I'd like for people to acknowledge the only real reason circumcision is socially acceptable is the pseudo-religious nature of the procedure. If people wanted ot go lopping other parts of their babies off we'd take pretty strong exception ot it.
If you can somehow find an equally worthless part of a baby, I doubt it. Oh, and, you know... All the health reasons Imbalance listed. But thanks for trying!
So you'd be fine with chopping off your son's earlobes, then? I mean, fuck if those are good for anything.
Protip: There's still easily enough to get up and around the head
Protip: my argument was regarding the sensitivity (or lack of there-of) with circumcision. It doesn't matter how passive aggressive you get about it, unless you feel like actually countering my point then we're done.
I'd like for people to acknowledge the only real reason circumcision is socially acceptable is the pseudo-religious nature of the procedure. If people wanted ot go lopping other parts of their babies off we'd take pretty strong exception ot it.
If you can somehow find an equally worthless part of a baby, I doubt it. Oh, and, you know... All the health reasons Imbalance listed. But thanks for trying!
So you'd be fine with chopping off your son's earlobes, then? I mean, fuck if those are good for anything.
God cleaning earlobes is such a pain, it would be so much more hygienic if we cut them off.
Not intending to start a huge debate here, but circumcision is obviously significantly more invasive than ear piercing. Ear piercing is a simple puncture of a largely useless piece of flesh, which will heal on its own given time. You can't really compare that to the complete excision of several inches of erogenous skin, complete with nerve endings which will never grow back.
It's almost as if the impetus for this thread wasn't a study that completely debunked the idea that circumcision has any effect on sensitivity. Yes, you're getting rid of nerve endings. So? Can you explain why that, in and of itself, is relevant? When you're having sex, are you thinking to yourself, "Yes, this feels exactly the same as it would otherwise, but there are nerve endings that are totally being shafted here"? If people can't tell the difference either way, why should we care about that particular argument?
The reasons against circumcision remain:
- There's a tiny chance of something going wrong, and
- The person loses the ability to determine for himself what his wang looks like.
If you want to argue against it on those grounds, fine. (Though, as I said, neither of those seem significant enough to me to get really fired up about.) But stop pretending that the OH NOES LOSS OF SENSATION issue is still lurking about, because it presumably isn't.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
How familiar are you, exactly, with the mechanics of sex?
uh
pretty damn familiar
less so with an unsightly bit of extra skin around my dong, so you'll have to forgive me if my poor mutilated ass doesn't understand the divine pleasures i've been denied
So anyone who's actually had it done late enough in adulthood to remember sex under both anatomical circumstances?
It should also be noted that a study published in BJU Int a month before this one concluded that circumcision does reduce sensitivity to fine touch.
Here's its abstract.
So...two studies released within a month of each other with opposing conclusions. Both studies note that more research is needed, but until then...stalemate?
It should also be noted that a study published in BJU Int a month before this one concluded that circumcision does reduce sensitivity to fine touch.
Here's its abstract.
So...two studies released within a month of each other with opposing conclusions. Both studies note that more research is needed, but until then...stalemate?
A kind of an unwritten rule of thumb in medical science seems to be that if you have two methodologically equivalent studies with conflicting results, you believe the one with a larger sample size. The study in the BJU paper tested a total of 200 men. The study mentioned in the OP had 40.
All these "facts" about reduced risk of whatever (almost all of which seem to be called into question in that very same wikipedia article) are just after-the-fact justifications for something that is really silly outside of a religious/cultural context.
Some scientific studies are justifying circumcision, yes. I'm not sure why them supporting circumcision makes the results imaginary.
Virtually none of the recent studies are being 'called into question.' They're just saying that they cannot definitively state that circumcision will protect against these diseases, although the statistics show that circumcised men have a lower incident rate. This is normal for studies of this nature.
Of course, there are better ways to protect against virtually all of those diseases than circumcision.
It should also be noted that a study published in BJU Int a month before this one concluded that circumcision does reduce sensitivity to fine touch.
Here's its abstract.
So...two studies released within a month of each other with opposing conclusions. Both studies note that more research is needed, but until then...stalemate?
A kind of an unwritten rule of thumb in medical science seems to be that if you have two methodologically equivalent studies with conflicting results, you believe the one with a larger sample size. The study in the BJU paper tested a total of 200 men. The study mentioned in the OP had 40.
The studies seem to be completely different methodologically, and also seem to have been aimed at measuring different things - at least based on the abstracts. If anyone has access and could tell us how the studies actually worked and how and what the different studies measured, that would be great.
Reading through this thread was like a flashback to the locker room in middle school. It's amazing how many people whose justification of circumcision (with the exception of ElJeffe and a few others) holds just about as much intellectual merit as 8th graders saying "foreskins are gross, everyone does it so it's okay, and olol SMEGMA"
I don't think many people defending circumcision are actually knowledgeable about the subject. They mostly just seem to be justifying their penis.
The studies seem to be completely different methodologically, and also seem to have been aimed at measuring different things - at least based on the abstracts. If anyone has access and could tell us how the studies actually worked and how and what the different studies measured, that would be great.
I don't have access to the first journal. J Sex Med must either be a pretty new publication, or a really obscure one, because otherwise I would have (I'm on a hospital network with active subscriptions to almost everything).
The BJU study compared thresholds of pressure needed to apply to the penis before the subject feels anything. So yeah, regardless of their sample size I think it's debatable whether that result has any practical relevance. Maybe the authors discuss that, but I can't be bothered to read the entire article because it feels too much like work.
Edit: also I was a bit careless when having a look at the paper. They "aimed" for 200 test subjects. What they actually managed to recruit was 163.
I don't think its going to change my stance that cutting random bits of infants and/or children without a clear medical need to do so is a Bad Thing.
What about a religious family that is following a practice that has existed for thousands of years? Still bad? Or more along the lines of, 'thats bad, but not so bad that im in a huge uproar about it?'
Im not trying to start an argument here, just curious of your opinion.
You expect me to have more respect for topiarising your children because you've got a really old book that says to?
Pruning people is bad. Always. If they grow up and wish to prune themselves, that's another story.
Okay, I can understand what you mean.
I dont think my family did it for religious practices, they may have. They are the Christians that claim the title, go to church twice a year, and cuss out everyone on the highway.
I'm glad it was done, but yeah, if I ended up being non-Christian, I'd probably be super pissed that they snipped off part of my tally whacker.
Get ready to be super pissed. Christians dont cut off the foreskin.
The BJU study compared thresholds of pressure needed to apply to the penis before the subject feels anything.
From what I've read of the first study, it does this, as well as comparing how much pressure before it becomes painful. Unfortunately the JoSM study doesn't seem to give as much data as the BJU one and seemed to focus on general areas on the penis (glans, shaft), instead of varying locations as the BJU one did. Also, the BJU one gathered sensitivity data on parts not present after circumcision.
So yeah, regardless of their sample size I think it's debatable whether that result has any practical relevance.
I only brought up the BJU study because it look like it and the JoSM study did research on touch thresholds. I dunno, I wish the JoSM had more data to use for comparison.
I really fail to see circumcision as anything more than a (marginally) quantitatively more invasive procedure than ear-piercing. At least circumcision has an ostensible hygienic justification; piercing your ears just makes you look prettier. Yeah, there's a minute chance that you can screw something up when performing a circumcision, but there's a minute chance you can fuck up and tear a gash in someone's ear when piercing them.
Now, if you find piercing the ears of little girls to be a horrific and barbaric practice, then I guess you can't be accused of inconsistency. For me, I could barely muster up any concern when it was claimed that circumcision reduced sensitivity. Now that it doesn't even do that, I really don't care either way.
Not intending to start a huge debate here, but circumcision is obviously significantly more invasive than ear piercing. Ear piercing is a simple puncture of a largely useless piece of flesh, which will heal on its own given time. You can't really compare that to the complete excision of several inches of erogenous skin, complete with nerve endings which will never grow back.
'Course they are similar in that no reasonable person would consider doing it to a child if it weren't socially acceptable.
It isn't "several inches", that's an obvious exaggeration. Also, the idea that circumcision reduces the sensation because it removes nerve endings is retarded. The excess is all loose, floppy skin that likely won't be getting much action anyways unless whichever cunt you're fucking is loose enough to allow it inside anyways.
O_o
How familiar are you, exactly, with the mechanics of sex?
uh
pretty damn familiar
less so with an unsightly bit of extra skin around my dong, so you'll have to forgive me if my poor mutilated ass doesn't understand the divine pleasures i've been denied
Really when your dick is erect and you are uncircumcised, you can't really tell the difference all that much from a circumcised dick.
"unsightly" is a load of bullshit.
If anything, that extra skin sort of acts as a natural lubricant because it slides over your dick. Kinda like the way your skin slides across your flesh anywhere else on your body, only moreso.
- There's a tiny chance of something going wrong, and
- The person loses the ability to determine for himself what his wang looks like.
If you want to argue against it on those grounds, fine. (Though, as I said, neither of those seem significant enough to me to get really fired up about.) But stop pretending that the OH NOES LOSS OF SENSATION issue is still lurking about, because it presumably isn't.
ElJeffe, the big problem with circumcision in America these days is that it is done by default in hospitals these days. Parents have to ask for their kids NOT to be cut. Don't you think it should be the other way around?
Also, regarding a few other posts on this page: I know a couple people who had to have their foreskins removed as an adult for medical reasons, and yes, there is a reduction in sensitivity for them.
I don't think many people defending circumcision are actually knowledgeable about the subject. They mostly just seem to be justifying their penis.
I'm not sure how many of the people screaming mutilation are knowledgeable either. I've said it before: I wouldn't get one done--small risk, no need. However, I'm circumcised, my fuckstick still works, and I feel no need to 'justify my penis,' because damn, it feels pretty just to me. I'd even go so far as to call it righteous.
ElJeffe, the big problem with circumcision in America these days is that it is done by default in hospitals these days. Parents have to ask for their kids NOT to be cut. Don't you think it should be the other way around?
Ideally? Sure. If it were up to me, I probably wouldn't have my son circumsized, because meh, whatever. My wife wants it done, and I haven't really put up any resistence because - again - meh, whatever.
If I was forced to take a side, I'd probably go with the not-crowd. But I also wouldn't try to ban the practice, or anything, because it's really such an unimportant thing. At the end of the day, the practical issue is roughly 99% cosmetic difference.
Also, regarding a few other posts on this page: I know a couple people who had to have their foreskins removed as an adult for medical reasons, and yes, there is a reduction in sensitivity for them.
Anecdotes in this situation are pretty much useless. If you compare sex immediately before circumcision to sex immediately after for an adult, yeah, I'd wager there's a reduction in sensitivity. You're replacing a big chunk of wang with a big chunk of scar tissue, so of course there's going to be a difference. The number of scar tissue cells in a baby wang is tiny in comparison, and would comprise a much smaller fraction of total cock area on an adult. There are so many relevant factors that I can see people seeing either more sensitivity, less sensitivity, or no change, depending on the specific circumstances. Which is why I'd rather see studies.
If you want an anecdote, though, here's one: I'm circumsized. Sex, for me, is pretty rad. Can we get a "Whoaaaaa, circumcision!"?
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I'm not sure how many of the people screaming mutilation are knowledgeable either. I've said it before: I wouldn't get one done--small risk, no need. However, I'm circumcised, my fuckstick still works, and I feel no need to 'justify my penis,' because damn, it feels pretty just to me. I'd even go so far as to call it righteous.
Snipped wangs of the world, unite!
...
Umm... on second thought...
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
I'm not sure how many of the people screaming mutilation are knowledgeable either. I've said it before: I wouldn't get one done--small risk, no need. However, I'm circumcised, my fuckstick still works, and I feel no need to 'justify my penis,' because damn, it feels pretty just to me. I'd even go so far as to call it righteous.
I'm not sure how many of the people screaming mutilation are knowledgeable either. I've said it before: I wouldn't get one done--small risk, no need. However, I'm circumcised, my fuckstick still works, and I feel no need to 'justify my penis,' because damn, it feels pretty just to me. I'd even go so far as to call it righteous.
I'm with MrMister on this (circumcised too). If i ever have kids i'll pass on the procedure but you peeps screaming mutilation need to chill out. Even if it is (to some degree) I don't feel like that and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop saying my wang has been desecrated due to lack of foreskin.
I'm trying to figure out if you have any actual background to your opinion other than "oh well geeze everybody is doing it who cares."
Everybody is doing it is valid enough. I don't understand why everyone seems to think that culture doesn't count.
"Everybody is doing it" is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition to justify a medical procedure.
Culture does matter - I won't pretend that it's irrelevant. There's a difference between circumcision, which is widely socially accepted, and tattooing, which isn't. Culture can factor into the discussion but, by itself, it cannot be the only justification.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
This, however, is not an exceedingly stupid thing. Sorry, guys, you don't get to pretend you're not part of a culture.
We've already shown it has no physical benefit unless you are a filthy hobo, but that it creates serious risks.
And being part of the culture doesn't mean I have to be the asshole majority part of it.
So don't circumcise your kids. And don't try to stop people who do want their kids circumcised, because your decision to exclude yourself should end at yourself.
This, however, is not an exceedingly stupid thing. Sorry, guys, you don't get to pretend you're not part of a culture.
So don't circumcise your kids. And don't try to stop people who do want their kids circumcised, because your decision to exclude yourself should end at yourself.
Sorry, my culture doesn't allow me to accept the perpetuation of bad parenting.
Incenjucar on
0
INeedNoSaltwith blood on my teethRegistered Userregular
This, however, is not an exceedingly stupid thing. Sorry, guys, you don't get to pretend you're not part of a culture.
So don't circumcise your kids. And don't try to stop people who do want their kids circumcised, because your decision to exclude yourself should end at yourself.
Sorry, my culture doesn't allow me to accept the perpetuation of bad parenting.
As a child whose parents went ahead with the circumcision thing, I'm gonna have to suggest that you're entirely off base with that assumption.
this kind of reasoning is about on par with wanting to ban playgrounds made of metal because there's a tiny bit of risk with no real benefit.
Posts
Protip: There's still easily enough to get up and around the head
If you're going to try to slide your skin from over your glans all the way down to the base... Fuck yeah I want to see that.
So you'd be fine with chopping off your son's earlobes, then? I mean, fuck if those are good for anything.
Also, I've heard women like it better.
It's almost as if the impetus for this thread wasn't a study that completely debunked the idea that circumcision has any effect on sensitivity. Yes, you're getting rid of nerve endings. So? Can you explain why that, in and of itself, is relevant? When you're having sex, are you thinking to yourself, "Yes, this feels exactly the same as it would otherwise, but there are nerve endings that are totally being shafted here"? If people can't tell the difference either way, why should we care about that particular argument?
The reasons against circumcision remain:
- There's a tiny chance of something going wrong, and
- The person loses the ability to determine for himself what his wang looks like.
If you want to argue against it on those grounds, fine. (Though, as I said, neither of those seem significant enough to me to get really fired up about.) But stop pretending that the OH NOES LOSS OF SENSATION issue is still lurking about, because it presumably isn't.
So anyone who's actually had it done late enough in adulthood to remember sex under both anatomical circumstances?
Here's its abstract.
So...two studies released within a month of each other with opposing conclusions. Both studies note that more research is needed, but until then...stalemate?
A kind of an unwritten rule of thumb in medical science seems to be that if you have two methodologically equivalent studies with conflicting results, you believe the one with a larger sample size. The study in the BJU paper tested a total of 200 men. The study mentioned in the OP had 40.
Virtually none of the recent studies are being 'called into question.' They're just saying that they cannot definitively state that circumcision will protect against these diseases, although the statistics show that circumcised men have a lower incident rate. This is normal for studies of this nature.
Of course, there are better ways to protect against virtually all of those diseases than circumcision.
The studies seem to be completely different methodologically, and also seem to have been aimed at measuring different things - at least based on the abstracts. If anyone has access and could tell us how the studies actually worked and how and what the different studies measured, that would be great.
Someone who is circumcised as an adult is very likely to have done it for a medical reason. You'd probably notice a difference then.
And it wouldn't make a difference anyway unless you had the opposite to compare to.
Or maybe a placebo case...
Hrmm....
Ew.
I don't think many people defending circumcision are actually knowledgeable about the subject. They mostly just seem to be justifying their penis.
I don't have access to the first journal. J Sex Med must either be a pretty new publication, or a really obscure one, because otherwise I would have (I'm on a hospital network with active subscriptions to almost everything).
The BJU study compared thresholds of pressure needed to apply to the penis before the subject feels anything. So yeah, regardless of their sample size I think it's debatable whether that result has any practical relevance. Maybe the authors discuss that, but I can't be bothered to read the entire article because it feels too much like work.
Edit: also I was a bit careless when having a look at the paper. They "aimed" for 200 test subjects. What they actually managed to recruit was 163.
Get ready to be super pissed. Christians dont cut off the foreskin.
I think you're confusing yourself with a jew.
I only brought up the BJU study because it look like it and the JoSM study did research on touch thresholds. I dunno, I wish the JoSM had more data to use for comparison.
I am not circumcised. I have no problems. As long as you pull the skin back when you are young and keep it clean you will not have any problems.
Heck, it's even fun to do!. Seal it with your fingers and pee a bit. Now shake and release.
FUN!
You really have no idea what foreskin is.
"unsightly" is a load of bullshit.
If anything, that extra skin sort of acts as a natural lubricant because it slides over your dick. Kinda like the way your skin slides across your flesh anywhere else on your body, only moreso.
ElJeffe, the big problem with circumcision in America these days is that it is done by default in hospitals these days. Parents have to ask for their kids NOT to be cut. Don't you think it should be the other way around?
Also, regarding a few other posts on this page: I know a couple people who had to have their foreskins removed as an adult for medical reasons, and yes, there is a reduction in sensitivity for them.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I'm not sure how many of the people screaming mutilation are knowledgeable either. I've said it before: I wouldn't get one done--small risk, no need. However, I'm circumcised, my fuckstick still works, and I feel no need to 'justify my penis,' because damn, it feels pretty just to me. I'd even go so far as to call it righteous.
Ideally? Sure. If it were up to me, I probably wouldn't have my son circumsized, because meh, whatever. My wife wants it done, and I haven't really put up any resistence because - again - meh, whatever.
If I was forced to take a side, I'd probably go with the not-crowd. But I also wouldn't try to ban the practice, or anything, because it's really such an unimportant thing. At the end of the day, the practical issue is roughly 99% cosmetic difference.
Anecdotes in this situation are pretty much useless. If you compare sex immediately before circumcision to sex immediately after for an adult, yeah, I'd wager there's a reduction in sensitivity. You're replacing a big chunk of wang with a big chunk of scar tissue, so of course there's going to be a difference. The number of scar tissue cells in a baby wang is tiny in comparison, and would comprise a much smaller fraction of total cock area on an adult. There are so many relevant factors that I can see people seeing either more sensitivity, less sensitivity, or no change, depending on the specific circumstances. Which is why I'd rather see studies.
If you want an anecdote, though, here's one: I'm circumsized. Sex, for me, is pretty rad. Can we get a "Whoaaaaa, circumcision!"?
Snipped wangs of the world, unite!
...
Umm... on second thought...
When're you gonna be at PAX, baby? Need a little loving from the left?
Do... do we combine to form a giant robot?
Robocock?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Tattoos?
Scarification?
Clipping?
Holes in things?
Neck rings?
I'm trying to figure out if you have any actual background to your opinion other than "oh well geeze everybody is doing it who cares."
Cut that shit off, yo!
Circumcision. Serious business that will affect every day of your life forever in a big way.
Okay, enough joking.
Everybody is doing it is valid enough. I don't understand why everyone seems to think that culture doesn't count.
Because culture can do some excedingly stupid things and isn't a valid reason to comprise our morals?
This, however, is not an exceedingly stupid thing. Sorry, guys, you don't get to pretend you're not part of a culture.
"Everybody is doing it" is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition to justify a medical procedure.
Culture does matter - I won't pretend that it's irrelevant. There's a difference between circumcision, which is widely socially accepted, and tattooing, which isn't. Culture can factor into the discussion but, by itself, it cannot be the only justification.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
We've already shown it has no physical benefit unless you are a filthy hobo, but that it creates serious risks.
And being part of the culture doesn't mean I have to be the asshole majority part of it.
So don't circumcise your kids. And don't try to stop people who do want their kids circumcised, because your decision to exclude yourself should end at yourself.
Sorry, my culture doesn't allow me to accept the perpetuation of bad parenting.
As a child whose parents went ahead with the circumcision thing, I'm gonna have to suggest that you're entirely off base with that assumption.
this kind of reasoning is about on par with wanting to ban playgrounds made of metal because there's a tiny bit of risk with no real benefit.