German court bans circumcision of young boys

[Ryokan]

...so I don't see the connection between the collection of pre-ejeculate in the prepuce and heightened pleasure during masturbation.

No one has said anything about heightened pleasure because of it, only that it makes masturbation easier.

The application of lubrication during masturbation strikes me more as personal preference than anything pertaining directly to circumcision.

Not to say they don't exist, but I've never heard of any uncircumcised men using lubrication for masturbation. It's simply not needed. At all.

ETA: I wonder if the subject matter is too sensitive to make a poll?

 

[jdp]

ETA: I wonder if the subject matter is too sensitive to make a poll?

Perhaps make it an anonymous poll?

 

[Ryokan]

Perhaps make it an anonymous poll?

What I meant is if the forum mods will allow a poll on the subject.

ETA: Asked them here.

 

[mijopaalmc]

No one has said anything about heightened pleasure because of it, only that it makes masturbation easier.

Other than the fact that you're not always (possibly) looking around for lubricant, how is masturbation "easier"?

Not to say they don't exist, but I've never heard of any uncircumcised men using lubrication for masturbation. It's simply not needed. At all.

And some uncircumciused men don't need lubricant. It all depends what you find most stimulating.

ETA: I wonder if the subject matter is too sensitive to make a poll?

I like your choice of words.

 

[Ryokan]

Other than the fact that you're not always (possibly) looking around for lubricant, how is masturbation "easier"?

Well, you can just grab it and you're good to go..

And some uncircumciused men don't need lubricant. It all depends what you find most stimulating.

But some do, which is the point.

I like your choice of words.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Well, you can just grab it and you're good to go..

As I have seen some uncircumcised men do.

But some do, which is the point.

And some don't.

Also, using girls as informants on the masturbatory practices of boys is quite problematic, especially if they get their own information from cultural representations. How a culture as a whole represents a sexual practice may not be how the practice is actually preformed. Just look at male-male sex acts and the discourse on dominance and submission as portrayed in the gendered language used to label the insertive and penetrative participants.

 

[jdp]

What I meant is if the forum mods will allow a poll on the subject.

ETA: Asked them here.

That should make for an interesting poll.

Enjoyed this critique of a recent article criticizing the ruling:

http://www.chooseintact.com/2012/07/06/strong-and-non-conflicting-evidence/

 

[Megalodon]

Indeed nobody in their right mind would. Indeed, indeed.

If post #254 doesn't convince the neutral observer that this subject is not being argued rationally by rational arguers, I guess nothing will.

What's irrational about preferring a part of my body over another? You obviously didn't share my opinion when you got rid of your foreskin, and that's ok because you were a consenting adult.

Now, I noticed that you had nothing productive to add to the discussion, and preferred to run around like a headless chicken screeching about how the other guys are irrational.

Maybe you want to try addressing one of the many objective points made, instead of focusing on my subjective valuation of my own body parts?

For instance: would it be ok with you if someone decided to have their babies genitally pierced? Or have their nipples pierced?

If not, why not?

 

[Megalodon]

You make it sound as if there's been a raft of posts (arguments) that were irrational. I might be curious to know which fingers or toes but it is his opinion. It sounds to me that he simply values his foreskin, what's wrong with that?

The real though decision would be with the thumb, index and middle finger... Any toe would be preferable. And yes, as you correctly deduced, I do love my foreskin.

But our friend keeps trying to throw irrationality accusations in lieu of arguments.

For instance, I would like to know what would be irrational about me making (reluctantly) a choice between two parts of my body, which I alone can evaluate the usefulness of.

And, to relate it to the thread subject, would it be more rational that a complete stranger would do that choice for me?

 

[catsmate]

If post #254 doesn't convince the neutral observer that this subject is not being argued rationally by rational arguers, I guess nothing will.

Then why not answer the rational point? For example:

• the lack of benefits to circumcision
• the risks of the procedure
• the long term adverse effects
• the issue of consent

to start with.

 

[jdp]

What's irrational about preferring a part of my body over another? You obviously didn't share my opinion when you got rid of your foreskin, and that's ok because you were a consenting adult.

We have to be careful here, it's possible that he required a circumcision for therapeutic reasons and didn't have much of a choice; we don't know what his reasons were. As you've noted though, the impact it has is entirely up to him to determine.

For instance: would it be ok with you if someone decided to have their babies genitally pierced? Or have their nipples pierced?

If not, why not?

I for one would love to read answers to those types of questions.

For instance, I would like to know what would be irrational about me making (reluctantly) a choice between two parts of my body, which I alone can evaluate the usefulness of.

And, to relate it to the thread subject, would it be more rational that a complete stranger would do that choice for me?

That is pretty much the heart of the matter. Fortunately, to be fair, most people posting here seem to get it.

 

[Rasmus]

The real though decision would be with the thumb, index and middle finger... Any toe would be preferable.

I think i once heard that the big toes perform some essential function in walking and keeping your balance...

 

[zeggman]

The only reason I chose to call a mole a tumor is because it is a tumor. It is not a normal, functioning part of the anatomy. It's an abnormal growth, it has no purpose and in extremis it can kill you.

I've since consulted my anatomy books, and none of them refer to a mole as a tumor. A mole is distinguished from a tumor in both its common terminology (mole/tumor) and its medical terminology (nevus/neoplasm). I did find one doctor on a website who called moles tumors, but a large part of his practice seems to be the surgical removal of moles, so I suspect he has the same motive to employ over-the-top emotional terms as you do.

 

[sadhatter]

My understanding of anatomy is just fine, thank you.

The reason a wart ("viral lesion") is comparable to a "functioning part of the anatomy" is because a common wart ("viral lesion") is a "functioning part of the anatomy." It is benign, keeps body fluids in and infectious agents out, just like any other piece of skin.

I did not deny that a mole is a "tumor" so your claim that I had no idea a mole was a tumor is without basis. I believe the only reason anyone on this thread would choose to call a mole a tumor is to imply that there is some medical reason to remove it, when (as with the common wart) there is not. It is a piece of skin, and leaving it right where it is will not threaten the health of the person who has the mole or the wart.

Since the point I was making (that there is no medical reason to remove a wart, a mole, or a foreskin) is not invalidated by the emotional terms you prefer, perhaps it is you who would benefit from further instruction in anatomy.

Again, it shows, no amount of trying to cover it with google fu is going to change that but it is a good step in the right direction, just keep on reading, and you will have a good understanding of human anatomy in no time.

 

[sadhatter]

You do realize that pre-ejaculate is produce by internal glands in the reproductive tract?

I had sex with several circumcised men who lubricated just fine.

And i've bought many dvds from thrift stores and they worked, but this doesn't mean that a good amount of the time, when folks buy them, they don't.

 

[sadhatter]

The real though decision would be with the thumb, index and middle finger... Any toe would be preferable. And yes, as you correctly deduced, I do love my foreskin.

But our friend keeps trying to throw irrationality accusations in lieu of arguments.

For instance, I would like to know what would be irrational about me making (reluctantly) a choice between two parts of my body, which I alone can evaluate the usefulness of.

And, to relate it to the thread subject, would it be more rational that a complete stranger would do that choice for me?

I'm in the same boat, if i had to give up the thumb, or middle finger, it would be a close race, maybe a coin toss, but anything else i would gladly hack off versus my foreskin.

 

[sadhatter]

I've since consulted my anatomy books, and none of them refer to a mole as a tumor. A mole is distinguished from a tumor in both its common terminology (mole/tumor) and its medical terminology (nevus/neoplasm). I did find one doctor on a website who called moles tumors, but a large part of his practice seems to be the surgical removal of moles, so I suspect he has the same motive to employ over-the-top emotional terms as you do.

Which anatomy books? And seeing as your now insinuating you are in school for a field that requires advanced knowledge of anatomy, which field? As someone who is in school for pharmacy, i seriously doubt, given your previous statements, and this current one, that this is a true claim.

 

[mijopaalmc]

A mole is not a tumor any more than a skin tag is a tumor. Having non-dysplastic naevi removed is an aestheric choice.

 

[zeggman]

Which anatomy books?

Human Anatomy and Physiology, 6th edition, Elaine N. Marieb, R.N., Ph.D

Textbook of Medical Physiology, 6th edition, Arthur C. Guyton, M.D.

Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary, 19th edition

In the interest of full disclosure, this final reference does list two definitions for "nevus":

1. A congenital discoloration of a circumscribed area of the skin due to pigmentation. SYN: birthmark; mole.

2. A circumscribed vascular tumor of the skin, usually congenital, due to hyperplasia of the blood vessels. SEE: angioma.

Since we began this discussion with Cindy Crawford, I trust you will grant that we were speaking of a mole rather than an angioma.

And seeing as your now insinuating you are in school for a field that requires advanced knowledge of anatomy, which field? As someone who is in school for pharmacy, i seriously doubt, given your previous statements, and this current one, that this is a true claim.

Well, then, dingus, I guess it's a claim you shouldn't have made.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Again, the point is that mole is not necessarily a dysfunctional part of the body.