German court bans circumcision of young boys

zeggman said:
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. It almost sounds like you are attempting a mocking restatement of a research result you consider invalid, but it doesn't quite parse that way.

...snip...
Click to expand...

Nope - mocking the idea that there is not a reduction of "sensitivity" in a circumcised male.
 
mijopaalmc said:
Does the circumcision protocol include a penectomy as well?
Click to expand...
And how is this relevent? To anything.

mijopaalmc said:
My, how you do project!

Just because your culture considers something aesthetically pleasing that my does not in itself dpes not mean that the practice is mutilation. You are substituting a subjective, aesthetic judgement for a objective, biological evaluation.
Click to expand...
Wrong. It's not subjective, circumcision removes a functional part of the body, usually for no logical reason.

mijopaalmc said:
No-one claimed that mutilation renders a body part functionless. The claim is that mutilation reduces the function of a body part, an argument you have yet to support with any evidence pertaining to circumcision.
Click to expand...
Actually evidence of sexual problems due to circumcision (including at least one large, peer reviewed, study) has been posted. And ignored by some people.

mijopaalmc said:
<snippage>You have no presented evidence that removal of the prepuce actual reduces the functioning of the penis.
Click to expand...
Untrue.
 
Darat said:
Nope - mocking the idea that there is not a reduction of "sensitivity" in a circumcised male.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what the basis for that mockery would be. If I lost the top of a finger, the fact that millions of nerve endings would now terminate in a different place would not lead me to conclude that the new tip of my finger would be less sensitive than it had been before.

I don't have a before-and-after tale myself. I presume you don't. Many men who were circumcised as adults say they're more sensitive after the fact, many say they're less sensitive, and many say it made no difference.

If there is a difference, I'm sure it's unimportant. I can get aroused without stimulating my sensitive erogenous zones at all, have no problem reaching orgasm when I want to, and think sex with my partner of more than twenty years has not suffered one whit from my lifelong "disability".
 
zeggman said:
I'm not sure what the basis for that mockery would be. If I lost the top of a finger, the fact that millions of nerve endings would now terminate in a different place would not lead me to conclude that the new tip of my finger would be less sensitive than it had been before.

...snip...
Click to expand...

Of course the mutilated finger would not have the same sensitivity as your intact finger that's a matter of basic anatomy.

An uncircumcised male has a part of his anatomy that an uncircumcised male does not have - there can be no doubt (unless you want to claim the foreskin has no nerves and no sensations at all) that a circumcised penis has less sensitivity than a penis. And the functionality of the circumcised penis is also less than that of a penis again because one lacks something the other has.
 
Darat said:
Apart from of course the foreskin that has been removed in a circumcised penis, the foreskin of a non-circumcised man is infinitely more sensitive than that of an circumcised man....
Click to expand...

Words mean things, and the use of that word makes what you said a flat...untruth. Was it more sensitive before? Well yes, it was. However rather than "infinitely" the word which comes to mind is "negligibly".
 
Bram Kaandorp said:
Well maybe he doesn't want to.

Oh wait, the "I don't want sex to be better" joke has already been made.
Click to expand...

I've known many circumcised men and I know some have had fantastic sex, even if I do say so myself, but the argument is really getting off track if folk want to start talking about "better" sex. That's such a personal thing so I would say generally we should leave to one side* but we can't deny the fact that a man with a penis will have access to sensations that will always be impossible for a man with a circumcised penis to experience.



*A slight caveat - there are many documented cases in which a worse than usual circumcision has resulted in males having sexual problems directly caused by the circumcision. That is a legitimate area to discuss as it is of course about the risk that follows from circumcision.
 
brazenlilraisin said:
Words mean things, and the use of that word makes what you said a flat...untruth. Was it more sensitive before? Well yes, it was. However rather than "infinitely" the word which comes to mind is "negligibly".
Click to expand...

Can I assume that apples are nourishing?

If so, would you not agree that one apple is infinitely more nourishing than no apple?

Isn't one dollar infinitely more valuable than no money at all?

Nobody is suggesting that the foreskin would provide an infinite degree of sensitivity. Just that it has a degree of sensitivity > 0 and that the loss of it would, therefore, make a difference.

The point is that "my penis is not less sensitive than it would be with the foreskin", even if true, only applies to the parts of the penis that are still there. It seems to translate to "I have not lost sensitivity in the glans" (roughly) - but that is no different than saying "even though you amputated my left hand, the right continues to work just fine.) It may or may not be true, but it says us little about your ability to play the piano.
 
brazenlilraisin said:
Words mean things, and the use of that word makes what you said a flat...untruth. Was it more sensitive before? Well yes, it was. However rather than "infinitely" the word which comes to mind is "negligibly".
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you aware but non-medically required circumcision removes healthy tissue so that would require a circumcised male to be able to feel sensations from his excised foreskin. I would have thought that type of claim is more suited for the Million Dollar Challenge?
 
zeggman said:
I'm not sure what the basis for that mockery would be. If I lost the top of a finger, the fact that millions of nerve endings would now terminate in a different place would not lead me to conclude that the new tip of my finger would be less sensitive than it had been before.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that nerve-endings are the same as the cut-off tip of a nerve fibre? If so, you're wrong. A nerve-ending is a sensor, the cut-off tip of a nerve fibre is like a webcam cable without a webcam.
 
Ugh, I'm not too proud to admit apparently difficulty in parsing, but let me be clear about the fact that I felt sensations from my excised foreskin before it was excised. Therefore my point--a point I am qualified to make and you are not--is the difference between sensation with the foreskin and without it is negligible.
 
How good it feels isn't relevant though, what is relevant is whether or not it's a good idea to risk boys' penile health (or existence) for parental whims.

It's nice that men still feel pleasure from their penises. It doesn't address whether or not a parent should be allowed to risk their children's health by amending their bodies without medical necessity. Parents hold the bodies of their children in trust, when the child is old enough to care for their body they depend on their parents having taken good care of it until they can take over. Slashing off healthy bits of it does not qualify as good care.
 
Darat said:
Of course the mutilated finger would not have the same sensitivity as your intact finger that's a matter of basic anatomy.
Click to expand...
It's not a matter of basic anatomy. Basic anatomy says that all the sensation of which you're conscious happens in your brain. The only way the evidence of a sensation can travel from a fingertip to a brain is through an unbroken pathway of nerves. If the nerves which remain are capable of generating the same signals when stimulated, the brain isn't going to know the difference.

If there is a buildup of scar tissue, it's possible that some sensitivity could be lost. On the other hand, some of the men who report increased sensitivity say that the head of their penis is more sensitive than their foreskin was, and their experience after circumcision is like the difference between intercourse with and without a condom.
 
Silly Green Monkey said:
How good it feels isn't relevant though, what is relevant is whether or not it's a good idea to risk boys' penile health (or existence) for parental whims.

It's nice that men still feel pleasure from their penises. It doesn't address whether or not a parent should be allowed to risk their children's health by amending their bodies without medical necessity. Parents hold the bodies of their children in trust, when the child is old enough to care for their body they depend on their parents having taken good care of it until they can take over. Slashing off healthy bits of it does not qualify as good care.
Click to expand...

Further it needs to be noted that while some feel no loss, others feel loss. I've known some who under went circumcision as adults who report a drastic change. Also, we need to consider the fact that, especially when non-therapuetic, non-consenting individuals are involved, some circumcisions will result in more problems than others.
 
Darat said:
My foreskin contributes to the pleasure I have, I can experience sensations you will never be able to, that's just a fact.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the sensation of wearing diamond studs in your foreskin.

Brad Pitt experiences the sensation of making love to Angelina Jolie, and some guys experience the sensation of solving a Rubik's Cube in twenty seconds, both of which are are more demonstrable and more bothersome than your unprovable claim.
 
Silly Green Monkey said:
How good it feels isn't relevant though, what is relevant is whether or not it's a good idea to risk boys' penile health (or existence) for parental whims.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% with this. Unfortunately these days it's difficult to get objective facts for all the wild-eyed anti circ propaganda that's out there not to mention in here.
 
zeggman said:
It's not a matter of basic anatomy. Basic anatomy says that all the sensation of which you're conscious happens in your brain. The only way the evidence of a sensation can travel from a fingertip to a brain is through an unbroken pathway of nerves. If the nerves which remain are capable of generating the same signals when stimulated, the brain isn't going to know the difference.
Click to expand...

How is that possible if we've severed the nerve receptors when severing the finger tip. Sure some remain further up the finger but there the loss of receptors does represent a loss of input.

zeggman said:
If there is a buildup of scar tissue, it's possible that some sensitivity could be lost. On the other hand, some of the men who report increased sensitivity say that the head of their penis is more sensitive than their foreskin was, and their experience after circumcision is like the difference between intercourse with and without a condom.
Click to expand...

And scar tissue does build up on the glans of the penis over time (typically years), a process known as kerenalization (spelling is likely wrong). As to the men who report increased sensitivity, I'd be curious to know the time since circumcision. One would expect that for a good amount of time the head would remain relatively sensative in a way similar to if one walks around barefoot during the summer. The bottoms of your feet will initially be more sensative until they callous over.
 
Bram Kaandorp said:
Well maybe he doesn't want to.

Oh wait, the "I don't want sex to be better" joke has already been made.
Click to expand...
Like I say, to me this is about as relevant as some wine snob saying he can taste the difference between a $200 bottle of wine and a $220 bottle of wine, or a stereo snob telling me my earbuds are dropping 10% of the piccolo trills. I enjoy the experience I'm having just fine. It isn't all about my penis, in fact, it isn't even MOSTLY about my penis, but the fact is that the sensations I get from my penis are what I would characterize as fantastic.

You can claim you're having better sex, but you don't know its true, because you've never been in my head while I'm having sex. I've bedded models and starlets and ordinary beauties and ordinary uglies, and I agree with whoever said there's no such thing as bad sex.

You can spread whatever fairy tales you like, but faith without evidence is just that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom