We have a new update on The Future of the Penny Arcade Forums.

Circumcision does not reduce sensitivity

1679111222

Posts

  • kaz67kaz67 Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    I say its vestigal

    You can say that blue is red, but that doesn't make you correct.

    Your personal re-definition is worth jackshit.
    Sorry, you're right. All I've proved is that the foreskin is nigh useless and thus has no effect on evolution. All it is is a useless flap of skin that no one should care about, sorry.


    I don't think that is the issue at hand. People are having a part of their anatomy removed for no reason without their permission.

    kaz67 on
  • ShoggothShoggoth Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    I don't really think there's any reasonable stance beyond "Don't get your kid circumcised if you've got a problem with it."

    The "Nobody should be circumcised as an infant because I think it's wrong!" thing is kind of lame.

    I would say I agree on the principle of religious freedom, but then I remember that I was applauding whatever state it was that gave a minor a blood transfusion even though their Christian Scientist parents were like "no we want our kid to die".

    Man I got my circumcision and my parents are not religious.

    And I'd have to agree with that, too. Whatever's in the kid's best interest, I guess, I just don't feel that circumcision is really a negative thing. I'm sure at some point I've thought, "I guess it would've been nice to have some say in this," but just as quickly followed it up with, "Whatever, I don't really care."
    Which is the issue at hand. The fact it's considered a minor matter by the populace doesn't (a) make it a minor matter necessarily, but (b) doesn't mean we should simply ignore the relevant moral issues, of which in this case are "is it actually ok to unnecessarily deny someone a choice?"

    Thank you.

    Shoggoth on
    11tu0w1.jpg
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    kaz67 wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    I say its vestigal

    You can say that blue is red, but that doesn't make you correct.

    Your personal re-definition is worth jackshit.
    Sorry, you're right. All I've proved is that the foreskin is nigh useless and thus has no effect on evolution. All it is is a useless flap of skin that no one should care about, sorry.


    I don't think that is the issue at hand. People are having a part of their anatomy removed for no reason without their permission.
    Someone gets it.

    electricitylikesme on
  • randombattlerandombattle Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    kaz67 wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    I say its vestigal

    You can say that blue is red, but that doesn't make you correct.

    Your personal re-definition is worth jackshit.
    Sorry, you're right. All I've proved is that the foreskin is nigh useless and thus has no effect on evolution. All it is is a useless flap of skin that no one should care about, sorry.


    I don't think that is the issue at hand. People are having a part of their anatomy removed for no reason without their permission.
    Someone gets it.

    I think the problem is people are just so conditioned to it happening that they don't see it as a problem.


    If I said "Hey I'm gonna cut my babies pinky toe off because I think it's a good idea." I'm pretty sure I wouldn't get a single person to say "Well thats alright since you are the parent. They have other toes too."

    randombattle on
    itsstupidbutidontcare2.gif
    I never asked for this!
  • FalloutFallout GIRL'S DAY WAS PRETTY GOOD WHILE THEY LASTEDRegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Fallout wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Fallout wrote: »
    Without a foreskin the head of the penis rubs on the fabric of the underwear for... oh I don't know... your entire life?

    Does that cause anyone trouble?

    I mean, is it a problem? For anyone?

    For me? Not even a little bit.

    And that would be because you were circumcised when you were an infant and scar tissue formed and so the skin is not as sensitive as it would be if you had a foreskin and then it just magically disappeared, leaving what is underneath exposed to chafing.

    So, at worst, and assuming I have these imaginary calluses on my dick, I last longer with a female.

    Terror!

    You seem to be under the impression that scar tissue = horrific looking mutilations. No, sorry, scars don't always look abnormal.

    So what's the big deal other than oh no, inconsequential violation of a newborn's surely inalienable human rights at birth that he will never remember or even remotely give a fuck about unless he is insane?

    Fallout on
    xcomsig.png
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    I don't really think there's any reasonable stance beyond "Don't get your kid circumcised if you've got a problem with it."

    The "Nobody should be circumcised as an infant because I think it's wrong!" thing is kind of lame.

    I would say I agree on the principle of religious freedom, but then I remember that I was applauding whatever state it was that gave a minor a blood transfusion even though their Christian Scientist parents were like "no we want our kid to die".

    Man I got my circumcision and my parents are not religious.

    And I'd have to agree with that, too. Whatever's in the kid's best interest, I guess, I just don't feel that circumcision is really a negative thing. I'm sure at some point I've thought, "I guess it would've been nice to have some say in this," but just as quickly followed it up with, "Whatever, I don't really care."
    Which is the issue at hand. The fact it's considered a minor matter by the populace doesn't (a) make it a minor matter necessarily, but (b) doesn't mean we should simply ignore the relevant moral issues, of which in this case are "is it actually ok to unnecessarily deny someone a choice?"

    Parents deny choices all the time. They deny their children the right to a cookie, to a toy, to sit around all day. Denying choices is part of being a parent. As for permanent ones, they deny their childs right to die from various diseases through vaccination. Also, this saves the kid from having to do it as an adult and be either in massive pain or heavily sedated for nearly a week when he has to do it because his GF is jewish and she wont marry an uncircumcised man.
    Absurd, yes, but just as absurd as the idea of undergoing massive pain to regrow a foreskin.

    Picardathon on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Fallout wrote: »
    Never ever in my entire life, even once, has my dong gotten chafed.

    I'm holding back a lot of jokes here, so: Okay, good for you. Like I said, it depends on your lifestyle and your penis.

    Hell, I get the occasional tiny sore, which is really really really not pleasant.

    Incenjucar on
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    I don't really think there's any reasonable stance beyond "Don't get your kid circumcised if you've got a problem with it."

    The "Nobody should be circumcised as an infant because I think it's wrong!" thing is kind of lame.

    I would say I agree on the principle of religious freedom, but then I remember that I was applauding whatever state it was that gave a minor a blood transfusion even though their Christian Scientist parents were like "no we want our kid to die".

    Man I got my circumcision and my parents are not religious.

    And I'd have to agree with that, too. Whatever's in the kid's best interest, I guess, I just don't feel that circumcision is really a negative thing. I'm sure at some point I've thought, "I guess it would've been nice to have some say in this," but just as quickly followed it up with, "Whatever, I don't really care."
    Which is the issue at hand. The fact it's considered a minor matter by the populace doesn't (a) make it a minor matter necessarily, but (b) doesn't mean we should simply ignore the relevant moral issues, of which in this case are "is it actually ok to unnecessarily deny someone a choice?"

    Parents deny choices all the time. They deny their children the right to a cookie, to a toy, to sit around all day. Denying choices is part of being a parent. As for permanent ones, they deny their childs right to die from various diseases through vaccination. Also, this saves the kid from having to do it as an adult and be either in massive pain or heavily sedated for nearly a week when he has to do it because his GF is jewish and she wont marry an uncircumcised man.
    Absurd, yes, but just as absurd as the idea of undergoing massive pain to regrow a foreskin.

    Oh wow all those "denying things" you listed are so not comparable to circumcision at all.

    DarkPrimus on
  • Katchem_ashKatchem_ash __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2007
    So your all trample the rights of parents to get what you want. Brilliant!

    Katchem_ash on
  • kaz67kaz67 Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Equating circumcision to withholding cookies or taking your kids in for shots is just retarded.

    kaz67 on
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    I think the problem is people are just so conditioned to it happening that they don't see it as a problem.


    If I said "Hey I'm gonna cut my babies pinky toe off because I think it's a good idea." I'm pretty sure I wouldn't get a single person to say "Well thats alright since you are the parent. They have other toes too."
    You can pick more benign ones people wouldn't think of but would react to. "Gonna tatoo a skull on their shoulder at 6 months old" for example.

    electricitylikesme on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Parents deny choices all the time. They deny their children the right to a cookie, to a toy, to sit around all day. Denying choices is part of being a parent.

    Later on they don't need to have tape on their dick in order to buy toys and cookies.
    As for permanent ones, they deny their childs right to die from various diseases through vaccination.

    The kid can go and eat broken glass all they want later.
    Also, this saves the kid from having to do it as an adult and be either in massive pain or heavily sedated for nearly a week when he has to do it because his GF is jewish and she wont marry an uncircumcised man.
    Absurd, yes, but just as absurd as the idea of undergoing massive pain to regrow a foreskin.

    Again: You're saving him from the fate of having a hard time finding a woman who wants to mutilate children. GOOD FOR YOU.

    Incenjucar on
  • kaz67kaz67 Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    So your all trample the rights of parents to get what you want. Brilliant!

    Parents don't have the right to have an unnecessary surgery performed on their kid as far as I am concerned.

    kaz67 on
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    So your all trample the rights of parents to get what you want. Brilliant!
    Children are not your property.

    electricitylikesme on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    No one's explained why I can't take a toe yet.

    I wonder if it's possible to get the appendix removed too. I mean, we're already there.

    Quid on
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Fallout wrote: »
    So what's the big deal other than oh no, inconsequential violation of a newborn's surely inalienable human rights at birth that he will never remember or even remotely give a fuck about unless he is insane?

    I didn't realize that there was such a thing as a "inconsequential" violation of human rights.

    DarkPrimus on
  • ShoggothShoggoth Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    I don't really think there's any reasonable stance beyond "Don't get your kid circumcised if you've got a problem with it."

    The "Nobody should be circumcised as an infant because I think it's wrong!" thing is kind of lame.

    I would say I agree on the principle of religious freedom, but then I remember that I was applauding whatever state it was that gave a minor a blood transfusion even though their Christian Scientist parents were like "no we want our kid to die".

    Man I got my circumcision and my parents are not religious.

    And I'd have to agree with that, too. Whatever's in the kid's best interest, I guess, I just don't feel that circumcision is really a negative thing. I'm sure at some point I've thought, "I guess it would've been nice to have some say in this," but just as quickly followed it up with, "Whatever, I don't really care."
    Which is the issue at hand. The fact it's considered a minor matter by the populace doesn't (a) make it a minor matter necessarily, but (b) doesn't mean we should simply ignore the relevant moral issues, of which in this case are "is it actually ok to unnecessarily deny someone a choice?"

    Parents deny choices all the time. They deny their children the right to a cookie, to a toy, to sit around all day. Denying choices is part of being a parent. As for permanent ones, they deny their childs right to die from various diseases through vaccination. Also, this saves the kid from having to do it as an adult and be either in massive pain or heavily sedated for nearly a week when he has to do it because his GF is jewish and she wont marry an uncircumcised man.
    Absurd, yes, but just as absurd as the idea of undergoing massive pain to regrow a foreskin.

    And sometimes the denial of choices by parents is not a good thing.

    Also a cookie is not a penis, denying choices is part of being a parent, but denying a choice like circumcision is not comparable to a fucking brownie.

    Shoggoth on
    11tu0w1.jpg
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    So your all trample the rights of parents to get what you want. Brilliant!

    Because, hey, fuck kids, they don't deserve rights.

    Incenjucar on
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    I say its vestigal

    You can say that blue is red, but that doesn't make you correct.

    Your personal re-definition is worth jackshit.
    Sorry, you're right. All I've proved is that the foreskin is nigh useless and thus has no effect on evolution. All it is is a useless flap of skin that no one should care about, sorry.

    It is not useless, you fucking idiot. Several people have already told you why it's there.

    I can't walk around with my foreskin pulled back because the skin there is too sensitive to be rubbing against my underwear.

    But by removing the foreskin the penis becomes less sensitized by constant interaction with underwear and diapers, thus removing the problem.
    If, in theory, we started out uncircumcised, then no one would have an overly sensitive penis.
    So, why do we need foreskins again?

    Picardathon on
  • kaz67kaz67 Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    I say its vestigal

    You can say that blue is red, but that doesn't make you correct.

    Your personal re-definition is worth jackshit.
    Sorry, you're right. All I've proved is that the foreskin is nigh useless and thus has no effect on evolution. All it is is a useless flap of skin that no one should care about, sorry.

    It is not useless, you fucking idiot. Several people have already told you why it's there.

    I can't walk around with my foreskin pulled back because the skin there is too sensitive to be rubbing against my underwear.

    But by removing the foreskin the penis becomes less sensitized by constant interaction with underwear and diapers, thus removing the problem.
    If, in theory, we started out uncircumcised, then no one would have an overly sensitive penis.
    So, why do we need foreskins again?

    Again thats not the issue. Are you even reading the thread at this point?

    kaz67 on
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    I say its vestigal

    You can say that blue is red, but that doesn't make you correct.

    Your personal re-definition is worth jackshit.
    Sorry, you're right. All I've proved is that the foreskin is nigh useless and thus has no effect on evolution. All it is is a useless flap of skin that no one should care about, sorry.

    It is not useless, you fucking idiot. Several people have already told you why it's there.

    I can't walk around with my foreskin pulled back because the skin there is too sensitive to be rubbing against my underwear.

    But by removing the foreskin the penis becomes less sensitized by constant interaction with underwear and diapers, thus removing the problem.
    If, in theory, we started out uncircumcised, then no one would have an overly sensitive penis.
    So, why do we need foreskins again?
    Because this is hardly a problem that is not later alterable yet the reverse is not so true?

    electricitylikesme on
  • FalloutFallout GIRL'S DAY WAS PRETTY GOOD WHILE THEY LASTEDRegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Fallout wrote: »
    Never ever in my entire life, even once, has my dong gotten chafed.

    I'm holding back a lot of jokes here, so: Okay, good for you. Like I said, it depends on your lifestyle and your penis.

    Hell, I get the occasional tiny sore, which is really really really not pleasant.

    Now that you mention it, I do recall having a really tiny sore or two. Like, when wearing jeans and the metal zipper rubs up against it or something, which I do not think a foreskin would protect from.

    But then how would I know, I was butchered at birth in a horrible violation of my rights as a free human.

    Fallout on
    xcomsig.png
  • Katchem_ashKatchem_ash __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2007
    kaz67 wrote: »
    So your all trample the rights of parents to get what you want. Brilliant!

    Parents don't have the right to have an unnecessary surgery performed on their kid as far as I am concerned.

    So why not start handing passes to those parents who follow your line while killing the rest? I mean if they aren't following your method thier evil, vile people right?

    Katchem_ash on
  • HozHoz Cool Cat Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    So, why do we need foreskins again?
    Because hand lotion leaves a mess.

    Hoz on
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    kaz67 wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    I say its vestigal

    You can say that blue is red, but that doesn't make you correct.

    Your personal re-definition is worth jackshit.
    Sorry, you're right. All I've proved is that the foreskin is nigh useless and thus has no effect on evolution. All it is is a useless flap of skin that no one should care about, sorry.


    I don't think that is the issue at hand. People are having a part of their anatomy removed for no reason without their permission.

    But they have the parent's permission, and they can't get permission from an infant anyway. Are we supposed to stop vaccinating any infant who can't say "Yes"?

    Picardathon on
  • ShoggothShoggoth Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    God damnit the question should be "what medical grounds are there for removing a foreskin?" Because I have yet to see anything to support that.

    Why do we need a foreskin? Why do we need to have one removed?

    Shoggoth on
    11tu0w1.jpg
  • kaz67kaz67 Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    kaz67 wrote: »
    So your all trample the rights of parents to get what you want. Brilliant!

    Parents don't have the right to have an unnecessary surgery performed on their kid as far as I am concerned.

    So why not start handing passes to those parents who follow your line while killing the rest? I mean if they aren't following your method thier evil, vile people right?

    What? Seriously, what?

    kaz67 on
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    If I said "Hey I'm gonna cut my babies pinky toe off because I think it's a good idea." I'm pretty sure I wouldn't get a single person to say "Well thats alright since you are the parent. They have other toes too."

    You got my vote, although the socks would be rather awkward.

    Picardathon on
  • tyrannustyrannus i am not fat Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Shoggoth wrote: »
    God damnit the question should be "what medical grounds are there for removing a foreskin?" Because I have yet to see anything to support that.

    Why do we need a foreskin? Why do we need to have one removed?

    THANK YOU.

    tyrannus on
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    But they have the parent's permission, and they can't get permission from an infant anyway. Are we supposed to stop vaccinating any infant who can't say "Yes"?
    Because clearly if we don't cut off their foreskin they will die of measles, is that what you're saying?

    electricitylikesme on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Fallout wrote: »
    Now that you mention it, I do recall having a really tiny sore or two. Like, when wearing jeans and the metal zipper rubs up against it or something, which I do not think a foreskin would protect from.

    But then how would I know, I was butchered at birth in a horrible violation of my rights as a free human.

    You would have the sore on your foreskin rather than your glans. Your glans is generally more sensitive.

    It's not, like going to save your life, but it would be nice to have slightly less discomfort.

    Incenjucar on
  • kaz67kaz67 Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    kaz67 wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    I say its vestigal

    You can say that blue is red, but that doesn't make you correct.

    Your personal re-definition is worth jackshit.
    Sorry, you're right. All I've proved is that the foreskin is nigh useless and thus has no effect on evolution. All it is is a useless flap of skin that no one should care about, sorry.


    I don't think that is the issue at hand. People are having a part of their anatomy removed for no reason without their permission.

    But they have the parent's permission, and they can't get permission from an infant anyway. Are we supposed to stop vaccinating any infant who can't say "Yes"?

    There is a huge difference between vaccination and circumcision. One has clear benefits the other does not.

    kaz67 on
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Shoggoth wrote: »
    God damnit the question should be "what medical grounds are there for removing a foreskin?" Because I have yet to see anything to support that.

    Why do we need a foreskin? Why do we need to have one removed?

    Well according to Picardathon, underwear serves the same function as a foreskin, and because of this, we should all have our kid's dicks snipped.

    DarkPrimus on
  • Katchem_ashKatchem_ash __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    So your all trample the rights of parents to get what you want. Brilliant!

    Because, hey, fuck kids, they don't deserve rights.

    Until they learn whats right and wrong and can decide for themselves according to the law, then no, they don't. When kids get evolved into smarter beings from the start and can write a lenghty thesus then we'll start talking.

    Katchem_ash on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    So why not start handing passes to those parents who follow your line while killing the rest? I mean if they aren't following your method thier evil, vile people right?

    I was thinking more selfish and ignorant.

    --

    Ash: So you're saying that all rights should be denied to a person until they understand those rights?

    Incenjucar on
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Fallout wrote: »
    Now that you mention it, I do recall having a really tiny sore or two. Like, when wearing jeans and the metal zipper rubs up against it or something, which I do not think a foreskin would protect from.

    But then how would I know, I was butchered at birth in a horrible violation of my rights as a free human.

    You would have the sore on your foreskin rather than your glans. Your glans is generally more sensitive.

    It's not, like going to save your life, but it would be nice to have slightly less discomfort.
    It really isn't even that. I don't give a shit that people who had it done don't care. I give a shit that some do, that there's no obvious reason to do it, and that it can be in fact be done at any time (but oh hey look, that's comparatively rare). And yet despite this, apparently the better option is "do nothing" because making our world the tiniest bit better for those people is really a complete waste of time.

    Fuck that noise though.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Katchem_ashKatchem_ash __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    So why not start handing passes to those parents who follow your line while killing the rest? I mean if they aren't following your method thier evil, vile people right?

    I was thinking more selfish and ignorant.

    Same could be said for your stance.

    Katchem_ash on
  • FalloutFallout GIRL'S DAY WAS PRETTY GOOD WHILE THEY LASTEDRegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Quid wrote: »
    No one's explained why I can't take a toe yet.

    I wonder if it's possible to get the appendix removed too. I mean, we're already there.

    because toes serve a purpose and missing one is an unattractive deformity

    the foreskin is useless and essentially amounts to a smegma generator and an ugly one at that

    Fallout on
    xcomsig.png
  • kaz67kaz67 Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    So why not start handing passes to those parents who follow your line while killing the rest? I mean if they aren't following your method thier evil, vile people right?

    I was thinking more selfish and ignorant.

    Same could be said for your stance.

    No it really couldn't. If there were tangible benefits to circumcision you would have a point but that really isn't the case.

    kaz67 on
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Fallout wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    No one's explained why I can't take a toe yet.

    I wonder if it's possible to get the appendix removed too. I mean, we're already there.

    because toes serve a purpose and missing one is an unattractive deformity

    the foreskin is useless and essentially amounts to a smegma generator and an ugly one at that
    Once again, how I discovered masturbation - alone - disproves that. IMO of course in this case.

    electricitylikesme on
This discussion has been closed.