Advice Needed: Circumcised vs Uncircumcised

quote:

---

I can't believe we live in a society where a woman can express a preference for male infant genital mutilation and nobody thinks twice, but if I were to come out here and assert how pleasing I find the results of female genital mutilation on women, you'd rightly decry me as a monster.

---

Your analogy is deficient for intent.
The Israelites were told to circumcise whilst desert dwellers and bathing was not opportune.
For some world citizens, bathing is still not a regular habit and that includes those who have access to all modern facilities.Female genital mutilation has nothing to do with cleanliness and is performed on older girls.I suggest the OP consult with experts, and then make his own decision. Boys can be taught to carefully cleanse their body, doesn't mean they will.

For a person who maintains that evopsych is a realistic science, then your answer must be yes. Their habits are a genetically determined culture just as all human behavior is. This is an interesting, but off topic question which several people seem interested in bringing into this discussion. I have opened up a new thread to handle it.You might want to repost this question there, or modify it in some way if you want to improve its "bite".

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

neither does male circumcision. it's an excuse that's been used to sell it, but the original reason was the same as fgm -- a rite of passage, and religious reasons. what's the difference, exactly? it's still a traumatic experience.

---

אָרַח

i said: "a chance of a difference." how is this saying "no possible difference?"your'e basically arguing on a what-if basis. what if something goes wrong? well, if something goes wrong, you cross that bridge when you get to it. the chance of something maybe happening in the future is not a good enough reason to perform an unneeded surgical procedure on an infant. especially not one that is gauranteed to damage them in other ways, like loss of sensation. it should be. it isn't always, but generally it is. and there isa difference between a 20-30 year old electing to have the procedure himself when he really does have the condition and the parents of an infant deciding to do it to their son "just in case." i generally shower every day.that "moist" bit is the environment it's supposed to live in.

---

אָרַח

yes, we know. but by FAR most circumcisions are not done for medical reasons.

---

אָרַח

No, the intent is identical in both cases; in both cases, children are being sexually mutilated to anticipate the asthetic concerns of their future sex partners. But they were told to do so not out of cleanliness, but as a covenant to be kept with God, to signify their unique status as His chosen people. Anyway, do you have any evidence that the incidence of penis-related diseases was lower for the Jews of that time than their neighboring Gentiles and other peoples?

and generally socio-religious issues, in both cases. the us is a bit abnormal. we seem to do it without the religious reasons, just the sociological ones.however, fgm tends to be a bit more extreme, so it's not a perfect analogy, but it is quite similar in practice and context if not degree.

---

אָרַח

quote:

---

For a person who maintains that evopsych is a realistic science, then your answer must be yes. Their habits are a genetically determined culture just as all human behavior is.

---

That is a strawman argument, because Evolutionary Psychology does not claim that all human behavior is genetically determined.(edited to fix quote box)This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-17-2006 09:57 AM

Actually that's not a strawman. Like ID, EP chooses not to reveal exactly what its claims is genetically determined, yet at the same time discounts (by necessity) culture and individual development as primary forces, and has adherents claiming everything from underlying behavioral tendencies to all behaviors are evolutionarily driven.And more to the point, you asked if praying mantis' have culture, without question the ep answer would have to be YES. Although it may be limited in scale, what they do as a group is their culture and is a product of their behaviors (or behavioral tendencies) just as human cultures are.Remember, if culture can really drive development, then the ability to claim a discovered "evolutionary" based behavior based on stats is severely undercut. That is why EP adherents actively describe cultures as products of behaviors developed from evolution's invisible guiding hand, and not the other way around.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Stop it. Stop and read what I am writing.I was talking about a successful circumcision. There IS a difference between a cut cock and an uncut one. Those are the differences I was discussing.You keep trying to act like I am discussing a kid who has not had one yet, and I am not and was not. What's more I have stated that when we are looking at the choice of cutting, those differences DO come with a chance of negatives. I said that in my very first post and am suggesting to the OP author the chances are not worth him making that decision for his son.What you cannot do is keep pushing it back to chances, when I am discussing the differences that do exist between a properly cut and uncut cock. I am questioning why everyone has to pretend there is no difference. I have openly accepted there is risk in the procedure and they outweigh the benefits, why can others not accept there are some positive differences in a successful operation? Yeah, given that I have been arguing this myself, why is it necessary to say this to me? Uh yeah, that's also what I was suggesting, although I wouldn't go so far as to say "supposed" as if any alteration is some perversion of nature with inherent dire consequences. The point I made is that that environment... as natural as it is... creates an aesthetic difference which is less appealing and requires greater care.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Don't circumcise him (I'm not). Just be sure and tell him while he's real young (before he gets embarassed about that sort of thing) to pull his hood back and wash... otherwise, he'll get that growth spurt, and the skin will have to stretch a whole lot more to be pulled back and may even become a little attached to the head. (very painful) I can't imagine life without the hood for protection... its soooo sensitive with the hood pulled down, I don't know how I'd manage going around like that all the time... Plus, the hood gets major cool points in communal showers... the circumcised guys are like, "man, that's so cool! I think I got jipped..."

http://www.circinfo.com/benefits/bmc.html - 15k -Here's a site that bleats FOR male circumcision. I'm certain equal opportunities exist AGAINST it.

quote:

---

and is performed on older girls.

​

what's the difference, exactly? it's still a traumatic experience.

---

If you can't see the difference, then you can't.

http://www.circinfo.com/benefits/bmc.html - 15kHave a peek!

no, you stop and read what i'm writing. you're advocating a potential benefit at considerable cost here. you were discussing a "what-if" scenario of un-cut penises. and a rare one, at that. there is a difference, yes. and that difference includes a loss of sensation, a traumatic experience for the child, and increased chances of infection. open wound, in a diaper. think about it.two of those are certainties. you are emphasizing a potential positive, as well as common ignorance of bodily function, over those two above that are for sure. because in this case many here are reading your small nitpick as argument in favor. "less appealing" is subjective. as for greater care, ell, trust me. little boys like to play with their penises in the shower. it's not all that extra.

---

אָרַח

no, really. what difference does age make? they're more likely to remember it into their adult life, but that's about it. it's still painful, and still causes the victim to go into shock, and both still have lasting effects (see the study earlier about feeding).i don't understand why people don't ever stop to think about this. the human nervous system is fully formed at birth. babies do feel pain. hurting a baby and hurting an adolescent are virtually the same in every way.

---

אָרַח