That's a pretty reasonable description when you stop and think about it.
And mushroom wetsuit would make a great name for a garage band.
Let's cut bits off of babies, yes?
- Thread starter Deranged Nasat
- Start date
That's a pretty reasonable description when you stop and think about it.
And mushroom wetsuit would make a great name for a garage band.
It's not the be-all and end-all of whether it is OK to do it or not, despite your endlessly repeated mantra of "well it never did me any harm". I do think you are conditioned to believe that it is though.
I love the cognitive dissonance this topic causes, such a good chuckle
This coming from someone who straight-facedly talks about 'harm' without any negative consequences.
I have already explained in detail, with a dictionary definition, why cutting off a healthy part of a body without consent constitutes doing the body cosmetic harm. Now why don't you take the same definition and explain why it doesn't? Why does the fact that there may be no further consequences mean that cutting off a body part isn't harming a body?
Last edited:
He's not particularly well endowed, but you can always go with Michelangelo's David. Then you're just looking at art.
But what you have 100% failed to do is show me how in any way I suffer any negative consequences from having had this done. Without negative consequences, there is no harm.
It's not the be-all and end-all of whether it is OK to do it or not, despite your endlessly repeated mantra of "well it never did me any harm". I do think you are conditioned to believe that it is though.
I love the cognitive dissonance this topic causes, such a good chuckle
This coming from someone who straight-facedly talks about 'harm' without any negative consequences.
I have already explained in detail, with a dictionary definition, why cutting off a healthy part of a body without consent constitutes doing the body cosmetic harm. Now why don't you take the same definition and explain why it doesn't? Why does the fact that there may be no further consequences mean that cutting off a body part isn't harming a body?
Maybe there were no negative consequences now that you personally now that you are an adult but that doesn't mean there are none
The negative consequences are
1) inflicting unnecessary pain on a baby. it doesn't matter if he remembers it or not.
2) some boys have complications, occasionally very serious, as a result of being circumcised. No-one knows in advance which child is going to have complications. You were lucky, you didn't suffer any complications but would you feel the same way if you were one of the males who lost his penis as a result of complications after a circumcision. One baby in about 1,000,000 loses his penis i.e in the USA this means about one child per year.
The negative consequences are
1) inflicting unnecessary pain on a baby. it doesn't matter if he remembers it or not.
2) some boys have complications, occasionally very serious, as a result of being circumcised. No-one knows in advance which child is going to have complications. You were lucky, you didn't suffer any complications but would you feel the same way if you were one of the males who lost his penis as a result of complications after a circumcision. One baby in about 1,000,000 loses his penis i.e in the USA this means about one child per year.
I doubt those numbers, but even if true it hardly represents any threat that justifies going to all the bother of passing laws to ban it. We have far more pressing issues at hand to deal with. You don't like the procedure don't have it done to your children. But don't act like people who choose that option are some kind of monsters.
For all you "cut" guys, do you know how much MORE pleasurable sex would be for you if you'd never had your foreskin removed?
No?
How can you be so certain that it's never harmed you, when you've never been in a position to experience the naturally intended level of sensation.
No?
How can you be so certain that it's never harmed you, when you've never been in a position to experience the naturally intended level of sensation.
Do any "uncut" guys know how much "worse" sex is? Do they know this when they do get cut at and adult age even though being cut as an adult means they'd probably feel any difference and presume there's a difference?
There's really no way to know which way feels better or which way feels worse. I just know that it has served me well and the sex was all fine and good and accomplished its duty save impregnation due to a sperm-dam.
There's also the link I sent that argues that the foreskin actually helps keep the area cleaner for pre-pubescent boys. So, in that case, it would be a health disadvantage.
I know for a fact my foreskin gives me a feeling different to when the other parts of my penis are stimulated. I would miss it if I were circumsized.
But what you have 100% failed to do is show me how in any way I suffer any negative consequences from having had this done. Without negative consequences, there is no harm.
It's not the be-all and end-all of whether it is OK to do it or not, despite your endlessly repeated mantra of "well it never did me any harm". I do think you are conditioned to believe that it is though.
This coming from someone who straight-facedly talks about 'harm' without any negative consequences.
I have already explained in detail, with a dictionary definition, why cutting off a healthy part of a body without consent constitutes doing the body cosmetic harm. Now why don't you take the same definition and explain why it doesn't? Why does the fact that there may be no further consequences mean that cutting off a body part isn't harming a body?
We'll have to agree to disagree then because my position is pretty firmly that cutting off a part of someone's dick qualifies as harm in it's own right regardless of ongoing consequences.
Nobody has demonstrated to me why it doesn't, or why we have this special exception to what it is acceptable to do to somebody elses body when it comes to the penises of little boys. It seems to me that cultural relativism is only a bad thing when we are criticising somebody else's cultural practices.
Which is why, if you were circumcised, you would say that circumcised sex is "worse" or "doesn't feel as good as" sex uncircumcised. So there's no way to know if having the foreskin or not having it has any "real effect" on sensation during sex.
If you don't have one you think is everything is fine and can't imagine having it, if you do have one you think everything is fine an can't imagine not having it.
Further, I would argue that not-circumcising a child because it'd effect how they experience sex is as weak of a reason as the ones often given for removing it.
That's not what she said.
I'd be pretty pissed off if someone did something to my body that changed the way sex felt, and was irreversible.
Switch
Captain
If I'd considered myself been "harmed", I would be feeling violated and angry. Instead, I've lived a very happy life sans foreskin, so I don't.
I guess you can't miss what you've never known - but having known it and enjoyed it, I wouldn't want it any other way. Nor do I think it's something anyone should be forced to miss out on.
And you can't know you'd miss it until you've never had it.
....
I think I said that right.
Anyway, making medical decisions based on how sex feels is an odd way to go about things. I'd feel a little creepy making a decision on whether or not to circumcise my son based on how he'll be feeling sex in 20 years.
If anything, the special exception is being made to say circumcision is bad then the other way around.
Parents routinely go for cosmetic surgery on their children before they are at the age when they are capable of consent, including things that clearly the children do not want to do. Just because a six year old is capable of requesting that they get holes punched into their cartilage does not mean they are capable of understanding the long term consequences, this is still okay because it is the social norm and does not cause harm. Basically no child would ever agree to braces on their teeth for cosmetic reasons and yet it is routinely forced on children because it is the social norm and does not cause harm. There are also many examples of cosmetic surgeries done on children due to birth defects or injuries and the like and that's okay because it would make the children confirm to social norms and does not cause harm.
But oh no, in circumcision the penis is involved! Now it no longer matters that it is (in some circles) a social norm and that it doesn't cause harm... just the fact that it is a surgical procedure is enough to cause outrage. All the other cosmetically motivated surgical procedures that parents choose for their children have their own risks and potential complications as well as pain. If there's any double standard going on here, I would propose that it is on the side of people who are proponents of circumcision being made illegal.
Additionally, saying that you need proof that it doesn't cause harm isn't logically sound. There is no proof that it does cause harm, therefore there is no justification for the position that it does. You can't prove a negative.
ChristmasDaniel said:
There has been no study or survey that has consistently shown that circumcised men have any less sexual pleasure or ability to experience orgasm then men who are not. For the wikipedia inclined, there's a big ol' list of studies and their results here. If there was any statistical evidence to support the position that circumcision causes a lowering of sexual pleasure then I would say that it constitutes harm, however this is clearly not the case.
