• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Let's cut bits off of babies, yes?

You obviously don't have one and are therefore unqualified to comment.

And you obviously have one and are therefore unqualified to say the feeling is lessened/worse without it.

The thing is that - while both being technically unable to know the experience of the other side - one side is trying to justify the surgical altering of the default state, while the other is just defending the right to keep something at the healthy default state.

EDIT: So what I'm saying is basically:
Ignorance to change is ignorant, ignorance to non-change is dangerous. While both are unknowing, one is on the safe side.
 
Your foreskin? Pretty much just an wrinkly bulge of skin and tissue that doesn't really do anything for you but doesn't do anything against you.

You obviously don't have one and are therefore unqualified to comment.

And you obviously have one and are therefore unqualified to say the feeling is lessened/worse without it.

The bit with the unique sensation isn't there anymore. Of course the feeling would be lessened.
 
You obviously don't have one and are therefore unqualified to comment.

And you obviously have one and are therefore unqualified to say the feeling is lessened/worse without it.

The bit with the unique sensation isn't there anymore. Of course the feeling would be lessened.

No way to know for sure.

I would also argue that while a blind person cannot see he can hear better than a sighted-person (the other senses kick up to compensate.)
 
It's really not that complicated. Nerves are responsible for sensation, less nerves is equal to at least less potential sensation.

And while your comparison to a blind person is correct in that other senses improve, that person won't ever be able to see again, unless medical science improves. That's why we have laws classifying poking someone's eyes out as bodily harm.
 
It's really not that complicated. Nerves are responsible for sensation, less nerves is equal to at least less potential sensation.

And there's the rub. "Less potential." There's no way to know the loss of sensation is true, isn't made up for in other ways or if that loss of sensation results in reduced capacity for intense sexual pleasure.
 
Reading here about how being circumcised at birth somehow does something terrible to men and "equivalent to being blind" etc. just strikes me as stupid. People who aren't circumcised don't really have any experience of it, and describing those circumcised at birth as being "damaged" is insulting to a rather large section of humanity.

I've been circumcised all my life, and for those going on about "reduced sensation" and implying that somehow it reduces people's ability to enjoy sex it doesn't really match up with my experience. I've enjoyed sex throughout my life, and I'm perfectly satisfied with what I've got. Saying "think of how much better it could be if you were uncut" doesn't really cut it (pun intended) either - as long as I have a good time I really don't care.

@MissChicken
Which doesn't really cover it because not only do I care about potential pain, but much more about the fact that the indiviual has to live with the decision of his parents for the rest of his life, "branded".

To answer this very specific point - to me, it's a mark of Jewish heritage, faith and tradition, and part of something I'm very proud of. If you view us as "branded", then fine. We don't really care what others think, and that's all that matters to us.
 
@FlyingLemons
I, too, don't really care what religious people think of me, but I still care about their offspring younger than 18 years of age. Because from my POV, children are not your belonging, your stuff, your objects, and that's why I can't accept treating them as such and "branding" them, because you are what you are. You shouldn't have a right to brand children by surgically altering them, and you also shouldn't have the right to label them "jewish". A six-year-old doesn't have a viewpoint on religion. Unless, of course, you force it onto the child.

Addressing your other points:

1. The equivalent of blindness was suggested by a pro-circumcision person and so far wasn't stupid at all.

2. Right, I don't have the "experience". I also don't have the experience of having no appendix. And even though you can live perfectly fine without one, the mere surgery is enough stress to justify not wanting it to be removed.

3. Personally, I am insulted by people calling my penis "ugly", but I don't really care. People nowadays can be insulted by practically everything and, from the point of the procedure being horrible, the truth of being "damaged" doesn't really care if it itself is insulting.

4. Of course it doesn't because you are circumcised. Circular arguing, pointless.

5. And that's the point. It's fine if you don't really care, but think about your (future) children and the rest of the world. Not caring is no argument. Many people don't care if smoking will kill them 10 years earlier than the average guy. We still have laws prohibiting children from smoking and many countries now have laws concerning passive smoking.
Being satisfyied (as far as you can tell) is no argument either. Because by that standard, we could limit everyone's freedoms and turn the western world into a dictatorship. Many people in communist countries were "satisfyied", they lived good lives and that was it.
Also, if you know it can be even better, how is it moral to not make sure everyone has the best potential experience if he/she is older?

6. Identifying as something:
How can it be right for parents to be allowed to alter a child's appearance, if they only have the right to for 18 years max. and the person then has to live with it forever? Is parental privilege that important? 18 years versus at least 50 more years?
 
Your foreskin? Pretty much just an wrinkly bulge of skin and tissue that doesn't really do anything for you

As I said earlier, it does things for me. Tingly things.

Things nobody should be denied.

And as I said earlier, studies to determine if there are any real changes in sexual function or pleasure as a result of circumcision have come up as a wash. I linked to Wikipedia and everything! I didn't even edit the article myself!
 
@Arrqh
The fact is that foreskin itself, if I may say that, feels differently from the rest of the skin. The fact is also that there is a certain type of nerves only to be found in the foreskin and the frenulum.

@Alidar Jarok
One could if one had sex before and after circumcision. However, I say one can judge the moral aspect of circumcision by simply seeing that skin is being removed. I can't understand how anyone can agree with that.
 
How can one objectively determine loss of sexual pleasure?

Poorly. But pretty much all the studies are based on controlled surveys of adults who get circumcisions. There's no way to tell, of course, whether there are any perceptual differences between someone circumcised as a baby vs. as an adult. Here's one of the studies:

We investigated self-reported sexual satisfaction and function among men enrolled in a randomized trial of male circumcision for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention conducted in Rakai, Uganda. In all, 4456 sexually experienced HIV negative males aged 15–49 years were enrolled; 2210 were randomized to receive immediate circumcision (intervention arm) and 2246 to circumcision delayed for 24 months(control arm). Men were followed up at 6, 12 and 24 months, and information on sexual desire, satisfaction and erectile dysfunction was collected. These variables were compared between the study arms and over time within the study arms, using chisquare or Fisher’s exact tests. The trial registration number is NCT00425984.

There were no differences between the study arms at enrolment and problems with sexual satisfaction and function were reported by <2% of participants in both study arms at all time points. At 6 months, no difficulty with penetration was reported by 98.6% of circumcised men and 99.4% of controls (P = 0.02), and no pain on intercourse was reported by 99.4% circumcised and 98.8% of uncircumcised men (P = 0.05). There were no differences between the study arms in penetration or dyspareunia at later visits. Sexual satisfaction increased from 98.0% at enrolment to 99.9% at 2 years among the controls (P < 0.001), but there was no trend in satisfaction among circumcised men (enrolment 98.5%, 2 years 98.4%, P = 0.8)

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.07369.x/pdf

Avechbobo said:
The fact is that foreskin itself, if I may say that, feels differently from the rest of the skin. The fact is also that there is a certain type of nerves only to be found in the foreskin and the frenulum.

See above!
 
@Aarqh
You're impossible, really. I acknowledge the certainty of the scientific method of studies; however, I previously told you that foreskin and frenulum feels differently than the rest of the penis. Now, I am not saying that my feeling does anything to change the study's results; I'm saying that sexual satisfaction is not the same as (not) being able to experience that certain sensation.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meissner's_corpuscle

Also, why are we arguing over sexual satisfaction? It's about bodily integrity in the first place. You don't go around cutting earlobes off of children. And you don't go around removing perfectly fine appendixes.
 
Most of the debate in this Thread is irrelevant. The bottom line is: Unindicated surgery in infants. It should be illegal.
 
@FlyingLemons
I, too, don't really care what religious people think of me, but I still care about their offspring younger than 18 years of age. Because from my POV...

Here's the thing: you're trying to dictate how one section of society should raise their children from the standpoint that your values and practices are inherently superior to theirs. They aren't. They're just different.

children are not your belonging, your stuff, your objects, and that's why I can't accept treating them as such and "branding" them, because you are what you are. You shouldn't have a right to brand children by surgically altering them, and you also shouldn't have the right to label them "jewish". A six-year-old doesn't have a viewpoint on religion. Unless, of course, you force it onto the child.

Being Jewish isn't just religion, but it's also a culture and a national identity. Circumcision is part of that identity, and it's highly siginificant for Jews whether they're atheist, agnostic, Reform, Conservative or Orthodox. We have our culture, others have theirs. It's not the business of others to tell us how to raise our children.

As an aside, when the European Reform tried throwing aside circumcision and everything that made us culturally distinct to try and assimilate at the beginning of the 20th century, it didn't work. The message that me and others draw from that is that for this issue we shouldn't really mind about what those outside the Jewish community think as it doesn't matter either way.



1. The equivalent of blindness was suggested by a pro-circumcision person and so far wasn't stupid at all.

To me, it is stupid as everything works perfectly well. If it involved chopping the whole thing off, fine, otherwise no.

2. Right, I don't have the "experience". I also don't have the experience of having no appendix. And even though you can live perfectly fine without one, the mere surgery is enough stress to justify not wanting it to be removed.

Modern surgerical techniques remove most of the stress, and I remember being at school and knowing an uncut guy who hated the fact that his parents hadn't had it done, and hugely resented them for it. If you're not Jewish, I guess it's not that much of an issue. For us, it is.

3. Personally, I am insulted by people calling my penis "ugly", but I don't really care. People nowadays can be insulted by practically everything and, from the point of the procedure being horrible, the truth of being "damaged" doesn't really care if it itself is insulting.

I've never called being uncut "ugly", and really I don't care about those to whom it has no religious or cultural significance. Also, throughout this whole thing you appear to be saying that you know better than me if I have a good sex life or not. I do, so "damaged" really doesn't stand up.

5. And that's the point. It's fine if you don't really care, but think about your (future) children and the rest of the world. Not caring is no argument. Many people don't care if smoking will kill them 10 years earlier than the average guy. We still have laws prohibiting children from smoking and many countries now have laws concerning passive smoking.
Being satisfyied (as far as you can tell) is no argument either. Because by that standard, we could limit everyone's freedoms and turn the western world into a dictatorship. Many people in communist countries were "satisfyied", they lived good lives and that was it.
Also, if you know it can be even better, how is it moral to not make sure everyone has the best potential experience if he/she is older?

6. Identifying as something:
How can it be right for parents to be allowed to alter a child's appearance, if they only have the right to for 18 years max. and the person then has to live with it forever? Is parental privilege that important? 18 years versus at least 50 more years?

For Jews, it's normal. When we think about our future children, culturally it tends to make things more awkward to be uncut than cut. We've done it for thousands of years, and that means that millions have lived quite happily being circumcised. You come along and tell us that secretly we're all hurting inside and we're unhappy and damaged. Me and millions of other circumcised men, both Jewish and non-Jewish, know how we feel and we're perfectly happy thank you very much. As long as it's done properly by a skilled medical professional, so will our children. Mohelim have got it down to an art, anyway.

Also, why are we arguing over sexual satisfaction? It's about bodily integrity in the first place. You don't go around cutting earlobes off of children. And you don't go around removing perfectly fine appendixes.

It's one of the many arguments that's been rolled out that somehow it's lead to circumcised men being sexually damaged, and that's why it's "unkind". The perspective of those who have been circumcised really can't be dismissed, and most here say it hasn't affected their lives negatively. Ultimately, it's about the right of different groups in society to live as they see fit as circumcision is practiced by both Jews and Muslims, and the individuals in these groups are just fine with living circumcised. Are they happy? Yes. Should they change for what others think regarding this situation? No.
 
Just because people have been doing something for ages doesn't make it immune from public discussion.
 
As I've said, I'm personally opposed to circumcision of infants, based on the fact that it's a non-reversible, medically unnecessary surgical procedure performed without the consent of the child. It's the combination of all those characteristics (non-reversibible, medically unnecessary, unconsented) that makes me wary about it. It if was reversible, medically necessary, or consented by the individual, I'll have no qualms about it.

On the other hand, I agree that it's ultimately a minor procedure, and that by almost over-whelming accounts, it does nothing to impair sexual function. I am kinda uncomfortable with the fact that, while the procedure is mostly safe, there are instances of after-surgical complications. But, taking into account medical problems that could rise due to the presence of foreskin (phimosis, infections), I would say it's probably even.

Still, even if I don't agree with the practice, I can understand people who do it for religious or cultural reasons. One could stand on the high ground of uncompromising principles and scream at others, but I've found that's hardly conductive to peaceful coexistence between different cultures. They make a strong case for it being an identity sign, and I would be wary of messing with that, as taking away a culture's identity is a very disturbing idea and it leads to bad things. If it means so much for some people, and it's mostly harmless, I don't see the need to make an ass of myself fighting it with tooth and nails. So, I would not support any motion to make it illegal.

The only position I really find disturbing is people saying "meh, I had it done to me, I'll do it to my kids just because". Not for the content of this position, but for the attitude it reveals.

I just felt like summing my opinion on the matter for the record.
 
The best thing is that I can't decide if you are actually agreeing with me or making fun of me. :lol:

And I wouldn't have any differently from our dearest deadpan snarker. ;)
 
You obviously don't have one and are therefore unqualified to comment.

And you obviously have one and are therefore unqualified to say the feeling is lessened/worse without it.

The bit with the unique sensation isn't there anymore. Of course the feeling would be lessened.

Well, technically, there is a different bit with a different unique sensation where the foreskin used to be attached. Don't underestimate the scar tissue! :p
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top