Blinking Spirit correctly defined this as "cultural" evolution, a phrase I prefer to "memetic" evolution because the latter requires you to explain a whole new term that always seemed rather redundant to me. (This is about the only bad thing you'll ever hear me say about Dawkins. :P)
A culture is much "bigger" than a meme. I think of it as the macro-micro distinction, but in thoughtspace rather than biospace.
A culture is much "bigger" than a meme. I think of it as the macro-micro distinction, but in thoughtspace rather than biospace.
I'd agree with that.
As opposed to selective breeding, which is when humans successfully try to take evolution into their own hands and consciously direct it.
Hmm. Not all such plans are so successful... look at the German Shepherd or the Persian cat. Both were so overbred for certain desired traits that the resulting animals wound up with serious design flaws that render them actually less viable than their forebears would have been. Moreso than most domesticated animals, they now survive only on our tolerance.
You may define "successful" from the viewpoint that the animal now does, or is, whatever we wanted. But you could also define it from the animal's viewpoint, in which case our "improvements" might not actually improve its quality of life much, and may even degrade it.
And when it's applied to humans, of course, it loses even the patina of justification earned by being used on insentient beings. One way or the other, though, I really don't think we're wise enough to do this without running into unforeseen consequences.
But, as I have stated, I disagreed mainly not with what you specifically said, but how you said it.
Fair enough, and I take your point. I'm sorry if I offended you with my smugness; it was aimed at a specific conservative poster here who has regularly offended me with his own form of smugness that for a moment, I could not resist the urge to indulge in some of my own.
Though I'd like to point out that even when I was still a Christian, I was a believer in Theistic Evolution (like all good modern Catholics) and was shocked and confused that there could be anyone who could oppose something as blatantly obvious (to my mind) as evolution. Belief in evolution wasn't, for me, a function of lack of belief in god, but simply the natural result of my logical processes. What offends me more than anything else is this constant false dichotomy that is presented: that somehow religion and evolution are incompatible. Which they most certainly are not.
But now I submit we are getting way, WAAY off topic! To try to bring things back on course, I'd like to tie this back in to our overall topic if I can. What do others here think about the possible means by which the custom or practise of circumcision arose, as long as we're on the topic of memetics? My money is on in-group vs. out-group dynamics and the desire for social cohesion, but I'm not a trained anthro.
(I am setting aside, for the moment, the argument that the custom was handed down by divine commandment, not because it's a "bad" argument, but because it really leaves nothing to debate about - it's either true or false and there's no proof either way, so it's kind of an uninteresting argument to get into.)
What do others here think about the possible means by which the custom or practise of circumcision arose, as long as we're on the topic of memetics?
that is pretty easy. The first recorded evidence comes in the bible. In Genisis it was part of the covenant between God and Abraham that all males would be circumsized.
This also did one other thing it distinguished the people of israel from the rest of the people in the area.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
What I'm about to post may seem to support an argument which is pro infant circumcision, and I don't mind if some people take it that way, because it is a rather graphic illustration of what is entailed with an adult circumcision. I'd like to state however, that in the past I considered myself vehemently anti infant circumcision and that I'm still pretty down on it now (but not so much as I was immediately before and after my surgery).
Anyway, I post this mainly to help the OP, as someone that's come through this whole dilemma feeling pretty ok about it all.
I had an adult circumcision about 3 years ago at 16 because of acute phimosis (a tight foreskin, which made me unable to pull it back). My parents had chosen not to have me circumcised, and by the time I was five, a doctor realised I may have to be circumcised. My mum gave me information about what was wrong when I was about 7, (talked to me, showed me diagrams from books made for kids etc.) and then in an effort to avoid circumcision, they did a stretching procedure instead. Needless to say, that hurt like hell, and didn't work. I couldn't pee for a day because it was so painful, and they didn't give me any painkillers. On top of that, the doctor was teaching interns, and let them all examine me without really asking me if I felt ok with it.
I was terrified of circumcision after that ordeal, and so I told my parents that I thought the problem was improving and would just go away with time and I'd be ok. They saw I was so upset that they let me leave it till I was older. As I got to about 12, I started looking for stuff on the net about how I could fix phimosis. There are various methods and devices, but they were expensive, and not easy to get shipped without my parents noticing. I tried a few free stretching method over the next couple of years and had minor successes, but these were outweighed by the fact that I was doubled up in pain the moment something even brushed against the bare glans of my ***** (tissue paper felt more like sandpaper).
Eventually at 15 I bit the bullet and told my mum I needed the operation. I was totally against circumcision at this time, and in my own mind I insisted that I was going to lose so many nerves from the end of my ***** that masturbation wouldn't feel the same again. (The sources I had at the time quoted up the a 30% reduction in the number of nerves in the ***** after circumcision, along with desensitisation of the glans as you got older, so obviously I was concerned). I had to go to my doctor to get looked at, which was humiliating, and then to a specialist a few months later. Eventually I got a letter that I was to have my operation on the 21st of december (A warm fuzzy holiday gift from Santa to me).
I was pretty frantic by this point, worrying about what if it went wrong and I lost my ***** altogether, or something else horrible went wrong. I went in to the hospital on my own, and got all ready. I had to get examined again. Then they got me into a gown and on a bed, took me to the surgical room and put me out (and what the hell? Like 6 doctors and nurses for a circumcision? Geez.)
Afterward I wasn't too bad to start off with. I went to the toilet and that was fine. My mum picked me up and I started to feel all the bumps in the road, so we had to drive slowly. It was starting to smart by the time I got back, and any contact with my clothes was getting painful. By the time I went to bed, I couldnt even let the sheet touch me, because the pressure of them was too painful, and I was aware that I'd be in trouble if I got any nocturnal erections. I got a plastic bowl big enough to sit over my groin without my erect ***** touching the inside and pinned it down to my body with my hands, and slept like that (really uncomfortable.
The next day I like to describe as the worst day of my life. I got up, and I couldn't let the water from the shower get on my pelvic area. My ***** had swollen to twice it's girth and was dark purple, looking like it was going to fall off (I'm aware that this all sounds rather funny). I was completely panicked and in tears from worrying and pain. My mum is a nurse, so I got her to check for infection (which was mortifying, but when you are that concerned, you don't worry about being embarassed.) I couldn't put any clothes on below the waist, so I grabbed a t-shirt and went back to bed for the day. The day after, I got a smaller, metal bowl that fitted into my pants, and used that to keep the material off me, and just wore a baggy sweatshirt to hang low and cover the area.
A few members of my family knew by Christmas, so I got sausage and weiner jokes made about me for a week or so, but other than that they were good about it. Told the kids not to expect me to play with them, let me support my legs on extra chairs while I was sitting down, etc. I was supposed to go back to the doctor to have the stiches (about 10) removed, even though they were dissolvable, so that there weren't any permanent marks, but I was too humiliated by that point, so I just let them dissolve and lived with the little pattern that it made.
I was pretty depressed when I thought about it all for a few months, maybe up to a year. Rather than losing sensation, my ***** was so sensitive that I had trouble touching it, and it chafed on my underwear a lot. I hated the sight of my purplish glans and resented having to have the surgery. Eventually, everything returned to normal. I stopped getting minor yeast infections and painful peeing, which I had been having on and off every few months since I was a little kid. (Not because I had a foreskin, but because I couldnt retract it). I had qualms about feeling less masculine for a while. I felt inferior for having someone interfere with my manhood and violated by the operation for quite a while, but that went away as I regained use of it again, and the oversensitivity went away.
As far as masturbation goes, lubrication isn't any different, but then that's probably because with the phimosis, I only touched the shaft and never the head, and so I never needed lubrication before anyway, and I still masturbate mostly the same way now. As far as pleasure goes, it hard for me to say, since I never had full use of my ***** before I was circumcised. Orgasm is the same, since that doesnt seem to be effected by the nerves in the ***** directly. I get greater pleasure now from the bare head than I could get from the skin before, but then again I don't know how it would feel if I had been able to roll the skin back and stimulate the head before the operation.
Ultimately, I would say to the OP, just let this rest a little while before taking action. Whatever information there is about nerve loss, the body seems to do a pretty good job of compensating and keeping the experience just as pleasurable. I totally understand your feeling of violation. Yes, from an outsider's perspective, you are going over the top, but no, from your own point of view, this is a HUGE deal, just like it was for me. I HATED the way my ***** looked (even after all the brusing went away and everything), and I resented the whole experience hugely, but, eventually I made peace with purple helmeted soldier.
And I would argue that there is no good time to force something on anyone, and that doing so to a baby may be the *worst* possible time, as we already know that the younger a mind is, the more formative every experience is upon that mind.
I did not ask my hypothetical child if they wanted to be born. I am being indecent because I did not ask their permission to be born, which might eventually lead to severe health issues, both mental and physical.
Giving birth is immoral.
"If I do go to heaven, I'll smack god across the face and tell him to get me a grilled-cheeses sandwhich and then say 'Yea what now god!? Say some'in! I dare you!' "
It can be a touchy choice, but to me I've looked at it like this. If there's a history in the family of penial problems, it's best to spare the child the issue in the future. The "sacrifice" is yes being different than "what nature made you," but nature can be a fickle mistress.
"Mutilation" and other such? Perhaps on cultural bounds, but to be honest I've never really seen circumsion affect someone's outlook on life direly. It's been disease and suffering that has been more so than anything else.
Since the accident years ago, I've had very little empathy for people that have had cosmetic or neglible trade offs for issues outside of the most severe medical problems. "My nose is too big, but I don't have a deviated septum" and the like. Sparing someone an affliction maybe arrogant at a young age and probably is, but it has a bit of nobility to it and the possibility to starve off larger medical costs later.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
that is pretty easy. The first recorded evidence comes in the bible. In Genisis it was part of the covenant between God and Abraham that all males would be circumsized.
gj on the reading skills there. I specifically stated I was not interested in discussing scriptural justifications or derivations for the custom, due to the fact that there's really nothing to discuss there. Either you believe the scripture is the word of god or you don't, and that's really the end of any potential discussion.
I was interested in a discussion of the secular POV. I'm not trying to silence the religious POV here, just saying that we all already know what the religious POV is, it hasn't changed in thousands of years, so it's not really that interesting to talk about.
I did not ask my hypothetical child if they wanted to be born. I am being indecent because I did not ask their permission to be born, which might eventually lead to severe health issues, both mental and physical.
Giving birth is immoral.
Strawman much? The flaw in your analogy is that circumcision is a perceived ill (even those who defend it defend it with some sort of "necessary evil" argument), whereas life is (at least in most people's opinion) a perceived good. So, your analogy is fail.
Sparing someone an affliction maybe arrogant at a young age and probably is, but it has a bit of nobility to it and the possibility to starve off larger medical costs later.
This is true and I definitely agree. But in general this discussion is focused on routine neonatal circumcision in cases lacking any indication of medical necessity. Ie., healthy foreskins being removed from healthy babies. I don't think anyone here is such a zealot as to say we shouldn't provide needed surgical treatments to those suffering from phimosis etc.
gj on the reading skills there. I specifically stated I was not interested in discussing scriptural justifications or derivations for the custom, due to the fact that there's really nothing to discuss there. Either you believe the scripture is the word of god or you don't, and that's really the end of any potential discussion.
I was interested in a discussion of the secular POV. I'm not trying to silence the religious POV here, just saying that we all already know what the religious POV is, it hasn't changed in thousands of years, so it's not really that interesting to talk about.
I understand that you don't think the bible has any spiritual significance since you consider it to be made by men with no divine inspiration. Is it your position also that it has no historical significance?
I mean even aside form the spiritual aspect it could provide a historical point to the start of the common practicing of circumcision. Even if the start was "some guy hallucinating" and not "some guy talking to God". It seems to me like the cultural practice of circumcision arose because the Jews did it as part of their covenant with God (or their perceived covenant with their perceived god, you pick).
It could also be that circumcision was already common practice when those stories were written, in an attempt to explain where the surgery originated.
It could be. But that doesn't mean that the biblical account should be automatically discounted as irrelevant and useless merely because one doesn't believe the spiritual aspect of it.
I find it hard to believe that one of the starting tenets of a new religion would be "chop off parts of your newborn's *****".
I would find it even harder to believe that one of the tenants of a new religion would be chop of parts of your own *****. Which is what the bible says Abraham did. Now you may or may not give that any historical weight. That's pretty much up to you.
I don't think it was never done before that, but I think the start of when it became a cultural norm was probably when it became a religious mandate. because with no idea about medical benefits or anything, why would I chop it off unless I was required to do so by God.
The two words that have done more than any others in this thread to describe continuing support for male circumcision are cultural inertia.
In the United States during the 20th century, and to a somewhat lesser degree today, the circumcised ***** was viewed as the "normal" state, for the obvious reason that a huge majority of American males (even exceeding 90% around mid-century) were circumcised. This also applies to the ideas that: 1) American women prefer the look of a circumcised ***** to one that hasn't been circumcised (quick semantic aside: I agree that the pro-circumcision bias in the U.S. is evident in the use of the terms circumcised and uncircumcised), and 2) uncircumcised boys will be made fun of for looking different. It's all cultural.
Next, I find the hygienic argument for circumcisionto be patently absurd. How, in a nation where good hygiene is pursued obsessively through routine daily showering (regardless of physical activity or temperateness of climate) and daily use of chemical deodorants, would people seriously entertain the idea of lopping off their foreskin, rather than cleaning it as they would any other part of their body? I find it extremely hard to believe that, given an equal amount of personal hygiene, an uncircumcised man is any less clean than a circumcised man.
(aside: What's wrong with not using something like toilet paper to wipe excess urine after using a urinal? There are no appreciable negative effects of doing so, if you wash your hands afterward, wash your underwear, which may have dampened from it, and shower that day or the next?)
Given the large amount of nerve endings in the foreskin, I don't see how anyone can claim with a straight face that sex is no more pleasurable with foreskin than without. While it's true that most of us, myself included, have no basis for comparison in personal experience, the physical evidence is pretty strong that sex is less pleasurable without the foreskin.
The supposed medical benefits to circumcision seem trivial to me, in that they prevent a very rare form of cancer, and provide marginal protection from STDs, which could be gained in a much larger fashion by using a condom.
It should also be noted that, around the same time "medical benefits" of circumcision were being touted, around the start of the 20th century, it was also widely thought to prevent masturbation, seriously throwing into doubt the motives of those who originally spread circumcision.
So overall, the benefits of keeping your foreskin (not paying for and undergoing surgery, having more sexual pleasure) seem to hugely outweigh the risks (it could get infected, or in very rare cases, could become cancerous).
Fortunately, circumcision rates have been decreasing during the last few decades of the 20th century, and continue to do so now.
Given the large amount of nerve endings in the foreskin, I don't see how anyone can claim with a straight face that sex is no more pleasurable with foreskin than without. While it's true that most of us, myself included, have no basis for comparison in personal experience, the physical evidence is pretty strong that sex is less pleasurable without the foreskin.
What physical evidence? what you just said here isn't physical evidence. You yourself said that you have no basis of comparison, and then just make a bald assumption and claim that your assumption is physical evidence. It's not.
The supposed medical benefits to circumcision seem trivial to me, in that they prevent a very rare form of cancer, and provide marginal protection from STDs, which could be gained in a much larger fashion by using a condom.
The benefits are not "supposed" they are real. Whether they are trivial or not is up for debate, but don't try and act like they are made up or pretend.
It should also be noted that, around the same time "medical benefits" of circumcision were being touted, around the start of the 20th century, it was also widely thought to prevent masturbation, seriously throwing into doubt the motives of those who originally spread circumcision.
How does this throw into doubt a culture that existed 5-6000 years ago (if not earlier)?
So overall, the benefits of keeping your foreskin (not paying for and undergoing surgery, having more sexual pleasure) seem to hugely outweigh the risks (it could get infected, or in very rare cases, could become cancerous).
Fortunately, circumcision rates have been decreasing during the last few decades of the 20th century, and continue to do so now.
Personally I could care less if the circumcision rate goes up or down. I agree its probably unnecessary in most cases... I disagree with the massive fear mongering being spread by some people here about how it is a terrible terrible practice that is just mutilation...
What physical evidence? what you just said here isn't physical evidence. You yourself said that you have no basis of comparison, and then just make a bald assumption and claim that your assumption is physical evidence. It's not.
The physical evidence I refer to is the existence of thousands of nerve endings in the foreskin. What exactly are those thousands of nerve endings on the end of the ***** for, if not for sexual stimulation? That's what I'm talking about.
The benefits are not "supposed" they are real. Whether they are trivial or not is up for debate, but don't try and act like they are made up or pretend.
That wasn't my intent. I meant to express my opinion that the medical benefits are trivial.
How does this throw into doubt a culture that existed 5-6000 years ago (if not earlier)?
I'm not sure what you're getting at, that age somehow bestows legitimacy? Male circumcision, in the Western world, was originally conceived a religious mark. Discussion of the health benefits of religious rites reeks of apologetics.
Personally I could care less if the circumcision rate goes up or down. I agree its probably unnecessary in most cases... I disagree with the massive fear mongering being spread by some people here about how it is a terrible terrible practice that is just mutilation...
I've not engaged in any fearmongering, and I do want to see the rate go down, so as to empower the sexual activity of men, and condemn useless tradition.
The physical evidence I refer to is the existence of thousands of nerve endings in the foreskin. What exactly are those thousands of nerve endings on the end of the ***** for, if not for sexual stimulation? That's what I'm talking about.
I dunno, but they could be for anything... Just because its a nerve ending attached to the ***** does not mean it is for sexual stimulation. I mean, there are studies linked earlier in the thread where people who were circumcised after adulthood were shown to not have any decrease in sexual pleasure... thats got to at least be valid enough to counteract your "well the nerves must be there for something" argument.
That wasn't my intent. I meant to express my opinion that the medical benefits are trivial.
I understand that, but the way to express that is to say they are trivial, not to say they might not be real, which is what you are saying you think when you say "supposed".
I'm not sure what you're getting at, that age somehow bestows legitimacy? Male circumcision, in the Western world, was originally conceived a religious mark. Discussion of the health benefits of religious rites reeks of apologetics.
not what I was getting at, it just seemed like you were implying that circumcision was a new concept... if I was wrong, i apologize.
I've not engaged in any fearmongering, and I do want to see the rate go down, so as to empower the sexual activity of menand condemn useless tradition.
I don't think sexual activity of either gender in the US needs any "empowering"... If anything I think this country is way too focused on sex, and it could use a good bit of depowering.
Edit: I just realized what I said could be interpreted wrong... I'm not advocating circumcision as a means to depower sex... I was more making a comment on American culture as a whole.
I dunno, but they could be for anything... Just because its a nerve ending attached to the ***** does not mean it is for sexual stimulation. I mean, there are studies linked earlier in the thread where people who were circumcised after adulthood were shown to not have any decrease in sexual pleasure... thats got to at least be valid enough to counteract your "well the nerves must be there for something" argument.
It seems like a given to me, given it's placement on the genitalia, but I ought to, and will, read about it and learn more.
I understand that, but the way to express that is to say they are trivial, not to say they might not be real, which is what you are saying you think when you say "supposed".
You're right; it was inappropriate for me to have used the word 'supposed' there.
I don't think sexual activity of either gender in the US needs any "empowering"... If anything I think this country is way too focused on sex, and it could use a good bit of depowering.
What I meant by "empowering", was for men to experience the full extent of sexual pleasure afforded by their foreskins, if indeed it does make sex more pleasurable.
Ironically, the reason that our country is so fixated on sex, I think, is that it is viewed so negatively. Religion has a lot to answer for in this realm.
What I meant by "empowering", was for men to experience the full extent of sexual pleasure afforded by their foreskins, if indeed it does make sex more pleasurable.
Ironically, the reason that our country is so fixated on sex, I think, is that it is viewed so negatively. Religion has a lot to answer for in this realm.
This statement intrigues me, and I'll admit that I've thought along the same lines occasionally, but not done enough research to determine it... It'd be an interesting discussion though...
Don't be surprised if a new thread pops up relatively soon (day or two) on the subject.
No, but the idea that there are physical benefits to circumcision is relatively new, dating back to ~1900.
Exactly, and exactly why the search for benefits is indeed a form of apologetics. I don't blame doctors for wanting to save face, though - they don't want to admit they've been breaking their Hippocratic Oaths all these years, so naturally they're really, really hoping for any sort of benefit to the procedure that they can use to protect themselves from blame. But having a desired outcome tends to skew an observer's bias when doing science...
Ironically, the reason that our country is so fixated on sex, I think, is that it is viewed so negatively. Religion has a lot to answer for in this realm.
And, as you pointed out, circumcision was originally promulgated in America precisely to dis-empower sexuality, which was considered sinful and literally harmful to one's heath.
As soon as I've talked to my psychologist (that I haven't started with yet) about the matter I plan to try foreskin restoration.
Regarding some comments earlier, I don't know if I said it but I didn't mean to imply something 'always' felt wrong. Again, I'm VERY introspective and in the last two or three years it's felt like I wasn't sensitive enough and this was before I even realized I was circumcised. I was also worried about the abrasion when it rubbed against my boxers and that also concerned me. I thought maybe I had 'messed up' my thing from bating but after reading around online the circumcision was almost probably to be the cause.
What restoration is is basically just moderate stretching with an apparatus to stimulate division of cells and over a period of time you can regrow your foreskin. It acts similar to real foreskin and covers the head which will prevent the abrasion I was experiencing that I thought had happened from masturbating too hard and something was damaged. Also, apparently, you can get back lost sensation and the guys I've seen trying this online report you start seeing differences fairly soon (which could be placebo effect before someone tears my head off about this) but time will tell. What I've seen is promising and apparently you can double your sensation in about a six month period. I'm thinking it will take at least a year or two to finish (good thing I'm young since it's faster). I have been reading whatever I can on it and some You tube videos of guys who have done it and I'd like to say I'm cautiously optimistic.
I've seen enough anecdotal evidence to conclude that there is at least a minor negative effect, much likely a large one, for every story/comment about someone who says they didn't lose any sensation there are many more about guys that it destroyed their sensitivity and ruined their sex lives in the process. Also, seeing our circumcision rate makes this make a lot more sense.
After reading through the forum I've found the majority of the arguments against my position were mostly fallacious and their writers often had dogmatic views on other subjects making me further skeptical of their statements.
I admit I could be wrong on this, but how I was feeling (and now that I believe I have the source of this) compels me to attempt to regain some of what I've lost. I've had bad experiences with doctors in the past and listening to the status quo and I no longer exclusively listen to an authority solely especially if its against my own instincts which is why I'm reluctant to actually see a doctor before attempting to do this. I had a severe overuse injury in the past that was 'nothing' according to the people I saw despite the crippling effect it had on my life but I managed to overcome it with the help of a book and developing a therapy regime. I was diagnosed with ADD and put on stimulants when in reality my performance was likely more affected by my poor family life, divorce of my parents, and lack of social support. I had a similar experience with my hearing problems which ended up being a slight loss compounded by the severe stress I was under causing ringing in my ears I was given another sham non-diagnosis as opposed to being told that stress could possibly cause this.
After seeing kids continued to be put on mind-destroying stimulants and similar crap, I have a hard time believing that medical ethics take a front-seat over profits in this country which circumcisions being done is raking in. Even if it turns out nothing is wrong (which I may never know for sure) my foreskin should have been left on until I could make my own decision especially if it's being done to prevent aids and urinary tract infections. I'm sure most guys would rather have their normal body part INTACT and have the increased pleasure as opposed to slightly raised risks for certain things which is BS imo and just part of the propaganda machine to keep this expensive unnecessary surgery going. But yes, even if nothing is wrong it's not right that I have to live here with this and I think the argument that it HAS to be done as a child to help the healing process is another part of this sham. Yes, I'll just go ahead and do this harmful procedure without your consent because it'll be more difficult later in life. If we were circumcising guys consistently AFTER they start masturbating and realized their sexuality their would be a ****ing outrage. And regardless of what the truth is on this issue I shouldn't have to go through the mental anguish of wondering what I might have had for the the rest of my life. And just seeing these circumcisions done online to helpless infants makes me bloody sick. Pro-circumcision or not, this is the greatest injustice of all.
i think this card is Freakin' awesome just imagine zoo with this even on the draw u flex "Nutz" any mana drawing the extra card u can pitch and turning up the gas on tempo and it still taps for mana easily a 3 of most likely a 4 of
I've seen enough anecdotal evidence to conclude that there is at least a minor negative effect, much likely a large one, for every story/comment about someone who says they didn't lose any sensation there are many more about guys that it destroyed their sensitivity and ruined their sex lives in the process. Also, seeing our circumcision rate makes this make a lot more sense.\
I'm interested in your sources here, because the links I saw showed it as being about the same, with the primary difference (destroyed sensitivty vs no loss) being the bias of the website.
I no longer exclusively listen to an authority solely especially if its against my own instincts which is why I'm reluctant to actually see a doctor before attempting to do this.
That makes sense, but I would argue this would be more in favor of having multiple opinions of experts, rather than just checking the internet and guessing at the problem.
After seeing kids continued to be put on mind-destroying stimulants and similar crap, I have a hard time believing that medical ethics take a front-seat over profits in this country which circumcisions being done is raking in. Even if it turns out nothing is wrong (which I may never know for sure) my foreskin should have been left on until I could make my own decision especially if it's being done to prevent aids and urinary tract infections.
Looking at the bold part, I would think that if it is done for those reasons there is at least some justification for doing it (it may not be enough to overcome the negatives, but there is something), whereas if done for other reasons there would not be. Essentially why is it especially bad if done for percieved legitimate medical reasons?
Don't jive. Is it not sensitive enough, or is it too sensitive?
This isn't really sensitivity so much as it is discomfort when rubbing up against certain fabrics (my boxers) and with a foreskin there I wouldn't have to feel this.
I'm interested in your sources here, because the links I saw showed it as being about the same, with the primary difference (destroyed sensitivty vs no loss) being the bias of the website.
This is why I'm trying it for myself. There's actually guys willing to show before and after photos and I've seen countless detailed writings about their experiences. It's basically just moderate stretching that stimulates cell growth and if worse comes to worse I'm out like what nine bucks? I guess if FS restoration does turn out to be a scam I can call it for what it is. Also, given that you apparently get new sensations and start to realize this within the first two weeks to month and can observe if anything's happening first hand it makes it seem less likely it is.
That makes sense, but I would argue this would be more in favor of having multiple opinions of experts, rather than just checking the internet and guessing at the problem.
Yeah, I agree here somewhat but often the 'experts' are bias and will just tell you not to do it because something hasn't been thoroughly researched and they don't want to be held responsible for anything wrong. Also, frankly, I don't have time to wait.
Looking at the bold part, I would think that if it is done for those reasons there is at least some justification for doing it (it may not be enough to overcome the negatives, but there is something), whereas if done for other reasons there would not be. Essentially why is it especially bad if done for percieved legitimate medical reasons?
Justification would imply the benefits at least slightly outweigh the risks. However, given that this is being done on the non-consenting. I mean come on, this was started by some crackpot who thought masturbation was unhealthy and it's primary goal WAS to reduce sexual pleasure and we're REALLY sitting here now arguing whether there are benefits to it. If this was just done for appearance reasons parents would be pissed off, especially the ones who lost children because the procedure can be fatal. They have to say there may be a few minor benefits (regardless of whether this is true) and it was being done for a reason because otherwise what does it come down to? You're cutting a significant part of an infant's dick for no reason.
I think you need a much wider perspective on the world if you think this is true.
I obviously don't, it was referring to the context of the situation and I believe it was quite clear given my previous posts that my view of the world was not that narrow. My biggest problem with this has been that it was done without my consent and it continues to be done without the consent of the infants who are affected by it. It's hard for me to even begin seeing eye to eye with someone who doesn't agree with this.
i think this card is Freakin' awesome just imagine zoo with this even on the draw u flex "Nutz" any mana drawing the extra card u can pitch and turning up the gas on tempo and it still taps for mana easily a 3 of most likely a 4 of
Yeah, I agree here somewhat but often the 'experts' are bias and will just tell you not to do it because something hasn't been thoroughly researched and they don't want to be held responsible for anything wrong. Also, frankly, I don't have time to wait.
Unless theres something you haven't told us (which is possible, and if so by all means ignore this), how could you possibly not have time to wait? Hell, even if you were incapable of having sex entirely because of it you would still have time to wait... (barring other unknown circumstances of course).
Justification would imply the benefits at least slightly outweigh the risks. However, given that this is being done on the non-consenting. I mean come on, this was started by some crackpot who thought masturbation was unhealthy and it's primary goal WAS to reduce sexual pleasure and we're REALLY sitting here now arguing whether there are benefits to it.
We're not arguing whether there are benefits. There are. Period. End of story. We're arguing whether the benefits are at all significant. even a 1X10^-1000000% improvement is still a benefit, it just may not be significant.
If this was just done for appearance reasons parents would be pissed off, especially the ones who lost children because the procedure can be fatal.
I'm curious as to whether the infection / mortality risk in this is any different from the standard risks involved in a minor surgical procedure? I don't think they are but I have admittedly not done the research.
They have to say there may be a few minor benefits (regardless of whether this is true) and it was being done for a reason because otherwise what does it come down to? You're cutting a significant part of an infant's dick for no reason.
The word you are looking for is insignificant, not significant. (I kid, sort of. I do genuinely think its an insignificant part. I understand that you don't, but I think thats been one of the main points of contention in the debate so you can't really rely on it as established fact).
It's hard for me to even begin seeing eye to eye with someone who doesn't agree with this.
I understand that, but at the same time, perhaps a debate thread is the wrong place to go for something like this if you don't want the opposing viewpoint repeated ad nauseum.
Thanks a lot to kittensnmittens for bringing this up, as I have been disturbed by the idea that circumcision prevents me from experiencing sex as it's genetically supposed to be experienced. I'm definitely going to look into this foreskin restoration thing, as it's really intriguing and is an idea if nothing else. Really glad I found that someone had already started this discussion.
Exactly, and exactly why the search for benefits is indeed a form of apologetics. I don't blame doctors for wanting to save face, though - they don't want to admit they've been breaking their Hippocratic Oaths all these years, so naturally they're really, really hoping for any sort of benefit to the procedure that they can use to protect themselves from blame. But having a desired outcome tends to skew an observer's bias when doing science...
Also isn't foreskin restoration just further mutilation? I mean sometimes just accepting something happened and moving on is best instead of trying something where the results are far from certain.
As far as the more nerves in the foreskin must make sex more pleasurable as someone uncircumcised I don't notice feeling compared to other areas.
Thanks a lot to kittensnmittens for bringing this up, as I have been disturbed by the idea that circumcision prevents me from experiencing sex as it's genetically supposed to be experienced. I'm definitely going to look into this foreskin restoration thing, as it's really intriguing and is an idea if nothing else. Really glad I found that someone had already started this discussion.
Yeah, hardly anyone here understands it's not about the 'benefits', so much as wanting your birthright, a ***** that hasn't been ****ed with without your consent. The wondering and not knowing is the worst part. You don't just cut out 15 square inches of sexual tissue, including 20000 highly sensitive nerves and come to the conclusion, oh, well, sex is probably the same!
Anyway, I'm cautiously optimistic about starting this which will be as soon as I am able to order it online (in about a week and however long the stuff takes to ship) and in a short time after I'll know for sure. Just PM me if you need some places to look up stuff, but I would suggest just googling.
i think this card is Freakin' awesome just imagine zoo with this even on the draw u flex "Nutz" any mana drawing the extra card u can pitch and turning up the gas on tempo and it still taps for mana easily a 3 of most likely a 4 of
So with a 31% reduction in infection chance already established (at least experimentally, if not commercially available), with great improvements likely within the next 30 years (ie., the meaningful time-frame w.r.t. the lifespan of babies now being born), can we put to bed the silly argument that a few percentage points' difference in lifetime infection chance is any sort of meaningful argument pro- this procedure?
A culture is much "bigger" than a meme. I think of it as the macro-micro distinction, but in thoughtspace rather than biospace.
As opposed to selective breeding, which is when humans successfully try to take evolution into their own hands and consciously direct it.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'd agree with that.
Hmm. Not all such plans are so successful... look at the German Shepherd or the Persian cat. Both were so overbred for certain desired traits that the resulting animals wound up with serious design flaws that render them actually less viable than their forebears would have been. Moreso than most domesticated animals, they now survive only on our tolerance.
You may define "successful" from the viewpoint that the animal now does, or is, whatever we wanted. But you could also define it from the animal's viewpoint, in which case our "improvements" might not actually improve its quality of life much, and may even degrade it.
And when it's applied to humans, of course, it loses even the patina of justification earned by being used on insentient beings. One way or the other, though, I really don't think we're wise enough to do this without running into unforeseen consequences.
Merged double post.
Fair enough, and I take your point. I'm sorry if I offended you with my smugness; it was aimed at a specific conservative poster here who has regularly offended me with his own form of smugness that for a moment, I could not resist the urge to indulge in some of my own.
Though I'd like to point out that even when I was still a Christian, I was a believer in Theistic Evolution (like all good modern Catholics) and was shocked and confused that there could be anyone who could oppose something as blatantly obvious (to my mind) as evolution. Belief in evolution wasn't, for me, a function of lack of belief in god, but simply the natural result of my logical processes. What offends me more than anything else is this constant false dichotomy that is presented: that somehow religion and evolution are incompatible. Which they most certainly are not.
But now I submit we are getting way, WAAY off topic! To try to bring things back on course, I'd like to tie this back in to our overall topic if I can. What do others here think about the possible means by which the custom or practise of circumcision arose, as long as we're on the topic of memetics? My money is on in-group vs. out-group dynamics and the desire for social cohesion, but I'm not a trained anthro.
(I am setting aside, for the moment, the argument that the custom was handed down by divine commandment, not because it's a "bad" argument, but because it really leaves nothing to debate about - it's either true or false and there's no proof either way, so it's kind of an uninteresting argument to get into.)
--Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., who is up in Heaven now. EDH WUBRG Child of Alara WUBRG BGW Karador, Ghost Chieftain BGW RGW Mayael the Anima RGW WUB Sharuum the Hegemon WUB RWU Zedruu the Greathearted RWU
WB Ghost Council of Orzhova WB RG Ulasht, the Hate Seed RG B Korlash, Heir to Blackblade B G Molimo, Maro-Sorcerer G *click the general's name to see my list!*
that is pretty easy. The first recorded evidence comes in the bible. In Genisis it was part of the covenant between God and Abraham that all males would be circumsized.
This also did one other thing it distinguished the people of israel from the rest of the people in the area.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Anyway, I post this mainly to help the OP, as someone that's come through this whole dilemma feeling pretty ok about it all.
I had an adult circumcision about 3 years ago at 16 because of acute phimosis (a tight foreskin, which made me unable to pull it back). My parents had chosen not to have me circumcised, and by the time I was five, a doctor realised I may have to be circumcised. My mum gave me information about what was wrong when I was about 7, (talked to me, showed me diagrams from books made for kids etc.) and then in an effort to avoid circumcision, they did a stretching procedure instead. Needless to say, that hurt like hell, and didn't work. I couldn't pee for a day because it was so painful, and they didn't give me any painkillers. On top of that, the doctor was teaching interns, and let them all examine me without really asking me if I felt ok with it.
I was terrified of circumcision after that ordeal, and so I told my parents that I thought the problem was improving and would just go away with time and I'd be ok. They saw I was so upset that they let me leave it till I was older. As I got to about 12, I started looking for stuff on the net about how I could fix phimosis. There are various methods and devices, but they were expensive, and not easy to get shipped without my parents noticing. I tried a few free stretching method over the next couple of years and had minor successes, but these were outweighed by the fact that I was doubled up in pain the moment something even brushed against the bare glans of my ***** (tissue paper felt more like sandpaper).
Eventually at 15 I bit the bullet and told my mum I needed the operation. I was totally against circumcision at this time, and in my own mind I insisted that I was going to lose so many nerves from the end of my ***** that masturbation wouldn't feel the same again. (The sources I had at the time quoted up the a 30% reduction in the number of nerves in the ***** after circumcision, along with desensitisation of the glans as you got older, so obviously I was concerned). I had to go to my doctor to get looked at, which was humiliating, and then to a specialist a few months later. Eventually I got a letter that I was to have my operation on the 21st of december (A warm fuzzy holiday gift from Santa to me).
I was pretty frantic by this point, worrying about what if it went wrong and I lost my ***** altogether, or something else horrible went wrong. I went in to the hospital on my own, and got all ready. I had to get examined again. Then they got me into a gown and on a bed, took me to the surgical room and put me out (and what the hell? Like 6 doctors and nurses for a circumcision? Geez.)
Afterward I wasn't too bad to start off with. I went to the toilet and that was fine. My mum picked me up and I started to feel all the bumps in the road, so we had to drive slowly. It was starting to smart by the time I got back, and any contact with my clothes was getting painful. By the time I went to bed, I couldnt even let the sheet touch me, because the pressure of them was too painful, and I was aware that I'd be in trouble if I got any nocturnal erections. I got a plastic bowl big enough to sit over my groin without my erect ***** touching the inside and pinned it down to my body with my hands, and slept like that (really uncomfortable.
The next day I like to describe as the worst day of my life. I got up, and I couldn't let the water from the shower get on my pelvic area. My ***** had swollen to twice it's girth and was dark purple, looking like it was going to fall off (I'm aware that this all sounds rather funny). I was completely panicked and in tears from worrying and pain. My mum is a nurse, so I got her to check for infection (which was mortifying, but when you are that concerned, you don't worry about being embarassed.) I couldn't put any clothes on below the waist, so I grabbed a t-shirt and went back to bed for the day. The day after, I got a smaller, metal bowl that fitted into my pants, and used that to keep the material off me, and just wore a baggy sweatshirt to hang low and cover the area.
A few members of my family knew by Christmas, so I got sausage and weiner jokes made about me for a week or so, but other than that they were good about it. Told the kids not to expect me to play with them, let me support my legs on extra chairs while I was sitting down, etc. I was supposed to go back to the doctor to have the stiches (about 10) removed, even though they were dissolvable, so that there weren't any permanent marks, but I was too humiliated by that point, so I just let them dissolve and lived with the little pattern that it made.
I was pretty depressed when I thought about it all for a few months, maybe up to a year. Rather than losing sensation, my ***** was so sensitive that I had trouble touching it, and it chafed on my underwear a lot. I hated the sight of my purplish glans and resented having to have the surgery. Eventually, everything returned to normal. I stopped getting minor yeast infections and painful peeing, which I had been having on and off every few months since I was a little kid. (Not because I had a foreskin, but because I couldnt retract it). I had qualms about feeling less masculine for a while. I felt inferior for having someone interfere with my manhood and violated by the operation for quite a while, but that went away as I regained use of it again, and the oversensitivity went away.
As far as masturbation goes, lubrication isn't any different, but then that's probably because with the phimosis, I only touched the shaft and never the head, and so I never needed lubrication before anyway, and I still masturbate mostly the same way now. As far as pleasure goes, it hard for me to say, since I never had full use of my ***** before I was circumcised. Orgasm is the same, since that doesnt seem to be effected by the nerves in the ***** directly. I get greater pleasure now from the bare head than I could get from the skin before, but then again I don't know how it would feel if I had been able to roll the skin back and stimulate the head before the operation.
Ultimately, I would say to the OP, just let this rest a little while before taking action. Whatever information there is about nerve loss, the body seems to do a pretty good job of compensating and keeping the experience just as pleasurable. I totally understand your feeling of violation. Yes, from an outsider's perspective, you are going over the top, but no, from your own point of view, this is a HUGE deal, just like it was for me. I HATED the way my ***** looked (even after all the brusing went away and everything), and I resented the whole experience hugely, but, eventually I made peace with purple helmeted soldier.
I did not ask my hypothetical child if they wanted to be born. I am being indecent because I did not ask their permission to be born, which might eventually lead to severe health issues, both mental and physical.
Giving birth is immoral.
MTG Rules Advisor
Winner of Weekly Contest Week 39.
"Mutilation" and other such? Perhaps on cultural bounds, but to be honest I've never really seen circumsion affect someone's outlook on life direly. It's been disease and suffering that has been more so than anything else.
Since the accident years ago, I've had very little empathy for people that have had cosmetic or neglible trade offs for issues outside of the most severe medical problems. "My nose is too big, but I don't have a deviated septum" and the like. Sparing someone an affliction maybe arrogant at a young age and probably is, but it has a bit of nobility to it and the possibility to starve off larger medical costs later.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
gj on the reading skills there. I specifically stated I was not interested in discussing scriptural justifications or derivations for the custom, due to the fact that there's really nothing to discuss there. Either you believe the scripture is the word of god or you don't, and that's really the end of any potential discussion.
I was interested in a discussion of the secular POV. I'm not trying to silence the religious POV here, just saying that we all already know what the religious POV is, it hasn't changed in thousands of years, so it's not really that interesting to talk about.
Strawman much? The flaw in your analogy is that circumcision is a perceived ill (even those who defend it defend it with some sort of "necessary evil" argument), whereas life is (at least in most people's opinion) a perceived good. So, your analogy is fail.
This is true and I definitely agree. But in general this discussion is focused on routine neonatal circumcision in cases lacking any indication of medical necessity. Ie., healthy foreskins being removed from healthy babies. I don't think anyone here is such a zealot as to say we shouldn't provide needed surgical treatments to those suffering from phimosis etc.
--Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., who is up in Heaven now. EDH WUBRG Child of Alara WUBRG BGW Karador, Ghost Chieftain BGW RGW Mayael the Anima RGW WUB Sharuum the Hegemon WUB RWU Zedruu the Greathearted RWU
WB Ghost Council of Orzhova WB RG Ulasht, the Hate Seed RG B Korlash, Heir to Blackblade B G Molimo, Maro-Sorcerer G *click the general's name to see my list!*
I understand that you don't think the bible has any spiritual significance since you consider it to be made by men with no divine inspiration. Is it your position also that it has no historical significance?
I mean even aside form the spiritual aspect it could provide a historical point to the start of the common practicing of circumcision. Even if the start was "some guy hallucinating" and not "some guy talking to God". It seems to me like the cultural practice of circumcision arose because the Jews did it as part of their covenant with God (or their perceived covenant with their perceived god, you pick).
It could be. But that doesn't mean that the biblical account should be automatically discounted as irrelevant and useless merely because one doesn't believe the spiritual aspect of it.
I would find it even harder to believe that one of the tenants of a new religion would be chop of parts of your own *****. Which is what the bible says Abraham did. Now you may or may not give that any historical weight. That's pretty much up to you.
I don't think it was never done before that, but I think the start of when it became a cultural norm was probably when it became a religious mandate. because with no idea about medical benefits or anything, why would I chop it off unless I was required to do so by God.
In the United States during the 20th century, and to a somewhat lesser degree today, the circumcised ***** was viewed as the "normal" state, for the obvious reason that a huge majority of American males (even exceeding 90% around mid-century) were circumcised. This also applies to the ideas that: 1) American women prefer the look of a circumcised ***** to one that hasn't been circumcised (quick semantic aside: I agree that the pro-circumcision bias in the U.S. is evident in the use of the terms circumcised and uncircumcised), and 2) uncircumcised boys will be made fun of for looking different. It's all cultural.
Next, I find the hygienic argument for circumcisionto be patently absurd. How, in a nation where good hygiene is pursued obsessively through routine daily showering (regardless of physical activity or temperateness of climate) and daily use of chemical deodorants, would people seriously entertain the idea of lopping off their foreskin, rather than cleaning it as they would any other part of their body? I find it extremely hard to believe that, given an equal amount of personal hygiene, an uncircumcised man is any less clean than a circumcised man.
(aside: What's wrong with not using something like toilet paper to wipe excess urine after using a urinal? There are no appreciable negative effects of doing so, if you wash your hands afterward, wash your underwear, which may have dampened from it, and shower that day or the next?)
Given the large amount of nerve endings in the foreskin, I don't see how anyone can claim with a straight face that sex is no more pleasurable with foreskin than without. While it's true that most of us, myself included, have no basis for comparison in personal experience, the physical evidence is pretty strong that sex is less pleasurable without the foreskin.
The supposed medical benefits to circumcision seem trivial to me, in that they prevent a very rare form of cancer, and provide marginal protection from STDs, which could be gained in a much larger fashion by using a condom.
It should also be noted that, around the same time "medical benefits" of circumcision were being touted, around the start of the 20th century, it was also widely thought to prevent masturbation, seriously throwing into doubt the motives of those who originally spread circumcision.
So overall, the benefits of keeping your foreskin (not paying for and undergoing surgery, having more sexual pleasure) seem to hugely outweigh the risks (it could get infected, or in very rare cases, could become cancerous).
Fortunately, circumcision rates have been decreasing during the last few decades of the 20th century, and continue to do so now.
What physical evidence? what you just said here isn't physical evidence. You yourself said that you have no basis of comparison, and then just make a bald assumption and claim that your assumption is physical evidence. It's not.
The benefits are not "supposed" they are real. Whether they are trivial or not is up for debate, but don't try and act like they are made up or pretend.
How does this throw into doubt a culture that existed 5-6000 years ago (if not earlier)?
Personally I could care less if the circumcision rate goes up or down. I agree its probably unnecessary in most cases... I disagree with the massive fear mongering being spread by some people here about how it is a terrible terrible practice that is just mutilation...
The physical evidence I refer to is the existence of thousands of nerve endings in the foreskin. What exactly are those thousands of nerve endings on the end of the ***** for, if not for sexual stimulation? That's what I'm talking about.
That wasn't my intent. I meant to express my opinion that the medical benefits are trivial.
I'm not sure what you're getting at, that age somehow bestows legitimacy? Male circumcision, in the Western world, was originally conceived a religious mark. Discussion of the health benefits of religious rites reeks of apologetics.
I've not engaged in any fearmongering, and I do want to see the rate go down, so as to empower the sexual activity of men, and condemn useless tradition.
I dunno, but they could be for anything... Just because its a nerve ending attached to the ***** does not mean it is for sexual stimulation. I mean, there are studies linked earlier in the thread where people who were circumcised after adulthood were shown to not have any decrease in sexual pleasure... thats got to at least be valid enough to counteract your "well the nerves must be there for something" argument.
I understand that, but the way to express that is to say they are trivial, not to say they might not be real, which is what you are saying you think when you say "supposed".
not what I was getting at, it just seemed like you were implying that circumcision was a new concept... if I was wrong, i apologize.
I don't think sexual activity of either gender in the US needs any "empowering"... If anything I think this country is way too focused on sex, and it could use a good bit of depowering.
Edit: I just realized what I said could be interpreted wrong... I'm not advocating circumcision as a means to depower sex... I was more making a comment on American culture as a whole.
It seems like a given to me, given it's placement on the genitalia, but I ought to, and will, read about it and learn more.
You're right; it was inappropriate for me to have used the word 'supposed' there.
No, but the idea that there are physical benefits to circumcision is relatively new, dating back to ~1900.
What I meant by "empowering", was for men to experience the full extent of sexual pleasure afforded by their foreskins, if indeed it does make sex more pleasurable.
Ironically, the reason that our country is so fixated on sex, I think, is that it is viewed so negatively. Religion has a lot to answer for in this realm.
This statement intrigues me, and I'll admit that I've thought along the same lines occasionally, but not done enough research to determine it... It'd be an interesting discussion though...
Don't be surprised if a new thread pops up relatively soon (day or two) on the subject.
Exactly, and exactly why the search for benefits is indeed a form of apologetics. I don't blame doctors for wanting to save face, though - they don't want to admit they've been breaking their Hippocratic Oaths all these years, so naturally they're really, really hoping for any sort of benefit to the procedure that they can use to protect themselves from blame. But having a desired outcome tends to skew an observer's bias when doing science...
And, as you pointed out, circumcision was originally promulgated in America precisely to dis-empower sexuality, which was considered sinful and literally harmful to one's heath.
--Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., who is up in Heaven now. EDH WUBRG Child of Alara WUBRG BGW Karador, Ghost Chieftain BGW RGW Mayael the Anima RGW WUB Sharuum the Hegemon WUB RWU Zedruu the Greathearted RWU
WB Ghost Council of Orzhova WB RG Ulasht, the Hate Seed RG B Korlash, Heir to Blackblade B G Molimo, Maro-Sorcerer G *click the general's name to see my list!*
Regarding some comments earlier, I don't know if I said it but I didn't mean to imply something 'always' felt wrong. Again, I'm VERY introspective and in the last two or three years it's felt like I wasn't sensitive enough and this was before I even realized I was circumcised. I was also worried about the abrasion when it rubbed against my boxers and that also concerned me. I thought maybe I had 'messed up' my thing from bating but after reading around online the circumcision was almost probably to be the cause.
What restoration is is basically just moderate stretching with an apparatus to stimulate division of cells and over a period of time you can regrow your foreskin. It acts similar to real foreskin and covers the head which will prevent the abrasion I was experiencing that I thought had happened from masturbating too hard and something was damaged. Also, apparently, you can get back lost sensation and the guys I've seen trying this online report you start seeing differences fairly soon (which could be placebo effect before someone tears my head off about this) but time will tell. What I've seen is promising and apparently you can double your sensation in about a six month period. I'm thinking it will take at least a year or two to finish (good thing I'm young since it's faster). I have been reading whatever I can on it and some You tube videos of guys who have done it and I'd like to say I'm cautiously optimistic.
I've seen enough anecdotal evidence to conclude that there is at least a minor negative effect, much likely a large one, for every story/comment about someone who says they didn't lose any sensation there are many more about guys that it destroyed their sensitivity and ruined their sex lives in the process. Also, seeing our circumcision rate makes this make a lot more sense.
http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/health/2008/03/03/2008-03-03_survey_americans_among_the_most_undersex.html
After reading through the forum I've found the majority of the arguments against my position were mostly fallacious and their writers often had dogmatic views on other subjects making me further skeptical of their statements.
I admit I could be wrong on this, but how I was feeling (and now that I believe I have the source of this) compels me to attempt to regain some of what I've lost. I've had bad experiences with doctors in the past and listening to the status quo and I no longer exclusively listen to an authority solely especially if its against my own instincts which is why I'm reluctant to actually see a doctor before attempting to do this. I had a severe overuse injury in the past that was 'nothing' according to the people I saw despite the crippling effect it had on my life but I managed to overcome it with the help of a book and developing a therapy regime. I was diagnosed with ADD and put on stimulants when in reality my performance was likely more affected by my poor family life, divorce of my parents, and lack of social support. I had a similar experience with my hearing problems which ended up being a slight loss compounded by the severe stress I was under causing ringing in my ears I was given another sham non-diagnosis as opposed to being told that stress could possibly cause this.
After seeing kids continued to be put on mind-destroying stimulants and similar crap, I have a hard time believing that medical ethics take a front-seat over profits in this country which circumcisions being done is raking in. Even if it turns out nothing is wrong (which I may never know for sure) my foreskin should have been left on until I could make my own decision especially if it's being done to prevent aids and urinary tract infections. I'm sure most guys would rather have their normal body part INTACT and have the increased pleasure as opposed to slightly raised risks for certain things which is BS imo and just part of the propaganda machine to keep this expensive unnecessary surgery going. But yes, even if nothing is wrong it's not right that I have to live here with this and I think the argument that it HAS to be done as a child to help the healing process is another part of this sham. Yes, I'll just go ahead and do this harmful procedure without your consent because it'll be more difficult later in life. If we were circumcising guys consistently AFTER they start masturbating and realized their sexuality their would be a ****ing outrage. And regardless of what the truth is on this issue I shouldn't have to go through the mental anguish of wondering what I might have had for the the rest of my life. And just seeing these circumcisions done online to helpless infants makes me bloody sick. Pro-circumcision or not, this is the greatest injustice of all.
and this:
Don't jive. Is it not sensitive enough, or is it too sensitive?
I'm interested in your sources here, because the links I saw showed it as being about the same, with the primary difference (destroyed sensitivty vs no loss) being the bias of the website.
That makes sense, but I would argue this would be more in favor of having multiple opinions of experts, rather than just checking the internet and guessing at the problem.
Looking at the bold part, I would think that if it is done for those reasons there is at least some justification for doing it (it may not be enough to overcome the negatives, but there is something), whereas if done for other reasons there would not be. Essentially why is it especially bad if done for percieved legitimate medical reasons?
I think you need a much wider perspective on the world if you think this is true.
This isn't really sensitivity so much as it is discomfort when rubbing up against certain fabrics (my boxers) and with a foreskin there I wouldn't have to feel this.
This is why I'm trying it for myself. There's actually guys willing to show before and after photos and I've seen countless detailed writings about their experiences. It's basically just moderate stretching that stimulates cell growth and if worse comes to worse I'm out like what nine bucks? I guess if FS restoration does turn out to be a scam I can call it for what it is. Also, given that you apparently get new sensations and start to realize this within the first two weeks to month and can observe if anything's happening first hand it makes it seem less likely it is.
Yeah, I agree here somewhat but often the 'experts' are bias and will just tell you not to do it because something hasn't been thoroughly researched and they don't want to be held responsible for anything wrong. Also, frankly, I don't have time to wait.
Justification would imply the benefits at least slightly outweigh the risks. However, given that this is being done on the non-consenting. I mean come on, this was started by some crackpot who thought masturbation was unhealthy and it's primary goal WAS to reduce sexual pleasure and we're REALLY sitting here now arguing whether there are benefits to it. If this was just done for appearance reasons parents would be pissed off, especially the ones who lost children because the procedure can be fatal. They have to say there may be a few minor benefits (regardless of whether this is true) and it was being done for a reason because otherwise what does it come down to? You're cutting a significant part of an infant's dick for no reason.
I obviously don't, it was referring to the context of the situation and I believe it was quite clear given my previous posts that my view of the world was not that narrow. My biggest problem with this has been that it was done without my consent and it continues to be done without the consent of the infants who are affected by it. It's hard for me to even begin seeing eye to eye with someone who doesn't agree with this.
Unless theres something you haven't told us (which is possible, and if so by all means ignore this), how could you possibly not have time to wait? Hell, even if you were incapable of having sex entirely because of it you would still have time to wait... (barring other unknown circumstances of course).
We're not arguing whether there are benefits. There are. Period. End of story. We're arguing whether the benefits are at all significant. even a 1X10^-1000000% improvement is still a benefit, it just may not be significant.
I'm curious as to whether the infection / mortality risk in this is any different from the standard risks involved in a minor surgical procedure? I don't think they are but I have admittedly not done the research.
The word you are looking for is insignificant, not significant. (I kid, sort of. I do genuinely think its an insignificant part. I understand that you don't, but I think thats been one of the main points of contention in the debate so you can't really rely on it as established fact).
I understand that, but at the same time, perhaps a debate thread is the wrong place to go for something like this if you don't want the opposing viewpoint repeated ad nauseum.
Circumstantial Ad hominem Fallacy http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html
So its not invalid because they may or may not be biased.
Also isn't foreskin restoration just further mutilation? I mean sometimes just accepting something happened and moving on is best instead of trying something where the results are far from certain.
As far as the more nerves in the foreskin must make sex more pleasurable as someone uncircumcised I don't notice feeling compared to other areas.
Thanks to Magus of the Sheep at Scuttlemutt Productions for the best ever sig.
Yeah, hardly anyone here understands it's not about the 'benefits', so much as wanting your birthright, a ***** that hasn't been ****ed with without your consent. The wondering and not knowing is the worst part. You don't just cut out 15 square inches of sexual tissue, including 20000 highly sensitive nerves and come to the conclusion, oh, well, sex is probably the same!
Anyway, I'm cautiously optimistic about starting this which will be as soon as I am able to order it online (in about a week and however long the stuff takes to ship) and in a short time after I'll know for sure. Just PM me if you need some places to look up stuff, but I would suggest just googling.
Barring really bizarre circumstances, it's probably voluntary. So no.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/24/first-vaccine-helps-preve_n_298250.html
So with a 31% reduction in infection chance already established (at least experimentally, if not commercially available), with great improvements likely within the next 30 years (ie., the meaningful time-frame w.r.t. the lifespan of babies now being born), can we put to bed the silly argument that a few percentage points' difference in lifetime infection chance is any sort of meaningful argument pro- this procedure?
--Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., who is up in Heaven now. EDH WUBRG Child of Alara WUBRG BGW Karador, Ghost Chieftain BGW RGW Mayael the Anima RGW WUB Sharuum the Hegemon WUB RWU Zedruu the Greathearted RWU
WB Ghost Council of Orzhova WB RG Ulasht, the Hate Seed RG B Korlash, Heir to Blackblade B G Molimo, Maro-Sorcerer G *click the general's name to see my list!*