Advice Needed: Circumcised vs Uncircumcised

I have asked several professional Psychologists in various fields what their opinon of EP is, and they certainly do not dismiss every bit of it out of hand like you do. They tell me that it is a new branch of science and that like many emerging fields some of it is not very good and some of it is quite good.I do hope you will excuse me if I do not give much credence to the opinion of a non-scientist/non-Psychologist in this matter.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-17-2006 10:52 PM

quote:

---

the human nervous system is fully formed at birth.

---

It is?I thought the brain was still making lost of networks and connections for years after birth.

The following may be anecdotal, but it does support the assertion that not taking care to pull back the foreskin during a young age can lead to the foreskin 'attaching' itself.As a young kid (4 or 5?) I can still remember my parents having me lie down on bed and one of them pulling back on the foreskin and the foreskin pulling away from the glans painfully as it bled slightly. The foreskin seemed to want to attach and this was due to me not cleaning it properly by pulling back the foreskin. Obviously iI learned very quickly to do this and have not had any problems since then.

and continues to well after birth and throughout life. at some point during infancy, if i recall, the brain completely restructures itself (someone check that). but even that doesn't mean that pain receptors are not present or that a child doesn't feel.

---

אָרַח

??? Like I said, read what I am writing. I can't be advocating anything if my statement is that it should not be done. That's sort of the definition of not being an advocate. That's because instead of reading what I am writing, they view any honest discussion of facts as something that must be wholly annihilated to make the practice and its results worse than it actually is. It must be viewed as wholly evil.I guess I'm waiting waiting for you guys to suggest Saddam Hussein and Al Queda are behind circumcision and anyone having one supports them. Weapons of Male Destruction and all.I get that you don't like them, and you don't like the practice. I am not in favor of the practice too, especially for the new born. But I can still point out that there are some aesthetic "advantages", as well as some minor medical ones, which is why some (yes a small minority) actually have to have it done or want to have it done.I apologize to everyone for not being able to see this issue in wholly black and white terms. I guess having been circumcized and having lived and played with many guys with both cut and uncut cocks I'm less inclined to view either choice as definitive regarding quality of life.

---

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

But I don't dismiss the field "out of hand". That would definitely be a strawman of my position. Indeed in one of the threads I bumped for crash on the topic I was in complete agreement with an early EP proponent, who has moved on to criticize what has been happening in that field.The concept that some of our behaviors (or underlying motives for behavior) could be hardwired into our brains due to evolutionary pressures is not impossible. I find that an interesting question and would love to see that explored. The problem starts emerging on what techniques are being used to identify hardwired behavior, place when such hardwiring occured, and giving what reason for it to have occured.The field of EP has been overrun by people who are not practicing science. They are using deductive logic to make claims as stretched as those in ID. Ironically that's the same thing that people in the ID camp say. Not sure if you've seen their site or read their testimony in court but that is it. Uhhh... I am a scientist. I've told you this already, while my original undergrad was philosophy I went on to full undergrad and some grad work in both Chemistry and Geology/Earth Science.I am not a psychologist, but did minor in sociology, which included social psych and anthro whose evidence undercuts many of EPs current claims, and why they appear to feel the need to downplay those fields in the exact manner ID attacks Evo (read the cites in the other thread supplied by an EP supporter).My gf is in psych and she agrees that the field is currently a bunch of crap science. From what I understand her profs aren't all that eager about it either. The idea that you "have asked several prof Psychs" means anything is a little odd.Are you claiming that there aren't psychologists and other scientists firmly against it? Like I said you can just pop over to the other thread where all I am discussing is actual material, and you will find some solid criticism of EP techniques. I might add that Gould... an evolutionary biologist... was violently opposed to it. If you think I am dismissive, you should read his statements about it.By the way, from what I understand you are not a scientist, so why should anyone take your word for anything? Frankly I think that's a very lame point to try and throw at someone (especially when you are wrong), but it makes less sense when you fulfill the same criteria.By by the way, how does this settle the issue on what EP would say about mantis "culture"?This message has been edited by holmes, 01-18-2006 05:21 AM

---

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

I am sorry, holmes, but I am not going to continue this conversation.I am trying to stick to a resolution and I am currently in violation of it.

For reference: the thread title is Advice Needed: Circumcised vs Uncircumcised.Please take note.

The sites biased against circumcision tend to have information that agrees with the AAP while the site you linked to has numerous pieces of information that are either contrary to the AAP or that the AAP is explicitly skeptical of.Anyone else have thoughts or opinions on this site? Are there others (especially from respectable medical orginizations) that differ widly from the AAP?

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

quote:

---

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.

---

have your pecker Bobbittized and you'll know what female mutilation is all about.Buh-bye dickhead....buh-bye joy!

that you consult with medical experts concerned about the child, who will weigh pros and cons with you and tell you that no thing is certain. Weigh in your own experience and then proceed.
I see nary a one able to make up your mind for you. It's one of those things where you take your chances. And I wish that you will choose and then be happy with your choice.

not quite. though many parts of the anatomy of both genders are analogous in structure, functionally they are not. the female equivalent of "a bobbit" would be complete excision of vulva and clitoris (while leaving the labia intact).the general fgm routine is about analogous to a man having his head removed, and his balls skinned and tucked up inside his pelvis and sewn shut. which does not sound like a good time.

---

אָרַח

you know, we've heard the conspiracy argument before around here. usually, it comes from creationists.we have discussed the facts honestly. your proposed benefit was insurance against relatively infrequent disorder, and quite the over-kill solution as well. the cases that actually require circumcision are few and far between. and if and when they do happen, you treat them. in dentistry, you give root canals after the person gets lots of cavities, but you don't remove all the child's teeth as soon as they come in.nobody here is against root canals. we're not trying to abolish them or claim them as wholly evil, or even barbaric. personally, i'm just against unneccessary body modification or surgery in favor of "what if" scenarios. if you are too, fine. don't bother arguing anymore because i reject your nitpick as not logically correct. and that's subjective -- and not a good reason. especially on a newborn. i take it you agree? which are totally debatable. people also like peircings and tatoos, as well as scarification. if someone wants to change their body, that's fine. but we're talking about infant circumcision here. i doubt infant form such opinions of their bodies based on asthetics and medical reasons. do you get why people are misunderstanding you? is this molehills-to-mountains day? we're arguing something based of costs and benefits, as well as choices and medical procedures forces on infants. most adults don't spend every waking minute thinking about their foreskin. i don't think anyone could connect it to, say, marital happiness or income.it's not a "quality of life" issue. it's whether it could be a good thing or a bad thing to do. the "importance" of the issue comes from the permanence. it's a little harder to grow out than a haircut.

---

אָרַח

Nice try, but it won't work. I'm not accusing anyone of a conspiracy. I'm arguing that people around here are not willing to discuss it outside a black/white perspective, and attacking me for discussing it outside that perspective.That's about the same as pointing out how Bush fanatics keep wanting to discuss civil rights and foreign diplomacy issues in a black/white perspective. See this is it exactly. In the end analysis I agreed with that position and stated that position, but because in my analysis I mentioned that a successful cut does provide some benefits (even if purely cosmetic except for rarer cases) I am getting treated like I'm trying to convince someone to do it.You are arguing a moot position at me because I already agree. If you weren't stuck in some black/white emotional need, then you would let it go. Yes that's absolutely subjective, but I feel pretty confident in stating that the vast majority of people find smegma repulsive and so less buildup an aesthetic "advantage".And yes you should take it that I agree there is no reason to perform it on newborns as I said that in my very first post. And I've repeated that point to you. Yes, instead of focusing on the entirety of what I write, which has been consistent from my first post... that there is no real reason for infant circumcision, and that it is essentially cosmetic body modification... people are focusing on the fact that I also say it does provide some medical relief for rare cases, as an excuse to preach to me how bad it is.I did not nitpick, I am returning debate to a rational level. We can agree it is not the best choice, particularly for infants, while admitting it does help some people and successful cuts provide some cosmetic advantages... right?If not... why not? Bingo. Black and white. Maybe I should also apologize for not believing in the concepts of good and bad... but that does tend to help one not discuss things in black and white.What do you feel about Jews and Muslims who do it for religious/cultural purposes?

---

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

quote:

---

have your pecker Bobbittized and you'll know what female mutilation is all about.

​

not quite. though many parts of the anatomy of both genders are analogous in structure, functionally they are not. the female equivalent of "a bobbit" would be complete excision of vulva and clitoris (while leaving the labia intact).

​

the general fgm routine is about analogous to a man having his head removed, and his balls skinned and tucked up inside his pelvis and sewn shut. which does not sound like a good time.

---

Have a puke!Page not found - Amnesty International - 29k