NationStates Jolt Archive

For you to accuse anyone of dishonesty in this thread is the epitome of hypocrisy. You really have no shame.

I accorded you the respect of actually dealing with your response.

You failed to do the same, and, instead, simply pretended it hadn't happened.

You don't get to have any more replies from me, until you actually reach a level of acceptable behaviour. Welcome to my iggy bin.

Actually, this isn't precisely true. The foreskin provides lubrication of its own and, from what I understand, is also believed to alter the mechanics of sex (providing a bit of suction of its own or something like that). Obviously, that doesn't happen where the foreskin is not present.

And yet sex feels exactly the same with both kinds of penis. Can you differentiate? (and I don't mean this in any other way but genuine curiosity) I surely can't, and I have had sex with both kinds. The satisfaction has been the same. We both climax.

Seriously, both sides of this argument are pretty silly. You've got one person acting as if the penis is completely and utterly ruined by circumcision and others acting as if there's no difference at all. Yes, there is a difference. No, it does not render the penis non-functional. Kk?

Once again. The silliness of this argument strives in people wanting precisely to say that a circumcised penis is different to an uncircumcised one. In the mechanics of sex, when one comes right down to it, both penis are equally functional and yes, they do feel the same.

It's a big display of idiocy to allude to mutilation and saying these penis are different. Why? Just because the foreskin's absent? Please. What matters is that the man knows how to use it. What matters is that this man is not a mutilated being because his foreskin was removed when he was a baby.

Guys, those of you that are circumcised, truly, you're not half men. You're not mutilated beings.

Already covered. This is something like 90 pages on my settings, and I'm posting in between work, so I don't feel inclined to go hunt it all out for you again.

Then give me some sort of keyword to refine my search. It would make it easier for me to find the post.

The silliness of this argument strives in people wanting precisely to say that a circumcised penis is different to an uncircumcised one.

It is. It's circumcised.

I accorded you the respect of actually dealing with your response.

You failed to do the same, and, instead, simply pretended it hadn't happened.

You don't get to have any more replies from me, until you actually reach a level of acceptable behaviour. Welcome to my iggy bin.

I'm not pretending anything. If you're referring to your non-response where you criticized my intelligence while demanding numerous qualifiers to my question in an effort to avoid answering my blatantly straightforward question, it's not fiction to say you avoided answering my question. I answered your stupid loaded question even though it was stupid and loaded and designed solely to trap someone into providing you more debate ammunition. You did not do me the same honor, even though my question was less dishonest (though still pretty dishonest) than yours.

Your continued attempts to command some sort of moral high ground fool no one. I'm not particularly fazed that you would put me on ignore. It's certainly easier than actually having an honest discussion.

To recap, you have yet to:

1. Demonstrate that circumcision is mutilation, as defined as an act or physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, usually without causing death, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutilation) paying special attention to the section about "degrades the appearance or function." Since there is significant debate within the medical community whether function is degraded, and since appearance degradation is solely an aesthetic opinion, you have yet to provide objective proof that either is the case.

2. Demonstrate that circumcised men are victims, regardless of their own opinions on the matter, any more than any patient undergoing surgery is a "victim." You have failed to demonstrate that victimization is an objective fact, independent of the mental state of the "victim."

It is. It's circumcised.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/Forum%20Pictures/icon_facepalm.gif

That's not what she meant, and you know it. You simply snip one sentence out of a person's argument, throw out a trite retort which completely ignores the context of the sentence or argument, and then proclaim your victory.

It is. It's circumcised.

You base this difference in the absence of the foreskin. Other than that, these penis function the same. Lets not get into this again. You feel there's a difference, and I feel there's none. Let us agree, please, to disagree.

It is. It's circumcised.

And my circumcised penis is different from all other circumcised penises. It is mine!

And yet sex feels exactly the same with both kinds of penis. Can you differentiate? (and I don't mean this in any other way but genuine curiosity) I surely can't, and I have had sex with both kinds. The satisfaction has been the same. We both climax.

I've only ever had sex with a man who was circumcised, so I can't say. But I have had women tell me that they feel a difference. And at least one woman in this thread has said that she prefers an uncut penis when giving oral sex.

Once again. The silliness of this argument strives in people wanting precisely to say that a circumcised penis is different to an uncircumcised one.

No, that isn't silly at all. That's just true.

In the mechanics of sex, when one comes right down to it, both penis are equally functional and yes, they do feel the same.

No, they are not "equally functional." They are both functional, but the foreskin does provide functionality during sex that, quite clearly, a penis without a foreskin would not have. It may feel exactly the same to you, but that doesn't mean it *is* exactly the same.

Now, if you mean they can both be used for equivalent purposes, that would be true.

Out of curiosity, when you say they feel exactly the same, are we talking with or without a condom?

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/Forum%20Pictures/icon_facepalm.gif

That's not what she meant, and you know it. You simply snip one sentence out of a person's argument, throw out a trite retort which completely ignores the context of the sentence or argument, and then proclaim your victory.

Indeed he did. But I refuse to get into this again. I'm not out to make people see reason. I am not that conceited. This is, after all, my reason, and mine alone to say what I say about circumcision.

No, they are not "equally functional." They are both functional, but the foreskin does provide functionality during sex that, quite clearly, a penis without a foreskin would not have. It may feel exactly the same to you, but that doesn't mean it *is* exactly the same.

Now, if you mean they can both be used for equivalent purposes, that would be true.

He he he. I don't engage in sexual intercourse, I do an equivalent activity. I don't pee, I do something equivalent! I don't jerk off... normal people do that, what I do is similar but not the same!

I've only ever had sex with a man who was circumcised, so I can't say. But I have had women tell me that they feel a difference. And at least one woman in this thread has said that she prefers an uncut penis when giving oral sex.

To me, and here we go, to me both penis are the same. I don't know if you forgo to read it, but, in this, as long as the man I am with knows how to use it so that we both get pleasure, he can be uncut or cut.

No, that isn't silly at all. That's just true.

At the time of performing, no. There's no difference between the two. But before people ascribe opinions to what I'm saying, let me clarify that THIS is my experience on the subject.

No, they are not "equally functional." They are both functional, but the foreskin does provide functionality during sex that, quite clearly, a penis without a foreskin would not have. It may feel exactly the same to you, but that doesn't mean it *is* exactly the same.

You're just referring to the penis in a scientific way, Dem. I am referring to it's functionality during sex. To me, and me alone, gods, cut or uncut, the penis feels the same.

Now, if you mean they can both be used for equivalent purposes, that would be true.

That's exactly what I meant.

Out of curiosity, when you say they feel exactly the same, are we talking with or without a condom?

Without the condom.

Some, sure. It is entirely possible that some men feel disfigured and victimized and mutilated.
Quite. Thanks.

And yet sex feels exactly the same with both kinds of penis. Can you differentiate? (and I don't mean this in any other way but genuine curiosity) I surely can't, and I have had sex with both kinds. The satisfaction has been the same. We both climax.
Though honestly... You're not a guy, so your experience here counts for naught..


Once again. The silliness of this argument strives in people wanting precisely to say that a circumcised penis is different to an uncircumcised one. In the mechanics of sex, when one comes right down to it, both penis are equally functional and yes, they do feel the same.

It's a big display of idiocy to allude to mutilation and saying these penis are different. Why? Just because the foreskin's absent? Please. What matters is that the man knows how to use it. What matters is that this man is not a mutilated being because his foreskin was removed when he was a baby.

Here's an example of a circumcised man saying differently:

Stefan Ivarsson är övertygad om att hans penis är mindre känslig än icke omskurna mäns.
- Den blir allt mindre känslig med åren, säger han. Det blir svårare och svårare för mig att tända sexuellt. Alla de
känselkroppar som satt i min förhud för att via nervsystemet sända signaler till hjärnans lustcentrum är ju borta, och de
nervändar som finns i mitt ollon täcks av en onaturligt torr och tjock hud.
Han tycker att det är ganska krångligt att onanera; utan konstgjort glidmedel är det inte särskilt skönt.
- Förhuden på en normal penis ger ju en naturlig smörjning och minskar friktionen vid både onani och samlag. När den
krängs fram och tillbaka över ollonet ger den en lagom stark stimulans. Dessa fördelar får jag klara mig utan. Och de
kvinnor jag har varit tillsammans med säger att det skaver mer vid samlag med omskurna män och att de har en tendens
att ta i för hårt.
http://hem.bredband.net/staffanbjorkman/b-uppsats.pdf
(In short, he says his penis is less sensitive than a normal one, and that it gets less and less sensitive over time. He's having more truble getting aroused as time goes by too. He doesn't enjoy masturbation without adding lubrication, because he's lacking the natural lubricants his penis should produce. His claim is that he's enjoying sex less than he would if he weren't circumcised.)

Is his claims silly? Is he being idiotic?

He he he. I don't engage in sexual intercourse, I do an equivalent activity. I don't pee, I do something equivalent! I don't jerk off... normal people do that, what I do is similar but not the same!

I can drive a hybrid and I can drive a completely gas-driven car. With either one, I can get to my destination. Does that mean that both function exactly the same?

http://hem.bredband.net/staffanbjorkman/b-uppsats.pdf
(In short, he says his penis is less sensitive than a normal one, and that it gets less and less sensitive over time. He's having more truble getting aroused as time too. He doesn't enjoy masturbation without adding lubrication, because he's lacking the natural lubricants his penis should produce. His claim is that he's enjoying sex less than he would if he weren't circumcised.)

Is his claims silly? Is he being idiotic?

No, it may be the case that it's that way with some men in certain instances. However, studies vary, showing that some men report it as more sensitive, some as less, and some as "no change."

Here's an excerpt from one such study (note - it refers to men who were circumcised as adults, and had already experienced sex prior to circumcision):

Compared to before they were circumcised, 64.0% of circumcised men reported their penis was "much more sensitive," and 54.5% rated their ease of reaching orgasm as "much more" at month 24. CONCLUSIONS: Adult male circumcision was not associated with sexual dysfunction. Circumcised men reported increased penile sensitivity and enhanced ease of reaching orgasm. These data indicate that integration of male circumcision into programs to reduce HIV risk is unlikely to adversely effect male sexual function.

However, the studies are mixed. I'm sure with a little effort, you can find a study that says exactly the opposite.

Oh, by the way, here's the link. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18761593)

I can drive a hybrid and I can drive a completely gas-driven car. With either one, I can get to my destination.

They each have different fuel requirements, different design of the engine, different accelerations, different marketing, and different environmental impact. So yes, they function differently - that is the whole point, in fact, of having one versus the other.

Same is not true for circumcised penises. Analogy fail!

No, it may be the case that it's that way with some men in certain instances. However, studies vary, showing that some men report it as more sensitive, some as less, and some as "no change."

Here's an excerpt from one such study (note - it refers to men who were circumcised as adults, and had already experienced sex prior to circumcision):



However, the studies are mixed. I'm sure with a little effort, you can find a study that says exactly the opposite.

Oh, by the way, here's the link. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18761593)

Indeed. So you can't really say that the argument that a circumcised penis is different to an uncircumcised one is silly, can you?

Indeed. So you can't really say that the argument that a circumcised penis is different to an uncircumcised one is a silly one, can you?

It's different, aesthetically. They look different. However, all penises look different. It is functionally the same, however. They both work. They both ejaculate. They both provide similar (if not the same) amount of pleasure to their owners and partners. It's the difference between driving an old Lincoln Town Car or an old Mercury Grand Marquis of the same year.

It doesn't rise to the argument for banning of the practice.

(everyone who knows cars is giggling now)

They each have different fuel requirements, different design of the engine, different accelerations, different marketing, and different environmental impact. So yes, they function differently - that is the whole point, in fact, of having one versus the other.

Same is not true for circumcised penises. Analogy fail!

Well, no penises have engines or fuel requirements.

But different penises do function differently. And uncircumcised penis provides more lubrication (from the mucous membranes of the foreskin). The foreskin also causes the exact mechanics of the penis going in and out of an orifice to be different. However, just like the two types of cars, they both get the job done. And different people prefer different types of penises, just as they prefer different types of cars.

The fact that you insist on being ridiculous doesn't cause the analogy to fail.

It's different, aesthetically. They look different. However, all penises look different. It is functionally the same, however. They both work. They both ejaculate. They both provide similar (if not the same) amount of pleasure to their owners and partners. It's the difference between driving an old Lincoln Town Car or an old Mercury Grand Marquis of the same year.

It doesn't rise to the argument for banning of the practice.

(everyone who knows cars is giggling now)

Curious... Why do you choose to omit differences?

Curious... Why do you choose to omit differences?

Which differences? The lack of a foreskin? I think that's been covered pretty thoroughly already. But yes, one lacks a foreskin, hence why I used the comparison I did.

In case you aren't familiar with the old Lincoln Town Cars vs the Mercury Grand Marquis, the difference was basically trim. They had the same motor, frame, gearbox, and basic body style.

So, they looked slightly different, but not a great deal, and performance-wise they were identical.

Well, no penises have engines or fuel requirements.

What are you talking about, I got a massive 28Y 6x6 Sex Drive and it runs on Drugs & Hormones Formula 101.

But different penises do function differently. The fact that you insist on being ridiculous doesn't cause the analogy to fail.

But... they don't... function differently. How is my function any different? I mean, explain please. This is my penis after all and I am curious as to how my functions with it are different.

Which differences? The lack of a foreskin? I think that's been covered pretty thoroughly already. But yes, one lacks a foreskin, hence why I used the comparison I did.

So... therefore you feel comfortable skipping the biological aspects?

So... therefore you feel comfortable skipping the biological aspects?

I've already been through them at least twice. Pages 34-51 IIRC.

Already covered. This is something like 90 pages on my settings, and I'm posting in between work, so I don't feel inclined to go hunt it all out for you again.

Hey. No worries. I did it for you. here are the links you have provided in this thread.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8043224

No evidence of circumcision as mutilation or victimisation here. Just a synopsis of a medical study that suggests circumcised penises do not contract STIs as easily.

http://www.foreskin.org/fleiss.htm

This one actually uses the word mutilation, once:

In antiquity, the expansion of the Greek and Roman Empires brought Westerners into contact with the peoples of the Middle East, some of whom marked their children with circumcision and other sexual mutilations.

And that's it. So, I'm going to just put this in the 'not evidence that circumcision is mutilation or victimisation' pile.

http://www.altpenis.com/penis_news/global_penis_size_survey.shtml

This one's about penis size and doesn't mention circumcision. Or mutilation. Or victimisation.

http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/

This one deals specifically with Judaism and circumcision and has nothing to say about mutilation or victimisation.

Needless to say, you have not presented any evidence that circumcision is mutilation or victimisation. This puts your claim that it is "objective reality" into doubt.

I've already been through them at least twice. Pages 34-51 IIRC.

Wasn't there.

Just finding it odd that you choose to skip that part while claiming that there's no difference between circumcised penises and uncircumcised ones, except for the aesthetics.

If you choose to disregard the biological impact a circumcision has on a penis, I guess it would be silly to claim there's any difference between the two...

Wasn't there.

Just finding it odd that you choose to skip that part while claiming that there's no difference between circumcised penises and uncircumcised ones, except for the aesthetics.

If you choose to disregard the biological impact a circumcision has on a penis, I guess it would be silly to claim there's any difference between the two...

Which biological impact?

That the glans keortorize (or however you spell it)?

Yep, went over that. It was interesting.

How there's a theory that it might be less stimulation because the nerve endings in the foreskin are removed with the foreskin?

Addressed and debunked.

How there's a theory that it's more likely to be complications than non-circumcision?

Also addressed and debunked.

How the penis is uglier circumcised?

Personal opinion. Contradicted.

That's all I can think of right now. If you've got something else besides those, please list them. I'll either tell you I've gone over that already, or you may come up with something new and I'll discuss it with you.

EDIT: I apologize if that was a little curt. This thread is starting to irritate me, and I haven't had my usual drink before I start posting on NSG.

But different penises do function differently. And uncircumcised penis provides more lubrication (from the mucous membranes of the foreskin).

The function of the penis is not to lubricate the vagina, it is to project semen into an orifice. Do you have any data whatsoever that, for example, circumcised men are (as a result of this lubrication claim) less able to impregnate women? Do you have any data, for example, that a statistically relevant sample of women feel a difference in the lubrication of circumcised/uncircumcised (non-condom) penises?

Similarly, the function of the penis is to project urine from the body. Any data whatsoever that uncircumcised men and circumcised men perform this function differently? Is one more efficient perhaps?

Your comparison was absurd and flawed. Penises to car engines, "Equivalent but not equal."

The foreskin also causes the exact mechanics of the penis going in and out of an orifice to be different.

The red painted car also causes the exact mechanics of the light reflecting off of it to be different from the black painted one. Red cars function differently from black ones too now, I suppose?

Your comparison was absurd and flawed.

However, just like the two types of cars, they both get the job done.

=function the same.

And different people prefer different types of penises, just as they prefer different types of cars.

Just as they prefer red cars or black ones, yep.

The fact that you insist on being ridiculous doesn't cause the analogy to fail.

Oh, I'm being ridiculous, but you're saying my penis is "equivalent" without being "equal" and comparing it to a hybrid engine versus a regular engine. Why not just compare a horse-drawn carriage to a hydrogen-oxygen rocket? They both do the same thing, provide motor power to a vehicle, right?

If a guy told me my penis was mutilated? Sure - I'd laugh then too, but since you were talking about you calling penises mutilated, and - for some reason - I was under the impression that you were female, I continued the gendering of the people in question. It works just as well either way, I wouldn't care.

If the men you know would dissolve in tears because you said something mean about their manhood, well... yes, they'd be insecure.

No, what I meant was (and I see it was poorly worded) that you said you'd laugh at a women who called your penis mutilated, but would you say that another man who reacted that was was insecure? Earlier, I said that I wouldn't call a man's penis mutilated, because he wouldn't appreciate it. Now....is laughter 'appreciation'? Nowhere did I say anything about 'dissolving into tears'. If you think a circumcised penis is mutilated and/or disfigured, why would you laugh at someone pointing out this objective truth? This is nothing about insecurity, it's about you, making statements, about how people ought to react, while contradicting them in your massive security about how your penis looks.

For the same reason that I get to proclaim you a blonde, even if you think you're a redhead. Objective reality is defined by the words objective, and reality - not by how you 'feel'.But we are not talking about an external physical trait, rather about an internal mental state, which IS how I "feel". It is more analogous to you insisting that I "enjoy" something, although I and only I can possibly be the judge of that.

I somewhat prefer the circumcised penis to the uncircumcised, both for myself and for any partner; although I find the difference to be essentially trivial. For you to proclaim such a preference "objectively" wrong is an arrogant claim to Godhood.

When I was young (sometime before I was 9), I had two teeth pulled. They were pulled for cosmetic reasons; I'd never have nice straight teeth unless I had these two pulled out, and my parents were planning to have me get braces so I'd have straight teeth. As it happened, the Novocaine failed. So my mother was sitting there next to a sobbing child with a bloody half-pulled tooth, and the dentist asks her if she wanted to have them just go ahead and pull the teeth, or leave it dangling by the root until they could make an appointment for me to come back and get put under general anesthetic. Mom opted for them to just pull it and get it over. I screamed myself hoarse, but the teeth came out pretty quickly and I was fine in the end.

Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about that decision? I mean, it doesn't sound like leaving the tooth dangling by the root would have been much better, but still...

The argument isn't logical.

"It's not mutilation because the people who had it done to them don't feel mutilated".

Fine - let's see if the logic holds if we ignore the special exception that applies for circumcision:

"It's not rape because the person who had it done to her doesn't feel raped".

No - it doesn't hold up. Thus, it's a claim for special exception.

Arguments are a lot like ships. Take yours, for instance.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/RMS_Titanic_1.jpg

Sadly, reality looms ahead. Almost like some kind of giant

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Iceberg.jpg

Yeah, that.

Are you reminded of anyone else?

A=A, motherfucker?

A=A, motherfucker?

Glad I wasn't the only one thinkin' it.

When A=B, A=2A when divided by (A-B).

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/Forum%20Pictures/icon_facepalm.gif

That's not what she meant, and you know it. You simply snip one sentence out of a person's argument, throw out a trite retort which completely ignores the context of the sentence or argument, and then proclaim your victory.

I didn't 'claim victory'.

The idea that there is no difference is a non-starter. There is a fundamental difference, the absence or presence of a foreskin.

Maybe Nanatsu can't detect the difference by touch (I'd wager she can probably tell by looking), and maybe the cicumcised male can't 'feel' any difference (especially if they were circumcised as tiny infants)... but there is a difference.

You base this difference in the absence of the foreskin. Other than that, these penis function the same. Lets not get into this again. You feel there's a difference, and I feel there's none. Let us agree, please, to disagree.

No, I don't 'feel' there's a difference - there IS a difference, whether or not I (or circumcised-person-x-in-question) 'feel' it.

The idea that there is no difference is a non-starter. There is a fundamental difference, the absence or presence of a foreskin.

Maybe Nanatsu can't detect the difference by touch (I'd wager she can probably tell by looking), and maybe the cicumcised male can't 'feel' any difference (especially if they were circumcised as tiny infants)... but there is a difference.

Right, because you have ignored the evidence that has already been linked three times in this thread varying from "it feels the same" to "it feels better" circumcised when we're talking about people who have been circumcised as adults and had it both ways.

I forgot.

Which differences? The lack of a foreskin? I think that's been covered pretty thoroughly already. But yes, one lacks a foreskin, hence why I used the comparison I did.

In case you aren't familiar with the old Lincoln Town Cars vs the Mercury Grand Marquis, the difference was basically trim. They had the same motor, frame, gearbox, and basic body style.

So, they looked slightly different, but not a great deal, and performance-wise they were identical.

One of them wasn't missing it's front end, and all the various parts attached to it, then?

One of them wasn't missing it's front end, and all the various parts attached to it, then?

No, but it was missing a bunch of the trim. Hence why I used that example. Trim, however, is not a necessary component of the car.

One was missing some trivial ornamentation on the front end, yes.

Maybe Nanatsu can't detect the difference by touch (I'd wager she can probably tell by looking), and maybe the cicumcised male can't 'feel' any difference (especially if they were circumcised as tiny infants)... but there is a difference.

There is also a difference between black and red cars. Maybe some people can't detect the difference by touch and maybe car owners can't feel a difference, but there is a difference!!

But we are not talking about an external physical trait, rather about an internal mental state, which IS how I "feel".


No, we're not talking about that, at all. Not even slightly. We're talking about circumcision, which is the excision of part of the genitals - it is not a mental state.


It is more analogous to you insisting that I "enjoy" something, although I and only I can possibly be the judge of that.


Again, no - circumcised is not a 'state of mind' issue, it's a 'state of penis' issue.


I somewhat prefer the circumcised penis to the uncircumcised, both for myself and for any partner; although I find the difference to be essentially trivial.


Preference is, and always has been, irrelevant.


For you to proclaim such a preference "objectively" wrong is an arrogant claim to Godhood.

Fortunately, I didn't claim anything about preferences being objectively wrong. I didn't claim anything about feelings. I consistently said that feelings were irrelevant to the matter.

No, what I meant was (and I see it was poorly worded) that you said you'd laugh at a women who called your penis mutilated, but would you say that another man who reacted that was was insecure? Earlier, I said that I wouldn't call a man's penis mutilated, because he wouldn't appreciate it. Now....is laughter 'appreciation'? Nowhere did I say anything about 'dissolving into tears'. If you think a circumcised penis is mutilated and/or disfigured, why would you laugh at someone pointing out this objective truth? This is nothing about insecurity, it's about you, making statements, about how people ought to react, while contradicting them in your massive security about how your penis looks.

I contradicted a statment I'd made, by what now?

Right, because you have ignored the evidence that has already been linked three times in this thread varying from "it feels the same" to "it feels better" circumcised when we're talking about people who have been circumcised as adults and had it both ways.

I forgot.

I haven't 'ignored the evidence' - how it feels is irrelevant.

It was either chopped or not, that's not going to change because you like it or don't like it. So - more or less sensitive? Irrelevant. Happy or sad with the op? Irrelevant. YOU think it was mutilation OR you don't? Irrelevant.


Just for reference - this is how this is feeling to me, right now:


Me: "A circumcision is the removal of the foreskin"

Everyone else: "What helicopter?"

One was missing some trivial ornamentation on the front end, yes.

IIRC, was about $3,000 difference between the two vehicles. :p

No, but it was missing a bunch of the trim. Hence why I used that example. Trim, however, is not a necessary component of the car.

Which is why your analogy floats like a brick.

One was missing some trivial ornamentation on the front end, yes.

If by 'trim' you mean something like - the fender, the grille, the lights, etc.

Yes, the fender is gone, but it's okay - because any car that bumps it on the front end will be stopped by the engine block.

Yes, the grille is gone and the lights are gone, etc - but it still drives without them, so it's 'the same'.

The foreskin is not trivial ornamentation. Metres of blood vessels, tens of thousands of nerve endings, a functional 'protection' system. Suggesting it's more comparable to say, a decal, is nonsensical.

I haven't 'ignored the evidence' - how it feels is irrelevant.

NTS: It's mutilation! It causes sexual dysfunction and loss of feeling!
Everyone else: This study says it actually increases feeling and sexual ability.
NTS: That's irrelevant! It's mutilation.

I'm very confused.

It was either chopped or not, that's not going to change because you like it or don't like it. So - more or less sensitive? Irrelevant. Happy or sad with the op? Irrelevant. YOU think it was mutilation OR you don't? Irrelevant.

Except that in order to prove that a parent is abusing and mutilating their child, you have to show harm. I don't know how much more clear I can make that. You have consistently failed to do that. Muravyets pointed that out first, and I'm pointing it out again.

Just for reference - this is how this is feeling to me, right now:

Me: "A circumcision is the removal of the foreskin"

Everyone else: "What helicopter?"

Except it's more like:

NTS: It's harm and abuse!
Everyone else: What is the harm?
NTS: It's harm and abuse!!!!
Everyone else: Where's the harm?
NTS: It's harm and abuse!!!!!!!

NTS: It's mutilation! It causes sexual dysfunction and loss of feeling!
Everyone else: This study says it actually increases feeling and sexual ability.
NTS: That's irrelevant! It's mutilation.


I presented a source that suggested that sexual function and feeling, etc can be affected.

My argument hasn't been about sexual dysfunction - it's been about removal of the foreskin, with it's functionality. I've consistently pointed out that I'm not interested in whether or not it enhances, or hinders, sexual feeling or performance.


I'm very confused.


Apparently, because you haven't been paying attention to what I'm actually arguing, at any point.


Except that in order to prove that a parent is abusing and mutilating their child, you have to show harm. I don't know how much more clear I can make that. You have consistently failed to do that. Muravyets pointed that out first, and I'm pointing it out again.


In order to show mutilation, I have to show that the body part was damaged by, for example, excision. That's been shown.

You could argue that it's necessary to show 'disfiguring' also. That's been done - a circmucised penis is almost definitively a disfigured penis.

Harm is shown, mutilation is shown. Doing it for trivial reasons should be considered a form of abuse.


Except it's more like:

NTS: It's harm and abuse!
Everyone else: What is the harm?
NTS: It's harm and abuse!!!!
Everyone else: Where's the harm?
NTS: It's harm and abuse!!!!!!!

Not even close.

NTS: It's harm and abuse (we'll use your wording)
Everyone else: But I don't care.
NTS: whether or not you care doesn't actually address that...
Everyone else: Okay then - it feels nice.
NTS: whether or not it feels nice also fails to address that...
Everyone else: What helicopter.

Which is why your analogy floats like a brick.

And why yours floats like the Titanic. And unlike you, I've properly defended my point. See, I used pictures.

I presented a source that suggested that sexual function and feeling, etc can be affected.

And I presented one that directly contradicts it and is more recent.

My argument hasn't been about sexual dysfunction - it's been about removal of the foreskin, with it's functionality. I've consistently pointed out that I'm not interested in whether or not it enhances, or hinders, sexual feeling or performance.

Apparently, because you haven't been paying attention to what I'm actually arguing, at any point.

You've shifted the goal posts so many times, I've lost track of what you were arguing. I thought you were arguing for the practice to be banned. In order to ban a practice, you must prove harm.

I presented a source that suggested In order to show mutilation, I have to show that the body part was damaged by, for example, excision. That's been shown.

The same could be said for removing skin tags, moles, growths, a vestigal finger, or fixing a disfiguring condition or correcting a bent spine. All of these things were surgically altered from their original state - "damaged" from what they originally were.

You could argue that it's necessary to show 'disfiguring' also. That's been done - a circmucised penis is almost definitively a disfigured penis.

That hasn't been shown. Disfigurement is in the eyes of the beholder.

Harm is shown

Where did you show harm? It certainly wasn't in this post.

mutilation is shown. Doing it for trivial reasons should be considered a form of abuse.

Mutilation does not mean what you think it means, but even if it does, any sort of removal of healthy tissue (see above about skin tags, moles, a vestigal finger, etc) would be considered "mutilation", and therefore mutilation has no meaning.

Not even close.

NTS: It's harm and abuse (we'll use your wording)
Everyone else: But I don't care.
NTS: whether or not you care doesn't actually address that...
Everyone else: Okay then - it feels nice.
NTS: whether or not it feels nice also fails to address that...
Everyone else: What helicopter.

No, we've consistently asked you to show where it is harmful. You have failed. We have consistently asked you to show how it's abusive. You have failed.

In order to ban something under law, especially if it's a cultural or religious practice, definitive and demonstrable harm must be shown. You have failed to do that, on every count.

And I presented one that directly contradicts it and is more recent.


If the source you're talking about is the one I think you're talking about, it didn't 'directly contradict' the source I presented - it simply presented different data.


You've shifted the goal posts so many times, I've lost track of what you were arguing. I thought you were arguing for the practice to be banned. In order to ban a practice, you must prove harm.


I haven't shifted the goal posts. I've constantly had to replace the goalposts where other people kept TRYING to move them from.

I do believe the process should be banned. It's barbaric and unnecessary.


The same could be said for removing skin tags, moles, growths, a vestigal finger, or fixing a disfiguring condition or correcting a bent spine. All of these things were surgically altered from their original state - "damaged" from what they originally were.


That's a nonsense.

The foreskin is functional - a skin tag, a mole, a disfiguring condition, correcting a bent spine - all those, at best, can be considered fixing functionality.

You're talking about doing the exact opposite.

The nearest you got might be the 'removal of a vestigial finger' - by which I assume you mean an extra digit? In which case - the important question would be - how many foreskins does ONE circumcision remove? If it's one or less, there are no 'extra' foreskins.


That hasn't been shown. Disfigurement is in the eyes of the beholder.


No, it isn't. Whether or not it is pleasing to the eye, is.


In order to ban something under law, especially if it's a cultural or religious practice, definitive and demonstrable harm must be shown. You have failed to do that, on every count.

Polygamy.

The foreskin is not trivial ornamentation.
Yes it is.

If the source you're talking about is the one I think you're talking about, it didn't 'directly contradict' the source I presented - it simply presented different data.

Yes, the conclusions of which completely contradicted the conclusions of yours.

I haven't shifted the goal posts. I've constantly had to replace the goalposts where other people kept TRYING to move them from.

I do believe the process should be banned. It's barbaric and unnecessary.

So you keep saying, but you haven't proven that it's barbaric.

Arguably, it might be unnecessary, but the medical community is unsure.

That's a nonsense.

The foreskin is functional - a skin tag, a mole, a disfiguring condition, correcting a bent spine - all those, at best, can be considered fixing functionality.

You're talking about doing the exact opposite.

A mole is fixing functionality? Some people like moles. I daresay a person could like skin tags. I don't, personally, but someone could. To them, it could be disfiguring a person to remove something they were born with.

The nearest you got might be the 'removal of a vestigial finger' - by which I assume you mean an extra digit? In which case - the important question would be - how many foreskins does ONE circumcision remove? If it's one or less, there are no 'extra' foreskins.

And how much harm is done by the removal of the foreskin compared to a finger? Oh, that's right, none proven.

No, it isn't. Whether or not it is pleasing to the eye, is.

A person born with six fingers could be considered disfigured in our culture. A person born with five would be considered disfigured in some ancient cultures. It's very culturally biased as to what "disfigured" entails.

Polygamy.

Should be legal, but that's another discussion for another thread.

A mole is fixing functionality? Some people like moles.

Indeed! Moles are fixing the functionality of skin because skins function is to be without moles.

This is just like how the function of the penis is to not be circumcised. A=A, QED!

Indeed! Moles are fixing the functionality of skin because skins function is to be without moles.

This is just like how the function of the penis is to not be circumcised. A=A, QED!

If I see A=A again, I swear...

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/Forum%20Pictures/ultima.gif

If I see A=A again, I swear...

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/Forum%20Pictures/ultima.gif

Sweet smiley also
Z=Z

Sweet smiley also
Z=Z

Damn loopholes. I hate you all so much right now.

Damn loopholes. I hate you all so much right now.

There there, loopholes are what allow you to have Elmo force choke Darth Vader instead of vice versa. After all everyone needs to force choke someone everyonce and awhile.

Maybe Nanatsu can't detect the difference by touch (I'd wager she can probably tell by looking), and maybe the cicumcised male can't 'feel' any difference (especially if they were circumcised as tiny infants)... but there is a difference.

For fuck's sake. If you're going to address me, do so quoting my own posts.

I know, Christ, that a cut penis looks different than an uncut one. But during the act, during fucking (let me get graphic), I detect NO DIFFERENCE. The functionality of the penis, for me, has nothing to do with a piece of skin, a piece of skin that has caused such asshattery on this thread despite the different points of views, backed by scientific evidence, religious practices and full on IDIOCY. Oh, not to mention the part about mutilation and victimization, which is plain stupid.

For me, for Nanatsu no Tsuki, uncut or not, if the man knows how to use it, it matters not. It is quite presumptuous of a few people here to dare speak for the one billion men out there who have been circumcised and are OK.

Ah, but what do I know? Right? I do not have a penis. But I can think, I can read, I can weigh the evidence provided. Has anyone else here, those who keep at this being a horrible slight on manhood and other ridiculousness, done the same? Has anyone here truly read what posters like Bottle, Muravyets and Galloism have posted? Or is this about winning an argument that frankly lost all meaning 20 pages ago?

There there, loopholes are what allow you to have Elmo force choke Darth Vader instead of vice versa. After all everyone needs to force choke someone everyonce and awhile.

I do it weekly. This is why there is such high turnover at McDonalds.

I do it weekly. This is why there is such high turnover at McDonalds.

So thats why that paddy tasted funny.

So thats why that paddy tasted funny.

They needed to dispose of the body somehow. It seemed logical.

And civil unions should suffice.

No, wait... because 'different but equal' has never yet been a valid argument.
False analogy, just like all your others.

For fuck's sake. If you're going to address me, do so quoting my own posts.

I know, Christ, that a cut penis looks different than an uncut one. But during the act, during fucking (let me get graphic), I detect NO DIFFERENCE. The functionality of the penis, for me, has nothing to do with a piece of skin, a piece of skin that has caused such asshattery on this thread despite the different points of views, backed by scientific evidence, religious practices and full on IDIOCY. Oh, not to mention the part about mutilation and victimization, which is plain stupid.

For me, for Nanatsu no Tsuki, uncut or not, if the man knows how to use it, it matters not. It is quite presumptuous of a few people here to dare speak for the one billion men out there who have been circumcised and are OK.

Ah, but what do I know? Right? I do not have a penis. But I can think, I can read, I can weigh the evidence provided. Has anyone else here, those who keep at this being a horrible slight on manhood and other ridiculousness, done the same? Has anyone here truly read what posters like Bottle, Muravyets and Galloism have posted? Or is this about winning an argument that frankly lost all meaning 20 pages ago?
I think it's about being the last drunk at the party, the one so obnoxious that all the other guests leave because of him. I was away from this thread for 24 hours, and I couldn't believe it was still on the front forum page. There's nothing left to it but NTS yelling his rant at everyone. I'm out.

I think it's about being the last drunk at the party
I checked back in this morning to see what the last 10 pages of the thread have brought...and your post is quite a tidy summary. :P

But... they don't... function differently. How is my function any different? I mean, explain please. This is my penis after all and I am curious as to how my functions with it are different.

You produce less natural lubrication than an uncut man, causing you to rely almost completely on the woman's production of lubrication (or a bit of KY) during intercourse. You do not get the sensation of the foreskin gliding over the penis during sex. Some studies suggest that penetration with your penis takes more force than penetration with an uncut penis. As Cabra pointed out earlier in the thread, it gives your partner less to play with when giving oral.

Now, is any of this a particularly bad thing? I don't know. While I have had women tell me that sex with an uncircumcised man feels different than with a circumcised man, others have said they can't feel the difference. I've met women with preferences for both. And I've never personally known a man, circumcised or otherwise, who complained that he didn't enjoy sex.

But it doesn't change the fact that there are differences.

The function of the penis is not to lubricate the vagina, it is to project semen into an orifice.

Really? That's it? That's the only thing the penis is supposed to do during sex?

I feel sorry for your lovers.

Do you have any data whatsoever that, for example, circumcised men are (as a result of this lubrication claim) less able to impregnate women?

Did I claim that they were?

Do you have any data, for example, that a statistically relevant sample of women feel a difference in the lubrication of circumcised/uncircumcised (non-condom) penises?

No, I don't even know if any studies have been done on it. I suspect it wouldn't be a major problem unless a woman provided less-than-average lubrication herself and they had no alternative lubrication available.

Oh, I'm being ridiculous, but you're saying my penis is "equivalent" without being "equal" and comparing it to a hybrid engine versus a regular engine.

I'm saying it gets the job done just as well as an uncut penis, albeit in a slightly different way. I'm not sure why you're acting like I kicked your puppy. There's no insult there.

Which biological impact?


But different penises do function differently. And uncircumcised penis provides more lubrication (from the mucous membranes of the foreskin). The foreskin also causes the exact mechanics of the penis going in and out of an orifice to be different.

That the glans keortorize (or however you spell it)?

Yep, went over that. It was interesting.
So interesting, in fact, that you chose not to mention it.

How there's a theory that it might be less stimulation because the nerve endings in the foreskin are removed with the foreskin?

Addressed and debunked.
So it's both debunked and accepted? I'm asking since you previously acknowledged that some men in certain instances experience this.

How there's a theory that it's more likely to be complications than non-circumcision?

Also addressed and debunked.
And you are, of course, choosing to overlook the likelihood of complications as a direct result of the surgical procedure here.

So instead of including these points, all you could offer up before was an aesthetic difference. I find that puzzling.


EDIT: I apologize if that was a little curt. This thread is starting to irritate me, and I haven't had my usual drink before I start posting on NSG.
No worries, I didn't find it to be curt at all. :wink:

So interesting, in fact, that you chose not to mention it.

It doesn't affect the overall effectiveness and usability of the penis, as a general rule (exception noted later). In fact, it *may* (studies conflict) increase it.

So it's both debunked and accepted? I'm asking since you previously acknowledged that some men in certain instances experience this.

Possibly, but I do not expect it's the majority, or even a significant minority. Studies seem to indicate a net change of zero or even a slight increase in sexual feeling and prowess.

And you are, of course, choosing to overlook the likelihood of complications as a direct result of the surgical procedure here.

I quoted a study some 50-odd pages ago that pointed out that for the person's youth (age 0-18), a person is slightly over twice as likely to have penile difficulties and complications if they are uncircumcised as opposed to circumcised (and that includes penile difficulties due to an improperly done circumcision). I could find it again if you're really that interested.

So instead of including these points, all you could offer up before was an aesthetic difference. I find that puzzling.

Because it functions equivalently. It works equivalently. They both can get women pregnant, they both offer roughly equal amounts of stimulation, they are both enjoyed by their owners and their partners.

Hence why I went with the Lincoln Town Car vs Mercury Grand Marquis comparison. Sure, there was less trim on one, and I think the front end was slightly different. I recall there being something like a 30lb curb weight difference between the cars, but they both function equivalently, damn near identically. If two identical drivers were at a stop light and slammed on the gas as hard as they could, they would lurch forward at almost identical pace, and when they slammed on their brakes at the end, they would stop in almost exactly the same distance.

No worries, I didn't find it to be curt at all. :wink:

After 80 pages of making the same arguments, I get testy.

Especially after watching this for 30 pages:

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/Forum%20Pictures/python.gif

Yes, the conclusions of which completely contradicted the conclusions of yours.


I don't think you understand what 'contradiction' entails...


Arguably, it might be unnecessary, but the medical community is unsure.


No, it IS unnecessary. The medical community is not unsure on that.

What they are unsure about, is whether there are more advantages than disadvantages. There is no argument about it's 'necessity'.

As evidenced by - no debate about circumcisions that actually ARE necessary.


A mole is fixing functionality? Some people like moles. I daresay a person could like skin tags. I don't, personally, but someone could. To them, it could be disfiguring a person to remove something they were born with.


I didn't bring up moles or skin tags - those are your ideas. If you think they need to be removed (which I never argued), then the argument for removing them is going to be some kind of medical necessity.

Don't try to pin the defence of YOUr arguments on me, just so you can treat them with the disdain they deserve. If you hate your own arguments, don't waste my time with them.


And how much harm is done by the removal of the foreskin compared to a finger? Oh, that's right, none proven.


Removing an 'extra' finger leaves you with sufficient fingers for functionality. Removing the foreskin does not leave you with sufficient foreskins.


Should be legal, but that's another discussion for another thread.

Because it is irrelevant. It was, however, very relevant to your 'harm' argument for banning things. Apparently the law of the land says you are talking through your hat.

Indeed! Moles are fixing the functionality of skin because skins function is to be without moles.


Don't indulge his strawman.

Yes it is.

I've shown why it's not. You lack any way to contest that - so simple naysaying is all that you have.

I understand that.

...snip...

So, I went back and looked at your sources (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14819657&postcount=1275), and I found no evidence that circumcision is mutliation or victimisation.

Just letting you know.

For fuck's sake. If you're going to address me, do so quoting my own posts.


I wasn't addressing you.


I know, Christ, that a cut penis looks different than an uncut one.


Look isn't functionality... unless maybe we're talking about a peacock's tail, or something.


But during the act, during fucking (let me get graphic), I detect NO DIFFERENCE. The functionality of the penis, for me, has nothing to do with a piece of skin,


That's because you're not discussing the functionality of the foreskin - you're discussing whether it can still be used for sexual pleasure.

If someone has three fingers from each hand chopped off, they can probably still madturbate - that doesn't mean no functionality has been lost.


For me, for Nanatsu no Tsuki, uncut or not, if the man knows how to use it, it matters not.


That's an entirely irrelevant argument.


Ah, but what do I know? Right? I do not have a penis.


I haven't made any arguments about who has a valid opinion or otherwise.


But I can think, I can read, I can weigh the evidence provided. Has anyone else here, those who keep at this being a horrible slight on manhood and other ridiculousness, done the same? Has anyone here truly read what posters like Bottle, Muravyets and Galloism have posted? Or is this about winning an argument that frankly lost all meaning 20 pages ago?

I've weighed the evidence.

Cutting bits off of children shouldn't be decided by cultural preference. In any other case, we'd ridicule such an argument - so I discard the arguments that Jews need to (they don't), or that Americans should circumcise their boys so they look like all the other boys (that's stupidity - if they were all uncircumcised, they'd all STILL look like all the other boys).

So - it comes down to the medical advantage and disadvantage - and those sources which do not show the cultural pro-circumcision bias come down heavily on the side of disadvantage.

So - should we perform unnecessary surgery on the sex organs of infants, just to gain disadvantage (or, maybe some small advantage)? I don't think that's a compelling argument.

False analogy, just like all your others.

Show me why civil unions are the same as marriage?

You can't address the analogy, so you dismiss it - which is intellectually dishonest of you.

I think it's about being the last drunk at the party, the one so obnoxious that all the other guests leave because of him. I was away from this thread for 24 hours, and I couldn't believe it was still on the front forum page. There's nothing left to it but NTS yelling his rant at everyone. I'm out.

Wandering in to offer nothing but ad hominems.

Yeah. Speaks for itself.

Really? That's it? That's the only thing the penis is supposed to do during sex?

I feel sorry for your lovers.

Tee-hee, my aren't we funny. Yes, I am referring to the biological function of the penis. You know, the topic at hand. The function that is, allegedly, somehow "equivalent but not equal." Somehow.

Did I claim that they were?

I was merely offering you ways to support your argument.

I guess you would prefer to make smug statements about feeling sorry for my lovers, instead.


No, I don't even know if any studies have been done on it. I suspect it wouldn't be a major problem unless a woman provided less-than-average lubrication herself and they had no alternative lubrication available.

Not a major problem? OK, studies that show it is even a minor problem? Anything to show that at all?

I'm saying it gets the job done just as well as an uncut penis, albeit in a slightly different way.

What different way? How do I pee differently? How do I ejaculate differently? How do I have sex differently?

I'm not sure why you're acting like I kicked your puppy. There's no insult there.

No, just a flopped argument that attempts to claim a cosmetic difference as some fundamental, functional change on the same level as hybrid engines versus regular gas combustion engines. Your analogy was so idiotic that its existence itself is an insult to human intelligence.

I don't think you understand what 'contradiction' entails...

Well that's ok. You don't understand what "mutilation" entails, so we can consider ourselves equally handicapped.

No, it IS unnecessary. The medical community is not unsure on that.

What they are unsure about, is whether there are more advantages than disadvantages. There is no argument about it's 'necessity'.

As evidenced by - no debate about circumcisions that actually ARE necessary.

Ah yes, I confused my terminology. You got me on one. They aren't (generally) a necessity, but there's still no evidence that they are harmful and children need to be protected from them.

I didn't bring up moles or skin tags - those are your ideas. If you think they need to be removed (which I never argued), then the argument for removing them is going to be some kind of medical necessity.

Don't try to pin the defence of YOUr arguments on me, just so you can treat them with the disdain they deserve. If you hate your own arguments, don't waste my time with them.

My point is that we perform all sorts of surgical procedures on our infants - if we think that it's a good idea as parents. That's why banning a practice that has not been shown to cause demonstrable harm is illogical just on the basis of your vehemence.

Removing an 'extra' finger leaves you with sufficient fingers for functionality. Removing the foreskin does not leave you with sufficient foreskins.

But it does leave you with sufficient penis. Hell, six fingered chicks are hot. It's a mutilation if they have six fingers and have one removed.

Because it is irrelevant. It was, however, very relevant to your 'harm' argument for banning things. Apparently the law of the land says you are talking through your hat.

No, banning polygamy was in error, and I hope to see that reversed someday. There's no reason to add one error on top of another, now is there?

Unless you think that, since gay marriage is banned in this country, we shouldn't allow people to fly helicopters.

Oh wait, those are two completely unrelated things - just like polygamy and circumcision.

It doesn't affect the overall effectiveness and usability of the penis, as a general rule (exception noted later). In fact, it *may* (studies conflict) increase it.
But there still is, in fact, a difference.


Possibly, but I do not expect it's the majority, or even a significant minority. Studies seem to indicate a net change of zero or even a slight increase in sexual feeling and prowess.
But it still means that there is a difference. Even if this only happens to a minority.


I quoted a study some 50-odd pages ago that pointed out that for the person's youth (age 0-18), a person is slightly over twice as likely to have penile difficulties and complications if they are uncircumcised as opposed to circumcised (and that includes penile difficulties due to an improperly done circumcision). I could find it again if you're really that interested.
Not really. I'm still just disagreeing with the claim that "It's a big display of idiocy to [say] these penis are different."


Because it functions equivalently. It works equivalently. They both can get women pregnant, they both offer roughly equal amounts of stimulation, they are both enjoyed by their owners and their partners.
But there are also differences beyond just the aesthetics.


Hence why I went with the Lincoln Town Car vs Mercury Grand Marquis comparison. Sure, there was less trim on one, and I think the front end was slightly different. I recall there being something like a 30lb curb weight difference between the cars, but they both function equivalently, damn near identically. If two identical drivers were at a stop light and slammed on the gas as hard as they could, they would lurch forward at almost identical pace, and when they slammed on their brakes at the end, they would stop in almost exactly the same distance.
I would say it's like a car with a roof and a car without one. They both function equivalently, but there's a significant difference.


After 80 pages of making the same arguments, I get testy.
Especially after watching this for 30 pages:

Indeed. Though I have to say this, before we end it: For my part, the argument that there's no difference between an uncircumcised penis and a circumcised one is an argument for banning the practice. "No difference" just makes me more convinced that it's an unnecessary procedure. If there's no difference and no clear health benefits, then the rights of the child, especially considering the risks of the procedure, clearly would outweigh any cultural or religious arguments in favour of circumcision.

I didn't bring up moles or skin tags - those are your ideas. If you think they need to be removed (which I never argued), then the argument for removing them is going to be some kind of medical necessity.

I'm not sure on skin tags, but moles are considered to be a cancer risk. From what I understand, certain types of cancer can begin or be concentrated there (they are, after all, already a concentration of anomalous cells). So some people have them preemptively removed.

(In other words, there is a medical justification, albeit not necessarily a medical necessity.)

Removing an 'extra' finger leaves you with sufficient fingers for functionality. Removing the foreskin does not leave you with sufficient foreskins.

Not a good argument in this case. It isn't really about what it leaves you with (or doesn't). It's about the risks of leaving it. A fully formed 6th finger doesn't really cause any major risk or adversely affect functionality (unless it's on there at a weird angle or something). However, extra digits are often not fully formed, being merely fleshy appendages that just sort of hang there. Doctors often recommend that they are removed because of the risk that, once the child begins to move around on his own, there is a good chance that he will catch the extra bit of flesh on something and end up yanking it off. (Dewclaws on dogs are often removed for much the same reason, even though they are pretty well-formed).


Tee-hee, my aren't we funny. Yes, I am referring to the biological function of the penis. You know, the topic at hand. The function that is, allegedly, somehow "equivalent but not equal." Somehow.

Ejaculation is not the only biological function of the penis during sex, just as reproduction is not the only biological function of the sex act itself. You should study up on sex and the different things different body parts do. It's actually much more fascinating than "Thrust, thrust, ejaculate, done."

An uncut penis provides lubrication for sex. Lubrication is important, as the sex act gets rather uncomfortable for both parties if there is none present. Of course, as I said, if the woman makes plenty for both of them or if they use artificial lubrication, it won't be an issue.

Meanwhile, "equivalent but not equal" is your phrase, not mine. It has nothing to do with anything I've said.

Not a major problem? OK, studies that show it is even a minor problem? Anything to show that at all?

Whether or not it is a problem is irrelevant to whether or not it is different.

What different way? How do I pee differently? How do I ejaculate differently? How do I have sex differently?

I've already explained these things.

No, just a flopped argument that attempts to claim a cosmetic difference as some fundamental, functional change on the same level as hybrid engines versus regular gas combustion engines. Your analogy was so idiotic that its existence itself is an insult to human intelligence.

Whine, whine, whine, whine. You're still acting like I kicked your puppy.

Are you ever going to look at this rationally? You're acting much like NTS, only on the opposite side of the coin.

It is not a mere cosmetic difference, as I have explained before. That might be the major difference, and it might be the only one that matters to you. But it isn't the only one. The fact that you went for the "ZOMG THESE ENGINES ARE SO FREAKING DIFFERENT!" angle is a reflection on your own personal defensiveness, not on the analogy I was trying to make - which was to point out that things can function differently and still produce the same desired results.

So here's one that might be more to your tastes. Let's say it's the difference between a car with and without a spoiler. Most people think the spoiler is only important because it looks nice (or, conversely, maybe they don't like the way it looks). It can reduce drag and maybe slightly alter the performance of the vehicle, but honestly, most people aren't ever going to notice the difference. The point of a car is to get you from point A to point B. The car can do that with or without a spoiler.

But there still is, in fact, a difference.
A small, nigh imperceptible one, hence why I used the illustration I did.

But it still means that there is a difference. Even if this only happens to a minority.

Maybe, a nigh imperceptible one.

Not really. I'm still just disagreeing with the claim that "It's a big display of idiocy to [say] these penis are different."

Well, if you want to get right down to it, all penises are different. I rather suspect it's like a fingerprint (no laughing, ladies) and unique to every individual. However, if they function equally well, it's a tough sell for NTS to come barging in here saying it's "mutilated", "disfigured", and "ruined." Hence, why I used the illustration I did.

I don't think we really meant that "all penises are identical in every way" but more that they function, work, and look equivalently good whether circumcised or uncircumcised. At least, that's the argument I was making.

I suspect even no two Lincoln Town Cars that rolled off the line were completely identical in every way, but they were similar and functioned in very similar ways.

But there are also differences beyond just the aesthetics.

Yes, two that I've noted so far in this thread. The glans kerotorizing (i cannot get that word) and Dempublicents said something about the foreskin creating a suction.

The first one helps cut down on disease, and the second... well, I don't know. It sounds interesting, but I'll have to read up on it more. It's a very interesting idea and it's the first fresh one in well over a dozen pages.

I would say it's like a car with a roof and a car without one. They both function equivalently, but there's a significant difference.

Not really, a car without a roof would be piss poor when it's raining. It's more like the red car/black car mentioned earlier, or the lincoln town car vs the mercury grand marquis.

Indeed. Though I have to say this, before we end it: For my part, the argument that there's no difference between an uncircumcised penis and a circumcised one is an argument for banning the practice. "No difference" just makes me more convinced that it's an unnecessary procedure. If there's no difference and no clear health benefits, then the rights of the child, especially considering the risks of the procedure, clearly would outweigh any cultural or religious arguments in favour of circumcision.

Well, there are clear benefits and clear risks, as has been outlined in this thread. So far, the medical data on all of it is so conflicted that banning it outright is... ludicrous. However, NTS keeps saying it's "mutilated", "disfigured" and "ruined", and we were mostly pointing out that the penis functions equivalently, and it would be hard to say that it's any of those three things.

Perhaps using "identical" is too strong a word, and I should refrain.

Ah yes, I confused my terminology. You got me on one. They aren't (generally) a necessity, but there's still no evidence that they are harmful and children need to be protected from them.


Yes, there is. There are also sources that either argue against that evidence, or, more commonly, simply don't discuss it when they weigh the evidence.


My point is that we perform all sorts of surgical procedures on our infants


I don't.


Unless you think that, since gay marriage is banned in this country, we shouldn't allow people to fly helicopters.


You argued that the laws need demonstrable harm before they change - I provided an example, off the top of my head, where such was clearly not the case. That's all I needed to do.

But thanks for the helicopters. You actually made me laugh.

Yes, there is. There are also sources that either argue against that evidence, or, more commonly, simply don't discuss it when they weigh the evidence.

And they argue with other evidence.

I don't.

Well I hope you remember that if you ever have a child with a skin tag, mole, noncancerous growth, or any kind of nonthreatening lesion. Make sure they're old enough so you can explain the procedure first and see if they want it.

You argued that the laws need demonstrable harm before they change - I provided an example, off the top of my head, where such was clearly not the case. That's all I needed to do.

But thanks for the helicopters. You actually made me laugh.

Polygamy is not demonstrably harmful, you're right. However, I also feel that a law against polygamy is made in error, and we should reverse it. This law comes (mostly) from the belief that polygamy is sinful and wrong, and if we let the polygamists get married then we'll be letting them marry horses and children next, and the four horsemen will come and... well, you get the idea. It would be harmful to society as a whole (they claim). They're much the same arguments as gay marriage, really.

You have failed to show any such harm, and while their belief in harm may be irrational, they believed it to be harmful, and thus the law was passed. You have failed to convince me (and most of the people here) that it's harmful. Since we don't believe it to be harmful, we don't want to see it outlawed.

Do you see?

A small, nigh imperceptible one, hence why I used the illustration I did.
"Generally". And studies are conflicting.


Maybe, a nigh imperceptible one.
Debatable. Studies are conflicting.


Well, if you want to get right down to it, all penises are different. I rather suspect it's like a fingerprint (no laughing, ladies) and unique to every individual. However, if they function equally well, it's a tough sell for NTS to come barging in here saying it's "mutilated", "disfigured", and "ruined." Hence, why I used the illustration I did.

I don't think we really meant that "all penises are identical in every way" but more that they function, work, and look equivalently good whether circumcised or uncircumcised. At least, that's the argument I was making.
Yes, two that I've noted so far in this thread. The glans kerotorizing (i cannot get that word) and Dempublicents said something about the foreskin creating a suction.

The first one helps cut down on disease, and the second... well, I don't know. It sounds interesting, but I'll have to read up on it more. It's a very interesting idea and it's the first fresh one in well over a dozen pages.
And thus, we conclude that circumcised penises and uncircumcised penises are, indeed, different. I rest my case.


Not really, a car without a roof would be piss poor when it's raining.
Exactly my point. There's problems with lubrication in both of the cases.


Well, there are clear benefits and clear risks, as has been outlined in this thread. So far, the medical data on all of it is so conflicted that banning it outright is... ludicrous.
Not really. Rather the opposite. Since the data is so conflicting the banning is warranted, due to, as I've said before, the rights of the child. You'll have to show me clear medical benefits that speak in favour of not banning it, since otherwise it would mean that we continue to allow unnecessary operations on children until further notice. Which is the wrong way to go about it, in my mind.

And thus, we conclude that circumcised penises and uncircumcised penises are, indeed, different. I rest my case.

Yes - like a Lincoln Town Car and a Mercury Grand Marquis.

Exactly my point. There's problems with lubrication in both of the cases.

With both circumcised and uncircumcised, or both kerotization and suction?

Not really. Rather the opposite. Since the data is so conflicting the banning is warranted, due to, as I've said before, the rights of the child. You'll have to show me clear medical benefits that speak in favour of not banning it, since otherwise it would mean that we continue to allow unnecessary operations on children until further notice. Which is the wrong way to go about it, in my mind.

Well, I've already shown the following:

Penile cancer in circumcised men, circumcised as infants, is almost unheard of.
Lower risk of STD transmission (although safe sex is, obviously, better).
Lower risk of penile problems of all kinds, including those that are complications of circumcision, as a child (5% for circumcised boys, 12% for uncircumcised) (also, as a note, I could find no numbers for adults)
Lower risk of urinary tract infection (9/10 UTIs could be prevented by circumcision)

So, no, I'm not seeing a reason to ban it.

Ejaculation is not the only biological function of the penis during sex, just as reproduction is not the only biological function of the sex act itself. You should study up on sex and the different things different body parts do. It's actually much more fascinating than "Thrust, thrust, ejaculate, done."

Would you quit with your condescension?

Reproduction is the function of the reproductive organs. That is what I am talking about in this instance. That seemed like a good place to talk about "the function" of the penis.

I am not saying that sex is just "thrust thrust thrust ejaculate done." Christ. And no, I'm not ignorant and no, you don't have to "feel sorry" for my lovers. I appreciate your attempts to be obnoxious, but they don't help your argument whatsoever.

An uncut penis provides lubrication for sex. Lubrication is important, as the sex act gets rather uncomfortable for both parties if there is none present. Of course, as I said, if the woman makes plenty for both of them or if they use artificial lubrication, it won't be an issue.


You yourself admit this isn't an issue - and you haven't cited anything to support that it IS an issue in general. It's a cosmetic difference of no real significance.

Black paint on a car provides a lower albido than lighter colored paint, thus reflecting less light and heat into the environment. Would you say that black cars and white cars function differently?



Meanwhile, "equivalent but not equal" is your phrase, not mine. It has nothing to do with anything I've said.

uh (http://forums.joltonline.com/showpost.php?p=14819551&postcount=1259):

No, they are not "equally functional." They are both functional, but the foreskin does provide functionality during sex that, quite clearly, a penis without a foreskin would not have. It may feel exactly the same to you, but that doesn't mean it *is* exactly the same.

Now, if you mean they can both be used for equivalent purposes, that would be true.

So what if you didn't use that specific phrase - that's precisely what you wound up saying.

I've already explained these things.

No, you haven't. You haven't even mentioned urination, let alone any 'inequalities' therein.

Whine, whine, whine, whine. You're still acting like I kicked your puppy.

Are you ever going to look at this rationally?

That's cute. Insult someone, then say they "whine" when they notice, and then berate them for not being rational. And of course completely dismiss everything they say when you do so.

Yeah, real rational you are, what a role model and example you are to me.

The fact that you went for the "ZOMG THESE ENGINES ARE SO FREAKING DIFFERENT!" angle is a reflection on your own personal defensiveness, not on the analogy I was trying to make - which was to point out that things can function differently and still produce the same desired results.


The differences between hybrid engines and gas engines are so much greater than between circumcised and uncircumcised penises that frankly I'm surprised you're still trying to defend it.

The two types of engines quite clearly do not produce the same results, not even the same desired results, and they do the same things at different levels of efficiency. As I explained, and as I ignored - among other things, the environmental impact of one engine versus the other. That ALONE is enough to make your analogy stretch. The fact that the two engines are designed from the start to operate on different chemical principles just breaks it and drops the pieces on the floor.

Pick 'em up if you want to.... it's gonna still be broke.

So here's one that might be more to your tastes. Let's say it's the difference between a car with and without a spoiler. Most people think the spoiler is only important because it looks nice (or, conversely, maybe they don't like the way it looks). It can reduce drag and maybe slightly alter the performance of the vehicle, but honestly, most people aren't ever going to notice the difference.

There are plenty of scientific studies that demonstrate the differences, and their impact on the performance of the vehicle.

The point of a car is to get you from point A to point B. The car can do that with or without a spoiler.

A spoiler can have a noticeable and demonstrable impact on the ability of the car to perform depending on what its purpose actually is. For this to work with circumcision vs uncircumcised, you may as well say that the purpose of the penis is to be uncircumcised.

And cars are designed for all different sorts of purposes - racing, for example, in which case speed is all important. Transportation of goods, for example, in which case things like gas efficiency and overall power and hauling ability are the measures of its function. Concept cars, purely to demonstrate breakthroughs...

Well, I've already shown the following:

Penile cancer in circumcised men, circumcised as infants, is almost unheard of.
And in uncircumcised cases, it's very rare (http://www.aap.org/publiced/br_circumcision.htm).

Lower risk of STD transmission (although safe sex is, obviously, better).
circumcised men may have a slightly lower risk of certain sexually transmitted diseases

Lower risk of penile problems of all kinds, including those that are complications of circumcision, as a child (5% for circumcised boys, 12% for uncircumcised) (also, as a note, I could find no numbers for adults)
OK.

Lower risk of urinary tract infection (9/10 UTIs could be prevented by circumcision)
In the first year?

The risk of urinary tract infections (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/circumcision/PR00040) in the first year is low, but these infections may be up to 10 times as common in uncircumcised baby boys.

So, no, I'm not seeing a reason to ban it.
If you see no reason after having found slight medical benefits, it must simply be because you refuse to consider the rights of the child.

And thus, we conclude that circumcised penises and uncircumcised penises are, indeed, different. I rest my case.

My penis is different from other circumcised penises because it is mine.

Ooh, I rest my case, QED...! Dare I say... A=A!

My penis is different from other circumcised penises because it is mine.

Ooh, I rest my case, QED...! Dare I say... A=A!

That's it.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/Forum%20Pictures/ultima.gif

My penis is different from other circumcised penises because it is mine.

Ooh, I rest my case, QED...! Dare I say... A=A!

You can say whatever you want. It doesn't make your post more intelligent, however.

If you see no reason after having found slight medical benefits, it must simply be because you refuse to consider the rights of the child.

I'm just going to address this last point, as we're in no argument about the numbers. By the way, risk of a UTI is 1/100 uncircumcised, 1/1000 circumcised. I thought you might like to know what the actual numbers are.

It is a very slight medical modification, and has been not been shown to have a definite demonstrable harm on performance, function, or usability of the penis. Therefore, even if you dismiss the medical benefits as "slight", the procedure itself is also "slight", and therefore it should not be outlawed.

Would you quit with your condescension?

Would you quit with your overreaction and silliness - actions worthy of condescension?

Reproduction is the function of the reproductive organs.

No, it is a function of those organs.

Of course, the desired outcome and the way in which that outcome is achieved are not the same thing. When we talk about how a penis functions, we are talking about the latter.

You yourself admit this isn't an issue - and you haven't cited anything to support that it IS an issue in general. It's a cosmetic difference of no real significance.

None of the things I listed are cosmetic.

And I'm discussing whether or not there is a difference, not whether or not that difference is an issue.

uh (http://forums.joltonline.com/showpost.php?p=14819551&postcount=1259):

I still don't see your phrase in there.

So what if you didn't use that specific phrase - that's precisely what you wound up saying.

Not at all. I said that they can be used for the same purpose - that they can achieve an equivalent outcome. That is not the same thing as functioning equivalently.

No, you haven't. You haven't even mentioned urination, let alone any 'inequalities' therein.

So? I provided differences in function. You haven't shown that they don't exist. Ergo, there are differences in function. Yelling over and over again that the differences don't matter does nothing to disprove the fact that they exist.

As for differences in urination, I really haven't looked into it all that closely. I have had an uncircumcised man tell me that when he urinates, the urine swishes around a bit in the foreskin and cleans it out some, which clearly wouldn't happen in a man who was circumcised. But without looking into it from a more scientific standpoint, I actually thought that sounded a little gross and it made me hope it wasn't true.

That's cute. Insult someone, then say they "whine" when they notice, and then berate them for not being rational. And of course completely dismiss everything they say when you do so.

Darling, I never insulted you. That's why I'm saying that you're being irrational. I have not said anything insulting, but you're acting all insulted anyways.

Pointing out that two things are different does not mean that one is superior to the other. It just means they're different. Since when is that an insult?

The differences between hybrid engines and gas engines are so much greater than between circumcised and uncircumcised penises that frankly I'm surprised you're still trying to defend it.

Maybe, it's because you don't understand the purpose of analogy. I never said the differences were the same in scale. In fact, I wasn't making a comparison of engines at all. I was making a comparison between vehicles.

The fact that you choose to stretch the analogy so that you can feel insulted is your problem, not mine.

There are plenty of scientific studies that demonstrate the differences, and their impact on the performance of the vehicle.

And there are scientific studies on the differences in function between circumcised and uncircumcised penises. But, much like the existence of a spoiler, they really aren't going to make a huge difference to most people.

I've driven two cars of the same make and model, one with a spoiler and one without. I didn't notice any difference at all - not in the way it drove, not in the gas mileage. Nothing, other than the fact that the one with the spoiler looked a little sportier. Sounds a lot like Nanatsu talking about circumcised and uncircumcised penises, eh?

Meanwhile, it's cute how you think you need to attack every analogy to death, instead of addressing the points being made by them.

I'm just going to address this last point, as we're in no argument about the numbers. By the way, risk of a UTI is 1/100 uncircumcised, 1/1000 circumcised. I thought you might like to know what the actual numbers are.

It is a very slight medical modification, and has been not been shown to have a definite demonstrable harm on performance, function, or usability of the penis. Therefore, even if you dismiss the medical benefits as "slight", the procedure itself is also "slight", and therefore it should not be outlawed.

Still you refuse to consider the rights of the child, especially considering the potential risks that the parents accept on behalf of the child for an unnecessary procedure - mostly on a cultural or religious basis.

(Risks not limited to complications, but also including psychological suffering)

Still you refuse to consider the rights of the child, especially considering the potential risks that the parents accept on behalf of the child for an unnecessary procedure - mostly on a cultural or religious basis.

(Risks not limited to complications, but also including psychological suffering)

I have not seen any credible source that having a circumcision leads to any statistical amount of psychological suffering about the penis.

Especially among those who do not do it for religious reasons. Why is this practice still around, and will any of you, as parents, perpetuate it?

It's not mutation, it's reformation.

I have not seen any credible source that having a circumcision leads to any statistical amount of psychological suffering about the penis.

Well there is this article from the British Journal of Urology (http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/goldman1/):
There is strong evidence that circumcision is overwhelmingly painful and traumatic. Behavioural changes in circumcised infants have been observed 6 months after the circumcision. The physical and sexual loss resulting from circumcision is gaining recognition, and some men have strong feelings of dissatisfaction about being circumcised.

The potential negative impact of circumcision on the mother-child relationship is evident from some mothers' distressed responses and from the infants' behavioural changes. The disrupted mother-infant bond has far-reaching developmental implications [99-104] and may be one of the most adverse impacts of circumcision.

Long-term psychological effects associated with circumcision can be difficult to establish because the consequences of early trauma are only rarely, and under special circumstances, recognizable to the person who experienced the trauma. However, lack of awareness does not necessarily mean that there has been no impact on thinking, feeling, attitude, behaviour and functioning, which are often closely connected. In this way, an early trauma can alter a whole life, whether or not the trauma is consciously remembered.

Or this one from the J Health Psychology 2002 (http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle6/):
The body of empirical evidence reviewed here suggests that there is severe pain at the time of circumcision and shortly thereafter in unanaesthetised boys, as well as heightened pain sensitivity for some considerable period of time afterwards. Evidence has also started to accumulate that male circumcision may result in lifelong physical, sexual, and sometimes psychological harm as well.

Or the Adverse Sexual and Psychological Effects of Male Infant Circumcision (http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=greg_boyle) published in Psychological Reports 88, 2001:
As compared with genitally intact men, circumcised men reported
significantly greater dissatisfaction with their orgasms (p<.05), and a wide range of negative emotions associated with being circumcised (p<.05).

And to change topics for a little bit, a study published in the Lancet (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(96)10316-0/abstract) shows boys who had been circumcised were more sensitive to pain than the uncircumcised boys.
This study showed that neonatal circumcision in male infants is associated with increased pain response in vaccination 4-6 months after surgery. The results support our previous finding of a higher pain response in circumcised than uncircumcised male infants during routine vaccination.10

We postulate that circumcision may induce long-lasting changes in infant pain behaviour because of alterations in the infant's central neural processing of painful stimuli. Transmission of noxious afferent input from the periphery (eg, brought about by skin incision) to the spinal cord induces a sustained state of central neural sensitisation or hyperexcitability that amplifies subsequent input from the wound and leads to increased postoperative pain. The specific mechanisms by which noxious peripheral stimulation induces long-lasting central neuronal changes are not yet fully established, but the N-methyl-D-aspartic acid (NMDA) receptor ion-channel complex, excitatory aminoacids (eg, glutamate), and C-fibre neuropeptides (eg, substance P) have been implicated. Peripheral noxious stimulation leads to the release of excitatory aminoacids and neuropeptides in the dorsal horn of the spinal cord. Activation of the NMDA receptor in dorsal horn neurons produces an increase in intracellular calcium and other secondary messengers, which stimulate protein kinases and new gene expression.20,21



Oh, and you're still refusing to consider the "Children's rights" argument.

Well there is this article from the British Journal of Urology (http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/goldman1/):

Given that it quotes several studies that don't have any relevance, I'm skeptical, but there was one really good point in this one:

Anatomical, neurochemical, physiological and behavioural studies confirm that newborn responses to pain are 'similar to but greater than those in adult subjects' [8]. Infants circumcised with no anaesthesia (reflecting common practice) experience not only great pain, but also an increased risk of choking and difficulty in breathing [9]. Increases in heart rate of 55 bpm have been recorded, i.e. 1.5 times the baseline rate [10]. After circumcision, the level of blood cortisol increased by a factor of 3-4 times the level before circumcision [11]. As a surgical procedure, circumcision has been described as 'among the most painful performed in neonatal medicine' [12]. Investigators reported, 'This level of pain would not be tolerated by older patients' [13]. Using a pacifier during circumcision reduced crying but did not affect the hormonal pain response [14]. An infant may also go into a state of shock to escape the overwhelming pain [15]. Therefore, while crying may be absent, other body signals show that severe pain is always present during circumcision.

There is disagreement among physicians about using anaesthesia during circumcision. Before the mid-1980s, anaesthesia was not used because infant pain was denied by the medical community. That belief has changed among many physicians, but an anaesthetic (local injection, the best option tested) still is not typically administered, because of a lack of familiarity with its use, as well as the belief that in introduces additional risk [12]. Although there is an indication that the risk is minimal, most physicians who perform circumcisions do not use anaesthetics. When an anaesthetic is used, it relieves only some but not all of the pain, and its effect wanes before the post operative pain does [16].

Behavioral changes in infants resulting from circumcision are very common, and can interfere with parent-infant bonding and feeding. [3,8]. The American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision notes increased irritability, varying sleep patterns and changes in infant-maternal interaction after circumcision [17]. Canadian investigators report that during vaccinations at age 4-6 months, circumcised boys had an increased behavioral pain response and cried for significantly longer periods than did intact boys. The authors believe that 'circumcision may produce long-lasting changes in infant pain behaviour' [18]. That study suggests that circumcision may permanently alter the structure and function of developing neural pathways [19].

Given that they studied babies who didn't receive anesthesia, it's understandable that they got the results they did. I can certainly assure you that I would never, under any circumstance, cut into anyone in anyway without anesthesia if there was a way to administer it that would help (or it was an emergency and there was no time).

Or this one from the J Health Psychology 2002 (http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle6/):

That one deals only with ones lacking anesthesia. I think I've addressed that.

Or the Adverse Sexual and Psychological Effects of Male Infant Circumcision (http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=greg_boyle) published in Psychological Reports 88, 2001:

This one actually references the first one for its data, and I don't think I need to go beyond that.

And to change topics for a little bit, a study published in the Lancet (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(96)10316-0/abstract) shows boys who had been circumcised were more sensitive to pain than the uncircumcised boys.

I've seen that. I just forgot to mention it. I'm skeptical, but it's possible I suppose. Even if that is the case, it's not sufficient of an argument to call for banning the practice.

Oh, and you're still refusing to consider the "Children's rights" argument.

I have several times. You just weren't here. We trust the parents to do what is advantageous for their children. The children, obviously, cannot provide consent. I wouldn't say that children have no rights, but parents are supposed to be the guardians of those rights.

Therefore, if the family, in consulting with their doctor, decides that circumcision is the best way to go, it's a far leap to call them abusive.

Now, we do not trust parents absolutely - there are specified times when we can tell that a parent is actively abusing their child or children. In that case, we would take them into state custody.

However, having a small surgical procedure done in a hospital by a qualified doctor has never been one of those qualifications, as far as I can remember.

Given that they studied babies who didn't receive anesthesia, it's understandable that they got the results they did. I can certainly assure you that I would never, under any circumstance, cut into anyone in anyway without anesthesia if there was a way to administer it that would help (or it was an emergency and there was no time).
And how many babies get anesthesia?


This one actually references the first one for its data, and I don't think I need to go beyond that.
Even if it also references Goldman, R. (1997) Circumcision: the hidden trauma and Maguire, P., & Parkes, C. M. (1998) Surgery and loss of body parts for data? (And others.) Hm.


I have several times. You just weren't here. We trust the parents to do what is advantageous for their children. The children, obviously, cannot provide consent. I wouldn't say that children have no rights, but parents are supposed to be the guardians of those rights.

Therefore, if the family, in consulting with their doctor, decides that circumcision is the best way to go, it's a far leap to call them abusive.

Now, we do not trust parents absolutely - there are specified times when we can tell that a parent is actively abusing their child or children. In that case, we would take them into state custody.

However, having a small surgical procedure done in a hospital by a qualified doctor has never been one of those qualifications, as far as I can remember.

I'm not sure you're aware of this, but you're still ignoring the rights of the child. All you're doing is arguing that parents, as guardians, should be allowed to decide this matter. You've not, as far as I've seen, taken into consideration the bodily integrity of the child, and why parents should be allowed to decide on an unnecessary medical procedure that exposes the child - needlessly - to risks. You haven't said why it would be best for the child to be circumcised as a baby, or why parents should be allowed to make this decision if it isn't in the best interest of the child. You haven't said why parents should be able to permanently mark their child as per their religion or customs, and why it should override the religious freedom of the child.

So after all of this, if you still see no reason for it to be outlawed, as you've said before, I would say that it's because you refuse to listen and have closed your mind long ago.

On the other hand, if you see reasons for it to be outlawed (but don't necessarily find them compelling), then I'm satisfied. Maybe that's what you've been meaning to say before, too...

And if so, we are in agreement. As I've said in my first post in this thread, I wouldn't outlaw it today. (But after reading some of the arguments presented here, I'd try to discourage it, and I would demand that a medical professional was present and that anesthetics were required.)

In any case, I'm snipping this thread here. It's been amusing!

And how many babies get anesthesia?

Not near enough. That's something I would campaign against.

I'm not sure you're aware of this, but you're still ignoring the rights of the child. All you're doing is arguing that parents, as guardians, should be allowed to decide this matter. You've not, as far as I've seen, taken into consideration the bodily integrity of the child, and why parents should be allowed to decide on an unnecessary medical procedure that exposes the child - needlessly - to risks. You haven't said why it would be best for the child to be circumcised as a baby, or why parents should be allowed to make this decision if it isn't in the best interest of the child. You haven't said why parents should be able to permanently mark their child as per their religion or customs, and why it should override the religious freedom of the child.

So after all of this, if you still see no reason for it to be outlawed, as you've said before, I would say that it's because you refuse to listen and have closed your mind long ago.

On the other hand, if you see reasons for it to be outlawed (but don't necessarily find them compelling), then I'm satisfied. Maybe that's what you've been meaning to say before, too...

And if so, we are in agreement. As I've said in my first post in this thread, I wouldn't outlaw it today. (But after reading some of the arguments presented here, I'd try to discourage it, and I would demand that a medical professional was present and that anesthetics were required.)

In any case, I'm snipping this thread here. It's been amusing!

In response to the rest of this, I'm just going to quote myself on something I posted like 30 pages ago. I know you didn't see it, but here it is:

Ok, after performing umpteen thousand Google searches, and reviewing a whole host of conflicting evidence, I have come to a conclusion.

At this time, I would not get my son circumcised (if miraculously I had one right at this moment - I didn't even know I was pregnant). It doesn't appear (to me) that the benefits outweigh the risks. There are some benefits documented, some risks, and hosts of studies that conflict each other on both those benefits and those risks, and the amount of each.

With that kind of conflicted medical data, I can't really cut something off that I don't know what kind of effects it will have.

However, that being said, I still would not pass a law making it illegal (except in case of medical necessity) to circumcise children, and take them away from their parents because their parents are abusive. Why, you ask? Because just that - the evidence is conflicting. Parents, in concert with their doctors, may decide that it does, in fact, provide a greater benefit than a risk. If they do, then they have acted within medical advice and are probably attempting to be a good parent.

And the statement that change must come with the Jewish/Muslim community is flat out wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. If it really is a greater risk than benefit, and the Jewish/Muslim community spontaneously decided to change their stance on the matter, that would be nice, but it's really irrelevant.

If it really is greater risk than benefit of sufficient magnitude to restrict the religious freedom on the matter, the change first has to come within the medical community, which, at this moment, seems to be unsure about the whole thing. However, the medical community (in the US) still leans pro-circumcision, and so the first step in making any law on the subject would be to convince the people with degrees in medicine that it's a bad fucking idea. Then, with medical degrees in hand, they can go the courthouse and to the lawmakers and say "Hey! This is a bad fucking idea!" and point to studies showing it.

Given that they studied babies who didn't receive anesthesia, it's understandable that they got the results they did. I can certainly assure you that I would never, under any circumstance, cut into anyone in anyway without anesthesia if there was a way to administer it that would help (or it was an emergency and there was no time).

Just a point here - maybe relevant, maybe not. It is my understanding that circumcision without anesthesia is no longer general medical practice (although I'm not aware of any anesthetic used by religious leaders who perform circumcisions). However, at best, they can use a local anesthetic, which is typically less powerful than a general anesthetic. A doctor will only put a newborn under general anesthetic if there is absolutely no way to avoid it.

I find it interesting that surgeries performed on infants for something other than a pressing medical need (ie. removal of vestigial digits, slight corrective surgeries) are generally put off until the child is several months old, so that they can be put under general anesthetic without the same risk as a newborn.

I wonder why the same is not true of infant circumcision. Are we just following the lead of those who do it for religious reasons?

I've shown why it's not.
No you haven't. Everyone who has experience of both finds the difference "trivial". YOU arrogate to yourself the right to decide for everyone that it is "important". Among those who have experienced the trivial difference, not everyone agrees with me that the circumcised state is better, but mine appears to be the majority position. YOU, however, arrogate to yourself the right to decide for everyone not only that it is important, but that it is importantly worse.
And in uncircumcised cases, it's very rare (http://www.aap.org/publiced/br_circumcision.htm).

I don't consider even a slight chance of needing to have my penis amputated to be acceptable.

Wandering in to offer nothing but ad hominems.

Yeah. Speaks for itself.

We could all say the same thing about your entire posture in this thread.

I wasn't addressing you.

You bring me up in conversation, yes, you are addressing me.

Look isn't functionality... unless maybe we're talking about a peacock's tail, or something.

I am sure that, like mutilation, you don't know what ''functionality'' means.

That's because you're not discussing the functionality of the foreskin - you're discussing whether it can still be used for sexual pleasure.

Isn't sex one of the functions of the penis?

If someone has three fingers from each hand chopped off, they can probably still madturbate - that doesn't mean no functionality has been lost.

This is a spiral, ain't it? Can you jerk off with a circumcised penis? Can you fuck your wife with it? Can you pee and play pissing matches with your buddies if you had the opportunity to? Of course you can. The same applies to an uncut penis.

That's an entirely irrelevant argument.

No, irrelevant is your argument that by removing the foreskin one is mutilating the penis.

I haven't made any arguments about who has a valid opinion or otherwise.

Oh, really? Then what do you call your adamant position on this subject? Why do you keep saying that those who refuse to call circumcision ''mutilation'' are wrong or barbarians? Please, examine your position.

I've weighed the evidence.

Cutting bits off of children shouldn't be decided by cultural preference. In any other case, we'd ridicule such an argument - so I discard the arguments that Jews need to (they don't), or that Americans should circumcise their boys so they look like all the other boys (that's stupidity - if they were all uncircumcised, they'd all STILL look like all the other boys).

So - it comes down to the medical advantage and disadvantage - and those sources which do not show the cultural pro-circumcision bias come down heavily on the side of disadvantage.

So - should we perform unnecessary surgery on the sex organs of infants, just to gain disadvantage (or, maybe some small advantage)? I don't think that's a compelling argument.

Have you really weighed the evidence? Because if you've done so, really done so, you wouldn't be posting your nonsense here.

No you haven't. Everyone who has experience of both finds the difference "trivial". YOU arrogate to yourself the right to decide for everyone that it is "important". Among those who have experienced the trivial difference, not everyone agrees with me that the circumcised state is better, but mine appears to be the majority position. YOU, however, arrogate to yourself the right to decide for everyone not only that it is important, but that it is importantly worse.


Yours is the majority position? And? An appeal to any kind of popularity is a logical fallacy.

You say it's a trivial difference. You say this, because you are not looking at what is actually done, and what is actually lost - but instead, are looking at how people FEEL about it.

Natural lubrication, protection, a density of blood vessels only exceeded by the density of nerve endings - it is not functionally trivial. It is not a trivial difference in the comparison of circumcised and uncircumcised.

You consider it 'trivial' because you are not assessing the same thing as me. Which is why you are wrong.

We could all say the same thing about your entire posture in this thread.

I have answered just about as many questions as I could. I'd imagine I've answered literally HUNDREDS in this thread.

You can't honestly says that I've been "Wandering in to offer nothing but ad hominems".

You consider it 'trivial' because you are not assessing the same thing as me. Which is why you are wrong.

You are so wrong here. Yet again. Just because Tmutarakhan isn't assessing this topic the same as you DOES NOT make him wrong. It makes YOU wrong in your fucking temerity. Who the hell do you think you are to even dare post that?

You bring me up in conversation, yes, you are addressing me.


I was responding to Galloism.


I am sure that, like mutilation, you don't know what ''functionality'' means.


Then show it.


Isn't sex one of the functions of the penis?


Yes.

However, the functionality of the foreskin is not limited to sex - so saying 'it still fucks like an uncircumcised penis' is not discussing anything more than an incidental functionality.

You are confusing the functionality of a penis, with the functionality of a foreskin.


This is a spiral, ain't it? Can you jerk off with a circumcised penis? Can you fuck your wife with it? Can you pee and play pissing matches with your buddies if you had the opportunity to? Of course you can. The same applies to an uncut penis.


Does a circumcised penis have the same natural lubrication properties? Does it have the same protection properties? The same sensitivity and tolerance properties? Does it have the same arrangements of (functional) blood vessels and nerve endings?

The same does NOT apply.


No, irrelevant is your argument that by removing the foreskin one is mutilating the penis.


That isn't irrelevant, at all.

My objection isn't with people cutting bits off their penises. Google Genesis P. Orridge some time, and see what kinds of things some people DO do to their parts, because they want to - it's still mutilation, but they have my blessing because they CHOOSE to do it.

My objection is cutting functional parts off of the genitals of babies, for no good reason - certainly not for any reason we would accept as justification for the same treatment of girls, or for any equivalent surgery.


Oh, really? Then what do you call your adamant position on this subject? Why do you keep saying that those who refuse to call circumcision ''mutilation'' are wrong or barbarians? Please, examine your position.


I didn't say that.

I said circumcision (in the context of babies, as a matter of rote) is barbaric.

People who refuse to term circumcision as mutilation are wrong - not to mention dishonest, because they would NOT apply the same rules to female genital mutilations.


Have you really weighed the evidence? Because if you've done so, really done so, you wouldn't be posting your nonsense here.

Yes, I've really weighed the evidence. Did you even READ the passage you responded to? It quite explicitly showed the reasoning based on the evidence as it exists.

You are so wrong here. Yet again. Just because Tmutarakhan isn't assessing this topic the same as you DOES NOT make him wrong. It makes YOU wrong in your fucking temerity. Who the hell do you think you are to even dare post that?

If he tells me that circumcision is trivial, because... x

..and 'x' is NOT about circumcision, but about feelings, or traditions, or whether or not you can have sex...

...then he is NOT discussing circumcision.

So - to tell me that it is trivial, is wrong.


It's not a matter of temerity, it's cold hard logic.

I'd come up with an analogy for WHY the logic is real, but every time I do, people claim I'm saying circumcision is the same as x, y, or z.

Yours is the majority position? And? An appeal to any kind of popularity is a logical fallacy.
You are wrong. Decisions about what is "important" or "trivial", what is "better" or "worse", what is "enjoyment" and what is "harm", are inherently subjective, and no-one except the people involved has any right to judge. Your claim that there is an "objective" standard, namely whatever YOU decide to call "important" or "harmful", is breathtakingly arrogant: who made you God?
Of those we have testimony from who have experienced both, and thus have a right to judge, not a single one agrees with you that the difference is important. Some find it trivially worse, more find it trivially better, and you have no right whatsoever to tell us we shouldn't.

You are wrong. Decisions about what is "important" or "trivial", what is "better" or "worse", what is "enjoyment" and what is "harm", are inherently subjective,

Wrong.

Maybe you can have 'enjoyable'.

Wrong.

Maybe you can have 'enjoyable'.

Did you just seriously say that the terms 'better' or 'worse' etc can ONLY be objective terms?

You seem to be very out of touch with reality.

Did you just seriously say that the terms 'better' or 'worse' etc can ONLY be objective terms?


No.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

You are wrong. Decisions about what is "important" or "trivial", what is "better" or "worse", what is "enjoyment" and what is "harm", are inherently subjective,

Wrong.

Maybe you can have 'enjoyable'.

Did you just seriously say that the terms 'better' or 'worse' etc can ONLY be objective terms?

You seem to be very out of touch with reality.

No.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

This is tiresome, and essentially all you have done for pages. I know you want to pat yourself on the back and say, 'oh look at all the work I've done, making all these important posts' but the fact is over and over and over again you have been asked direct questions that you have refused to answer. Instead you deflect. You claim, 'no I didn't say that'. When shown that you did in fact say that, you go, 'oh that's not what I meant'. When asked to clarify yourself you say, 'I already told you!'. It's circular, it's idiotic, and WE SEE YOU DOING IT.

You contradicted Tmutarakhan when he said that decisions about things like 'better' and 'wrong' are subjective. If you didn't mean that they were in fact objective...if you, for example, meant that they were green eggs and ham, then FUCKING SAY IT. Acting 'mysterious' is fucking tedious. It is not unreasonable to assume from your statement that you are taking the position that these things are inherently OBJECTIVE in nature. When I asked you if that's what you just said, rather than fucking clarifying yourself, you pulled the same old shit. "I didn't say that, oh no that's not what I meant, I already told you."

Answer this question. If you did not mean to express your belief that the things Tmutarakhan listed are OBJECTIVE, then what did you wish to express?

Not that I'm going to hold my breath for a straight answer from someone who has wanked for so many pages with no apparent point.

He said decisions based on (insert term here). Not (insert term here) itself.

I know you want to pat yourself on the back and say, 'oh look at all the work I've done, making all these important posts'


You know that. Or... project it, maybe.


You claim, 'no I didn't say that'. When shown that you did in fact say that, you go, 'oh that's not what I meant'.


No - people post what they THINK I meant, and I say "No, I didn't mean that". Then they show where they thought I meant it, and I say "I didn't say that".

Eventually, on each occassion, after prompting people to actually deal with what I've SAID, I present what I actually said... and it turns out I didn't say what they claimed, and it didn't mean what they claimed.


You contradicted Tmutarakhan when he said that decisions about things like 'better' and 'wrong' are subjective.


He said inherently subjective. I had thought this was just you having problems reading it, but - as I'll show directly - I no longer believe that.


Acting 'mysterious' is fucking tedious.


"You said this didn't you"? "No".

That's not 'acting mysterious'.

Is it really too much to ask, to be held only to what is said, rather than assumptions?


It is not unreasonable to assume from your statement that you are taking the position that these things are inherently OBJECTIVE in nature.


And here's why I no longer believe you just misread it.

Your own use of the same wording.


Not that I'm going to hold my breath for a straight answer from someone who has wanked for so many pages with no apparent point.

And some parting vitriol. How... unexpected.

Ah well, paying your 'argument' more respect than it earned, let me lay it out for you, 'un-mysteriously':

Tmut said "Decisions about... are inherently subjective"

I said: "Wrong."

You said: "Did you just seriously say that the terms... can ONLY be objective terms".

I said: "No."


I didn't say anything could 'ONLY be objective terms', I said that Tmut was wrong to claim that all those terms were 'inherently subjective'.

When asked to clarify yourself you say, 'I already told you!'. It's circular, it's idiotic, and WE SEE YOU DOING IT.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/words_that_end_in_gry.png

Credit to www.xkcd.com

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/words_that_end_in_gry.png

Credit to www.xkcd.com

I really, really enjoyed that, and yes, it about summed up NTS asshattery in this thread.

He said decisions based on (insert term here). Not (insert term here) itself.

Yeah, I got that. But instead of, you know, like a normal human being who wishes to communicate with other human beings, and saying, "look, there are objective standards you can use when making decisions about things like 'better' and 'worse' and so on", he just flat out contradicted, and waited for someone to fill in the gaps of what his argument may have been. Then, he complains that people are filling in the gaps instead of just reading what he wrote which...if you actually only did that, would tell you pretty much nothing about what the fuck he is trying to get across.

It's tedious.

Yeah, I got that. But instead of, you know, like a normal human being who wishes to communicate with other human beings, and saying, "look, there are objective standards you can use when making decisions about things like 'better' and 'worse' and so on", he just flat out contradicted, and waited for someone to fill in the gaps of what his argument may have been. Then, he complains that people are filling in the gaps instead of just reading what he wrote which...if you actually only did that, would tell you pretty much nothing about what the fuck he is trying to get across.

It's tedious.

I don't disagree, but we needn't make this discussion about his lack of etiquette.

S'true.

I really, really enjoyed that, and yes, it about summed up NTS asshattery in this thread.

We interrupt the scheduled programming for Sin to arrange a circlejerk.

We interrupt the scheduled programming for Sin to arrange a circlejerk.

Sorry, but the scheduled programming was not watching you saying nothing, over and over again, for more than 20 pages. You just kind of inserted that all on your own. Newsflash...no one really cares about your little crusade to get circumcision called mutilation/disfigurement. It's boring. And since you've been asked point blank a least half a dozen times if you have any point beyond that, and have refused to answer, I'm going to assume that no, you don't have more to add to this discussion.

Ta.

Wrong.

Maybe you can have 'enjoyable'.
Wrong. I can have all the others too.

We interrupt the scheduled programming for Sin to arrange a circlejerk.
In fairness, your solojerk is even less entertaining.

Sorry, but the scheduled programming was not watching you saying nothing, over and over again,


I didn't say it was.

I wonder if you actually can post without making stuff up.


And since you've been asked point blank a least half a dozen times if you have any point beyond that,

And I said no.

I don't recall anywhere in the site rules that one has to have an agenda beyond responding. I really don't know what to do about the fact that this apparently disappoints you.

In fairness, your solojerk is even less entertaining.

I'm not here for your entertainment, but I have to admit to surprise at seeing you playing those sorts of games. I expect it from Sin.

You've already crippled your credibility here by providing an escape route in case someone asks you to actually cite the reference, rather than just taking your word for it. Either be sure of your sources and stand by them, or don't use them.

At the risk of incurring a charge of gravedigging, I respond to your statement.

Since you insisted upon documentation, after much searching I have located the book to which I referred: Advice to Men, by Robert Chartham, Ph.D. (Signet: New York, New York 1971; paperback third printing April 1972). Dr. Chartham states in chapter 5, “Circumcision”, his reasons for advocating circumcision:



(1) It makes genital hygiene much simpler and more through.
(2) I am greatly impressed by the penile, prostatic, and cervical cancer evidence [referring to reduced incidence thereof in circumcised men and their female partners].
(3) To my way of thinking the fully circumcised penis is a much more aesthetic-appearing object than the uncircumcised.

With regard to this last point, let me explain a little. If we are honest we have to admit that, wonderful organs though they are, the penis and scrotum are unusual-looking objects. It seems to me from my observation of many scores of penises that the foreskin which has been allowed to develop on its own, though eventually totally and easily retractable, does have the effect of preventing the penis head from developing, in quite a large number of cases, so that it never attains properly balanced proportions in relationship with the rest of the penis. Often the head sits on the shaft like a fairly small acorn perched on the end of a thick stick. I have observed many of these, in my view, disproportionate penis heads on uncircumcised penises, but not one on a circumcised penis. Maybe this is a very personal point of view–this appreciation of the well-proportioned penis–and I am prepared to be told that it is an idiosyncrasy. On the other hand, I know that I share this visual appeal factor, not only with many men friends, but with many women as well.

I trust this satisfies your demand.

I am unfamiliar with the backgrounds of Muravyets and Neesika, but I am willing to wager that neither of them is a sexologist, or has professional experience –or amateur experience, for that matter – sufficient to qualify them as authorities on the subject. Likewise with those others who have expressed unfavorable opinions of my original post, including you. I thus remain in agreement with Dr. Chartham.

I trust this satisfies your demand.

I am unfamiliar with the backgrounds of Muravyets and Neesika, but I am willing to wager that neither of them is a sexologist, or has professional experience –or amateur experience, for that matter – sufficient to qualify them as authorities on the subject. Likewise with those others who have expressed unfavorable opinions of my original post, including you. I thus remain in agreement with Dr. Chartham.

I don't know about you, but I certainly hope my doctors look beyond data from the '60's in deciding how to practice medicine.