Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
pogi

Circumcision

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Amulek said:

BlueDreams can answer for herself, but maybe they don't know what they are missing because they really aren't missing out on much at all.

Consider the following study: https://www.jurology.com/article/S0022-5347(15)05535-4/abstract

It finds that the foreskin was most sensitive to stimulation by touch (fair enough). However, it goes on to clarify that this doesn’t mean that your experience of pleasure during sex is any different whether you’re circumcised or uncircumcised. 

 

There was a study done in Mexico involving women whose partners where scheduled to be circumcised. They took measurements both before the procedure and two months after. The results?

"There were no statistically significant differences on general sexual satisfaction, pain during vaginal penetration, desire, vaginal orgasm." (link)

 

The last time this topic came up I spent some time studying it and I also found scientific studies on men who were circumcised as adults that reported no difference in sexual pleasure before or after. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

The last time this topic came up I spent some time studying it and I also found scientific studies on men who were circumcised as adults that reported no difference in sexual pleasure before or after. 

And there are  reports of women saying the same thing about FGM.  This is why I feel we need to compare the two because people tend to down play the role of the male foreskin and overemphasize the role of the female foreskin.  There really is not much of a difference in terms of sensitivity and sexuality.  So again, how can we justify the gap in ethical perception of the two procedures?  If we can't, perhaps we should treat male mutilation equal to female mutilation. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

To me, your comments are weird. Why are you so against this even being something that might be true? Is it the religous bend? And if your wife is post menopausal, I hope she's not just suffering and not telling you. But that's none of my business.

Tacenda, please go back and read the thread, review the allegations, view the material cited - my complaint is that it is slanted, biased, and exaggerated. As I have stated before - I am firmly, completely neutral on this topic. There is no right and there is no wrong to whatever choice is made. There is no "true" position on this topic. There are activists and that determined to convert everyone to their position; then there are those that make choices for religious reasons; then there are others that make decisions based on other criteria. 

I am curious - why do you think there is a true position on this topic? What is the problem with an individual being neutral?  

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, pogi said:

And there are  reports of women saying the same thing about FGM.  This is why I feel we need to compare the two because people tend to down play the role of the male foreskin and overemphasize the role of the female foreskin.  There really is not much of a difference in terms of sensitivity and sexuality.  So again, how can we justify the gap in ethical perception of the two procedures?  If we can't, perhaps we should treat male mutilation equal to female mutilation. 

Can you link to the scientific studies that say that.  I think they would be interesting to look at.  I haven't been following this thread so I apologize if you've already linked to them.  You could just point me to the right post if that's the case.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, pogi said:

And there are  reports of women saying the same thing about FGM.  This is why I feel we need to compare the two because people tend to down play the role of the male foreskin and overemphasize the role of the female foreskin.  There really is not much of a difference in terms of sensitivity and sexuality.  

Oh geez. Okay, let's think about it in simple terms of surface area. Women have a very small pleasure center compared to men. Just leave it alone. Less is NOT more for women.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Amulek said:

I'm not the one making an argument for bodily integrity and no pain without consent. 

 

Well you’re giving a pretty dumb argument against it. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, bluebell said:

The last time this topic came up I spent some time studying it and I also found scientific studies on men who were circumcised as adults that reported no difference in sexual pleasure before or after. 

I've been reading studies for both forms with sexual pleasure. With men the general trend seems to be no difference when the men were volunteers who were not going in for surgery for specific health concern. With women it's more a mixed arena. I would find a couple of sources that say they have similar results and others that say there was decreased pleasure or increased pain...Though both noted limited research in general and some major limitations. In even some of the research that I was reading that suggested little difference, I was also seeing a number of things and influences that I know have effected women's arousal, desire, and pleasure in uncut women in my office...such as increased risk of chronic/recurrent UTI's (one study noted that cultures where female circumcision is normal, often these experiences are also normalized), trauma responses, or extremely painful first few times...these are especially potent in cultures that de-emphasizes women's s*xuality as equally valued/important (such as our own).

 

with luv,

bD 

 

Edited by BlueDreams
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Can you link to the scientific studies that say that.  I think they would be interesting to look at.  I haven't been following this thread so I apologize if you've already linked to them.  You could just point me to the right post if that's the case.

It is mentioned in the well referenced and peer reviewed article I have been linking to.  If you haven't read the whole thing yet, I would recommend it. 

Quote

What about effects on sexuality?44 While a popular assumption is that any form of FGM deprives women of all sexual feeling, “[r]esearch by gynecologists and others has demonstrated that a high percentage of women who have had genital surgery have rich sexual lives, including desire, arousal, orgasm, and satisfaction, and their frequency of sexual activity is not reduced.”49 Indeed, in one study,50 up to 86% of women–some of whom had undergone even “extreme” forms of FGM–reported the ability to orgasm, and “the majority of the interviewed women (90.51%) reported that sex gives them pleasure.” These counterintuitive findings might be explained by the fact, noted earlier, that much of the clitoris is actually underneath the skin layer and is therefore not removed by even the most invasive types of FGM.e Of course, there are other parts of the vulva/vagina to consider as well, whose stimulation can likewise contribute to sexual pleasure. All told, the degree and quality of subjective sexual feeling is likely to vary considerably depending upon the type of FGM, as well as from person to person: the number and distribution of nerve endings, etc – and hence the sexual responsiveness of each person’s genitals – is unique. Therefore FGM and other forms of genital modification will affect different people differently.

On the Netflix video there are women who claim that it actually enhanced sexuality - unable to orgasm before, but were able to after.

The limitations with all of this data is that it doesn't distinguish between types of FGM.  It is a holistic look at all the different types which vary and does include even more extreme forms.  What we would really need to study to have a more accurate comparison is the sexual response of women before and after hoodectomy only.  There simply is no data that I am aware of for us to compare, but the relatively high rates of satisfaction after FGM of all types seems to suggest that a hoodectomy (a much less severe form of FGM) would report even higher rates of pleasure when the extreme forms are removed from the sample group. 

So, as of now, I don't think we can conclusively state that the clitoral hood is more or less important for women than the foreskin is form men in terms of s*xual pleasure.  And any suggestion otherwise is indefensible and based on cultural bias.

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Calm said:

I just don't seeing that going very far with too many men out there circumcised and not thinking of themselves as disfigured.  They are going to fight that idea and you may end up with greater resistance to it.

I would pitch the greater pleasure, less pain aspect. I don't want to hear how bad I have it given my husband is of the shorn variety and will for the rest of my life since we intend the till death and beyond routine.  I would just like to know my daughters and their children will not be getting depressing news like .I got when hitting perimenopause of "here's how your sex like is going to be like, especially as you get older and skin becomes fragile".  Less pain, less messy, less chemicals, more fun sounds good to me.  Post menopause not so fun anymore even though I get to skip all the mood changes and the way too many paper products around.  Still annoying the ongoing quest for the perfect unscented lubricant.  

Just saying push convenience, natural convenience, healthy convenience...kind of like how the various movements for bottle and breast feeding did PR (so much less to sterilize and always on tap so to speak, the natural way...yet oh, so draining in multiple ways vs. Mom can get a solid night sleep and Dad can cover half duty or even more....but otoh oh, those diapers!  Hazemat suits for everyone.)

 Get grandmas out there telling their daughters to fight the family tradition, it is not worth it, tell young mothers their daughter in laws will thank them later.  And when the grandson gets married, mom can whisper in her new daughter in law's ear and say "some day I will be collecting on this favor I did for you many years ago, knowing some day you would be thinking of me fondly".

sleep deprivaTion...got to love it, apologize if too graphic.  I figure it is tons more tame than the condom ad I heard driving home the other night and it was only 8:30.

Actually, I think attitudes are changing as it is. Conservatively, I’ll give it another four generations, maybe less, before American culture is more like European or British culture on this subject. 

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

The men you described as being circumcised and not really noticing the difference, is because they don't know life before the circumcision. They have no idea what they've missed. And after reading Calm's post, I'm pretty po'd that we women have to suffer the consequences as well. Hadn't looked at it like that until Calm's post. Especially now that I'm a post menopausal woman, sex can be very painful. I'm a lucky woman though, I've never used the pill or had an IUD, my husband has been gracious enough to wear a condom when we're not trying to conceive. So lubricants on the condom helped, but being postmenopausal, not anymore. And the circumcised males having to go longer than uncircumcised does produce more pain/friction on the women, and on them as well. :(

IMO, I think they began circumcision on males/females from the beginning of time, because they thought sexual pleasure was evil. 

I can't say much on this either. Most the people I work with have 1-3 partners in their lifetime with little comparisons and a number of psychosocial concerns that effect their sense of pleasure in each of these relationships. Plus I've never asked them how many of their previous  partners were circumcised and whether they felt that added to their pleasure. As noted, someone mentioned that women before and after their adult partners were circumcised didn't note a difference. And I've only had my husband. My gut reaction says no diff. Because I've had people who are coming in for sexual problems/pain whose husbands were and weren't circumcised. There are also several female-oriented/relationship factors that can effect this: time of the month, level of arousal, method of penetration,  relational struggles, body changes (such as pregnancy, birth, breasfeeding, or menopause) etc. Most my clients no matter their partner's intactness, use lubricants to some degree to help with the experience.

 

On your "IMO" from what I've learned, that is likely too broad of a brush. Human's through time have practiced forms of body modifications on just about every part of the visible body in so many different ways. They demarcated culture, community, ideals of beauty, sexual expectations/obligations, status, rites of passage, etc. And we still do it. The same form of demarcation in one community could have a drastically different meaning in another. I doubt there is simply one ultimate original reason for all male and female forms of circumcision. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited by BlueDreams
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well you’re giving a pretty dumb argument against it. 

I don't believe so. The ethical grounds you provided for opposing circumcision (and ear piercings) what that, "for purely cosmetic reasons, it amounts to the infliction of pain,  discomfort and bodily alteration on one incapable of giving informed consent."

So, I'm questioning how do those ethics hold up in other situations. 

When a child, like my friend's daughter, is born with an additional joint on her pinkie finger, is it ethical to remove the extra digit? According to your statement above, my understanding is that your answer would be no. There is no medical reason why the extra digit needs to be removed; it's purely a cosmetic procedure - one which clearly involves the infliction of pain, discomfort, and bodily alteration on one who is incapable of giving informed consent, so parents should not be allowed to have that surgery performed. Right? She must wait until she is 18 and can consent to the procedure herself. If not, why not?

 

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

LOL - and why might I think that regardless of what anyone might say contrary to your opinion you will continue to be an activist for your position. Pot, meet Kettle. 

Happy to resume this discussion with you post-resurrection when you've become reacquainted with your foreskin. :good:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I don't believe so. The ethical grounds you provided for opposing circumcision (and ear piercings) what that, "for purely cosmetic reasons, it amounts to the infliction of pain,  discomfort and bodily alteration on one incapable of giving informed consent."

So, I'm questioning how do those ethics hold up in other situations. 

When a child, like my friend's daughter, is born with an additional joint on her pinkie finger, is it ethical to remove the extra digit? According to your statement above, my understanding is that your answer would be no. There is no medical reason why the extra digit needs to be removed; it's purely a cosmetic procedure - one which clearly involves the infliction of pain, discomfort, and bodily alteration on one who is incapable of giving informed consent, so parents should not be allowed to have that surgery performed. Right? She must wait until she is 18 and can consent to the procedure herself. If not, why not?

 

Your explanation to Scott doesn't hold water. Or doesn't compare. Men/women are born without defects that get circumcisions, as God intended IOW. But your friend's daughter did have an abnormal pinky. And I'm sure if it's less painful while a baby, then by all means she should have the surgery. But these babies that have normal genitals, are being cut unnecessarily.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

Your explanation to Scott doesn't hold water. Or doesn't compare. Men/women are born without defects that get circumcisions, as God intended IOW. But your friend's daughter did have an abnormal pinky. And I'm sure if it's less painful while a baby, then by all means she should have the surgery. But these babies that have normal genitals, are being cut unnecessarily.

But removing the extra pinky is also unnecessary.  The child can function perfectly normally with it.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, pogi said:

It is mentioned in the well referenced and peer reviewed article I have been linking to.  If you haven't read the whole thing yet, I would recommend it. 

On the Netflix video there are women who claim that it actually enhanced sexuality - unable to orgasm before, but were able to after.

The limitations with all of this data is that it doesn't distinguish between types of FGM.  It is a holistic look at all the different types which vary and does include even more extreme forms.  What we would really need to study to have a more accurate comparison is the sexual response of women before and after hoodectomy only.  There simply is no data that I am aware of for us to compare, but the relatively high rates of satisfaction after FGM of all types seems to suggest that a hoodectomy (a much less severe form of FGM) would report even higher rates of pleasure when the extreme forms are removed from the sample group. 

So, as of now, I don't think we can conclusively state that the clitoral hood is more or less important for women than the foreskin is form men in terms of s*xual pleasure.  And any suggestion otherwise is indefensible and based on cultural bias.

That makes sense as the hood can sometimes become stuck and unable to retract (about 1-5 women experience that) or the hood can be overly large and cover the clitoris, both which can impede orgasm. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But removing the extra pinky is also unnecessary.  The child can function perfectly normally with it.

It wasn't intended to be there in the first place though!

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

It wasn't intended to be there in the first place though!

Well, that kind of begs the question. The only reason it's considered abnormal/undesirable is a matter of culture. In some cultures, historically, people born with this condition were revered. See, e.g.,  here :

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/07/chaco-canyon-pueblo-bonito-social-implications-polydactyly-extra-toes/

"The findings, published today in American Antiquity, indicate that the society did not view six-toed individuals as supernatural, but this form of polydactyly did grant them exalted status in life and in death."

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I'm also a slow poster.....more like glacial at times. This will likely be inadequate in responding to the points you've already made due to time constraints. But I really appreciate what Calm has mentioned about how male circumcision needs to stand alone as an argument. Part of the gender bias you mention to is likely due to the fact that in the US and likely most other cultures that practice male circumsion, female circumcision has always been a generally rare practice. There's a reason people could repackage labioplasty to sell it as a form of plastic surgery for women with low self-esteem about their genitals than as a a form of genital cutting. We don't have a sense of baggage or immediate concern around female genital cutting. 

If you want to compare....what may be more helpful is to compare approaches for fighting FGM in cultures where it is expected and learn from those, to discuss our own battles. Outright bans prior often led to a 2nd generation pushback and return to the practice. Working within the cultural context has been imperative to chipping at the practice and stopping it from happening. It is a lot slower, but it is also more effective long term. comparing practices that most people in the US  see as barbaric to a practice most people who grew up in the US find normative or had done to themselves is likely not going to work. Talking about the most extreme practices of MGM that don't occur here but in far away places won't work. The habits you mentioned with the most dangerous results entail unsafe methodology that most people in the US wouldn't have. Though the tissue removed may be more comparative, anatomically to FGM type 1's....it would still be within the realm a MGM's, the worst case scenarios when talking about circumcisions. It's in essence MGM's type 3's

Picture this from the battle against FGM's....if you went into a culture where type 1's are prevalent and type 3's are unheard of but you're giving information and facts that are largely true for 3's, the information is likely going to be dismissed or ignored, because it doesn't apply to them. They can stay on the moral high ground and say "well thank heavens that we've never done something so barbaric and harmful to our children...." And they'd generally be right. They didn't sew their daughter's vulva shut. They just did (to them) a non-invasive clip that for many of them likely had few effects that they're aware of. So sure it was painful, but avoiding pain in many cultures doesn't fly the same way it does for a number of western cultures. Translated to the US, pointing out to "true" forms of genital mutilation from an international perspective where most of the dangers apply to adults/post adolescence and more tied to the method/who is doing the cutting won't work. They can comfortably maintain a difference between them and said practices by pointing out that the way it's done is not the same thing...and "thank heavens we use medical professionals and methods that make the process overall safe." And they'd generally be right.

Also i know that you flat out reject the research by WHO....but it's on fairly measily grounds, IMO, and for others who don't share your discomfort and pain about a more coerced choice for their child's circumcisions that capacity to reject would happen for the research article you gave me. [1] Remember I don't actually want circumcision for my family. I don't need to be convinced that It's unnecessary. But I'm not convinced by the research you gave for this conclusion.*  And if i'm not convinced, people who are more invested in male circumcision (They have it done, want it done for their children, or already chose to have it done for their sons) are likely not going to be persuaded by it either. 

 

One last thing:
 

[2] On the bold, my response was just a simple summary of what my uncircumcised husband responded when I asked what was more sensitive to him. He, as "any uncircumcised male" per se, found it humorous to assume the foreskin was. 

On s*exual pleasure...that is literally my bread and butter. I deal with s*xual pain all the time...for women. I can't remember the last time a man talked about his own sexual pain from any form of appropriate stimulus (as in, their partner or an unrelated accident didn't do something that caused sexual pain or damage to function). I've never seen/heard a difference from them on their sexual experiences that points to me to the belief that circumcised males are at a distinct disadvantage from the uncircumcised males. You are right that there is a heavy degree of personal perception to pleasure for both sexes. BUT I do find it problematic to directly parallel s*xual function and response. The systems started the same, but certainly didn't end the same and the experiences, capacities, concerns, etc can vary drastically due to this. This is my assessment from my job, without going into graphic detail....but I have never met the male equivalent of the woman in the documentary who had a childhood hoodectomy (I believe) and still has extreme sensitivity problems during s*x. And I largely suspect has had to do with the structural differences [3] (again the cl*toris is far more sensitive than the glans and direct stimulation of it for more than short bursts while ar*used is more painful than pleasureable. The female foreskin facillitates indirect touch that is far more pleasurable....this does not follow exactly with males and stimulation of the glans directly, with or without foreskin). I would expect, working in a population with a large amount of men and women who's problems often intermix with medical botches, to have at least met one man who had some complaint about their circumcision at this point. But I haven't. again, this doesn't mean it doesn't exist....but it does bode that it's fairly rare with the way its practiced in the US ...and if you're going to convince someone that this may rob them of s*xual  experiences unknown, this ain't going to work. They will be able to point to every man in their recent family lineage and male friends who are circumcised that are fine and will be unable to find 1 male who's got a serious problem. I can't think of 1, and I talk in graphic detail about people's more embarrassing or painful experiences around s*exuality all the time. It will feel like a fictive problem or a remote one tied to unsterile or more extreme methods to circumcision. I'm not saying that this is true...but they won't have easily available proof that they're basically a little  s*xual crippled. And to infer such would likely be a little offensive to them.

 

 Again, I strongly agree with how Calm mentioned approaching slower cultural shifts to reduce the common practice. 

*BTW, my problem with the article you gave me, wasn't that it wasn't researched, but that it led out with bias...that was the similarity I saw. All research is at least somewhat biased, I expect that. But leading out to prove/bolster an argument is problematic to me when trying to prove the inherent harm of said practice.   

 

With luv,

BD

Thanks for your suggestions.

Some of them I find to be valid.  The thing that we all have to consider is that people come from different perspectives and backgrounds.  If my arguments don't work for you or Calm, that is fine.  You can't win over everybody.  Using more emotionally based arguments might be more effective in the general population, but others require a more intellectual argument.  I come from a medical background and am very familiar with medical ethics, informed consent, risk vs benefit type thinking - so this kind of evidence works for me, and I know that it works for others too.  It may not work for everyone but to say that it is less effective doesn't square with my own personal lived experience in what I would call a conversion process on this topic based on the arguments I have presented and the best information I have available to assess.  I think you largely misunderstood why I brought up more extreme forms of MGM.  I recognize that people wouldn't identify with those forms of MGM, that wasn't the point.  The point is that when people think of FGM they think of crazy extreme things that happen in developing countries and therefore find it offensive to compare MGM to FGM.  I was simply pointing out that we need to compare apples to apples, and that was not happening, they were comparing the worst case scenarios that happen abroad to the best case scenarios that happen in the states.  I was saying it would be more helpful to compare the worst to the worst and the best to the best - which is why I think we should only talk about hoodectomies in comparison to male circumcision in the US. 

I want to address the 3 bolded points above.

[1] If none of the information I shared played a role in your decision to not circumcise your sons, what are you basing your decision on?  What turns you off to circumcision?  I would be surprised if I haven't addressed at least some of those issues, unless it is purely a cultural decision based on your husbands Peruvian culture.

[2] I don't know if your husband has actually explored the more refined experimentation of different erogenous zones - most guys don't.  I had no idea that the line where the foreskin was connected and removed from my p*nis was WAY more sensitive then the glans or other areas until the Netflix movie.  When I heard that, I was doubtful. I smirked at the suggestion just like your husband smirked at your question.  "I am 39 years old, how could I not know that?", I thought.  Well, they were right.  100%.  I suggest a simple test.  I propose that it should feel like the difference of lightly tickling the front of your hand and the back of your hand.  The types of nerve endings on the palm of the hand are the same types of nerve endings found in the foreskin, the nerve endings in the back of the hand are the same type found in the glans and underlying skin.  The sensation will be similar for him when comparing light touch of the foreskin to light touch of the glans.  Guaranteed.  That is simply how our anatomy is built, unless he has some unusual deformity - but typically the palm of the hand is more sensitive then the back - it is the same for the foreskin and glans.

[3] I don't understand why you keep comparing the entire clitoris (which is equipped with a foreskin and glans and other parts) to the glans of the penis alone, which is one of the less sensitive parts of the male anatomy. Or, are you simply comparing the glans to the glans?

 

Edited by pogi
Edited to correct a misconception I had

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder what it was like thousands of years ago when the first couple of guys got together to talk about this excess foreskin they were walking around with.

"What's this skin for?"

"Not sure."

"Let's call it for-skin."

"Cool."

"Do we really need it?"

"Can't think of any reason we would.  It looks unnecessary."

"Think we can just cut it off?"

"Maybe - but, I'm not trying it."

"Me neither."

* Calls to third friend: "Hey Jerry - want to make a covenant?"

*end scene*

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

It wasn't intended to be there in the first place though!

But that’s not the point Amuleknis making. He’s talking about unnecessary physical alterations. 

Whether or not the extra pinky was intended to be there doesn’t change the fact that removing would be medically unnecessary. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Happy to resume this discussion with you post-resurrection when you've become reacquainted with your foreskin. :good:

I guess Jesus and I will hop on over to see if there is really anything to discuss. I am sure he has an opinion as one being circumcised. 

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

LOL, this just gets more and more weird the further this goes on. You are speaking in absolutes without any supporting facts. First, we have never used lubrication of any kind. I doubt we are an exception. Second, if there is a lubrication problem then get a solution. I don't understand your desire to make men out to be individuals that blame their spouse for a lubrication problem. Third, do you have any evidence that males who are not circumcised never use lubrication?  If not, then retract the fallacy you are running with above. 

The supporting FACT is how foreskin actually works.  You act as if foreskin has no function at all.  The fact is, it does have a function.  If this was a different kind of form I would be more explicit in telling you exactly how foreskin works that lessens friction during intercourse.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Amulek said:

I don't believe so. The ethical grounds you provided for opposing circumcision (and ear piercings) what that, "for purely cosmetic reasons, it amounts to the infliction of pain,  discomfort and bodily alteration on one incapable of giving informed consent."

So, I'm questioning how do those ethics hold up in other situations. 

When a child, like my friend's daughter, is born with an additional joint on her pinkie finger, is it ethical to remove the extra digit? According to your statement above, my understanding is that your answer would be no. There is no medical reason why the extra digit needs to be removed; it's purely a cosmetic procedure - one which clearly involves the infliction of pain, discomfort, and bodily alteration on one who is incapable of giving informed consent, so parents should not be allowed to have that surgery performed. Right? She must wait until she is 18 and can consent to the procedure herself. If not, why not?

 

I understand your argument quite well. I’m saying you’re in effect comparing intact earlobes to a birth defect, which I find to be a dumb comparison. Are you going to condone facial plastic surgery on your infant daughter because her nose is too big to suit you? 

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, california boy said:

The supporting FACT is how foreskin actually works.  You act as if foreskin has no function at all.  The fact is, it does have a function.  If this was a different kind of form I would be more explicit in telling you exactly how foreskin works that lessens friction during intercourse.  

CB, no. I act as if it does not really matter. I accept that it may have a function. However, I also accept that its absence does not reduce the efficacy and functioning of the organ itself. I just don't feel strongly about it either way. On this issue, I have more of a live and let live position. I am glad for those that are proud to be uncircumcised as I am for those that are circumcised. I remain ambivalent. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Storm Rider said:

CB, no. I act as if it does not really matter. I accept that it may have a function. However, I also accept that its absence does not reduce the efficacy and functioning of the organ itself. I just don't feel strongly about it either way. On this issue, I have more of a live and let live position. I am glad for those that are proud to be uncircumcised as I am for those that are circumcised. I remain ambivalent. 

There could hardly be anything more “live-and-let-live” than allowing a healthy boy to wait until he is of age to make an informed decision about having surgery to alter his genetalia. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...