The Sensitive Issue of Circumcision

[logical muse]

Mrs. Upchurch and I have dutifully been reading the entire thread. We will still talk to the doctor and what not, but we are still unconvinced that it is something we should do.

Ultimately, I don't think we will.

Ahh, I missed this earlier. I also say "Good".

 

[kellyb]

I still haven't seen any evidence for this at all

Presently, adult American women probably do because that's what we've been exposed to. Until recently, basically all guys here were circumcised, so if a girl encountered a foreskin, their initial reaction was "Woah! What in the world is wrong with his penis?"

But now that our national average is more 50/50 for baby boys, those little baby girls being born now are going to grow up and have a completely different experience. It won't be weird then.

 

[XBoxWarrior]

Glad I "Didn't" read the thread......

OUCH!

Cut'em while they are young...that's my pick.

Uncut penises are ugly, and women would be 'less' likely to procreate with 'em...

my unwanted 2 cents

 

[volatile]

If you were circumcised as an older child, I would imagine that you would have pretty nasty memories of it.

If you say you remember being circumcised as a newborn, you're either a liar or you're delusional.

Note I said 'child' and not 'infant' or 'newborn'.

 

[logical muse]

Glad I "Didn't" read the thread......

OUCH!

Cut'em while they are young...that's my pic.

Uncut penises are ugly, and women would be 'less' likely to procreate with 'em...

my unwanted 2 cents

Mhm. It's not just the ugliness, there's also the danger that the foreskin might get tangled in the flaps.

 

[Loss Leader]

I find it slightly bizarre that you accept both that circumcision removes a large amount of sensitive tissue (and motile tissue that interacts with other sensitive tissue), and that there is no difference in sensitivity or sensation between a circumcised and uncircumcised penis.

I didn't say there was no difference in sensitivity or sensation. I said there was no difference in sexual disfunction or sexual pleasure. And there is none. No proper study has ever found one. So, your argument about biology might have some weight if we were dealing with starfish, ocelots or some animal that we can't just [rulex]ing ask.

Instead, when we do ask men, they report No Difference in disfunction or pleasure.

Surely that's pretty internally inconsistent as far as positions go?

Your desire to ignore the best evidence we have about circumcision's effects appears to be inconsistent with the desire to develop the most objective and informed opinion possible. Instead, you rely on "biological" evidence because it fits your personal prejudices.

Also: would you be defending this practice if it weren't a Jewish one?

If your hand were on your leg, would it be a foot?

 

[Olowkow]

Instead, when we do ask men, they report No Difference in disfunction or pleasure.

Just curious how any man "we ask" could ever know whether there was a difference or not, since he either is or isn't.

 

[soylent]

Adult circumcision may lead to loss of sensation, loss of pleasure and psychological damage. None of these effects has ever been competently observed for infant circumcision.

Of course, cutting off one of the most sensitive and pleasurable parts of the penis is a horrible idea once your old enough to know what you're missing.

 

[I Ratant]

Mhm. It's not just the ugliness, there's also the danger that the foreskin might get tangled in the flaps.

.
"But Mama, that's where the fun is!"

 

[JoeEllison]

I wonder... does anyone consider clitoral piercing to be "mutilation"?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I wonder... does anyone consider clitoral piercing to be "mutilation"?

Well I certainly wouldn't do it to a baby...

 

[Darat]

I wonder... does anyone consider clitoral piercing to be "mutilation"?

It certainly can be and is often one of the practises that is included in the umbrella term "female genital mutilation". (ETA: Albeit what we tend to call genital piercings these days are a modern phenomenon.)

 

[Loss Leader]

Just curious how any man "we ask" could ever know whether there was a difference or not, since he either is or isn't.

Sexual disfunction can be measured - trouble achieving erections, trouble ejaculating, disphoria, etc. These things can all be measured objectively. We can track the men that go to doctors, urologists and psychologists for help. We can create exact numbers and compare the circumcised to the uncircumcised. But nobody can find a link.

And even if a man doesn't know what he's missing, it doesn't matter unless it leads to some objective difference.

 

[JoeEllison]

It certainly can be and is often one of the practises that is included in the umbrella term "female genital mutilation". (ETA: Albeit what we tend to call genital piercings these days are a modern phenomenon.)

Hmmm... maybe not a great example. How about ear piercing?

 

[Olowkow]

Sexual disfunction can be measured - trouble achieving erections, trouble ejaculating, disphoria, etc. These things can all be measured objectively. We can track the men that go to doctors, urologists and psychologists for help. We can create exact numbers and compare the circumcised to the uncircumcised. But nobody can find a link.

And even if a man doesn't know what he's missing, it doesn't matter unless it leads to some objective difference.

I'm not so sure. Hope this has not already been posted:
http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/

Everything you want to know about the subject:
http://www.cirp.org
I have no idea if the writers had any agenda or not, but I have read the same elsewhere:

Circumcision has long been associated with an increased incidence of impotence. Glover (1929) reported a case.2 Winkelmann (1959) suggested impotence as a possibility,6 as did Foley (1966).10 Stinson (1973) reported five cases.13 Palmer & Link (1979) reported two cases.14

Premature ejaculation. Lakshmanan & Prakash (1980) report that the foreskin impinges against the corona glandis during coitus.15 The foreskin, therefore, tends to protect the corona glandis from direct stimulation by the vagina of the female partner during coitus. The corona is the most highly innervated part of the glans penis.19 Zwang argues that removal of the foreskin allows direct stimulation of the corona glandis and this may cause premature ejaculation in some males.32

An obvious and very important consideration, especially on the wedding night.

Mechanical function. The foreskin provides mechanical functions to facilitate intromission and penetration. Several authorities observe that the penis enters the vagina without friction as the foreskin unfolds.4 9 10 11 Taves (2002) reported that excision of the foreskin by circumcision increases the force required to penetrate by ten-fold.51

Loss of sexual pleasure. Denniston reported that some circumcised men would not have the operation again because of loss of sexual pleasure.61 Kim & Pang (2006) reported that 48 percent of Korean men in a survey experienced loss of mastubatory pleasure after circumcision as compared with 8 percent that experienced increased pleasure and 8 percent reported improved sexual life, but 20 percent reported worsened sexual life.66 Solinis & Yiannaki reported that 16 percent of the men in their study reported a better sex life after circumcision but 35 percent reported a worsened sex life.69

There is much more information on this site.

 

[Vic Vega]

Note I said 'child' and not 'infant' or 'newborn'.

Why did you get circumcised as an older child? That is certainly unusual.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

Being a woman and having no children, I probably shouldn't be talking but I'd much rather be circumcised as an infant than as an adult for many reasons. An infant can't remember the pain; an adult is not that lucky.

The fact that a child would not remember the pain of having its eye poked out and blinded is not a reason to do it.

A court of law would jail you and the jurors would rightly be horrified at the callousness of your argument and actions.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

I wonder... does anyone consider clitoral piercing to be "mutilation"?

It would be, particularly if applied to a defenceless infant. In an adult it is still mutilation.

'Mutilation or maiming is an act or physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of the (human) body, usually without causing death.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutilation'

 

[volatile]

I didn't say there was no difference in sensitivity or sensation. I said there was no difference in sexual disfunction or sexual pleasure. And there is none. No proper study has ever found one. So, your argument about biology might have some weight if we were dealing with starfish, ocelots or some animal that we can't just [rulex]ing ask.

So, even though sexual pleasure is linked to levels of sensation, and even though you accept that circumcision reduces levels of sensation, you still deny that circumcision will reduce sexual pleasure? Cognitive dissonance, much?

Now, let's be clear - "reduced sensation" does not mean "impotent". It does not mean "completely insensitive". Of course not. But it manifestly (indeed, obviously) reduces sexual sensation, because it removes sensitive parts of the sexual anatomy, and parts which functionally interact with the sexual anatomy. You might argue that because the guy has never known any difference then it doesn't matter, but that strikes me as an argument mired in a lot of rather glaring problems.

On what rational basis can the removal of sensitive and functional parts of the male anatomy be justified? Even if the difference is slight, that does not mean it is something that should be pursued. The null position is to leave the foreskin intact, and so it's up to you to make the case that this is something worth doing.

Instead, when we do ask men, they report No Difference in disfunction or pleasure.

Do these studies measure pleasure or sensitivity levels in men circumcised in adulthood years after the operation was done? I don't know the answer to that, so I'm interested. What's the study methodologies?

Your desire to ignore the best evidence we have about circumcision's effects appears to be inconsistent with the desire to develop the most objective and informed opinion possible. Instead, you rely on "biological" evidence because it fits your personal prejudices.

And you're not doing precisely the same thing?

Why did you put "biological" in quotes? Is this not a biological issue for you? At all?

If your hand were on your leg, would it be a foot?

Not an analogous. Get some critical perspective - if the Scientologists or the Raelians were pushing adherents to cut off a functional and sensitive part of their infants' anatomy, would you still support it? Or, to re-pose the question in a different way - on what grounds can circumcision on infants possibly be rationally justified?

 

[I Ratant]

Hmmm... maybe not a great example. How about ear piercing?

.
It's a cultural thing.
Some modest amount of ear finery is common, but taken to the extreme... Euuuuuuuuuu!
Some of the local teens have large insertions in their ear lobes.. quarter sized and larger.
And one of my friends at the Mall has iron all over her face.
I find rings thru the nose are particularly ugly.
Pierced tongues, nipples, clits... I see no -need- for these, except possibly as a self-defacement.