Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[colander]

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.

If it doesn't actually correlate to increased chance of deleterious physical or psychological outcomes, in what meaningful way can it be termed "abuse"?

 

[Duffy Moon]

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

Yes Aunt Meg.

 

[Darat]

If it doesn't actually correlate to increased chance of deleterious physical or psychological outcomes, in what meaningful way can it be termed "abuse"?

"deleterious physical... outcomes" - have you forgotten what male genital mutilation actually is?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

As far as we know, every circumcised man in the study had the procedure done at age 23.

That may be true but, given the ubiquity of infant male circumcision in the US, I doubt it.

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.

So uncircumcised men only have 4 areas in which their penis is more sensitive than circumcised men do? I fail to see how that means that a circumcised penis is as sensitive as an uncircumcised penis.

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?

I'm really not sure where you're getting that last sentence from. Regardless of trouble applying pressure, the fact remains that an uncircumcised penis is more sensitive than a circumcised one - both in terms of over all sensitivity, and in the fact that there are more parts of the penis to be sensitive. Not to get too graphic, due to forum rules, but having a partner do things to your foreskin is pleasurable. That is a pleasure that people without a foreskin will never know.

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.

I don't think that something being "the most important" for sexual pleasure is particularly relevant. People without earlobes can have a full and satisfying sex life. That doesn't mean that it isn't nice to have your earlobes sucked on, nor is the fact that you can have a full and satisfying sex life without them much justification for amputating them at birth.

The study does not support your argument.

Mt argument was that a circumcised penis was less responsive to touch than an uncircumcised one. As that's exactly what the study demonstrates, you'll forgive me if I believe that it does support my argument.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Seems like their penises are already plenty sensitive.

I'll take your word for that. How is that relevant to what I said?

 

[Loss Leader]

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.

And yet I bear none of the hallmarks of the abused child. I have no trouble forming appropriate, loving relationships. I do not (and did not as a child) act out innappropriately or have trouble reading social cues. I don't and never have abused alcohol and drugs. I didn't engage in early sexual activity. I am not poor. (My physical health is terrible, but is due to a congenital heart condition.)

In fact, members of my religion overall have (to my understanding) excellent reputations for marriage and reproduction, are better educated than the mean, are less likely to abuse alcohol than the average American, and are more likely to value family than average Americans.

So, in what way was I the victim of abuse? Only by definition, apparently. "Men who were circumcised as infants were abused, thus men who were circumcised as infants were abused."

If it doesn't actually correlate to increased chance of deleterious physical or psychological outcomes, in what meaningful way can it be termed "abuse"?

+1

"deleterious physical... outcomes" - have you forgotten what male genital mutilation actually is?

I haven't. I especially haven't forgotten that there is not one single reliable study that shows that neonatal circumcision has any effect on quality of life or overall health greater than non-circumcision. I've seen a lot of speculation and hope mixed with suppressed premises and tautologies, but no evidence.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

If it doesn't actually correlate to increased chance of deleterious physical or psychological outcomes, in what meaningful way can it be termed "abuse"?

Cutting the earlobes of a child off at birth wouldn't correlate to increased chance of deleterious physical or psychological outcomes. Would you agree that doing so was not child abuse?

 

[Loss Leader]

That may be true but, given the ubiquity of infant male circumcision in the US, I doubt it.

Except that not all the participants were born in the US. As far as we know, all of the variation in sensation would disappear if they were excluded.

I'm really not sure where you're getting that last sentence from. Regardless of trouble applying pressure, the fact remains that an uncircumcised penis is more sensitive than a circumcised one - both in terms of over all sensitivity, and in the fact that there are more parts of the penis to be sensitive.

And yet no evidence is presented that the difference in sensitivity matters at all during sex. How does that difference in sensitivity differ from the normal differences between men? We don't know. Is the difference greater than the difference one man might experience during his own lifetime, during the course of a year, during any given week? The study doesn't say. Is there a difference measured in the single snapshot they took? Yes. Does the difference actually distinguish anything? No.

Mt argument was that a circumcised penis was less responsive to touch than an uncircumcised one. As that's exactly what the study demonstrates, you'll forgive me if I believe that it does support my argument.

Oh, excellent. Well, so long as we agree that both the study and your argument are in no way logically related to males circumcised at birth, then there is nothing to talk about.

 

[Darat]

And yet I bear none of the hallmarks of the abused child. I have no trouble forming appropriate, loving relationships. I do not (and did not as a child) act out innappropriately or have trouble reading social cues. I don't and never have abused alcohol and drugs. I didn't engage in early sexual activity. I am not poor. (My physical health is terrible, but is due to a congenital heart condition.)

In fact, members of my religion overall have (to my understanding) excellent reputations for marriage and reproduction, are better educated than the mean, are less likely to abuse alcohol than the average American, and are more likely to value family than average Americans.

So, in what way was I the victim of abuse? Only by definition, apparently. "Men who were circumcised as infants were abused, thus men who were circumcised as infants were abused."



+1





I haven't. I especially haven't forgotten that there is not one single reliable study that shows that neonatal circumcision has any effect on quality of life or overall health greater than non-circumcision. I've seen a lot of speculation and hope mixed with suppressed premises and tautologies, but no evidence.

And?

 

[rustypouch]

Cutting the earlobes of a child off at birth wouldn't correlate to increased chance of deleterious physical or psychological outcomes. Would you agree that doing so was not child abuse?

It would also eliminate a significant risk of frostbite. So really, it would be in the child's best interest.

 

[Darat]

Please ignore my and post above. Trying to respond on my mobile and Made a mess of the quoting. I'll type my full response later on tonight when I am at my PC.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Except that not all the participants were born in the US.

Do you have a cite for that? I can't find that information in the link I gave.

As far as we know, all of the variation in sensation would disappear if they were excluded.

All the variation between the parts of the penis that they both have. However, there would still be a greater number of sensitive areas on the uncircumcised penis.

And yet no evidence is presented that the difference in sensitivity matters at all during sex.

I find it hard to believe that you don't think that soft caressing of sensitive areas is pleasurable. The reason why kissing on the mouth is more erotic than kissing on the cheek is that the mouth is more sensitive than the cheek. The definition of "erogenous zone" is, in part, that they are more sensitive.

Oh, excellent. Well, so long as we agree that both the study and your argument are in no way logically related to males circumcised at birth, then there is nothing to talk about.

I'm sure you can happily dismiss everything I've said like that, yes. That doesn't make what you say true.

 

[spin0]

Yes Aunt Meg Peg.

FTFY

 

[Lithrael]

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?"

I also like how nobody talks about the part of that Frisch, Lindholm and Grønbæk study that looks at the question of how male circumcision affects the subject's partner. Specifically, dyspareunia (pain during intercourse): Greater for women with circumcised men (12%) as compared to those with uncircumcised men (3%).

Dyspareunia in women is largely ignored in medicine in any case, though, so I'm not surprised there have been fewer studies along those lines than there have been on the all important male member, as far as the effects of circumcision on sex. (Dare I mention its effects on a male receptive partner?) I seem to recall those African studies didn't so much as speak to the participant's partners when asking about levels of sexual function. Can't seem to find the full text of the study again at the moment though so I'm not sure.

Oh hey! Here it is. Incidentally, it sounds like this study could be used to support delaying infant circumcision! Look at all these satisfied recipients of adult circumcisions!

"In conclusion, >98% of men reported sexual satisfaction and normal sexual function after circumcision in this rural population and we conclude that adult male circumcision does not have clinically significant deleterious effects on sexual pleasure or function at 2-years’ follow-up in a rural Ugandan population aged 15–49 years."

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

Based on past experience I expect to be asked why sufferers of dyspareunia can't just buy more lube and get over it.

ETA: Oh gosh, I actually found a study on the subject. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1079.x/abstract

 

[colander]

Cutting the earlobes of a child off at birth wouldn't correlate to increased chance of deleterious physical or psychological outcomes. Would you agree that doing so was not child abuse?

If done in a medically appropriate setting, yes, I'd have a tough time calling that "abuse".

 

[Professor Yaffle]

The full PDF is free too:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1079.x/pdf

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Ah, this topic again. Warning: TMI ahead.

Let me start by saying that my views on this aren't simple. Ideally, I would have the procedure be limited to medical necessity or consenting adults, but I also appreciate the negative consequences of such a limit. I've been toying with the idea of regular checkups and severe penalties for, say, going to Israel and having it done, but it's hardly viable.

Regardless, I am 21 years old, a male from Sweden, and I suffer(ed) from severe congenital phimosis. A decision was made, when I was 2-3 years old, by a prominent pediatrist, to perform a circumcision due to problems in connection with said phimosis. I don't know if it was strictly necessary, but at least it was a reasonable procedure and I hold no animosity toward anyone in this regard.

In fact, I went through one semi-circumcision, which did not give satisfactory result, and I had to go through another one, which I have memories of. I was under GA, but I remember the waiting room, the aftermath, pain, and so on.

I gave it little thought throughout my life, but I have always suspected and have now come to realize that I am far less sensitive than most men. To the degree that I hardly feel anything at all during sex. Masturbation is difficult, I guess, but certainly possible. I've considered doing a restoration, which would probably soften the glans and improve sensitivity a bit, but I haven't gotten around to it.

I doubt most circumcised men are as bad off as I am, but it'd be hard to say how many. Regardless, I can't imagine ever putting a child through this procedure for no particular reason. It's hard to know as I have nothing to compare it to directly.

It's hardly the whole world, and something I can live with - but here you have a man - as far as he can know - dissatisfied with his circumcision - but with no religious baggage, no resentment, nothing. Just the thought that I would have been a good deal better off without having to do it.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

If done in a medically appropriate setting, yes, I'd have a tough time calling that "abuse".

Are there any body modifications to be done on an infant that you'd not be okay with? Tattoos, piercings, dermal implants, scarification, the removal of enough toes to look different but not to affect walking?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Are there any body modifications to be done on an infant that you'd not be okay with? Tattoos, piercings, dermal implants, scarification, the removal of enough toes to look different but not to affect walking?

Removal of toenails is a fair comparison I think. It would prevent any future problems with fungal nail infections, and we don't really "need" them. But I doubt many people would be happy allowing a group to do it to their infants purely because it was traditional.

 

[spin0]

^ And not to forget the importance of washing. How else are you going to wash under toenails unless you detach them?

It would also eliminate a significant risk of frostbite. So really, it would be in the child's best interest.

Also, washing. Amputating the earlobes reduces the need to wash behind them.