The Sensitive Issue of Circumcision

[Aquila]

I'm afraid I don't follow you here.

Sorry about the confusion. You must have read my post before I changed "circumcised" to "un-circumcised". I realized after the first post that a ball point pen is much more like the latter than the former.

ETA: It was "Blackadder: Back & Forth"

Thanks for this link. The reference to the wikipedia ballpoint pen page is about half way down;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballpoint_pen

It was invented in 1888 by Lazlo Biro.

 

[Aquila]

The foreskin is a double-folded piece of skin which can be fully stretched by retracting the skin on the shaft of the penis, or the penis becoming erect. There is then no "inside". Look at the pictures on this wiki page about a 1/3rd of the way down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision

Well I never! I had no idea that it was double folded. I bet there were even more inventors' patents inspired by this.

What, you think uncircumcised men have to twist their penises in the middle to get an erection?

Maybe this is the derivation of the song "Twisting The Night Away".

 

[Olowkow]

Well I never! I had no idea that it was double folded. I bet there were even more inventors' patents inspired by this.

No doubt. Turtles even thought it was so cool, they adapted it as a way for sticking their head into the shell.

 

[Southwind17]

... I've never known anyone who wished they were uncircumcised.

This topic usually comes up in conversation after what, sport and weather?! I'd love to be a fly on the wall at one of your job interviews:
So, Marcus, is there anything you'd like to ask me?

 

[rocketdodger]

Why? Not being sarcastic, just curious, I've never known anyone who wished they were uncircumcised.

Are you circumcised Marcus?

 

[rocketdodger]

But I will say, mechanically, that I prefer the natural ones, and find everything much more comfortable that way. I won't offer numbers to make this observation more scientific, but to me it's a noticeable difference, which I would happily go into great detail about except I'm at work, and it's probably not appropriate.

You don't need to -- anyone who is interested in this topic and not dishonest knows that mechanically a natural penis offers a smoother ride from a female perspective. In fact one study I read suggested that the foreskin might actually have evolved to facilitate rape in our monkey ancestors! I find that a little farfetched but it gives you an idea of how much less friction was involved in their experiments.

Whether or not this matters to the average woman is another issue, although there is one questionaire based study wherein the women who preferred natural gave primarily mechanical reasons for their preference while the women who preferred circumcised overwhelmingly cited appearance as the primary reason.

 

[Southwind17]

But I will say, mechanically, that I prefer the natural ones, and find everything much more comfortable that way. I won't offer numbers to make this observation more scientific, but to me it's a noticeable difference, which I would happily go into great detail about except I'm at work, and it's probably not appropriate.

Oh, go on, give us the numbers please. I've almost lost count of the number of partners i've had (actually, I think it's more memory loss than numeracy skills!)

 

[Southwind17]

My question was answered without any work on my part. What more can you ask for?

Well, personally speaking, I'd ask for more certainty than:

fls, I don't think anybody in this thread really described it as medically "necessary," but there were some medical reasons given for it.

But given your self-confessed frugality towards thouroughness, I guess this will do, at a pinch!

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

It is bizarre how often circumcised men argue their penises are just as functional as those of uncircumcised men, when clearly (and objectively) this is not the case.

Do people who have suffered amputations of other body parts protest in a similar way?

 

[Southwind17]

It is bizarre how often circumcised men argue their penises are just as functional as those of uncircumcised men, when clearly (and objectively) this is not the case.

Clearly? Objectively? Unless you can show, and maybe you can, that men with circumcised penises are unable to urinate or pro-create as effectively as uncircumcised men, I suspect "functionality" can successfully be argued to be equal.

Do people who have suffered amputations of other body parts protest in a similar way?

I fail to see how a leg amputee, for example, should hold any different a view on circumcision to anybody else, just because of his missing leg! (just kidding, or maybe even pulling your leg!)

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Clearly? Objectively? Unless you can show, and maybe you can, that men with circumcised penises are unable to urinate or pro-create as effectively as uncircumcised men, I suspect "functionality" can successfully be argued to be equal.

Why limit the comparison of functionality to the subset ability to urinate and procreate? It would be possible to perform far more drastic surgery and still maintain these basic abilities.

To claim a circumcised man's penis has equal functionality to an intact man's penis is to imply the foreskin has no function. This is clearly (and objectively) not true.

 

[Naughtyhippo]

Clearly? Objectively? Unless you can show, and maybe you can, that men with circumcised penises are unable to urinate or pro-create as effectively as uncircumcised men, I suspect "functionality" can successfully be argued to be equal.

Hey! I posted a research paper showing that the foreskin reduced the force needed for insertion during intercourse! How is this not improved functionality?

 

[fls]

Well, personally speaking, I'd ask for more certainty than:

But given your self-confessed frugality towards thouroughness, I guess this will do, at a pinch!

Well, let's get real. It would be difficult for me to justify investing more effort into keeping up with various tactics from the anti-circ crowd than keeping up with diabetes research (not that I haven't tried ). The stuff that I consider most useful passes under the radar anyway - the article by Dan Savage is an example. I first saw it when Kaylee linked to it in a previous thread, and it received no comment there (other than mine). And as far as I can tell, it received no comment here. I don't see any indication that people care whether or not they are persuasive. This thread is a perfect example. It started with a fellow who was undecided but inclined not to circumcise. It should be easy peasy to solidify his (and his wife's) resolve, so that even if his doctor is inclined to recommend circumcision, he will feel comfortable acting against that recommendation. However, I didn't get the impression from Upchurch's last post that the pages and pages of the usual stuff had made any difference to his initial opinion.

Linda

 

[Southwind17]

Why limit the comparison of functionality to the subset ability to urinate and procreate? It would be possible to perform far more drastic surgery and still maintain these basic abilities.

To claim a circumcised man's penis has equal functionality to an intact man's penis is to imply the foreskin has no function. This is clearly (and objectively) not true.

Hey! I posted a research paper showing that the foreskin reduced the force needed for insertion during intercourse! How is this not improved functionality?

The operative words used were "penis[es]" and "function[ality]". To my mind a penis has two associated biological functions: urination and insemination. Functionality regarding these two processes can be measured by its success in achieving them. Neither of these two processes are affected by circumcision. Look at the results, if you don't believe me. Clearly, if you want to discuss the "functionality" of a particular component part of the penis, such as the foreskin, then that's a different matter. The foreskin obvious has different functionality from the penis, just like the eyelid has compared to the eye.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Well, let's get real. It would be difficult for me to justify investing more effort into keeping up with various tactics from the anti-circ crowd than keeping up with diabetes research (not that I haven't tried ). The stuff that I consider most useful passes under the radar anyway - the article by Dan Savage is an example. I first saw it when Kaylee linked to it in a previous thread, and it received no comment there (other than mine). And as far as I can tell, it received no comment here. I don't see any indication that people care whether or not they are persuasive. This thread is a perfect example. It started with a fellow who was undecided but inclined not to circumcise. It should be easy peasy to solidify his (and his wife's) resolve, so that even if his doctor is inclined to recommend circumcision, he will feel comfortable acting against that recommendation. However, I didn't get the impression from Upchurch's last post that the pages and pages of the usual stuff had made any difference to his initial opinion.

Linda

Really? You don't think there is a substantial power differential, in favour of the doctor?

I would not patronise Upchurch or his wife by suggesting he go read what Dan Savage has to say on the issue.

 

[Rasmus]

The operative words used were "penis[es]" and "function[ality]". To my mind a penis has two associated biological functions: urination and insemination. Functionality regarding these two processes can be measured by its success in achieving them. Neither of these two processes are affected by circumcision. Look at the results, if you don't believe me.

Uh... wrong.

It doesn't matter that you can successfully have kids - it matters also how much work you put into the process if you want to be strictly scientific.

Looking at more subjective data, it also makes a difference how much you enjoy the entire process.

On a scale of various values for functionality, "It gets the job done" is as close to "utterly useless" as you could possibly get while still being able to get the job done. It's the least best of all your options - with everything that#s even worse failing to be an option altogether.

 

[fls]

Really? You don't think there is a substantial power differential, in favour of the doctor?

Yes. Which is why I think a mere inclination isn't enough to ensure that his son isn't circumcised.

I would not patronise Upchurch or his wife by suggesting he go read what Dan Savage has to say on the issue.

Upchurch is looking to feel comfortable about his decision (as do we all). It is my impression that what parents are really concerned about is the socio-sexual impact (will he be put at a disadvantage because of perceptions about cleanliness or appearance, etc.) of not circumcising. Dan Savage has credibility in that regard that is not captured by focussing on mucous-producing cells in the foreskin.

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

The operative words used were "penis[es]" and "function[ality]". To my mind a penis has two associated biological functions: urination and insemination. Functionality regarding these two processes can be measured by its success in achieving them. Neither of these two processes are affected by circumcision. Look at the results, if you don't believe me. Clearly, if you want to discuss the "functionality" of a particular component part of the penis, such as the foreskin, then that's a different matter. The foreskin obvious has different functionality from the penis, just like the eyelid has compared to the eye.

Equal success at a particular task does not imply equal functionality.

The reason I'm trying to point this out is because I believe many people see the functionality of the foreskin as distinct from that of the penis, as if it's an addition, when in fact its development and existence is symbiotic. Any separation of functionality is an artificial construct.

 

[Elvis666]

Ivor, I really don't appreciate being forced to laugh out loud in the workplace!

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Yes. Which is why I think a mere inclination isn't enough to ensure that his son isn't circumcised.

...we'll listen to what the doctor says, but unless she has some super compelling reasons to do so, we are not going to have the kid circumcised.

Is that only a mere inclination? BTW, my aim is not to turn anyone into a nutty anti-circ., since there are valid medical justifications for circumcision.

Upchurch is looking to feel comfortable about his decision (as do we all). It is my impression that what parents are really concerned about is the socio-sexual impact (will he be put at a disadvantage because of perceptions about cleanliness or appearance, etc.) of not circumcising. Dan Savage has credibility in that regard that is not captured by focussing on mucous-producing cells in the foreskin.

Linda

I will defer to your no doubt superior people skills.