My best friend since 4th grade had it done prior to college since he didn't like the way it looked, and both of his girlfriends got weirded out by it
Also he seemed to have trouble with keeping it clean, yes I'm aware that's an aberration
I realize that uncircumcised penises are "normal" but it seems like there is a not-insignificant number of females who prefer cut men
edit: I typed this before the disclaimer in your last post.
But none of this matters to the argument of forced circumcision vs. allowing the individual with the skin make that decision later in life.
And while I understand you feel as though it was "easier" for you because you didn't have to make the decision yourself, I don't know how to respond. First, do you really think it's better - in general - to have fewer choices about what makes you you rather than more choices? Second, do you really think that small amount of utility of not having to endure the procedure as an adult is actually worth allowing parents to make this decision for children?
My answer to both questions is, of course, no. And I am circumcised.
Mind you, I am not unhappy I am circumcised. I really have no idea how I would feel about my penis if it were uncircumcised because I never had that choice. I don't blame my parents though. It was, as far as I know, pretty common here when I was born. But regardless of that, I don't blame them. I can deplore the decision NOW without blaming them in particular for what they decided so long ago.
I think a lot of this - and I'm not directing this at you joshofalltrades (or anyone else in particular) - is more about not wanting to speak ill of ones parents. I mean, if you're circumcised, an you argue that forcing children to be circumcised is morally abominable, then you are kind of calling your parents morally abominable, right?
Wrong. I mean, not necessarily. You are free to think of your parents any way you like, but I judge things in context. What my parents decided when I was born doesn't necessarily have the same context of what parents should decide today. There have been decades worth of social progression and medical research since then. So, no, I don't blame my parents, and I frankly don't give a shit about the lack of foreskin on my own penis, but that doesn't preclude me from arguing against the practice now.
Let me reiterate: Until two years ago I almost definitely would have had my son circumcised (assuming my wife was on board). Now? I am absolutely not on board with the idea.
Since the subject of piercings/tattoos was raised, another anecdote: my mom had my ears pierced when I was 5mo. old. The hole is about 14-guage (I can't imagine how large it was in comparison to my 5-month old ears!) and never close up. I don't mind this, as I like being able to wear earrings whenever I like, without worrying about the holes closing up. But my mom didn't have to do that, I could have had my ears pierced later in life with no issues, and my not minding that decision having been made for me doesn't change that.
Bottom line is, even though I don't mind having permanent holes in my ears, that's a decision I should have been able to make later in life. It just is. My mom isn't a bad person, though.
I just cannot understand someone who would want to get medically unnecessary surgery
I think this is a wider question and has a different answer than the question of circumcision has. I guess it depends on how you define "necessary"? Does "necessary" mean "I'll die without it" or does it mean "it could improve my quality of life"?
What about someone with a broken nose? You can live in total health with a broken nose. But it can be uncomfortable. Is it wrong to get that fixed?
What about eye surgery? You could live just as long with 30/50 vision in both eyes as with 20/20. Does that mean someone is crazy for wanting eye surgery?
What about people who have severe cramps in various muscles? You can get surgery done on various muscles to improve your general mobility. Is that wrong?
So yeah, while I'm not on board with forced circumcision, I also can't agree that medically unnecessary surgery is inherently wrong or crazy.
I just cannot understand someone who would want to get medically unnecessary surgery
I think this is a wider question and has a different answer than the question of circumcision has. I guess it depends on how you define "necessary"? Does "necessary" mean "I'll die without it" or does it mean "it could improve my quality of life"?
What about someone with a broken nose? You can live in total health with a broken nose. But it can be uncomfortable. Is it wrong to get that fixed?
What about eye surgery? You could live just as long with 30/50 vision in both eyes as with 20/20. Does that mean someone is crazy for wanting eye surgery?
What about people who have severe cramps in various muscles? You can get surgery done on various muscles to improve your general mobility. Is that wrong?
So yeah, while I'm not on board with forced circumcision, I also can't agree that medically unnecessary surgery is inherently wrong or crazy.
True enough, but all of the cases you cited are medical issues caused by injury or disease or other conditions (like myopia). A foreskin doesn't fit into any of these categories.
I just cannot understand someone who would want to get medically unnecessary surgery
I think this is a wider question and has a different answer than the question of circumcision has. I guess it depends on how you define "necessary"? Does "necessary" mean "I'll die without it" or does it mean "it could improve my quality of life"?
What about someone with a broken nose? You can live in total health with a broken nose. But it can be uncomfortable. Is it wrong to get that fixed?
What about eye surgery? You could live just as long with 30/50 vision in both eyes as with 20/20. Does that mean someone is crazy for wanting eye surgery?
What about people who have severe cramps in various muscles? You can get surgery done on various muscles to improve your general mobility. Is that wrong?
So yeah, while I'm not on board with forced circumcision, I also can't agree that medically unnecessary surgery is inherently wrong or crazy.
I agree that it was a blanket statement that should have had clarification, or at least context.
Perhaps view it as meaning surgery that has a provable, commonly agreed medical benefit compared to surgery that is for the purpose of altering something to conform to a measure of aesthetic worth.
Also my wife has had both and doesn't like the way uncut men feel
And since I married her, I probably would have had it done for her benefit at some point
I see. So she wouldn't have been interested in you if you had a forskin?
Also did you demand she got a boob job? You know, to even the score.
No, but I would have done it because it would have made sex better for her and I like making sex better for her
She never would have asked me to do it, she's not that shallow, but I would have done it anyway
Sometimes you just do things for people you love because you love them
Then she should have loved you enough to get a boob job. Or maybe a labiaplasty. Why should you have to put up with her imperfect genitals? I would be worried about your marrage.
And yes I'm being ridiculous on purpose to demonstrate how crazy it is to have a piece of yourself lopped off because another person has a mild preference for it. Because it's basically the same thing, its just male circumcision has become so accepted in American society it's apparently fine to do it to babies for no reason at all.
Doing this to girls is actually considered a horrible violation of human rights. But I don't want to go down this "mutilation" discussion again because the fact is circumcision is completely fine as long as the person having it done to them is able to make informed consent.
My wife likes the way they feel better (also look, but that's irrelevant to this line of discussion)
I'd hardly call that purely aesthetic; it improves our sex life, which is necessary for a variety of reasons
It improves your sex life because your wife has a mild preference for such and you like making your wife happy. I doubt you can point to an actual physiological pleasure increase over a couple with similar emotional engagement and an uncut penis (attached to one of the former of course)
No but I have stated at least twice now that I am not making some grand point based on my personal experiences, just saying that circumcision worked out for me
Also I don't think there is such thing as a "pleasure meter"
And Drez: it isn't pedantic, but when one texture has a direct impact on a person's enjoyment of an activity, I would say that is beyond pure aesthetics
The rest of you can stop pretending that my wife and I are the quintessential misogynist/misandrist duo now
My wife likes the way they feel better (also look, but that's irrelevant to this line of discussion)
I'd hardly call that purely aesthetic; it improves our sex life, which is necessary for a variety of reasons
I'd be surprised if getting her boobs made larger or a labiaplasty didn't improve your sex life too. That doesn't make it right to do those things to her without her consent.
You're taking it as me saying circumcision is wrong. Whatever my personal feeling about it the fact is the act itself isn't wrong if an adult chooses to have it done.
Think of it like this. Say a guy has a daughter, say by the time she's three or four it's obvious she has a misshapen nose. Does he have the right to force an unnecessary cosmetic operation on her because some boys will not like her nose?
The issue here is consent. That girl could easily have the procedure done later on if she chooses to have it. It's not up to parents to make cosmetic alterations to their childrens bodies.
My wife likes the way they feel better (also look, but that's irrelevant to this line of discussion)
I'd hardly call that purely aesthetic; it improves our sex life, which is necessary for a variety of reasons
I'd be surprised if getting her boobs made larger or a labiaplasty didn't improve your sex life too. That doesn't make it right to do those things to her without her consent.
How many fucking times do I have to say that I would have done it voluntarily without her even asking
I also said I agree with the OP
Could you please try reading just a little bit
joshofalltrades on
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Yes because some radical group COULD use the same argument as Quid makes his NON-radical argument invalid.
So when I use your argument of 'prevention for the greater good regardless of impact' to say, advocate for the genocide of the group with the largest risks for STI infection to lower the rate on a national level, I'd say that makes your argument invalid.
It's reductio ad absurdem, as showing that an argument can be used to reach a fallacious conclusion renders that argument void.
For your piddling attempt at the use of this rhetorical technique to be applicable, you'd have to show that killing all those people would be for their own "greater good," and you'd have to show that you are responsible for their well being.
My wife likes the way they feel better (also look, but that's irrelevant to this line of discussion)
I'd hardly call that purely aesthetic; it improves our sex life, which is necessary for a variety of reasons
I'd be surprised if getting her boobs made larger or a labiaplasty didn't improve your sex life too. That doesn't make it right to do those things to her without her consent.
How many fucking times do I have to say that I would have done it voluntarily without her even asking
I also said I agree with the OP
Could you please try reading just a little bit
That would mean they wouldn't get to scream about how the procedure summons Satan.
I just cannot understand someone who would want to get medically unnecessary surgery
I think this is a wider question and has a different answer than the question of circumcision has. I guess it depends on how you define "necessary"? Does "necessary" mean "I'll die without it" or does it mean "it could improve my quality of life"?
What about someone with a broken nose? You can live in total health with a broken nose. But it can be uncomfortable. Is it wrong to get that fixed?
What about eye surgery? You could live just as long with 30/50 vision in both eyes as with 20/20. Does that mean someone is crazy for wanting eye surgery?
What about people who have severe cramps in various muscles? You can get surgery done on various muscles to improve your general mobility. Is that wrong?
So yeah, while I'm not on board with forced circumcision, I also can't agree that medically unnecessary surgery is inherently wrong or crazy.
with all of those examples there is a significant or at least noticeable increase in the quality of life of the patient.
something is medically unnecessary if it serves no real purpose. there is inherent risk in every type of surgery, even in something as 'safe' and 'routine' as circumcision. technically speaking a huge amount of surgery isn't necessary but it's implied that it's not 'unnecessary surgery' if the patient is conscious and aware of the potential risks. A newborn infant cannot weight these options, and it may seem like a small issue but it still strikes me as somewhat unsavory that a doctor would recommend a surgery to parents that doesn't make a significant difference either way.
Uh, what's the difference if you just pull it back?
We mentioned this briefly earlier, but it acts as a sort of rolling bearing during sex. It slightly reduces friction and adds another layer of movement, which some people find pleasant and others presumably find somewhat unsettling and most don't really notice.
My wife likes the way they feel better (also look, but that's irrelevant to this line of discussion)
I'd hardly call that purely aesthetic; it improves our sex life, which is necessary for a variety of reasons
I'd be surprised if getting her boobs made larger or a labiaplasty didn't improve your sex life too. That doesn't make it right to do those things to her without her consent.
How many fucking times do I have to say that I would have done it voluntarily without her even asking
I also said I agree with the OP
Could you please try reading just a little bit
Maybe you should try reading a little bit. That's what the debate happens to be about. If you had taken your own advice and read a bit you would have seen that guys coming in and saying "I had it done to me and I like it so it must be fine" has been covered several times over. Pretty thoroughly debunked too.
My wife likes the way they feel better (also look, but that's irrelevant to this line of discussion)
I'd hardly call that purely aesthetic; it improves our sex life, which is necessary for a variety of reasons
I'd be surprised if getting her boobs made larger or a labiaplasty didn't improve your sex life too. That doesn't make it right to do those things to her without her consent.
How many fucking times do I have to say that I would have done it voluntarily without her even asking
I also said I agree with the OP
Could you please try reading just a little bit
Maybe you should try reading a little bit. That's what the debate happens to be about. If you had taken your own advice and read a bit you would have seen that guys coming in and saying "I had it done to me and I like it so it must be fine" has been covered several times over. Pretty thoroughly debunked too.
Take your own advice in future.
No, I came in and said, "It worked out fine for me, but I agree with the OP and wouldn't have the procedure done on my son"
Uh, what's the difference if you just pull it back?
We mentioned this briefly earlier, but it acts as a sort of rolling bearing during sex. It slightly reduces friction and adds another layer of movement, which some people find pleasant and others presumably find somewhat unsettling and most don't really notice.
I mean pulling it back so it stays back. The fellow is saying his wife prefers the way uncut feels, so pull it back so it stays that way, and what is the difference?
I've never had a woman [...] comment on my lack of foreskin.
And I should hope not too!
Actually, that study is one of the biggest examples of how desperate opposition to the procedure is, as the journal that published it had to follow it up with a statement noting that the effect was not present when the data was analyzed in an honest manner.
I've never had a woman [...] comment on my lack of foreskin.
And I should hope not too!
Actually, that study is one of the biggest examples of how desperate opposition to the procedure is, as the journal that published it had to follow it up with a statement noting that the effect was not present when the data was analyzed in an honest manner.
Scalfin's lying, again. The BJU didn't say that. They published a letter that said that, by Waskett and Morris. That letter was then pretty heavily criticised itself.
I'm a girl and I don't mind foreskins. My boyfriend is uncut and the first time I saw it I didn't freak out because I had already seen what an uncut dick looks like and was like "ok well I don't think it's gross". I think girls who make a big deal about uncut dicks are fucking stupid. It's just some extra skin, plus when erect with the foreskin pulled pack it looks like a circumcised dick!
Also if I have a baby boy I will not get the procedure done. He can decide on his own when he's older if he doesn't want it.
Although I can't imagine a guy living the first 15 - 20 years of his life uncut deciding to just lop it off. By then you would be comfortable with it right? My boyfriend doesn't like to mention he's uncut because he knows people will say "ew", yet he himself is fine with it and wouldn't get it circumcised.
Vee on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Uh, what's the difference if you just pull it back?
We mentioned this briefly earlier, but it acts as a sort of rolling bearing during sex. It slightly reduces friction and adds another layer of movement, which some people find pleasant and others presumably find somewhat unsettling and most don't really notice.
I mean pulling it back so it stays back. The fellow is saying his wife prefers the way uncut feels, so pull it back so it stays that way, and what is the difference?
Unless you're willing to hold your dick the whole time you're fucking, it doesn't really stay that way. (Assuming by "that way" we're talking about tight skin like on a cut dick. A retracted foreskin on an erect penis has a good bit of play to it.)
My wife likes the way they feel better (also look, but that's irrelevant to this line of discussion)
I'd hardly call that purely aesthetic; it improves our sex life, which is necessary for a variety of reasons
I'd be surprised if getting her boobs made larger or a labiaplasty didn't improve your sex life too. That doesn't make it right to do those things to her without her consent.
How many fucking times do I have to say that I would have done it voluntarily without her even asking
I also said I agree with the OP
Could you please try reading just a little bit
Maybe you should try reading a little bit. That's what the debate happens to be about. If you had taken your own advice and read a bit you would have seen that guys coming in and saying "I had it done to me and I like it so it must be fine" has been covered several times over. Pretty thoroughly debunked too.
Take your own advice in future.
No, I came in and said, "It worked out fine for me, but I agree with the OP and wouldn't have the procedure done on my son"
READING COMPREHENSION
Ah I see, typing in caps makes you right huh? Someone should let the rest of the internet know about this.
That may be what you meant. But what you said was "well I had it done but it's fine because I would have anyway because my wife likes it".
Oh yeah, really, you're welcome to your opinion but the general consensus here seems to be "OMG HE'S OKAY WITH CIRCUMCISION, LYNCH HIM"
The OP doesn't help since it's obviously very one sided.
The problem isn't so much circumcision itself, but circumcision of infants. Just... why? Why is it so important to do it to a baby when there's virtually no benefit in doing it that early? It's so stupid.
Because having it done later actually has a risk of complication. It's a parent's duty to do what's best for his or her child. If my hypothetical child came to me and told me that his rights had been trampled on by being operated upon, I'd laugh in his face just as hard as if he came to me to complain about me picking a school district to live in without yelling up my wife's vag to check with his egg.
Unless you're willing to hold your dick the whole time you're fucking, it doesn't really stay that way. (Assuming by "that way" we're talking about tight skin like on a cut dick. A retracted foreskin on an erect penis has a good bit of play to it.)
Posts
edit: I typed this before the disclaimer in your last post.
But none of this matters to the argument of forced circumcision vs. allowing the individual with the skin make that decision later in life.
And while I understand you feel as though it was "easier" for you because you didn't have to make the decision yourself, I don't know how to respond. First, do you really think it's better - in general - to have fewer choices about what makes you you rather than more choices? Second, do you really think that small amount of utility of not having to endure the procedure as an adult is actually worth allowing parents to make this decision for children?
My answer to both questions is, of course, no. And I am circumcised.
Mind you, I am not unhappy I am circumcised. I really have no idea how I would feel about my penis if it were uncircumcised because I never had that choice. I don't blame my parents though. It was, as far as I know, pretty common here when I was born. But regardless of that, I don't blame them. I can deplore the decision NOW without blaming them in particular for what they decided so long ago.
I think a lot of this - and I'm not directing this at you joshofalltrades (or anyone else in particular) - is more about not wanting to speak ill of ones parents. I mean, if you're circumcised, an you argue that forcing children to be circumcised is morally abominable, then you are kind of calling your parents morally abominable, right?
Wrong. I mean, not necessarily. You are free to think of your parents any way you like, but I judge things in context. What my parents decided when I was born doesn't necessarily have the same context of what parents should decide today. There have been decades worth of social progression and medical research since then. So, no, I don't blame my parents, and I frankly don't give a shit about the lack of foreskin on my own penis, but that doesn't preclude me from arguing against the practice now.
Let me reiterate: Until two years ago I almost definitely would have had my son circumcised (assuming my wife was on board). Now? I am absolutely not on board with the idea.
I'm not saying I disagree with you
Just that I'm personally glad my parents had it done when I was very small because I likely would have had it done anyway
I see. So she wouldn't have been interested in you if you had a forskin?
Also did you demand she got a boob job? You know, to even the score.
Bottom line is, even though I don't mind having permanent holes in my ears, that's a decision I should have been able to make later in life. It just is. My mom isn't a bad person, though.
No, but I would have done it because it would have made sex better for her and I like making sex better for her
She never would have asked me to do it, she's not that shallow, but I would have done it anyway
Sometimes you just do things for people you love because you love them
I think this is a wider question and has a different answer than the question of circumcision has. I guess it depends on how you define "necessary"? Does "necessary" mean "I'll die without it" or does it mean "it could improve my quality of life"?
What about someone with a broken nose? You can live in total health with a broken nose. But it can be uncomfortable. Is it wrong to get that fixed?
What about eye surgery? You could live just as long with 30/50 vision in both eyes as with 20/20. Does that mean someone is crazy for wanting eye surgery?
What about people who have severe cramps in various muscles? You can get surgery done on various muscles to improve your general mobility. Is that wrong?
So yeah, while I'm not on board with forced circumcision, I also can't agree that medically unnecessary surgery is inherently wrong or crazy.
True enough, but all of the cases you cited are medical issues caused by injury or disease or other conditions (like myopia). A foreskin doesn't fit into any of these categories.
But when you make assumptions you make sum "ption" inside an ass.
Wait, I may have fucked that saying up...
I agree that it was a blanket statement that should have had clarification, or at least context.
Perhaps view it as meaning surgery that has a provable, commonly agreed medical benefit compared to surgery that is for the purpose of altering something to conform to a measure of aesthetic worth.
Edit - or what the guys above said.
Then she should have loved you enough to get a boob job. Or maybe a labiaplasty. Why should you have to put up with her imperfect genitals? I would be worried about your marrage.
And yes I'm being ridiculous on purpose to demonstrate how crazy it is to have a piece of yourself lopped off because another person has a mild preference for it. Because it's basically the same thing, its just male circumcision has become so accepted in American society it's apparently fine to do it to babies for no reason at all.
Doing this to girls is actually considered a horrible violation of human rights. But I don't want to go down this "mutilation" discussion again because the fact is circumcision is completely fine as long as the person having it done to them is able to make informed consent.
I'd hardly call that purely aesthetic; it improves our sex life, which is necessary for a variety of reasons
It improves your sex life because your wife has a mild preference for such and you like making your wife happy. I doubt you can point to an actual physiological pleasure increase over a couple with similar emotional engagement and an uncut penis (attached to one of the former of course)
Not to be overly pedantic, but I would call the "texture" of sex an aesthetic property.
Also I don't think there is such thing as a "pleasure meter"
And Drez: it isn't pedantic, but when one texture has a direct impact on a person's enjoyment of an activity, I would say that is beyond pure aesthetics
The rest of you can stop pretending that my wife and I are the quintessential misogynist/misandrist duo now
I'd be surprised if getting her boobs made larger or a labiaplasty didn't improve your sex life too. That doesn't make it right to do those things to her without her consent.
You're taking it as me saying circumcision is wrong. Whatever my personal feeling about it the fact is the act itself isn't wrong if an adult chooses to have it done.
Think of it like this. Say a guy has a daughter, say by the time she's three or four it's obvious she has a misshapen nose. Does he have the right to force an unnecessary cosmetic operation on her because some boys will not like her nose?
The issue here is consent. That girl could easily have the procedure done later on if she chooses to have it. It's not up to parents to make cosmetic alterations to their childrens bodies.
How many fucking times do I have to say that I would have done it voluntarily without her even asking
I also said I agree with the OP
Could you please try reading just a little bit
How does that even work?
It's reductio ad absurdem, as showing that an argument can be used to reach a fallacious conclusion renders that argument void.
For your piddling attempt at the use of this rhetorical technique to be applicable, you'd have to show that killing all those people would be for their own "greater good," and you'd have to show that you are responsible for their well being.
That would mean they wouldn't get to scream about how the procedure summons Satan.
with all of those examples there is a significant or at least noticeable increase in the quality of life of the patient.
something is medically unnecessary if it serves no real purpose. there is inherent risk in every type of surgery, even in something as 'safe' and 'routine' as circumcision. technically speaking a huge amount of surgery isn't necessary but it's implied that it's not 'unnecessary surgery' if the patient is conscious and aware of the potential risks. A newborn infant cannot weight these options, and it may seem like a small issue but it still strikes me as somewhat unsavory that a doctor would recommend a surgery to parents that doesn't make a significant difference either way.
We mentioned this briefly earlier, but it acts as a sort of rolling bearing during sex. It slightly reduces friction and adds another layer of movement, which some people find pleasant and others presumably find somewhat unsettling and most don't really notice.
I mean it does
but... not really
Maybe you should try reading a little bit. That's what the debate happens to be about. If you had taken your own advice and read a bit you would have seen that guys coming in and saying "I had it done to me and I like it so it must be fine" has been covered several times over. Pretty thoroughly debunked too.
Take your own advice in future.
No, I came in and said, "It worked out fine for me, but I agree with the OP and wouldn't have the procedure done on my son"
READING COMPREHENSION
Actually, that study is one of the biggest examples of how desperate opposition to the procedure is, as the journal that published it had to follow it up with a statement noting that the effect was not present when the data was analyzed in an honest manner.
People get downright aggressive when talking about that little flap of skin on the boner
Like it's the debate of the century or something
Third time's the charm.
Also if I have a baby boy I will not get the procedure done. He can decide on his own when he's older if he doesn't want it.
Although I can't imagine a guy living the first 15 - 20 years of his life uncut deciding to just lop it off. By then you would be comfortable with it right? My boyfriend doesn't like to mention he's uncut because he knows people will say "ew", yet he himself is fine with it and wouldn't get it circumcised.
Unless you're willing to hold your dick the whole time you're fucking, it doesn't really stay that way. (Assuming by "that way" we're talking about tight skin like on a cut dick. A retracted foreskin on an erect penis has a good bit of play to it.)
Ah I see, typing in caps makes you right huh? Someone should let the rest of the internet know about this.
That may be what you meant. But what you said was "well I had it done but it's fine because I would have anyway because my wife likes it".
CAPS R FUN.
Because having it done later actually has a risk of complication. It's a parent's duty to do what's best for his or her child. If my hypothetical child came to me and told me that his rights had been trampled on by being operated upon, I'd laugh in his face just as hard as if he came to me to complain about me picking a school district to live in without yelling up my wife's vag to check with his egg.
Mine stays perfectly pulled back if needed.
The first is easily solved by, you know, basic hygiene and the latter is something of a medical necessity, something no one has argued against.