There is no “pro-circ” crowd in the same fashion that there’s not a “pro-abortion” crowd. There are people who think it should be an option for people to think about and decide accordingly, but it’s not remotely analogous to those screaming that it be banned and those who disagree are morally deficient monsters.
It may be time to revisit my old thread, Why Thai Women Cut Off Their Husbands’ Penises.
Bullshit. In that closed thread, you weren’t just arguing the analogue of “pro-choice”. You (and others, but especially you) were arguing that circumcision was superior to non-circumcision. Quoting recent medical studies in a post hoc rationalization, as if your parents had access to Marty McFly and his DeLorean in making the decisions to snip your weiners.
And again - the comparison to anti-vax is offensively stupid. Anti-vaxxers put themselves and others at risk. I spent the better part of a half hour just this past week arguing on Irish national radio with these dangerous lunatics. My preference (and the evident preferences of hundreds of millions of European men) to go uncut does not impact on anyone else’s life. What an incredibly disingenuous comparison to be making…
You mean the thread where I explicitly stated:
…Hey, whatever makes you feel better by pretending, man.
“We demand an end to this medically beneficial procedure by using a mixture of bad studies, batshit websites, ‘for the children’ emotionally-laden arguments, exaggerated fear of boogeyman side-effects, meaningless anecdotes, and insistence than any benefits are faked or a product of conspiracies!”
Anti-Vaxers have much more potential to do harm given the style of diseases that are affected but, tactically, we’re looking at branches off the same tree.
I agree that the harm potential is lower. It’s low enough that not circumcising is a valid choice – just as valid as the choice to circumcise. Whereas I strongly believe that children should be vaccinated. That doesn’t excuse using the same tired arguments and tactics that the anti-vaxers use. If you’re offended by the comparison, maybe you should stop using their playbook.
Hey, me too! Well, that was actually a foster kitten, so I don’t have him any more, but the circumcision saved his life.
Anyway, I’m tagging this thread because I told someone in the thread on female mutilation that is give some cites re male circumcision here when I had time.
Yes. Somewhere he is cackling insanely…
You need to rethink using this argument in the future. It’s as insulting as it is idiotic. FGM is not analogous to circumcision, its analogous to castration. Its whole purpose to take away a women’s option for sex for pleasure. If circumcision was designed for this purpose, it failed miserably, and did so right out of the gate. It does not make sex undesirable, difficult or unpleasant
This comparison is also lame. It assumes that circumcised men have no sensation, or at least, no enjoyment from it. We know this is bunk even if we assume that uncircumcised men get more sensation and enjoyment, which cannot be demonstrated
.
My name is Typo Negative and I am circumcised. And I do not care. I have thoroughly enjoyed sex my entire teenage and adult life. I have masturbated without lube successfully and with such frequency as to make my parents and a couple of girlfriends wonder that I have may have a mental issue. For decades, my penis was remarkably sensitive. Not so much now, but that’s a result of age and diabetes, not circumcision.
Of course it can be. You ask people how much they like sex, a lot of people. It’s like asking people how much they like pizza. If uncut men on Yelp rate pizza places higher than cut men do, then there’s a reason to think there may be a link between circumcision and enjoyment of pizza.
If there’s no noticeable difference between reported enjoyment of sex of both groups, frequency of sex, or [insert whatever sex statistic you want here], then what’s the problem we’re trying to solve? That someone had a procedure as an infant that has no apparent impact on sexual function?
I’m a data guy. If there’s actually data that circumcised men suffer from sexual dysfunction, it would be out there, and I’m willing to read it.
Apparently you skipped the rest of my post where I explained the issues with testing it. That’s okay… we can all enjoy pizza.
My above post isn’t very helpful and my edit timer ran out: The issue is that they aren’t just trying to prove that Group A enjoys sex because basically everyone likes sex, it’s that they’re trying to prove that Group A would enjoy sex more if they were like Group B. Like enjoying pizza, they are trying to argue that while every likes pizza, they are enjoying it on a separate plane of pleasure. So Group A naively says they like pizza a lot and Group B says THEY like pizza a lot while smugly self-assured that they really like it far more.
The only way to truly test that would be for the same guy to eat pizza under both conditions, right? Except there’s no way to actually do that cleanly for the reasons I listed above: issues in self-reporting, reasons for circumcision as an adult, preconceived ideas and physiological differences between neonatal and adult circumcisions (which are extremely important since neonatal is what’s really being discussed).
There was an interesting point made up above which is that circumcised females are OK with the procedure until they are made aware of the possibility of not having had it done. OTOH, circumcised males are aware of the fact that most men are not circumcised and yet they do not feel regret. Now either men are more stupid than women or else there is a difference.
The other point that needs to be stressed is that nobody here is advocating for routine circumcision for all men. The supporters mostly just want it as an option. To me it is more akin to piercing a baby girl’s ears. The procedure has not been shown to have long-term ill-effects and so we leave it to the parents as an option. FWIW, I don’t support routine circumcision, although I would have it done to my sons for religious reasons.
WTF have we lost? Sensitivity? I can assure you, the last thing a lot of us men (especially young ones) need down there is more sensitivity.
I’m not buying this line of argument.
When we self-report our enjoyment of something, we compare it to every other source of enjoyment in our lives. Sex isn’t just on an island all on its own, its jumbled up into everything else that we can assume is equivalent across groups.
You’d be right if sex was ‘equally’ rated as A++++++ BEST THING EVER by both groups. But it isn’t. Even a question as simple as ‘How important is frequency of sex in a relationship?’ can tell you who likes sex more.
Yes, the thread where you made post after post extolling the medical virtues of circumcision and hand-waving away any potential costs. I’m quite familiar with what you said in that thread, thanks.
You also stated: *"The fact that this devolves into “Ignore the science because, uh, you’re just afraid to admit it!” speaks volumes.
You, erm, have it on concrete authority that all the people involved in the AAP, AAFP, AUA, CDC, NIH, etc decisions were neonatally circumcised men, I take it? Since that’s central to your theory?"*
I said nothing of the sort, you shameless weasel.
:rolleyes: I appreciate the love, bro…
Uh, no. Unlike an anti-vaxxer, I’m not afraid to follow the latest scientific consensus wherever it may lead. For instance, I will concede that, at least amongst sub-Saharan African populations, male circumcision is the responsible choice to make. I was unaware of that connection before you cited that article. My initial conception was partially wrong, and I own my error.
However, your citation doesn’t explain why this is relevant to the European population, where HIV rates are lower than the USA, nor why the new data (hell - the disease itself only goes back about four decades!) would have been a potentially relevant factor in parental choices regarding circumcision made in ages past. This is post hoc rationalization bullshit. If you don’t want to be called on it, then don’t cite it as justification for decisions made long ago.
I don’t “use their playbook”, you disingenuous asshole. I’ve said repeatedly that I don’t care if you wanna slice your dick up or not. I’m not organizing campaigns to discourage the practice. I’m not anti-science or anti-reason. I just tire of condescending pricks such as yourself asserting that being circumcised is a superior state of affairs. I notice your fellow travellers CarnalK and Ambivalid at least shut their traps after a while when called upon to substantiate the basis for their prejudices. Perhaps you could follow their lead…
Well, see, the great thing about having a built-in sheath is that, when I’m walking around, doing my thing, Mr. Happy is stowed away, and doesn’t chafe against my clothing. Then, when the moment calls for it, he can pop out in all his sensitive glory and make me Mr. Really Happy. 
It’s the best of both worlds.
Do you care if I have this procedure performed on my children? Because you know damn well this isn’t about if I want to do it but rather about taking away the ability of parents to make this decision on behalf of their infant children.
But sure, not at ALL like anti-vaxxers :rolleyes: Cry some more crocodile tears there, bub.
That pretty much describes walking around circumcised too, without the sheath. I don’t chafe somehow, it’s a puzzle.
Answering some questions from the FGM thread, to keep the circumcision stuff out of it.
This says the earliest record of circumcision is from Egypt, and it’s also traditionally practiced by the Semitic peoples (who may have learned it from Egyptians) as well as the Niger-Congo speakers of Africa who seem to have come from “an area of the Cross River in modern Nigeria.” Also “a common practice among Australian Aborigines and Pacific islanders at first contact with Western travellers.”
Dusty places? Egypt and Australia are dusty, the Niger not so much.
Here are two articles, one anti, one pro circumcision, that talk about problems uncircumcised soldiers faced:
https://www.circinfo.org/Circumcision_and_sand.html
http://www.medicirc.org/summary.html
It’s easier to find numbers for WWII than for Desert Storm. The anti site points out that the actual incidence of foreskin-related problems was low, and probably wasn’t high enough to indicate it would be useful to circumcise conscripts. That’s true. I have never claimed that male circumcision is so helpful that it ought to be done to everyone today. Given modern medicine and the availability of showers, that is an absurd claim, imo. That doesn’t mean that there might not have been significant benefits in the absence of modern medicine and hygiene.
Seriously, you want a citation for that? Have you ever talked to anyone circumcised as an adult, or to the friends of such people? How about to parents of children circumcised as infants? Adults have three issues that babies don’t have:
they heal much more slowly (from everything)
they sometimes get large erections that yank on the ends of the cut foreskin
they need to do stuff – babies are helpless and need to be cared for no matter what. So there’s little cost if a baby is slightly less “able” for a couple of days.
Babies heal completely in 7-10 day, men are advised to avoid intercourse or masturbation for 4-6 weeks after circumcision.
And, you know, men who have already developed phimosis, or whatever — you think that wouldn’t increase any risks? Seriously?
this is my hypothesis, although it’s not original to me.
…
You know, if a girl baby just has her foreskin cut off, I bet the risks are pretty similar to the risks for a boy baby. As I said in the other thread, that’s rarely what is done to girls. (and it’s rarely done when they are babies, I gather.) But I think it’s safe to say that it’s riskier to chop off the penis than to do a circumcision. So no, I’m not attributing the difference in health risks and outcomes to the difference in sex, but to the difference in what is done to girls and to boys.
Look, you paranoid, conspiratorial fuck.
I have said: “Sure, it’d be nice if Americans didn’t routinely mutilate their kids’ genitals. It’d also be nice if they didn’t do a lot of stupid shit, but it’s no big deal to me. I don’t live in the US anymore.”
I also stated: “I’m not trying to force anything on anyone. I object to the smug condescension of the pro-circ crowd. Can’t speak for anyone else ostensibly on “my side”.”
I further added: “You wanna circumcise yourself? Great. You wanna circumcise your son? Whatever - I think it’s a mistake, but it doesn’t exactly rise to the level of a war crime or anything.”
How the hell you leap to your ridiculous conclusion is beyond me.
I ain’t crying shit, you thick plank. You’re so fucking stupid that you can’t seem to grasp that, though.
OK, “chafe” is probably not the right word to use there. All I know is that if I walk around with the one-eye exposed, it’s kinda painful. Presumably, assuming you were circumcised as an infant, your exposed glans was similarly sensitive, but that was a long time ago.