The most weird or stupid news story you heard today.

Drolefille · #1 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 · #2 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 · #3 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 · #4 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.

Drolefille · #5 11-21-2010, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

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.

I never suggested that, what you're missing though is that the infant doesn't get a voice because he's an infant. And although yes parents have the ability and responsibility to make that decision for their child it is still not comparable to any other procedure done with such frequency because there is no other elective surgery that is so common. Anything else I could suggest would be weird because there isn't a comparison. It's simply accepted. It became so popular in the US due to a combination of fear over germs - not so much due to actual infections, but because the penis was a dirty object that did dirty things - and a desire to decrease masturbation in boys.

PiKA2001 · #6 11-21-2010, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I never suggested that, what you're missing though is that the infant doesn't get a voice because he's an infant.

Yes, parents worldwide have always made decisions that affect their baby/child's life because a baby/child isn't able to make or protest those decisions. Not just medical decisions but religion, lifestyle, etc. Do parents always make the right decisions? No, but thats life. I don't want to get into a infant's rights debate because it reminds me of that group filing lawsuits on behalf of pets claiming neutering/spaying and keeping them as pets is a violation of their rights.

My take on this issue is still the same. The procedure should be decided by the parents, not the government. I would also be opposed to a law mandating that all males be circumcised as well. If you feel that the procedure is unnecessary or archaic (as some people do) than don't get it done to your child.

Drolefille · #7 11-21-2010, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Yes, parents worldwide have always made decisions that affect their baby/child's life because a baby/child isn't able to make or protest those decisions. Not just medical decisions but religion, lifestyle, etc. Do parents always make the right decisions? No, but thats life. I don't want to get into a infant's rights debate because it reminds me of that group filing lawsuits on behalf of pets claiming neutering/spaying and keeping them as pets is a violation of their rights.

My take on this issue is still the same. The procedure should be decided by the parents, not the government. I would also be opposed to a law mandating that all males be circumcised as well. If you feel that the procedure is unnecessary or archaic (as some people do) than don't get it done to your child.

I get that, I simply put the point out there because it is as unique as it is. I don't think a law is the right way to go either, but I think society should deemphasize and discourage them.

Also, comparing infants to pets is incredibly ridiculous. People have rights by virtue of being people, infant or otherwise. Of course parents have the right and responsibility to make decisions for their children, I just find it interesting that there is nothing else comparable to circumcision in our society and yet we generally accept it without much of a second thought.

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?