Sadly, I don’t think that the study in your article is the definitive answer. Nor does it make me think that other studies pointing otherwise should be discarded with such ease.
Frankly, if you take a piece of skin, that’s a part of your body you can’t feel with anymore. I think pretending otherwise is a bit silly.
Obviously, circumcised men can have perfectly satisfactory sex lives, but the possibility that you could be limiting, even by a small fraction, the amount of pleasure your kid could potentially experience, should be enough to give you pause.
Remember how the Australian study found that studies showing less sensitivity tended to be flawed?
I imagine that most people who are okay with circumcision don’t have any real investment in pushing it on others and would agree that it’s ultimately the parent’s choice. It’s the anti-side which uses emotional arguments to try and prohibit anyone from deciding in favor of a beneficial procedure.
Yes. The study claims that other studies are flawed and that theirs is the real deal. Excuse me if I need more than that.
I do think that parents shouldn’t necessarily have absolute power deciding what’s better for their kids. There’s plenty of bad choices by parents that should be controlled in some way or other.
In this case I’m fine following the Brazilian tribal tattoo rule: I defend the right of consenting adults to do what they want with their bodies, but I reserve a right to express disapproval whenever they want to tattoo children.
You believe the removal of your outer ear would not represent an aesthetic impairment that impedes a child’s prospects of leading a happy life? I do. (Besides, while I am not a doctor, I believe that the outer ear serves some protective function for the inner ear. You may correct me, if that is not true.)
I somehow had hoped addressing two of your four analogies would be enough. Apparently not.
I have no idea whether you assertion that the female genital procedures you have mentioned are as mild as a male circumcision holds water. If you can show me convincing evidence that it is so, I do not object to them. What little I know about female circumcision makes me object to it right now.
By introducing a hypothetical ethnic group I had hoped to remove the religious element and thus any anti-religious sentiment from the debate - at least for a little while.
For what it is worth: If I were in the US and some ethnic or religious minority required the tattoo ritual to maintain its cultural or spiritual identity, my decision would not change.
If male circumcision had no health benefit and no significance for Judaism and Islam (and some smaller groups) I would not allow it just for the fun of it. But to me the protection of religious minorities is actually a factor in the deliberation. If you outlaw circumcision, you are practically asking American Jews (at least the more orthodox ones) to show themselves out. Is that the idea?
Really? What’s that… a study that agrees with you? A study that no one ever will have any question with? Because you might be waiting a while. What exactly is your standard of evidence that you’re demanding? Because it really kind of sounds like the “Study that agrees with my predetermined answer” one.
The point of the Australian study was to aggregate the previous work done and determine how it all shook out. If you have a problem with their work, you’re welcome to show it – I already pointed out the problems with the Belgium study. If you’re arguing that there’s harm then you need to show harm and defend it. If you’re taking some silly “Well, can anyone prove that there’s never, ever any harm” prove-the-negative stance then we go back to the first point.
Actually, I’m accusing of precisely doing that. of taking the Australian study because it’s convenient for your preconceived notion and taking it as the gospel. I’m pointing out that’s a bad idea.
I don’t think I’m asking you to prove a negative. I’m saying that believing that losing a piece of skin has no effect in the sensitivity is such an extraordinary claim, that there’s a point where the burden of proof resides on you.
Do you have an actual issue with the study? Because unless you can point to problems, it’s meaningless to just say “Nuh-UH! You only like it because it says you’re right!”
I pointed out the flaws in the Belgium study. If you’re incapable of doing the same here then maybe you should stop trying to pursue that avenue.
“No effect”? Well, obviously if I remove a mole, I can’t feel anything touching that mole any longer. What’s that prove? A meaningful effect? No, that’s something for you to provide the evidence and back it up.
You didn’t point the flaws. you repeated what he Australian study said the flaws were. I think that taking either as the absolute truth is a terrible idea.
It proves that losing nerve endings makes you lose sensitivity in that area. Doesn’t it? A “meaningful effect”? as in causing erectile dysfunction and so on? No need to provide evidence since we both agree that said loss is not meaningful in any big way. Nor is that my point. My point is that the loss, if there is any, would be fractional. But enough to make you rethink doing it.
The equation “remove skin = feel less” seems overly simplistic to me.
Measuring sexual pleasure is inherently difficult. The methodology in the study you quoted does not seem convincing to me:
First off: It is a self-reporting study based on a not very large number of entries. Have other factors been excluded when accounting for the difference in answers? For example: Could it be that one ethnic group is generally more hesitant when describing own sexual arousal than another?
Another thing I noted is that the study specifically refers to the arousal that occurs when the glans is stroked. That means the foreskin is not even in play and whatever nerve endings it has is not stimulated.
Actually, I linked to a CDC researcher pointing out the flaws. I related that to the Australian finding that “loss of sensitivity” studies were poorly executed.
If it’s insignificant then it shouldn’t weigh heavily on anyone’s thoughts.
It is overly simplistic. That doesn’t mean it’s not broadly true.
It wasn’t made by amateurs though. It was published in the British Journal of Urology International. I don’t think it’s fair to entirely discard it, just like I wouldn’t just discard the Australian one. If it’s still debated seriously in the scientific community, we shouldn’t jump to conclusions either.
On the contrary. We make millions of choices based on whether something gives us a small amount more pleasure than something else. If you could take a pill that would increase, even marginally, your sexual pleasure, you would take it.
I don’t take the pills I should to alleviate real life aches, pains and other discomfort. I guarantee you that I’m not expanding that to taking voluntary pills for marginal pleasure.
I’m sorry, but ISTM that nerve endings are a very red herring. I get that “more tissue” == “more nerve endings.” Even if there are few in the excised tissue, there are undoubtedly some. But I don’t see how that in itself necessarily leads to greater sexual pleasure. AIUI, there’s no evidence that circumcised men have more difficulty achieving or sustaining erection, or more difficulty reaching orgasm, than uncircumcised men.
I’m more readily swayed by the mechanical argument: that the foreskin can serve a tactile function during intercourse that is pleasurable to both partners. But even there I’ve been waiting 15 years for someone to present that as an effective argument.
.
Ok - that is a fair enough approach. Given that other researchers attack it’s methodology you may want to take the study with a grain of salt but you do not have to entirely ignore it.
So if you are a parent faced with the decision on whether to have your child circumcized you want to consider these studies regarding sexual responsiveness. Then there is the low but not nonexistent risk of complications from the procedure itself. And of course the fact that a circumcision is, while not exactly torture, certainly painful.
On the pro side you will consider the reduced risk of certain diseases, potential hygienic benefits and any cultural or religious significance the procedure may have for your family.
In the end you are weighing pros and cons and then you come to a decision. I am not surprised that different people weigh pros and cons differently. (It is well possible that I have overlooked some on either side.) What I find irritating is if someone chooses to entirely ignore one side of the equation and then paints parents who have come to a different conclusion as some kind of monster.
the only reason it seems that way to you is that you are used to the concept of circumcision but not the procedure on the ear. Materially there is no difference though.
The point is that one could easily come up with a female genital procedure that was the equivalent of male circumcision in both scope, scale and consequences. Most people would not
want to give any ground to it…but
…you will, I commend your consistency but I find it a deplorable attitude to take.
there really isn’t much difference at all between cultural and religious practices and there is nothing wrong in being anti-bad practices wherever they are applied. I see no material difference in the harm caused to an infant whether it comes from a religious, cultural or secular viewpoint.
well, again. I can’t accuse you of inconsistency but I find that pretty stomach-churning.
Which implies that you know it isn’t a frivolous procedure
Is that a thinly veiled threat of anti-Semitism? My stance on all religions is that you have a right to practice whatever you like, for yourself and to yourself. The moment it has a material impact on a third party then those rights stop. That applies to all denominations equally. Religious special pleading cuts no ice with me.
I think we’ve reached a point where no further discussion will be productive and we’ve both made ourself clear so I’ll leave it there.
I am generally fine with leaving it there, but I need to address that last paragraph.
I am *not *accusing you of anti-semitism. That allegation gets thrown around all too lightly these days and I have no intention of joining in with that. I was trying to highlight the fact that the change of law you propose might make life for a significant religious minority all but untenable in your country and I wanted to know, if you are ok with that consequence. I could have gone with Muslims, but given how hated they currently are in some circles, I was afraid of getting a “good riddance” in reply. (Perhaps not necessarily from you, but I did not want to see this thread derailed.)
Religions and cultures have had to deal with societal restrictions on their practices for thousands of years so I’m sure they’ll find a work-around. No-one is telling them they can’t circumcise themselves, just that they can’t do it to a third party without consent.
