Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[spin0]

You imply a distinction where none exists.

You mean besides the obvious: missing functional, erogenic part(s) of the penis?

 

[colander]

You mean besides the obvious: missing functional, erogenic part(s) of the penis?

Really? Because the circumcised men I know don't actually seem to be "missing" much of anything.

 

[colander]

Jews are not guilty of murderous acts, but your argument is still unsound. People have believed that they have been commanded by God to kill witches, or indeed to kill Jews. So belief that an act is in response to a divine command is not, and ought not to be - in and of itself - a reason why the act should be permitted by law.

Again, it's not up to us to plead with you that we should continue to be allowed to raise our children like we've been doing for thousands of years. It's up to you to convince us what's the harm. So far you guys have been all crickets on that front.

The only justification should be (if this is indeed the case) that infant male circumcision does so little harm that it is not expedient that the law should take notice of it.

Well, that is what the people who've actually had it done say. Why should you get to overrule them?

Look, it comes down to this: if history is any indication, if your country outlaws infant circumcision, Jews will either leave your country or they will break your law, and then I guess you'll have to round them all up and put 'em in jail, and I guess you can put their circumcised babies into foster care or something.

Real talk: does that strike you as an improvement over where things stand now?

 

[spin0]

Really? Because the circumcised men I know don't actually seem to be "missing" much of anything.

Yes really. It's a simple statement of objective fact. Their penises are missing functional and erogenic part(s) because they have been removed. Which ones and how much depends on what has been removed in the operation and may somewhat vary individually.

The removed parts include many very sensitive areas which are rich in nerve endings such as the ringed band and most of the delta-like area attached to the frenulum. (Not sure if you know that my-god-that-feels-good-spot just beneath the glans? In a penis it extends as a larger very sensitive delta-like structure beneath the shaft but in a circumcised penis most of that is missing - sometimes also the frenulum itself has been cut. Healthy!)

Here's some basics of the relevant anatomy of the foreskin:
NSFW - a link containing medical images

The Frenular Delta

And here's a graph of different areas by their sensitivity in a Semmes-Weinstein monofilament touch-test (lower bar->lower threshold->more sensitive):

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

You imply a distinction where none exists.

No, I'm asking how you'd know if there was a distinction when you've effectively never had a foreskin.

You may well be right, there may be no difference - or at least not one sufficient to be noticeable, but how would you know when you've nothing to compare it to?

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Ridiculous. You were missing out on something - something identifiable, objective and measurable. There was an objective standard by which your vision could be measured. You could have been fitted with a pair of binoculars, but since that is not normal human vision the doctor didn't do that. You could have been fitted with infrared optics. They didn't do that, either.

I know of no objective scale for pleasure. Hospitals have found that the best measure of pain, however, is a subjective scale where the patient rates his own pain. Most all hospitals now have a smiley face, simple 1-10 system. Going by a subjective scale, there is no evidence that men circumcised at birth experience less pleasure. There is, however, evidence that men circumcised in their teen and adult years do.

We might speculate that men who derive less pleasure from sex will have less sex, experience more sexual dysfunction and, possibly, have fewer children. However, there is no evidence that Jewish men are experiencing less fulfilling or fruitful sex lives.

I'm not implying that the difference would be so much as to take sexual activity from great to not-enjoyable. Clearly, in the majority of instances that is not the case. But how would you know that you wouldn't have had 'even more sensation' if you had a foreskin with all its extra sensitive bits - seems logical to me. NB More sensation doesn't even necessarily mean better sex as it might mean briefer sex!

As an example, some people (and I may be one!) report that their orgasms are not quite as intense once they've had a vasectomy but they're still a bloody fine experience. Had they had a vasectomy before they'd ever had an orgasm then the lack of reference would make it nigh on impossible to judge that the sensation was reduced and they'd probably scoff at suggestions that their enjoyment was impaired 'cos it was still just about the best sensation ever. However, I'm sure they could acknowledge that by the nature of what was done, that could have an effect - albeit nowhere near enough to negate the pleasure of the act and hey, you can't miss what you never had.

So, this is a genuine question - how an earth could you know if circumcision had, or had not, reduced the sensitivity of your penis if you had it done before you were even that conscious of the existence of your penis?

 

[Loss Leader]

No, I'm asking how you'd know if there was a distinction when you've effectively never had a foreskin.

You may well be right, there may be no difference - or at least not one sufficient to be noticeable, but how would you know when you've nothing to compare it to?

As answered above, no study has shown any difference in pleasure or dysfunction due to neonatal circumcision. Thus, whatever physical differences there are, no evidence exists that the physical differences have any effect.

I don't know whether you have an invisible dragon in your garage, either. You are the one arguing the positive position. Provide evidence.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

... which will be too late to do a circumcision as quickly, with as little pain, with as low a likelihood for complications and with no loss of sexual function or feeling.

Given that circumcision is the removal of one of the most sensitive parts of the penis, I don't see how it's possible to do it at any age without loss of sexual feeling.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I know of no objective scale for pleasure.

There is, however, an objective scale for sensation. This study shows that a penis with a foreskin is more sensitive than one without.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Really? Because the circumcised men I know don't actually seem to be "missing" much of anything.

Except, of course, a particularly sensitive part of their penis.

 

[Loss Leader]

There is, however, an objective scale for sensation. This study shows that a penis with a foreskin is more sensitive than one without.

Unfortunately, the study doesn't say much at all.

1. The study does not differentiate between men circumcised at infancy and those circumcised in later years. This is true even though the designers of the study could easily have added that to the biographical data they were collecting. I do not know why they chose not to. I do, however, know that their sample is worthless for determining the difference between uncircumcised and neonatally circumcised men. As far as we know, every circumcised man in the study had the procedure done at age 23.

2. The study maps 8 points that only uncircumcised men have and 2 points that only circumcised men have. One of the circumcised points is as sensitive or more so than four of the uncircumcised points.

3. On the points where data exists for both types of men, what is the mean difference in sensation? At appears from the chart to be about a tenth of a gram. 0.1 grams. Is there a serious contention that the mean variation in female nether-regions is less than a tenth of a gram? Is there any evidence that sexual partners have any trouble applying one tenth of one gram of pressure? Which leads to ...

4. The study says nothing about the sexual satisfaction of uncircumcised men versus those circumcised at birth. It says nothing about which of the mapped points might be the most important to sexual pleasure. It invites people to speculate that its findings are tied to sexual satisfaction, but fails to deliver any evidence on that front.

The study does not support your argument.

 

[colander]

Except, of course, a particularly sensitive part of their penis.

Seems like their penises are already plenty sensitive.

 

[zooterkin]

Is it just me, or are others getting a whiff of sour grapes in this thread?

 

[Darat]

Victims of abuse will often deny they are victims.

 

[Loss Leader]

Victims of abuse will often deny they are victims.

So, me saying I was not abused is now evidence of abuse. If I said I was abused, would that be evidence that I wasn't? Or have you just made a decision about the matter and now made up a rule that results in your preconception?

 

[Morrigan]

Victims of abuse will often deny they are victims.

Ouch.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Is it just me, or are others getting a whiff of sour grapes in this thread?

Maybe make sure you're washing down on the farm thoroughly enough (Especially under the farmer's hat)

 

[Ryokan]

Only in a debate about circumcision will you hear such a great number of men say, "meh, sex already feels great to me, why would I want it to be better?"

 

[Rat]

So, me saying I was not abused is now evidence of abuse. If I said I was abused, would that be evidence that I wasn't? Or have you just made a decision about the matter and now made up a rule that results in your preconception?

That would be affirming the consequent. The point is not that those who say they were not abused must have been so.

 

[Darat]

So, me saying I was not abused is now evidence of abuse. If I said I was abused, would that be evidence that I wasn't? Or have you just made a decision about the matter and now made up a rule that results in your preconception?

Can't unravel what your post means.

If this helps - my comment was about a well known behaviour and that is that some victims will argue that they were not abused.

If you have been subject to genital mutilation (which of course does not include genital surgery that was for medical reasons) without your informed consent then you were abused.

I am sure that your parents (and most parents who have their child of either sex "circumcised") made their decision with good intentions and with no malice and indeed with love for you as their child, that however does not mean that you were not the victim of abuse.