Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Big C: Circumcision
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 91 of 104 (49237)
08-07-2003 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by crashfrog
08-07-2003 5:42 PM


crashfrog responds to me:
quote:
quote:
The general consensus from those who have had their foreskins removed later in life and can tell the difference is that having a foreskin is better.
Then why do people opt for the procedure?
The most common are medical. Phimosis causes painful erections and circumcision is indicated to correct the condition.
Following that are those that are converting and get circumcised for religious reasons.
There are very few people who get circumcised on a lark.
quote:
For that matter, how many people in your sample can't tell the difference?
According to the studies I've seen, most can tell a difference and most say it's better with a foreskin.
quote:
And why do men without foreskins have more sex, and report greater satisfaction with their sex lives?
They don't. It's the other way around.
quote:
As has been mentioned, America has the greatest incidence of circumcision in men. Americans have the most sex, on average, of any nation on Earth. Now, I'm not trying to argue causality, but I find that may be indicative of something.
And you're not trying to argue causality.
Do you really think we're that dumb?
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by crashfrog, posted 08-07-2003 5:42 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by crashfrog, posted 08-07-2003 6:18 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 92 of 104 (49250)
08-07-2003 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Rrhain
08-07-2003 5:46 PM


Well, in trying to find the pro-circumcision studies I once had, I've more or less found a vast weight of data suggesting that I'm wrong about it.
So, I'll let my sons decide for themselves, I guess. No circumcisions for them unless they tell me they want them.
But neither am I going to get upset because I was myself circumcised. Of all the things my parents may have done to me, that had probably the least effect on my life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Rrhain, posted 08-07-2003 5:46 PM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Zealot, posted 09-09-2003 12:07 PM crashfrog has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 93 of 104 (49269)
08-07-2003 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by crashfrog
08-07-2003 4:19 PM


quote:
Well, I think you find that when it's already happened to you, and you have no memory of it, and it hasn't caused any perceptible loss of function, you don't really mind. At least that's my experience and the vast experience of circumcised men.
How would I know if there was any loss of function (or sensation) if didn't ever get the chance to experience my own body pre-snipping?
Basically, I just told you I would mind, but somehow you seem to think that the opposite is actually how I really feel.
What part of, "I would very much mind!" don't you understand?
quote:
Tell me, crashfrog, what do you think of footbinding?
quote:
Sounds painfully and permanently debilitating. So I guess I'm opposed. Why, what did you think I would say?
I doubt that many people have died as a result of footbinding; probably much fewer than circumcision.
I'll admit that i's not that great of an analogy, though.
I am more interested in your thoughts about the parents of an infant getting his or her eyelids "fixed" to make them appear less "asian" and more "white". Do you think that's OK?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by crashfrog, posted 08-07-2003 4:19 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by crashfrog, posted 08-08-2003 12:29 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 94 of 104 (49272)
08-07-2003 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by crashfrog
08-07-2003 5:42 PM


quote:
Americans have the most sex, on average, of any nation on Earth.
Are you sure about that?
I couldn't find any statistics to confirm this assertion when I searched the web, but mabe you have a link?
The last time heard anything about this kind of thing, it seems most married Americans would much rather watch TV than have sex.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by crashfrog, posted 08-07-2003 5:42 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 95 of 104 (49301)
08-08-2003 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by nator
08-07-2003 7:19 PM


Basically, I just told you I would mind, but somehow you seem to think that the opposite is actually how I really feel.
What part of, "I would very much mind!" don't you understand?
Sorry, I guess I meant "you" in the general sense of "a person", not you specifically. Plenty of men don't mind their circumcisions. Ergo it's probably the case for plenty of people that if they don't have something, and never did, they don't miss it.
It wasn't my intent to dictate to you what you would or would not mind. But I see that it came off that way. Sorry.
I am more interested in your thoughts about the parents of an infant getting his or her eyelids "fixed" to make them appear less "asian" and more "white". Do you think that's OK?
I'd be more concerned about what kind of culture would cause two people to feel that that was something they needed to have done to their child. With no knowledge of what culture they're in I can't really say whether it's ok or not. But in the culture I'm in, no, that's not ok, it's kind of racist, or even perverse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by nator, posted 08-07-2003 7:19 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by nator, posted 08-08-2003 7:58 PM crashfrog has replied

  
greyline
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 104 (49322)
08-08-2003 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by crashfrog
08-07-2003 4:25 PM


quote:
Upon doing exactly that, I discovered that my wife at least felt that a token snip of the labia, performed at birth and entailing no alteration of function later in life, was not that big a deal.
I'm assuming neither of you has children and that your wife isn't particularly maternal, because it's the only way I can make sense of this statement.
Please think about what you're saying here. You are so determined to justify your own circumcision that you have convinced yourself that cutting into a baby girl's genitals is fine, too.
My post is notwithstanding (1) your later post where you apparently do an about-face, since I can't tell if you're being facetious, and (2) the fact that a "token snip of the labia" with "no alteration of function" is in no way analagous to routine infant circumcision as carried out on American boys. Since you're okay with the latter, I'm assuming you're okay with an analogous operation on baby girls: removal of the clitoral hood so that the clitorus is left unprotected, dries out and becomes desensitised.
Seriously, I am incredulous that your wife (in particular) is okay with the idea of altering the appearance of her baby daughter's genitals just because, say, it was done to her.
quote:
I have no reason to suspect that my wife is alone in this assessment, I guess.
I very much doubt her opinion is in the majority, even in America. I suspect most women respond with horror to this question.
Usually when I have asked this question (of people who are circumcised or have circumcised their sons) the response is: "But male circumcision has nothing to do with female circumcision!" Which I believe was also your response. This answer is irrelevant since I have clearly stated a theoretical analogous surgery, not infibulation, and it neatly avoids the child's rights at the heart of the issue.
------------------
o--greyline--o

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by crashfrog, posted 08-07-2003 4:25 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 97 of 104 (49490)
08-08-2003 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by crashfrog
08-08-2003 12:29 AM


quote:
It wasn't my intent to dictate to you what you would or would not mind. But I see that it came off that way. Sorry.
It's OK, thanks. I was probably primed to read it the wrong way anyhow.
quote:
I'd be more concerned about what kind of culture would cause two people to feel that that was something they needed to have done to their child. With no knowledge of what culture they're in I can't really say whether it's ok or not. But in the culture I'm in, no, that's not ok, it's kind of racist, or even perverse.
So you have no judgement about the culture in which this hypothetical couple and infant live; a culture in which is it considered "normal" to have white-looking eyes and "abnormal" to have asian-eyes?
I'm sure you understand where I'm coming from by now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by crashfrog, posted 08-08-2003 12:29 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by crashfrog, posted 08-08-2003 8:31 PM nator has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 98 of 104 (49505)
08-08-2003 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by nator
08-08-2003 7:58 PM


So you have no judgement about the culture in which this hypothetical couple and infant live; a culture in which is it considered "normal" to have white-looking eyes and "abnormal" to have asian-eyes?
No, I'd be openly critical of such a culture. What I can hardly criticise are the two parents in such a culture who are doing precisely what they have always been taught is well and good.
I'm openly critical of our culture, as well. For the reasons that you would suspect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by nator, posted 08-08-2003 7:58 PM nator has not replied

  
Zealot
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 104 (54559)
09-09-2003 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by crashfrog
08-07-2003 6:18 PM


Well, in trying to find the pro-circumcision studies I once had, I've more or less found a vast weight of data suggesting that I'm wrong about it.
So, I'll let my sons decide for themselves, I guess. No circumcisions for them unless they tell me they want them.
But neither am I going to get upset because I was myself circumcised. Of all the things my parents may have done to me, that had probably the least effect on my life.
Good choice Crash. My foreskin is like an eyelid to me. Without it, I'd need to scratch a whole lot more. I think only in 3rd world countries or countries where regular washing facilities are a shortage is circumcision a benefit, otherwise just tell your kids to give it a good washdown and they'll be alright.
cheers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by crashfrog, posted 08-07-2003 6:18 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by crashfrog, posted 09-10-2003 12:21 AM Zealot has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 100 of 104 (54665)
09-10-2003 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Zealot
09-09-2003 12:07 PM


I think only in 3rd world countries or countries where regular washing facilities are a shortage is circumcision a benefit, otherwise just tell your kids to give it a good washdown and they'll be alright.
Well, the wife and I are about 10 years away from this being an issue. I can only hope that American society has changed enough that I won't feel like I'm having to choose between a risky medical procedure and years of locker-room insult for him.
But hey, maybe they'll all be girls.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Zealot, posted 09-09-2003 12:07 PM Zealot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Zealot, posted 09-10-2003 9:59 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Zealot
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 104 (54739)
09-10-2003 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by crashfrog
09-10-2003 12:21 AM


Well, the wife and I are about 10 years away from this being an issue. I can only hope that American society has changed enough that I won't feel like I'm having to choose between a risky medical procedure and years of locker-room insult for him.
But hey, maybe they'll all be girls.
Hmm, I dont see being circumsized or not being circumsized as an issue, or an area of ridicule. We were about 50-50 in our school (boys school), but I know at one point in the state of NY, having circumcisions at birth were mandatory.
Hehe, besides usually when you make a comment about another man's goods it means you were looking at them, which in itself has alot of room for ridicule.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by crashfrog, posted 09-10-2003 12:21 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by greyline, posted 09-10-2003 10:07 AM Zealot has replied

  
greyline
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 104 (54740)
09-10-2003 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Zealot
09-10-2003 9:59 AM


but I know at one point in the state of NY, having circumcisions at birth were mandatory.
Do you have a reference for this? I think it's very very very very unlikely. It is true that routine infant circumcision was often done without parental consent - before our modern age of litigation arrived.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Zealot, posted 09-10-2003 9:59 AM Zealot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Zealot, posted 09-10-2003 10:45 AM greyline has replied

  
Zealot
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 104 (54750)
09-10-2003 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by greyline
09-10-2003 10:07 AM


Do you have a reference for this? I think it's very very very very unlikely. It is true that routine infant circumcision was often done without parental consent - before our modern age of litigation arrived.
Sorry mandatory is too strong a word, but compulsory or even 'without parental consent' would be sufficient for me to be highly upset.
I know because my fiance's brothers were both circumcised and the parents were not consulted on this in this (70s-80s). When I asked their mother, she was under the impression that they 'had to have it, all boys had to be circumsized'. Kinda like refusing to take an innoculation when you're in pre-school I suppose.
With all medical 'evidence' pointing towards the negative effects of not being circumsized, I see very few parents insisting on keeping the skin .
Gardening | Mothering Forum
"The radical practice of routinely circumcising babies did not begin until the Cold War era. This institutionalization of what amounted to compulsory circumcision was part of the same movement that pathologized and medicalized birth and actively discouraged breastfeeding. Private-sector, corporate-run hospitals institutionalized routine circumcision without ever consulting the American people. There was no public debate or referendum. It was only in the 1970s that a series of lawsuits forced hospitals to obtain parental consent to perform this contraindicated but highly profitable surgery. "
- How accurate I dont know.
[This message has been edited by Zealot, 09-10-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by greyline, posted 09-10-2003 10:07 AM greyline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by greyline, posted 09-10-2003 7:39 PM Zealot has not replied

  
greyline
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 104 (54826)
09-10-2003 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Zealot
09-10-2003 10:45 AM


With all medical 'evidence' pointing towards the negative effects of not being circumsized, I see very few parents insisting on keeping the skin
Tee hee.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Zealot, posted 09-10-2003 10:45 AM Zealot has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024