Circumcision
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 76 of 104 (49036)
08-06-2003 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by crashfrog
08-05-2003 8:44 PM


quote:
You must expect them to be with some pretty shallow women.
quote:
Yeah, I'd say that largely describes girls age 16-25. Human beings in general, perhaps.
Maybe that describes people that you chose to hang around with during that time, but perhaps I had better taste in friends than you.
I saw through shallow people a mile away and didn't give them the time of day. I still don't understand why you want to encourage your children to conform to everyone else's idea of what's "normal".
quote:
By this logic, we should perform surgery on or "treat" all children who look "different". Liposuction on the fat ones, breast augmentation for the flat-chested/overdeveloped ones, hormones for the short boys/tall girls, nose jobs for the Jewish and Italian kids, eyelid jobs for the Asian kids, etc. etc...
quote:
Plenty of teenagers do those things with their parents blessing anyway.
Um, they don't "fix" asian childrens' eyelids when they are infants, though, do they?
The choice to have these unfortunate surgeries to look more WASP is up to the individual getting the surgery, isn't it?
quote:
You don't seem critical of braces to straighten only barely-crooked teeth, or parent-sanctioned tanning, or even girls stuffing their bras.
Just because I didn't mention them doesn't mean I approve.
Remember, we are talking about surgery.
Would you approve of some parents of a infant who's eyelids looked "too asian" getting cosmetic surgery to make them appear more "normal" in America?
quote:
Despite that these are as socially-driven "corrections" as anything listed above.
Non-surgical, temporary "enhancements", sone with the free informed choice of the enhanced, is entirely different from circumcision of infants.
quote:
Quite frankly, if you're odd or different in high school, you get dumped with shit that lasts you most of your life. I went through that. I imagine that most of us here did, too.
Yep, that's true.
quote:
Why would I wish that on my kid? Why would I burden a son with one more reason to get picked on in an already stressful evironment?
Because you can't do anything about his getting picked on. It's going to happen over a bunch of other things.
You seem to want to teach him that most women are shallow, but he has to conform to their shallow expectations anyway.
Wouldn't it be better to teach him to recognize quality in people and to avoid those who are shallow and concerned with the superficial?
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-06-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by crashfrog, posted 08-05-2003 8:44 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 77 of 104 (49040)
08-06-2003 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by crashfrog
08-06-2003 5:23 PM


quote:
But for as long as it's necessary to my sons to fit in to our sexual culture, I think it's wrong to prevent parents from opting for the procedure. To do so sentences them to great social ostracism, all to preserve a flap of skin. Doesn't sound like a fair trade to me.
I just don't get where you think that "great social ostracism" would occur.
I, personally, wouldn't have cared a bit if any of my boyfriends were uncircumsized or not. I have honestly never heard a single negative comment about it from any of my girlfriends over the years, and in fact have only heard positive or neutral comments.
If it's sexual partners you are worried about, you should be glad they get rejected by a woman so shallow that she cares if he is uncircumsized or not.
Here's an interesting exercise:
Replace "uncircumsized" in that sentence with one or more of the following words or phrases:
rich
on the football team
tall
drives a fancy car
is a certain religion
is in a certain ethnic group

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by crashfrog, posted 08-06-2003 5:23 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 78 of 104 (49041)
08-06-2003 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by crashfrog
08-06-2003 5:33 PM


quote:
I don't object to a token snip of the labia in order to fit the girl into the sexual culture.
I most certainly do object to anyone thinking they have the right to mess about with my nether regions without getting my approval!
Tell me, crashfrog, what do you think of footbinding?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by crashfrog, posted 08-06-2003 5:33 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by greyline, posted 08-07-2003 12:02 AM nator has not replied
 Message 86 by crashfrog, posted 08-07-2003 4:19 PM nator has replied

  
greyline
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 104 (49042)
08-07-2003 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by nator
08-06-2003 11:53 PM


quote:
I don't object to a token snip of the labia in order to fit the girl into the sexual culture.
  —crashfrog
quote:
I most certainly do object to anyone thinking they have the right to mess about with my nether regions without getting my approval!
  —schrafinator
I was going to suggest that crashfrog repeat his above comment to the women in his life - his sisters, mother, colleagues, wife, girlfriend, etc. and see what kind of response it drew! (Not that male circumcision is a "token snip", but that only makes the point more clearly - women in general would strenuously object to even the slightest interference with their genitals.)
This again harks back to my original reason for starting this thread - the ethics of amputating someone else's body parts when those parts are perfectly healthy and when that person did not consent. Why do parents think they have the right to irreversibly alter their child's genitals? They don't own their children's bodies - they are meant to be *guardians* of their children.
And why do doctors think they have the right to perform unnecessary mutilations on non-consenting people? That doesn't conform to any standards of medical ethics. A Queensland law paper a few years ago proved this along with all the associated legal jargon, and made the obvious point about repercussions: that men could sue their parents or doctor for their infant circumcisions.
------------------
o--greyline--o

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by nator, posted 08-06-2003 11:53 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by crashfrog, posted 08-07-2003 4:25 PM greyline has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 80 of 104 (49120)
08-07-2003 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Rrhain
08-06-2003 6:23 PM


There are also glands, in the eurethra, which produce a superb lubricant. It's purpose seems to be to facilite ejaculation. It is sometimes called "pre-ejaculate fluid."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Rrhain, posted 08-06-2003 6:23 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Rrhain, posted 08-07-2003 1:42 PM doctrbill has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 81 of 104 (49123)
08-07-2003 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by greyline
08-06-2003 10:12 PM


Thank you for the link. Indeed, this information was not in circulation when I was at university. I think the following quote from the site does a pretty good job of summing up the argument against routine circumcision:
quote:
"Clearly, the penis is a complex organ with many different parts, each specialized for a specific role." British Journal of Urology, Volume 77, 291-295, February 1996.
------------------
Doesn't anyone graduate Sunday School?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by greyline, posted 08-06-2003 10:12 PM greyline has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 82 of 104 (49125)
08-07-2003 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by crashfrog
08-06-2003 7:27 PM


crashfrog responds to me:
quote:
quote:
But I ask you to justify your position.
Well, that's fine. You might have done it a little clearer, however, so I could have known exactly what parts of my statements you wanted me to substantiate.
Um, it never occurred to you that the statement that I quoted was the one I wanted you to justify? When I said, "You didn't just say that, did you?" what did you think the "that" refers to?
quote:
General incredulity doesn't help mein fleshing out my position for you.
And feigning ignorance like you are now doesn't help your position, either.
quote:
Now, if you're done blinking, can we have a discussion?
Sure. Justify your statements that I blinked at. I even took the time and trouble to quote them for you so that you'd remember what it was you said. Do I need to repeat them?
quote:
quote:
When you say that being circumcised is a requirement, I have to blink in incredulity. Did you really just say that?
In this case, no, I didn't actually say that.
Oh, we're about to have a semantic argument, aren't we? I'm going to quote what you said, you're going to respond that you didn't use the word "requirement," and then you're going to pretend that the word you really used doesn't mean that.
(*sigh!*)
Well, if you insist:
But as long as it's necessary to have a fulfilled sexual life in this culture
You're going to say that "necessary" doesn't mean "requirement."
I'll point out that you have gone on and on about the social ostracism an uncircumcised boy would have to endure quoting your statements of:
In a context where a lack of circumcision carries with it deep social stigma, circumcision is as corrective a surgery as getting rid of webbed feet.
And
Quite frankly, if you're odd or different in high school, you get dumped with shit that lasts you most of your life.
So give unto me a frickin' break. For you to quibble over the word "requirement" when it is clear that it's exactly what you mean is not conducive to this "discussion" you claimed you wanted to have above.
quote:
What I said was that circumcision is as corrective a surgery as correcting webbed feet.
See...here we go.
You said much more than that.
quote:
quote:
Have you ever been around an uncircumcised penis during sex?
I have no personally been around an uncircumcised penis during sex.
Then where on earth do you get off making statements such as:
Not to mention that the glans itself contains as many nerve endings that might very well not be stimulated in the presence of the foreskin.
If you have absolutely no experience over how an uncircumcised penis works, how can you possibly make any legitimate claim about what is or is not stimulated?
quote:
On the other hand, men and women I know (and whose opinion I respect) have been around both circumcised and uncircumcised penises, and they are unanimous in their preference of circumcised penises.
As I said before, which you also ignored:
And the fact that so few males are intact in this country has nothing to do with it, of course.
Go to a country where circumcision is rare and take a poll.
quote:
Even those who opted for circumcision later in life think it's better. Statistically circumcised men have more active and satisfying sex lives.
Incorrect. It's the other way around. While I don't deny your personal anecdote, surely I don't have to remind you that anecdote is not evidence. The general opinion of those who have been circumcised after sexual maturity is that uncircumcised is better.
quote:
If the foreskin has an effect on sex I'm afraid I must conclude it is a negative effect.
How would you know? You don't have one and you only have anecdote.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 08-06-2003 7:27 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 83 of 104 (49126)
08-07-2003 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by crashfrog
08-06-2003 5:33 PM


crashfrog responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Little boys die from their circumcisions, crash. Isn't that enough?
Enough to stop? Not really.
(*blink!*)
Excuse me? You didn't just say that, did you?
Killing someone when you didn't have to is somehow not a problem? Deliberately putting someone in a situation where they can and do die when there is absolutely no reason to do it is not a problem?
quote:
quote:
What if your son turns out to be gay? A foreskin could make him quite popular.
I understand most gay men also prefer circumcised men.
You understand wrong.
quote:
The combination of a foreskin and anal sex (for instance) would seem to be undesirable.
Question: Do you have anal sex often?
Then how would you know if the combination is "undesireable"?
Does the phrase "cleaning out" mean anything to you?
quote:
You think it's abuse to take away a part of their body. I think it's the greater abuse to leave them with something they'll be made to hate in the future.
How do you know they're going to hate it?
And if they hate it that much, they can take care of it themselves.
Don't project your neurosis about foreskins onto your children.
quote:
Neither of us can predict the future, but we can make our best guess about what's best for our children.
But when your "best guess" requires surgery, one has to wonder why you seem to think that you need to carve up your children to satisfy your own obsession.
quote:
That's all I'm trying to do - keep the option of circumsision open if my wife and I decide that's best for our child.
Um, wouldn't "keeping the option open" require leaving the foreskin there? Once it's gone, you can't get it back. If your son is going to have the option, then you're going to have to leave it there and let him decide what to do with it.
It's his body, not yours.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by crashfrog, posted 08-06-2003 5:33 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 84 of 104 (49128)
08-07-2003 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Agent Uranium [GPC]
08-06-2003 9:04 PM


Agent Uranium [GPC] responds to me:
quote:
quote:
We're going back to what you were born with.
Does this mean you would feel averse to cutting off a child's tail if (s)he came into this world with such an atavistic, but perfectly natural, feature? If it didn't cause any medical problems?
I don't think it could not cause any medical problems.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Agent Uranium [GPC], posted 08-06-2003 9:04 PM Agent Uranium [GPC] has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 85 of 104 (49131)
08-07-2003 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by doctrbill
08-07-2003 12:50 PM


doctrbill responds to me:
quote:
There are also glands, in the eurethra, which produce a superb lubricant. It's purpose seems to be to facilite ejaculation. It is sometimes called "pre-ejaculate fluid."
Well, sorta.
There is the prostate gland and Cowper's glands that produce seminal fluid and such. They empty into the urethra, yes, but they are within the body cavity, not anywhere near the glans. Plus, they are only in action during sex. The Tyson's glands, on the other hand, are in the glans and are secreting whether you have sex or not.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by doctrbill, posted 08-07-2003 12:50 PM doctrbill has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 86 of 104 (49187)
08-07-2003 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by nator
08-06-2003 11:53 PM


I most certainly do object to anyone thinking they have the right to mess about with my nether regions without getting my approval!
Well, I think you find that when it's already happened to you, and you have no memory of it, and it hasn't caused any perceptible loss of function, you don't really mind. At least that's my experience and the vast experience of circumcised men.
Tell me, crashfrog, what do you think of footbinding?
Sounds painfully and permanently debilitating. So I guess I'm opposed. Why, what did you think I would say?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by nator, posted 08-06-2003 11:53 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Rrhain, posted 08-07-2003 5:35 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 93 by nator, posted 08-07-2003 7:19 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 87 of 104 (49189)
08-07-2003 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by greyline
08-07-2003 12:02 AM


I was going to suggest that crashfrog repeat his above comment to the women in his life - his sisters, mother, colleagues, wife, girlfriend, etc. and see what kind of response it drew!
Upon doing exactly that, I discovered that my wife at least felt that a token snip of the labia, performed at birth and entailing no alteration of function later in life, was not that big a deal.
I have no reason to suspect that my wife is alone in this assessment, I guess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by greyline, posted 08-07-2003 12:02 AM greyline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Rrhain, posted 08-07-2003 5:33 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 96 by greyline, posted 08-08-2003 4:56 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 88 of 104 (49230)
08-07-2003 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by crashfrog
08-07-2003 4:25 PM


crashfrog writes:
quote:
Upon doing exactly that, I discovered that my wife at least felt that a token snip of the labia, performed at birth and entailing no alteration of function later in life, was not that big a deal.
Since removal of the foreskin does result in an alteration of function, where do you stand?
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by crashfrog, posted 08-07-2003 4:25 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 89 of 104 (49231)
08-07-2003 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by crashfrog
08-07-2003 4:19 PM


crashfrog writes:
quote:
it hasn't caused any perceptible loss of function
How do you know? You've never had a foreskin in order to be able to tell the difference.
The general consensus from those who have had their foreskins removed later in life and can tell the difference is that having a foreskin is better.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by crashfrog, posted 08-07-2003 4:19 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by crashfrog, posted 08-07-2003 5:42 PM Rrhain has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 90 of 104 (49236)
08-07-2003 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Rrhain
08-07-2003 5:35 PM


The general consensus from those who have had their foreskins removed later in life and can tell the difference is that having a foreskin is better.
Then why do people opt for the procedure? For that matter, how many people in your sample can't tell the difference?
And why do men without foreskins have more sex, and report greater satisfaction with their sex lives?
As has been mentioned, America has the greatest incidence of circumcision in men. Americans have the most sex, on average, of any nation on Earth. Now, I'm not trying to argue causality, but I find that may be indicative of something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Rrhain, posted 08-07-2003 5:35 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Rrhain, posted 08-07-2003 5:46 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 94 by nator, posted 08-07-2003 7:31 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024