The most weird or stupid news story you heard today.

Alumiyum · #1 11-21-2010, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I disagree with the idea that just because it is a societal norm it should be acceptedas it is. Or that elective procedures should be encouraged and socially supported just because they always have been. If an adult male wanted to be circumcised that's one thing, but encouraging surgery on infants - with generally little to no anesthetic - feels wrong in any context. Although there can be both physical and mental side-effects, those are secondary to the overall discussion.

And no, PIKA2001, I didn't say it was inherently wrong, just the opposite, and I never said it should be illegal. I did say it's a tricky issue and one that most people don't actually look at closely because it's been accepted as the norm for so long in this country. Even though that makes us fairly strange world wide.

Some things shouldn't be accepted as societal norms. This doesn't feel like one of those things. I don't believe it's a big deal, personally.

Drolefille · #2 11-21-2010, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alumiyum

Some things shouldn't be accepted as societal norms. This doesn't feel like one of those things. I don't believe it's a big deal, personally.

Ultimately I don't have an opinion as I don't have a penis, nor do I have children with penises. I'm too far removed. But enough people with penises have objected to it that it is worth reviewing, particularly as the actual individuals involved are too young to speak for themselves for quite a long time.

Alumiyum · #3 11-21-2010, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Ultimately I don't have an opinion as I don't have a penis, nor do I have children with penises. I'm too far removed. But enough people with penises have objected to it that it is worth reviewing, particularly as the actual individuals involved are too young to speak for themselves for quite a long time.

I've just never heard a guy complain about being circumscribed (and yeah, you'd be surprised how many times that topic has come up in conversations where I and other females are present...my friends are odd). And since it doesn't really hurt anything...

Drolefille · #4 11-21-2010, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alumiyum

I've just never heard a guy complain about being circumscribed (and yeah, you'd be surprised how many times that topic has come up in conversations where I and other females are present...my friends are odd). And since it doesn't really hurt anything...

They do exist, louder since the internet came out. And some do claim negative effects (not side-effects) including reduced sensation. There are actually foreskin restoration procedures, though I have no knowledge of how effective they are.

Is a lack of obvious harm a default approval for the procedure? Again, the clitoral hood would be a similar piece of skin for females, and among other things, it protects the clitoris from being constantly in contact with other objects - the body, clothes, etc. It is claimed that men with foreskins are more sensitive than those without due to the glans being protected from constant contact. Are men without foreskin incapable of sex? Of course not. But it's an example of harm that is neither obvious nor easily quantifiable.

PiKA2001 · #5 11-21-2010, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drolefille

They do exist, louder since the internet came out. And some do claim negative effects (not side-effects) including reduced sensation. There are actually foreskin restoration procedures, though I have no knowledge of how effective they are.

Unless a man was circumcised as an adult and could compare his sex life in a before and after way, how would he know that he has reduced sensation due to circumcision?

Drolefille · #6 11-21-2010, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Unless a man was circumcised as an adult and could compare his sex life in a before and after way, how would he know that he has reduced sensation due to circumcision?

You'd have to read their individual stories. Studies have been done with most finding no difference and some finding some differences. That's why I'm primarily talking without consideration of harm, and from a bodily autonomy perspective. Elective surgery on an infant, a large proportion of male infants in this country. Were it any other surgery we'd be giving it the side-eye, wouldn't we?

PiKA2001 · #7 11-21-2010, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drolefille

You'd have to read their individual stories. Studies have been done with most finding no difference and some finding some differences. That's why I'm primarily talking without consideration of harm, and from a bodily autonomy perspective. Elective surgery on an infant, a large proportion of male infants in this country. Were it any other surgery we'd be giving it the side-eye, wouldn't we?

Key word is elective. I'm going to assume that when the topic of circumcision is brought up the doctor explains to the parents the pros and cons of getting the procedure and then then the parents make the decision. I've never heard of a baby getting circumcised against the parents wishes.

Alumiyum · #8 11-21-2010, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drolefille

They do exist, louder since the internet came out. And some do claim negative effects (not side-effects) including reduced sensation. There are actually foreskin restoration procedures, though I have no knowledge of how effective they are.

Is a lack of obvious harm a default approval for the procedure? Again, the clitoral hood would be a similar piece of skin for females, and among other things, it protects the clitoris from being constantly in contact with other objects - the body, clothes, etc. It is claimed that men with foreskins are more sensitive than those without due to the glans being protected from constant contact. Are men without foreskin incapable of sex? Of course not. But it's an example of harm that is neither obvious nor easily quantifiable.

This isn't the sort of thing that's proven, which means it's mostly based on anecdotal evidence...even if it were factual, though sensation would be a consideration, is it really that big of a difference? It could be argued that dulling sensitivity could lead to longer sex sessions which some people prefer. There are all kinds of arguments surrounding that issue. I still don't see the big deal, personally, that's all.

I don't have a penis, but wouldn't it be worse to have the operation at 18?