The Sensitive Issue of Circumcision

[volatile]

men who have had experience of both states tend to find masturbation easier and more pleasurable with a foreskin than without.

Indeed. This is the only experimental data that matters on this issue, really...

 

[Loss Leader]

Errmm... you were?

Yes.

 

[GreyICE]

Yes.

Of course you were. You were saving them so they could go to the happy cloud land in the sky where everyone plays harps or has 32 virgins or whatever.

What's a little pain and suffering compared to happy sky-land?

 

[volatile]

Yes.

How?

ETA: As a supplementary question, should you fancy it, how does your reasoning differ from someone carrying out FGM on their daughter? I'm genuinely interested to know how you rationalise this.

 

[volatile]

Of course you were. You were saving them so they could go to the happy cloud land in the sky where everyone plays harps or has 32 virgins or whatever.

What's a little pain and suffering compared to happy sky-land?

In his defence, I'm fairly sure LossLeader is a secular Jew and not a practising religious one...

Which muddies the waters further, of course, but there's no need to resort to insults. There's a productive conversation to be had here.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Then I am done with you. I could not possibly hope to elicit more foolishness than you have already volunteered.

Ok. Nice chatting with you.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Then I am done with you. I could not possibly hope to elicit more foolishness than you have already volunteered.

On what grounds are you so dismissive? If it's more pleasureable, it must be faster?

I won't ask how your wife feels about that chain of logic, but surely you can see that the one doesn't have much to do with the other.

 

[Loss Leader]

How?

Very well, if I say so myself.

ETA: As a supplementary question, should you fancy it, how does your reasoning differ from someone carrying out FGM on their daughter? I'm genuinely interested to know how you rationalise this.

My reasoning is that I am Jewish and the religious authorities I trust recommend circumcision. The religious authorities I trust do not recommend FGM. I am not fanciful-minded enough to be able to speculate what I might think about female circumcision (of any sort) in those circumstances.

On what grounds are you so dismissive? If it's more pleasureable, it must be faster?

No, if it is more difficult, it must be slower.

However, I don't think it's illogical to assume that if masturbation sent more pleasure signals to the brain, the brain would reach orgasm more quickly.

Please remember that one of the conditions of the experiment that I proposed was that the subjects be asked to reach orgasm as fast as possible.

I won't ask how your wife feels about that chain of logic, but surely you can see that the one doesn't have much to do with the other.

I think the speed with which one can achieve orgasm does have to do with the quantum of pleasure being transmitted to the brain and the ease with which one can induce that pleasure. It is quite another thing to say that one should always (or ever) go that speed either alone or with a partner whose needs and desires may differ. I have not argued the latter.

 

[Moochie]

Well, I asked him and he said he likes his little "hoodie," especially during these cold winter months.


M.

 

[volatile]

My reasoning is that I am Jewish and the religious authorities I trust recommend circumcision.

That sounds a lot like "My rabbi told me to", to me. Hardly a paragon of rational thinking, that. In fact, it's quite shocking to hear those words coming from your mouth, to be honest.

My point about the connections to FGM are that those who support that practice use exactly the same logic and rhetoric. Their tribal elders recommend FGM. There's not a sliver between their thinking and yours, as far as I can tell.

You're trapped in a weird culturally-relativist bubble that I've never seen you caught up in before. You always seem so ready to be able to distinguish between statements of religious truth and what rational thinking and medical science say. What's so different here?

ETA: I also note you have not, at all, attempted to qualify what you might have meant by "helping". Again, not a pernicious question; I am legitimately interested. In what way do you perceive that circumcising your son "helped" him?

 

[I Ratant]

Yes. It could mean it requires more equipment (e.g., saliva) than it did before.

.
The only valid test subjects would be those unc'd whe get c'd, with a before-after history of self-abuse.
Time to ejaculation is dependent on many things, and not all that consistent a measure in my experiences.
And I have NO desire to get cut, just to further the aims of science!

 

[ImaginalDisc]

My reasoning is that I am Jewish and the religious authorities I trust recommend circumcision. The religious authorities I trust do not recommend FGM. I am not fanciful-minded enough to be able to speculate what I might think about female circumcision (of any sort) in those circumstances.

So, in spite of the scientific, medical evidence to the contrary which you admit is applicable to the situation you'd rather trust pious intrustions in conflict with reality on the issue of your own child's health?

For the sake of your child's health, I hope this flagrant disregard for your son's health is isolated to circumcision.

No, if it is more difficult, it must be slower.

Must? No one would ever choose to go slower then?

Please remember that one of the conditions of the experiment that I proposed was that the subjects be asked to reach orgasm as fast as possible.

I don't know about you, but I've never tried to do that.

 

[Southwind17]

You don't like it? Come and get me. Oh wait, you can't. The entire weight of Western law agrees with me and not you. Too bad, so sad.

I didn't say I didn't like it, not that I do, and I have no desire to come and get you, so no need for you to rely on the law for protection. I just thought it seemed somewhat of a hypocritical statement, that's all.

I can think of ten objective experiments you could do to confirm this if it were at all true. Here's one: Ask a bunch of college students to masturbate and have them record their times, then ask them if they're circumcised or not. Crunch the data.

That's a simple experiment. It's cheap, it's easy and it's objective. If your "reasonable" assumption is true, it will show up in this experiment clearly.

Well, I agree that it's "simple", "cheap" and "easy", in the sense that most ladies of the night might be described, but it's certainly not objective. If you can genuinely bash yours with such regularity may I suggest you dispense with your sandglass egg timer. Might as well have fun while your waiting, in the confident knowledge that a runny yolk's guaranteed!

How can you test for what might have been? The experimenter and the subjects have no baseline to judge the level of satisfaction or difficulty against. I might think McDonalds' Big Mac is great if I've never tried Burger King's Big Whopper.

I don't think analogising a Big Mac vs. a Big Whopper is a valid comparison, unless, of course, you're alluding to the amount of meat that's left after slicing!

Yes.

It must be so satisfying, not to mention convenient, to find justification in a single, single-syllable word. I guess some people are simply born with such a trait. God forbid they ever lose it (Whoops!).

 

[Southwind17]

I don't know about you, but I've never tried to do that.

Not even when you could hear your parents unlocking the front door after a quick trip to the corner shop?!

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Not even when you could hear your parents unlocking the front door after a quick trip to the corner shop?!

There was a lock on my door.

 

[Loss Leader]

You're trapped in a weird culturally-relativist bubble that I've never seen you caught up in before. You always seem so ready to be able to distinguish between statements of religious truth and what rational thinking and medical science say. What's so different here?

Well, I can distinguish between religious justification and medical science. For instance, I have admitted since the very beginning of this thread that there is no medical benefit to circumcision (that outweighs the risks) and that non-Jews should not circumcise their children for any health-related reason.

However, I also know that medical science shows that there is no danger to infant circumcision (that outweighs the benefits). There is also no evidence that infant circumcision has any effect on sexual pleasure or disfunction in adulthood.

ETA: I also note you have not, at all, attempted to qualify what you might have meant by "helping". Again, not a pernicious question; I am legitimately interested. In what way do you perceive that circumcising your son "helped" him?

Circumcising my sons helped them be identified with the Jewish people from the very earliest days of their lives. At just the age of eight days, they were ensconsed in Jewish custom and surrounded by Jewish family and friends. Thus, they will be able to say, "From the earliest days of my life, I have been a member of the Jewish community."

This will eventually help them get into medical school.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I just wonder, if circumcision were not traditionally practiced, and a study was published showing the extent of the health benefits (in the US and Europe, say), would anyone be rushing to bring it in as a routine procedure? Obviously, the issues are different in Africa, but that's not really what we are talking about.

The supporters are not claiming it is a major benefit by and large, just that the risks and benefits are pretty much a wash.

 

[GreyICE]

In his defence, I'm fairly sure LossLeader is a secular Jew and not a practising religious one...

Which muddies the waters further, of course, but there's no need to resort to insults. There's a productive conversation to be had here.

I'm sorry, I don't see any difference between following obscure and seemingly pointless guidelines because you believe in a God and following obscure and pointless guidelines because your ancestors believed in a God.

I really have no response to "oh, it's cultural" other than "Your culture makes no sense."

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

What is ironic is the AAP in one document recommends against exposing neonates to unnecessary trauma, since it can interfere with breastfeeding.

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;100/6/1035

Breastfeeding should begin as soon as possible after birth, usually within the first hour.80-82 Except under special circumstances, the newborn infant should remain with the mother throughout the recovery period.80,83,84 Procedures that may interfere with breastfeeding or traumatize the infant should be avoided or minimized.

I can think of few things more traumatic than being restrained while someone tears your prepuce from your glans and then cuts it off with a knife.

 

[NewtonTrino]

I think LL's experiment is pretty flawed. However, it would be interesting to try it just to see what the result would be. No external lube should be allowed during this experiment (body fluids like spit are ok, but do people really do that? The thought wouldn't even occur to me to be honest). Time to ejaculation does differ based on a lot of things (for instance time since last ejaculation and mental stimulation). I've never tried to get off as quickly as possible but as a baseline I'm positive I could do it in under a minute with an appropriate setup (e.g. wait at least a day).