MGM UK

[sadhatter]

Let's be clear: The man himself experiences rewarding sexual stimulation via his penis. Both masturbation and intercourse with the partners of his choice are sexually satisfying. His physician has identified no impairment.

The man is satisfied. His partners are satisfied. His physician is satisfied. What's the problem?

Loss of limb and death.

Don't be silly, or look up what gangrene is.

 

[GlennB]

If anything, I do them a favor by performing the procedure before the brain has even begun mapping the nerve impulses from the body. Circumcising an adult is cruel.

Sounds like a cheap rationalisation to me, though the highlighted phrase might deserve a stronger description.

Pain in babies^WP

Possibly the critical section:

"The nerves of young babies respond more readily to noxious stimuli, with a lower threshold to stimulation, than those of adults. A baby's threshold for sensitization is also substantially decreased, whilst the process involves a much larger area of sensitization with each trauma.[7] The neural pathways that descend from the brain to the spinal cord are not well developed in the newborn, resulting in the ability of the central nervous system to inhibit nociception being more limited than in the adult"

 

[sadhatter]

Oh don't be such a silly-billy. I hadn't until the post you asked me about whether your penis bothered me considered your "personal" penis, prior to that I was just making a general comment about circumcised penises - if you want it to be about your particular penis you will have to provide me with an experience of your penis.

Is the only way this debate lasts beyond two posts.

No one can logically defend cutting bits of of people as a practise, so it always congress down to personalization. "So you are insulting my cock? The cocks of my children?" Because the person knows someone is less likely to stick to their point if they feel they are being mean.


It's like how if I were discussing the merits of having one leg or two. The real answer is two legs are better than having a missing leg. But if my friend with one leg were to say "so you are saying I'm not as capable as you? " I'm likely going to move on to another topic, as I can't convince him into growing a leg and I feel in making him feel bad.

That being said it's a very illogical and shady debate tactic. The person is essentially saying "if you keep talking I'm gonna cry" in hopes the awkwardness makes the other person stop speaking the truth.

Or if I'm being less generous, I could see it as a way to make someone stumble afoul of the ma by demanding an arguement be personalized.

 

[sadhatter]

What was your point, exactly? That men with fully functional penises would somehow be unable to admit that their penis wasn't fully functional? Your illustration makes no sense in the context of this thread.

It does though.

Men are notorious for taking slight at any insinuation their particular penis is sub par. Going to various crazy lengths to prove it isn't. Becoming illogical about it.

But no this must be the only penis related subject in which this isn't going to happen.

 

[sadhatter]

Well, momentarily at least, I'm quite fascinated that a completely fictitious non-functional penis (fabricated as part of a humorously exaggerated rant) cannot be acknowledged as such.

Which actually goes a great deal further in demonstrating why this conversation doesn't get much traction than the silly little scenario itself did.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

People don't want to accept a gangrene ridden fictional wang could be sub par, what chance is there of logic being used if we are talking about real wang?

 

[sphenisc]

For me, the acceptable number of bits to chop off a fully functioning baby is zero.

For those here who believe that number is greater than zero, can I ask if you think it stops at just one?

What I'm asking is if anyone who thinks that MGM is okay thinks that it's okay to chop off any other bits of one's baby and if so, which bits?

If the answer is only one, why that one bit specifically? Why no others?

I'll go for placenta, hair and fingernails (not the whole fingernail just the bit the end).
So that's probably few hundred in total.

 

[3point14]

I'll go for placenta, hair and fingernails (not the whole fingernail just the bit the end).
So that's probably few hundred in total.

Okay, I think the placenta doesn't count, it's designed to be expendable.

Hair and nails grow back.

If this is the level of debate you think is relevant then I really can't be bothered. have a nice day.

 

[Darat]

I'll go for placenta, hair and fingernails (not the whole fingernail just the bit the end).
So that's probably few hundred in total.

That is not serious answer to the actual question, if it was you'd be up to the millions and equating a male's foreskin to a dead skin cell.

 

[theprestige]

Oh don't be such a silly-billy.

Personal attack reported.

I hadn't until the post you asked me about whether your penis bothered me considered your "personal" penis, prior to that I was just making a general comment about circumcised penises - if you want it to be about your particular penis you will have to provide me with an experience of your penis.

Darat, whose penis were you referring to in this post?

You said you were not damaged but that is simply factually wrong. Tissue that served a functional purpose was removed from your penis permanently altering it and leaving you with scars.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Again there are simple, minimally-invasive cosmetic procedures for adults to remove foreskin. This can be done with less destruction of underlying tissues, the prepuce erogenous zone, or the unravelling function. There doesn't seem to be a huge demand for it (most being cases of excessive or damaged foreskin).

Here's a glimpse at a research project studying men having adult procedures to fix damage from early-age circumcision:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3130485/

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

 

[sphenisc]

Okay, I think the placenta doesn't count, it's designed to be expendable.

Hair and nails grow back.

If this is the level of debate you think is relevant then I really can't be bothered. have a nice day.

Your question didn't mention non-expendability or the capacity for regrowth. Perhaps next time you could put more thought into asking your questions.

 

[theprestige]

Loss of limb and death.

Don't be silly, or look up what gangrene is.

I know what gangrene is. I'm trying to figure out why Delphic Oracle keeps trying to make an analogy between reporting no ill effects from circumcision and reporting no ill effects from gangrenous limb loss.

 

[sphenisc]

That is not serious answer to the actual question, if it was you'd be up to the millions and equating a male's foreskin to a dead skin cell.

Either that or you've just come up with some weird kind of false dichotomy.

 

[3point14]

Your question didn't mention non-expendability or the capacity for regrowth. Perhaps next time you could put more thought into asking your questions.

My questions assume a certain level of knowledge and intelligence and are aimed at an audience who are arguing in good faith.

I don't think it's the question that's the problem.

 

[Information Analyst]

When Mrs Analyst was recently expecting Junior Analyst, the question did come up very briefly. Notwithstanding the fact that - as stated in the OP link - the circumcision rate in the UK is 15%, and non-religious rate only 6%*, both our fathers were circumcised. My father actively chose it, according to my mother as a scam for bed-rest while doing his National Service (or she may just have got that from The Virgin Soldiers), while my father-in-law did not, it being down to a neurotic fixation of his mother's. Luckily my father did not visit it on any of his sons, and neither Mrs Analyst nor myself had any inclination to take the practice up again. As it was, Junior Analyst turned out to be Miss Analyst, so the question was even more moot.

* It may be worth noting that in the UK, many people did not recognise the sub-title of the South Park movie as a double-entendre, and merely assumed it was a statemnent of fact that the film would have a longer running time, would be on a larger scale, and have more profanity than the TV series.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I know what gangrene is. I'm trying to figure out why Delphic Oracle keeps trying to make an analogy between reporting no ill effects from circumcision and reporting no ill effects from gangrenous limb loss.

No.

I made no analogy. I made a completely stand-alone hypothetical scenario. The illustration intended was that men have trouble with straightforward discussion of their sexual organs.

But I concede to your superior demonstration of this phenomenon. You've done far better than I have.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

 

[GlennB]

Your question didn't mention non-expendability or the capacity for regrowth. Perhaps next time you could put more thought into asking your questions.

Maybe you should read the whole thread rather than nitpicking in this way. We've been talking about an irreversible surgical procedure from the outset. Hair and nail clipping are irrelevant to the gist of the discussion.

 

[theprestige]

It does though.

Men are notorious for taking slight at any insinuation their particular penis is sub par. Going to various crazy lengths to prove it isn't. Becoming illogical about it.

But no this must be the only penis related subject in which this isn't going to happen.

A lot of men actually quite like the idea of having a sub par penis. Try not to stereotype so hard.

Anyway, some people in this thread seem to be extremely triggered by the idea of male circumcision. Personally, I think the practice should probably be discontinued. It doesn't seem to have much benefit, and it brings a lot of unnecessary risks. But that said--and also personally--as a "victim" of the procedure I really don't get the outrage being expressed by some people here.

I mean, you keep making all these appeals to emotion, and I'm like, what? You're trying to tell me how I'm supposed to feel about my own dick? That's the argument you're going with? Honestly, I think you're probably more unhappy about my penis than I am. Which is why I asked.

But hey, if you're uncomfortable talking about my penis, that's okay. Go ahead and make your calm, medical argument against male circumcision. Let's see if you can manage it without the melodrama.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Anyway, some people in this thread seem to be extremely triggered by the idea of male circumcision.

Poisoning the Well

I mean, you keep making all these appeals to emotion, and I'm like, what? You're trying to tell me how I'm supposed to feel about my own dick?

Where has that happened?

Circumcision involves mutilation of the genitals. That's not a directive for you to feel a certain way, it's a declarative statement.

But hey, if you're uncomfortable talking about my penis, that's okay. Go ahead and make your calm, medical argument against male circumcision. Let's see if you can manage it without the melodrama.

Let's see...

It doesn't seem to have much benefit, and it brings a lot of unnecessary risks.

So medically uneccessary (with perhaps a few exceptions that could be made for medically appropriate reasons) and potentially physical, physiological, and even possibly psychological disorders.

Seems conclusive enough to me at face value.

I would add, again, that an adult making an informed decision on their own about this has far fewer risks and, unsurprisingly, far fewer volunteers.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

 

[theprestige]

No.

I made no analogy. I made a completely stand-alone hypothetical scenario. The illustration intended was that men have trouble with straightforward discussion of their sexual organs.

But I concede to your superior demonstration of this phenomenon. You've done far better than I have.

Why? Because I won't play along with your absurd scenario?

I've been straightforward throughout this thread. I've been open and honest about my experience. For that I've received insults and mockery. You don't want straightforward. You want dysfunction. A circumcised man has straightforwardly told you that the procedure caused him no noticeable suffering, and cost him no measurable function. You responded by creating a fantasy in which he's dysfunctionally incapable of acknowledging a problem he doesn't even have. Your argument is offensive. It's dishonest. It's anything but straightforward. You're not concerned about my foreskin. You're just upset because I'm not expressing Correct Thought.