Pages

Jump to bottom

40 comments

1 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 14, 2010 12:18:32pm

Some people just have too much free time on their hands.

2 Authoritarian F*ckpuddles  Sun, Nov 14, 2010 2:32:34pm

Chopping bits of kids willies without their permission - how could that possibly be construed as genital mutilation? Crazy moonbats eh!!!///

3 SpaceJesus  Sun, Nov 14, 2010 4:33:32pm

yeah, if this passes, it’s getting struck down in federal court.

4 Pie-onist Overlord  Sun, Nov 14, 2010 6:24:11pm

I just asked my son if he thinks we should have waited until he was 18 years old so that he could give his adult consent to being circumcised, and he said “Are you out of your freaking mind?”

5 Authoritarian F*ckpuddles  Sun, Nov 14, 2010 7:21:56pm

Indeed. The idea of requiring consent for lopping parts of one’s anatomy off is just so crazy. Are people losing their minds?

And those people who complain about loss of sensation after being circumcised should be roundly dismissed and mocked. They’re crazy too.

In fact the whole idea that there might be a good reason for having a foreskin is utterly insane - it’s obviously there for no reason; how it got there in the first place is anyone’s guess. Furthermore there isn’t any possibility whatsoever that there could be any kind of ethical question regarding it’s removal in the absence of either a good medical reason or the consent of it’s owner. Just crazy talk.

Glad we got that straightened out./

6 kreyagg  Sun, Nov 14, 2010 8:04:14pm

re: #5 Jimmah

Your arguments will go unheard Jimmah, you have a combiination of delusional religious beliefs and thoughts like “It was done to me so it’s OK to do it to other people.” working against you.

7 kreyagg  Sun, Nov 14, 2010 8:05:26pm

re: #6 kreyagg

…delusional religious beliefs …

Redundant

8 Shiplord Kirel  Sun, Nov 14, 2010 10:40:18pm

Yes, Jimmah, moonbats. Coercive legislation is not the answer to every controversy, especially when it places the power of the state in direct conflict with two of the world’s major religions.
I would not have allowed my son to be circumcised. Let the little guy decide for himself when he is old enough I thought. If it’s such a great thing or a requirement of his chosen religion, then he can have it done. As it turned out, both my children were girls so the issue did not arise. However, I really don’t feel qualified to tell other parents that I will sic the SF SWAT team on them if they reach a different conclusion.

9 kreyagg  Sun, Nov 14, 2010 11:04:37pm

re: #4 Alouette

I just asked my son if he thinks we should have waited until he was 18 years old so that he could give his adult consent to being circumcised amputate his left hand, and he said “Are you out of your freaking mind?”

Alouette, welcome to your ridiculous argument.

10 Timmeh  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 1:22:46am

I don’t re: #4 Alouette

I just asked my son if he thinks we should have waited until he was 18 years old so that he could give his adult consent to being circumcised, and he said “Are you out of your freaking mind?”

I don’t blame my parents but if I could have my natural foreskin back I would.

11 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 5:23:10am

re: #5 Jimmah

There are good medical reasons for it, and a few against it. Overall, removal of foreskin is very slightly medically beneficial.

I really don’t get the big fuss about this one. The largest output of this debate is to make orthodox Jews and other groups that circumcise feel ostracized. It’s not going to actually cut down on the number of circumcisions performed.

12 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 5:33:47am

re: #11 Obdicut

Er, more than just Orthodox Jews, actually. Basically all Jews, even most of the secular ones.

13 Authoritarian F*ckpuddles  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 6:10:31am

re: #8 Shiplord Kirel

Yes, Jimmah, moonbats. Coercive legislation is not the answer to every controversy, especially when it places the power of the state in direct conflict with two of the world’s major religions.
I would not have allowed my son to be circumcised. Let the little guy decide for himself when he is old enough I thought. If it’s such a great thing or a requirement of his chosen religion, then he can have it done. As it turned out, both my children were girls so the issue did not arise. However, I really don’t feel qualified to tell other parents that I will sic the SF SWAT team on them if they reach a different conclusion.

Firstly, since when is ‘coercive legislation’ a ‘moonbat position’? See every law regarding abortion pushed by wingnuts.What’s your position on female genital mutilation? Should ‘coercive legislation’ be kept out of the picture on that one too?

You were right to have decided to let your kids decide for themselves - other kids should be allowed to decide for themselves too.

14 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 6:13:21am

re: #13 Jimmah

There’s no comparison between female genital mutilation and male circumcision, Jimmah. Whatever you may think about possible loss of sensation due to a circumcision, the glans isn’t touched.

15 Authoritarian F*ckpuddles  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 6:19:52am

re: #11 Obdicut

There are good medical reasons for it, and a few against it. Overall, removal of foreskin is very slightly medically beneficial.

I really don’t get the big fuss about this one. The largest output of this debate is to make orthodox Jews and other groups that circumcise feel ostracized. It’s not going to actually cut down on the number of circumcisions performed.

I don’t believe that there is any good medical reason for carrying out mass circumcision. I find the suggestion that we evolved a piece of flesh through the process of natural selection that is really better removed to be extremely odd and without any convincing biological rationale.

Is it really plausible that homosapiens, unique among the animal kingdom, needs to have a bit of itself removed for it’s own good?

16 Authoritarian F*ckpuddles  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 6:23:22am

re: #14 Obdicut

There’s no comparison between female genital mutilation and male circumcision, Jimmah. Whatever you may think about possible loss of sensation due to a circumcision, the glans isn’t touched.

The comparison arises because both involve unnecessary removal of flesh from one’s genitals, without the permission of the owner.

Female genital mutilation is much worse, but that doesn’t make circumcision unproblematic.

17 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 6:28:08am

re: #15 Jimmah

I don’t believe that there is any good medical reason for carrying out mass circumcision.

There are positive health benefits from doing so.

I find the suggestion that we evolved a piece of flesh through the process of natural selection that is really better removed to be extremely odd and without any convincing biological rationale.

I’m sorry, but that’s really not how evolution works. Many things survive the process of natural selection even though they are evolutionary neutral or slightly evolutionarily negative because there is not a significant selection pressure against them. Wisdom teeth are the rather classic example of this.


Is it really plausible that homosapiens, unique among the animal kingdom, needs to have a bit of itself removed for it’s own good?

Please don’t misrepresent what I’m saying. I didn’t ever say that anyone needs to be circumcised.

18 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 6:32:19am

re: #16 Jimmah

The comparison arises because both involve unnecessary removal of flesh from one’s genitals, without the permission of the owner.

Female genital mutilation is much worse, but that doesn’t make circumcision unproblematic.

Yes, but the difference is extreme. It weakens your argument to attempt to compare the two.

All cosmetic surgery on children is done without their consent.

What do you think about surgical correction of Darwin’s Point, folded over ear rims, squashed nostrils, and other such things?

19 Authoritarian F*ckpuddles  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 6:33:50am

re: #17 Obdicut

There are positive health benefits from doing so.

I’m sorry, but that’s really not how evolution works. Many things survive the process of natural selection even though they are evolutionary neutral or slightly evolutionarily negative because there is not a significant selection pressure against them. Wisdom teeth are the rather classic example of this.

Wisdom teeth, the appendix, tonsils etc - are not removed pro-actively, but only when a problem arises. The foreskin is being given unique treatment here that isn’t applied to any other body part, and there is no justification for it.

20 Authoritarian F*ckpuddles  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 6:35:37am

re: #18 Obdicut

Yes, but the difference is extreme. It weakens your argument to attempt to compare the two.

All cosmetic surgery on children is done without their consent.

What do you think about surgical correction of Darwin’s Point, folded over ear rims, squashed nostrils, and other such things?

Extremely poor comparison - every male child is born with a foreskin. It’s normal, not a deformity.

21 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 6:37:31am

re: #19 Jimmah

Wisdom teeth, the appendix, tonsils etc - are not removed pro-actively, but only when a problem arises.

True. However, I brought it up to correct your false assertion that any body part that has arisen through evolution has been selected for. That is backwards. All that is necessary for a body part to remain is that it hasn’t been strongly selected against.

The foreskin is being given unique treatment here that isn’t applied to any other body part, and there is no justification for it.

That’s untrue. Darwin’s Point is routinely surgically corrected, as are a number of other minor skin-related things. Minor forms of syndactyly, especially of the feet, which have no negative aspect, are routinely operated on in infants.

22 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 6:39:58am

re: #20 Jimmah

Extremely poor comparison - every male child is born with a foreskin. It’s normal, not a deformity.

How is Darwin’s Point a deformity, exactly?

Your basis was that this surgery is done on an infant who cannot consent, and there is no medical basis for it. There is no medical basis for surgery on Darwin’s Point— or on toes with simple syndactly, or folded-ear rims, or any minor cosmetic difference.

I would respect the promoters of this ban a lot more if they were proposing a ban on all cosmetic surgeries on infants. That they are not I think represents a fixation on the genital aspect of this.

23 Authoritarian F*ckpuddles  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 6:40:35am

re: #18 Obdicut

Yes, but the difference is extreme. It weakens your argument to attempt to compare the two.

It would only weaken my argument if my argument was that they are exactly the same, but as I’ve made clear, that is not my argument. When comparing two things we may often find that while one is worse than the other, they are nevertheless examples of the same kind of problem.

24 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 6:44:31am

re: #23 Jimmah

It weakens your argument to the extent that one can say, “But female genital mutilation and male circumcision are very, very different”. Which they are.

The only relationship that they have is that they’re surgical procedures that occur in the genital area. Female genital mutilation has huge negative health consequences to it, is clearly an element of sexual control over women, and has no even possible medical benefits to it.

They have far more about them that are different than similar. If you want a comparison, it would be labioplasty.

25 Authoritarian F*ckpuddles  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 6:44:39am

re: #22 Obdicut

How is Darwin’s Point a deformity, exactly?

Your basis was that this surgery is done on an infant who cannot consent, and there is no medical basis for it. There is no medical basis for surgery on Darwin’s Point— or on toes with simple syndactly, or folded-ear rims, or any minor cosmetic difference.

I would respect the promoters of this ban a lot more if they were proposing a ban on all cosmetic surgeries on infants. That they are not I think represents a fixation on the genital aspect of this.

Darwin’s point is an atavistic deformity, the foreskin is something we all born with. That’s the difference. It’s cosmetic surgery. Also, there is nothing that could be lost by correcting it to compare with the loss of sensation that is associated with male circumcision.

26 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 6:48:30am

re: #25 Jimmah

Darwin’s point is an atavistic deformity, the foreskin is something we all born with.

In what sense is it a deformity?

Also, there is nothing that could be lost by correcting it to compare with the loss of sensation that is associated with male circumcision.

Please don’t present the loss of sensation as though it is established medical fact when it isn’t. There is absolutely no consensus on that and stating it as though there is is dishonest of you.

Some studies have said there is decreased sensitivity. Other studies have found that circumcised men have less sexual dysfunction, other studies have shown increased sensitivity for circumcised men, and yet others have shown a neutral effect.

27 Authoritarian F*ckpuddles  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 6:50:38am

re: #24 Obdicut

It weakens your argument to the extent that one can say, “But female genital mutilation and male circumcision are very, very different”. Which they are.

They are both unnecessary, they both have consequences in terms of sexual sensation and both done without permission of the owner - hence the comparison. As with Timmeh in this thread, some people who have had it done would rather it hadn’t been done.

28 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 6:55:40am

re: #27 Jimmah

they both have consequences in terms of sexual sensation and

You are making an assertion that is not backed up by the medical literature.

As with Timmeh in this thread, some people who have had it done would rather it hadn’t been done.

That is the best possible argument against it.

I don’t know whether or not adult circumcision carries more risks or other negatives than childhood circumcision. If so, that would provide the simple counterargument to that.

But again: banning a specific form of cosmetic surgery for children is odious to me because it singles out cultures that favor that practice, while allowing all other similar surgeries to blithely proceed. I would be a lot more well-inclined towards a ban on all childhood cosmetic (non-corrective) surgeries.

29 Authoritarian F*ckpuddles  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 7:10:30am

re: #26 Obdicut

Re Darwin’s point -

In what sense is it a deformity?

I guess that’s subjective - however it is only present in a fraction of the population, and appears to be vestigial.

en.wikipedia.org

Please don’t present the loss of sensation as though it is established medical fact when it isn’t. There is absolutely no consensus on that and stating it as though there is is dishonest of you.

I don’t think it can be in any doubt that it results in reduction of sexual sensation for many people. That is enough to make this unnecessary procedure highly problematic in cases where it is done without permission.

Generally, I think what is happening here is that people are looking to reverse-engineer a justification for something that started off in superstition and became a societal norm in some parts of the world. Who wants to be told that they aren’t all that they could have been, and that they can never get it back?

I think it’s time people stopped pretending that there isn’t even a debate to be had, or that the issue is ‘moonbat territory’. That’s dishonesty, and it was to address that that I entered this thread.

30 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 7:17:04am

re: #29 Jimmah

I guess that’s subjective - however it is only present in a fraction of the population, and appears to be vestigial.

Things that are vestigal aren’t deformities. That’s rather my point.


I don’t think it can be in any doubt that it results in reduction of sexual sensation for many people.

But there is. Actual science, actual medical studies have cast doubt on that. Refusing to believe that doesn’t change the state of the research at all. There is no medical consensus on this issue, and it is wrong, very wrong, of you to repeatedly pretend that there is.

You are engaging in rationale very, very, very close to those who say that obviously abortion has a negative psychological effect on women and so should be restricted on that basis, at least for those who haven’t reached maturity.


I think it’s time people stopped pretending that there isn’t even a debate to be had, or that the issue is ‘moonbat territory’. That’s dishonesty, and it was to address that that I entered this thread.

There is a debate to be had; it centers around whether or not circumcision does any harm, whether it does any good, whether there is a harm to delaying circumcision until adulthood, and whether we are going to ban all cosmetic procedures for children.

If your only argument is, in the end, ‘there’s no debate’, then I don’t think you’re ever going to actually be able to convince anyone of your position.

31 Authoritarian F*ckpuddles  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 7:17:59am

re: #28 Obdicut


But again: banning a specific form of cosmetic surgery for children is odious to me because it singles out cultures that favor that practice, while allowing all other similar surgeries to blithely proceed. I would be a lot more well-inclined towards a ban on all childhood cosmetic (non-corrective) surgeries.

Again, removing a normal, functional part of the human anatomy that is present in every male child (assuming the absence of abnormality) in the absence of consent is not cosmetic surgery. As for culture, cultures are capable of changing, and modernising.

32 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 7:23:10am

re: #31 Jimmah

Again, removing a normal, functional part of the human anatomy that is present in every male child (assuming the absence of abnormality) in the absence of consent is not cosmetic surgery.

Calling it ‘functional’ is begging the question, which appears to basically be your entire argument at this point.

Absence or presence of consent has no bearing on whether or not something is cosmetic surgery, either.

Do you think those who are born without foreskins should have them surgically attached?

33 Authoritarian F*ckpuddles  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 7:42:18am

re: #30 Obdicut

Things that are vestigal aren’t deformities. That’s rather my point.

That’s a shame for your argument then because because it’s not vestigial. It has a clear and obvious function:

en.wikipedia.org

In male human anatomy, the foreskin is a generally retractable double-layered fold of skin and mucous membrane that covers the glans penis and protects the urinary meatus (pronounced /miːˈeɪtəs/) when the penis is not erect. It is also described as the prepuce, a technically broader term that also includes the clitoral hood in women, to which the foreskin is embryonically homologous.

But there is. Actual science, actual medical studies have cast doubt on that. Refusing to believe that doesn’t change the state of the research at all. There is no medical consensus on this issue, and it is wrong, very wrong, of you to repeatedly pretend that there is.

And other actual medical studies have cast doubt on those conclusions. Many people have reported loss of sexual sensation following circumcision. I think that establishes that many people at least (what, are they lying?) suffer a loss of sensation, even though other people may report no difference, or even an enhanced sensation. That’s enough to make the routine, unnecessary removal of the foreskin problematic. It should be noted that the American Medical Association does not feel that there are sufficient potential health benefits to recommend routine neo-natal circumcision.

If your only argument is, in the end, ‘there’s no debate’, then I don’t think you’re ever going to actually be able to convince anyone of your position.

I’m not the one saying that there is no debate, it’s pretty clear my point all along has been that there is a debate and that this is a serious issue, and not some crazy moonbat freak-out.

34 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 7:53:10am

re: #33 Jimmah

That’s a shame for your argument then because because it’s not vestigial. It has a clear and obvious function:

You are quoting from Wikipedia, but not quoting this part:


The World Health Organization state that there is “debate about the role of the foreskin, with possible functions including keeping the glans moist, protecting the developing penis in utero, or enhancing sexual pleasure due to the presence of nerve receptors”.

Or any other part that flatly states that there is no consensus that the foreskin serves a useful function.

Why? Do you think I’m not capable of reading Wiki or something?

And other actual medical studies have cast doubt on those conclusions.

Which is why it’s dishonest for you to present it as settled, when it’s not.

Many people have reported loss of sexual sensation following circumcision. I think that establishes that many people at least (what, are they lying?) suffer a loss of sensation, even though other people may report no difference, or even an enhanced sensation.

That isn’t how science works. Science works through actual studies on the subject, and there is absolutely no clear consensus from the studies that have been done whether circumcision in general leads to lessened or heightened sexual sensation.

I’m not the one saying that there is no debate, it’s pretty clear my point all along has been that there is a debate and that this is a serious issue, and not some crazy moonbat freak-out.

Ah, forgive me, I misread that statement. I do think there is a debate to be had. The seriousness of the debate— how important this issue is when weighed against others— I disagree about. It’s a rather trivial issue. And, again, that those proposing the ban are singling out male circumcision and not cosmetic surgery on children in general is highly problematic.

35 lawhawk  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 9:57:19am

re: #15 Jimmah

While the SF guy is trying to gather the votes for a petition, the US is funding a circumcision effort in Africa and its proponents figure that with circumcising 1.2 million Zimbabweans, they could prevent 750,000 AIDS cases from developing.

That sounds like persuasive math to me. Heck, even if they overstated the number of AIDS cases prevented by a factor 500,000, it’s a not inconsiderable amount - and that means that a simple and cost effective procedure could save billions annually.

And that doesn’t get into the religious arguments for it (the Jewish bris - which is mandatory as part of G-d’s covenant with the Jewish people).

36 Authoritarian F*ckpuddles  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 9:57:39am

re: #34 Obdicut

You are quoting from Wikipedia, but not quoting this part:

The World Health Organization state that there is “debate about the role of the foreskin, with possible functions including keeping the glans moist, protecting the developing penis in utero, or enhancing sexual pleasure due to the presence of nerve receptors”.

Or any other part that flatly states that there is no consensus that the foreskin serves a useful function.

Why? Do you think I’m not capable of reading Wiki or something?

It’s irrelevant - that’s why I didn’t include it. No-one is saying that the foreskin has no function per se. No-one is saying that the foreskin is not “a generally retractable double-layered fold of skin and mucous membrane that covers the glans penis and protects the urinary meatus (pronounced /miːˈeɪtəs/) when the penis is not erect.” It is not a remnant of some ancestor which no longer serves a function. If you still think the foreskin is vestigial, what please tell me - what did it used to be/do that is different from what it does in humans today?

Which is why it’s dishonest for you to present it as settled, when it’s not.

It’s the people who are trying to pass this off as an example of out and out moonbattery that would have us believe that the science is settled. It’s dishonest of you to be misrepresenting my input here, especially after I acknowledged that reports of the effect of circumcision vary.

That isn’t how science works. Science works through actual studies on the subject, and there is absolutely no clear consensus from the studies that have been done whether circumcision in general leads to lessened or heightened sexual sensation.

When we are talking about the quality of subjective experience, reports of that subjective experience are highly relevant. Unless we have good reason to believe that subjects are lying, we have to take their experience seriously. This is what doctors have in mind when they ask questions like “Does it hurt?”.

Ah, forgive me, I misread that statement. I do think there is a debate to be had. The seriousness of the debate— how important this issue is when weighed against others— I disagree about. It’s a rather trivial issue. And, again, that those proposing the ban are singling out male circumcision and not cosmetic surgery on children in general is highly problematic.

I think you’ve been doing quite a bit of misreading today.

And get back to me when you find people who are unhappy about having their Darwin’s Point removed, and then I’ll consider extending the argument to cover those cases too.

37 Authoritarian F*ckpuddles  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 10:06:21am

re: #35 lawhawk

While the SF guy is trying to gather the votes for a petition, the US is funding a circumcision effort in Africa and its proponents figure that with circumcising 1.2 million Zimbabweans, they could prevent 750,000 AIDS cases from developing.

That sounds like persuasive math to me. Heck, even if they overstated the number of AIDS cases prevented by a factor 500,000, it’s a not inconsiderable amount - and that means that a simple and cost effective procedure could save billions annually.

And that doesn’t get into the religious arguments for it (the Jewish bris - which is mandatory as part of G-d’s covenant with the Jewish people).

I wouldn’t argue that there can be no circumstances in which circumcision might not be a good idea. If that research proves conclusive that would indeed be a persuasive argument for mandating it in circumstances where the benefits would outweigh the ethical considerations I have been outlining.

I do not however, find the other arguments presented here previously in this thread to be remotely convincing.

38 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 11:07:54am

re: #36 Jimmah

When we are talking about the quality of subjective experience, reports of that subjective experience are highly relevant.

Yes, they are. And those subjective experiences can still be collected in a scientific fashion, and the scientific examinations of that data has not in any way proved that circumcision in general lessens sensitivity.

It’s irrelevant - that’s why I didn’t include it. No-one is saying that the foreskin has no function per se.

Sure they are. There are plenty of people saying that the foreskin has, actually, a negative overall aspect. That’s worse than not having a function.

If you still think the foreskin is vestigial, what please tell me - what did it used to be/do that is different from what it does in humans today?


This is the kind of evolutionary speculation which is profoundly useless, and is driven by the ‘features were evolved to do something’ line of thought that you used, in error, earlier. Furthermore, I never called the foreskin vestigal, so I’m not even sure why you’re asking me this question.

It’s the people who are trying to pass this off as an example of out and out moonbattery that would have us believe that the science is settled. It’s dishonest of you to be misrepresenting my input here, especially after I acknowledged that reports of the effect of circumcision vary.

I’m not dishonestly representing your input, and I am severely disappointed that you are attempting to misrepresent the state of the science. I am glad that you now have retreated to the argument that it’s a subjective area, but that does not actually mean that your claim that it lessens sensation is an honest one.

And get back to me when you find people who are unhappy about having their Darwin’s Point removed, and then I’ll consider extending the argument to cover those cases too.

That’s my point; the rest of your argument simply doesn’t matter. The only actual point of argument that has validity is that it’s an operation that can be performed later in life and some people may regret— for whatever reason— that it was done to them. All the rest, the evolutionary argument and the mistaken representation of the science, doesn’t matter.

There probably are people who wish there Darwin’s Point hadn’t been removed; certainly anyone who’s into looking like an elf would. I’m not sure why you dismiss it as inconsequential.


I think you’ve been doing quite a bit of misreading today.

Sadly, I don’t think I have. It’s disappointed me.

39 Authoritarian F*ckpuddles  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 11:45:53am

re: #38 Obdicut

Yes, they are. And those subjective experiences can still be collected in a scientific fashion, and the scientific examinations of that data has not in any way proved that circumcision in general lessens sensitivity.

What has been established is that it reduces sexual sensation in many, though not all people, which is enough to make routine neo-natal circumcision problematic. You appear to be dismissing the first person reports of the subjective experience of some people in favour of others, in order to make the case for such routine circumcision, as though there is a debate as to whether such subjects are being honest. This seems rather desperate on your part.

The uncertainty is over how many people are affected in this way, not whether those who are are telling the truth or not. I hope this will be the end of your bullshit about my misrepresenting science.


This is the kind of evolutionary speculation which is profoundly useless, and is driven by the ‘features were evolved to do something’ line of thought that you used, in error, earlier. Furthermore, I never called the foreskin vestigal, so I’m not even sure why you’re asking me this question.

Just addressing your claim that the foreskin is not functional. It clearly is.

I’m not dishonestly representing your input, and I am severely disappointed that you are attempting to misrepresent the state of the science. I am glad that you now have retreated to the argument that it’s a subjective area, but that does not actually mean that your claim that it lessens sensation is an honest one.

You keep claiming I am misrepresenting science, which I am not.


There probably are people who wish there Darwin’s Point hadn’t been removed; certainly anyone who’s into looking like an elf would. I’m not sure why you dismiss it as inconsequential.

I can’t find any. Also get back to me when you discover what functions/sensation they claim to have lost as a result of the procedure.

Like I said, if it turns out there is a real issue over this procedure I will be happy to include it with circumcision as problematic.

Sadly, I don’t think I have. It’s disappointed me.

Likewise.

40 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Mon, Nov 15, 2010 11:58:46am

re: #39 Jimmah

What has been established is that it reduces sexual sensation in many, though not all people, which is enough to make routine neo-natal circumcision problematic.

No. This hasn’t been established either.

You appear to be dismissing the first person reports of the subjective experience of some people in favour of others, in order to make the case for such routine circumcision, as though there is a debate as to whether such subjects are being honest.

I’m not attempting to make a case for routine circumcision. And there certainly is a debate about whether people have actually experienced a diminishment of sensation. That’s the nature of subjective reporting. That’s why a lot of the actual medical testing doesn’t involve subjective reporting, but tests of sensation.

This seems rather desperate on your part.

Indeed. I’m at my wits end here.


The uncertainty is over how many people are affected in this way, not whether those who are are telling the truth or not. I hope this will be the end of your bullshit about my misrepresenting science.

It’s not in the least bullshit, and I am still very disappointed that you’ve misrepresented the medical science on this subject.

When you said, comparing female genital mutilation to male circumcision:

They are both unnecessary, they both have consequences in terms of sexual sensation and both done without permission of the owner - hence the comparison.

You misrepresented science. There is definitely on consequence that’s always or usually found in male circumcision, there may no consequence that’s found except in rare cases. Right now, there is no medical consensus about how often sexual sensation is diminished in male circumcision. There simply isn’t, no matter how much you may wish there was.


Just addressing your claim that the foreskin is not functional. It clearly is.

Again, this is a misrepresentation of the state of medical science, or simply a misuse of the word ‘functional’. There is no consensus that having a foreskin is preferable to not having one, in terms of health; it may be less functional than not having one.


You keep claiming I am misrepresenting science, which I am not.

I’m sorry, I do believe that you don’t think you are, but you are. It may be simply through inattention, but you really, really are.

There is no consensus that having a foreskin or not having one is a preferable state. There is a slight lean, because of AIDs research, into the direction that not having one is healthier.


I can’t find any. Also get back to me when you discover what functions/sensation they claim to have lost as a result of the procedure.

Why are functions and sensations suddenly the barrier? And why, especially when the science hasn’t actually shown that removal of the foreskin negatively impacts sensation?

If function and sensation is the only problem, could parents snip away at their children as they wished, so long as it didn’t affect a function or sensation?

Like I said, if it turns out there is a real issue over this procedure I will be happy to include it with circumcision as problematic.

But you haven’t shown there is a real issue with circumcision. There is no medical consensus that there is an issue with circumcision. It doesn’t matter how often you point to anecdotal evidence, it won’t turn into real evidence.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Detroit Local Powers First EV Charging Road in North America The road, about a mile from Local 58's hall, uses rubber-coated copper inductive-charging coils buried under the asphalt that transfer power to a receiver pad attached to a car's underbelly, much like how a phone can be charged wirelessly. ...
Backwoods Sleuth
3 days ago
Views: 187 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 4