“Dessert combat”?
Am I the only one with visions of gateaux and meringue flying overhead while men pee on the table?
CHEAP says:
Well, I for one would argue that the obvious answer to this is “yes.” Of course degree is important. I might pierce my baby daughter’s ears, but I wouldn’t chop them off.
Look, there may well be persuasive arguments to be made against circucision (though manifestly JACK is not the one to make them). People might circumcise their sons for reasons of religion, health and hygiene, or aesthetics. It’s pretty hard to argue with religion or aesthetics (since both devolve to person tastes or beliefs), unless you can produce persuasive evidence that circumcision is not only unnecessary but in fact harmful. (Evidence that has not to date been produced in THIS thread.) Degree is obviously important in any attempt to prove this, just as it would be important in an attempt to show that cutting off the tip of a person’s pinky finger is not the same as cutting off the person’s hand. Of course the degree matters. How could it not?
For me, if you could show me a particular religion that practiced female circumscision in a way that does not inhibit the girl’s reproductive abilities or sexual response and does not cause her memorable pain (like nicking the clitoral hood), I would have a lot more trouble objecting to that procedure than I do to the clitorectomies and interfibulation that is more commonly known as “female circumcision.” But if men were “circumcised” the way most women suffering the procedure are, the men would find thlaf their penises cut off. The procedures are manifestly not comparable and reason why is – yes – a question of degree.
Yue Han,
> If genetic testing for gayness becomes possible, fundamentalists will not abort the child. That would be murder in their eyes; murder of someone for what they may do in the future. <
Well, it has been demonstrated that a lot of religious people are not above murder it they think it is their god's will. A god-forsaken sodomite cannot get into heaven. I wouldn't bet that that fetus is all that safe.
> While there are some fundamentalists extreme enough to take that position, it is ludicrous to say ‘most’ American’s would do so. <
American society will come up with some delusional way of eliminating gays when the technology becomes available. They won't admit to themselves that is what they are doing, though.
> If fundamentalists accepted the genetic diagnosis (unlikely… fundamentalist rarely admit that homosexuality is genetic) they would try to ‘fix’ their child, not kill it. <
Certainly, when the technology is there (not far off I should think) that sexual orientation can be determined before conception, no fundamentalist is going to give birth to a gay.I have had the pleasure of raising several dogs and cats in my lifetime. I have never seen one pinch its foreskin closed.
Still waiting on that $6K check.
Why is it in in the hands of those not asking to perform genital mutilation to prove the harm or lack thereof? I agree that degree is an important consideration, but I disagree that it should change one’s willingness to participate in genital mutilation.
Are you saying that circumcision does not inhibit a male’s sexual response? I know that (usually) a circumcised man can achieve erection, orgasm, and reproduce; but qualitatively - response is changed. What about the unilateral decision to irreversibly change the nature and appearance of one’s child’s genitals?
David B,
> Well, except if perhaps he actually showed it by acting in a rational manner…<
Are you a member of the Skeptic's Society?
I would like to commend you on how you are moderating this forum, BTW. The only reason that can explain why you haven't killed off at least half of my posts is that you only do this when you have an objective basis. So, I commend you.
In any event, I know how you Skeptics think very well. One of my heros is Robert Scheaffer (everything he writes is genius). If you have an argument with me, we are going to come to a very rational meeting of the minds. And, that will result in a whole lot of the more feeble-minded persons in this forum being at your throat.
I'm happy to leave you out of it. The Skeptic's Society is the final defense against the insanity of the sort that is being displayed in this forum (by posters other than myself). If you're a member, I can't let it go when you call me irrational, so please don't do it anymore. I can't let it go because it's hypocrisy and a threat to reason.Bastid,
I think you’re missing the larger point. FGM is hardly analogous to castration, both in terms of severity and damage. FGM is more analogous to cutting off half the penis for no apparent reason. Circumcision appears to have pros and cons; FGM has no pros and is butchering with long-lasting consequences.
Zette,
> Frankly, I’d take my husband- the best giver of oral sex on the planet-over penis play, (cut or uncut) ANY day of the week. <
That’s only because you admittedly don’t know any better. An intact man who knows how to use his penis will get your clitoris going much better than any tongue. Further, it’s no so Twilight Zonish having normal sex since you can actually see someone’s face, too.
Are you saying it does? Can you back it up? I asked Jack to, but he decided to ignore me instead.
CHEAP says:
Well, because it’s the “anti” people who are asking people in our society to forego a procedure commonly undertaken for religious, aesthetic, or health reasons. In other words, we already DO it; if you want people to STOP, you have to give them a REASON to stop. No one is compelling anyone to circumcise their sons; the question is whether those who CHOOSE to do so should be persuaded NOT to. The burden is obviously upon the one trying to do the persuading. And we will just have to agree to disagree about the importance of “degree.” Piercing my daughter’s ears might strike someone else as “mutilating” her, but the degree of “mutilation” will impact my willingness to participate.
I’m saying that I have seen no evidence that it does.
Do you have a cite for this?
What about it?
I’m guessing you mistakenly referenced castration instead of circumcision, but I understand what you’re trying to say. I don’t agree though. Those who oppose FGM are fighting the good fight, but the fight needs visceral examples and they are supplied with cliterectomies etc. As I said a directly analogous procedure to male circumcision is the removal of the clitoral hood, are you for that procedure? I’m not going to argue using botched circumcisions to raise the ante because (on a basic level) neo-natal genital mutilation is simply wrong, no matter what the degree or the sex.
What I am saying (in response to the chorus of ‘please cite your reference/source/site’) in regards to sexual response is that in my feeble little mind it seems clear that there would appear to be a not insignificant difference in sensation between cut and uncut. More surface area and nerve endings as well as thinner skin with a mucous layer on the glans seem to be clear indications. Sensation (not to mention sexuality) being such a relative experience, and difficult to quantify, I would think are hindrances to clear direct Scientific evidence of what exact differences in sexual/tactile experience concussion makes. I know that there are many anti-circ sites that devote pages and pages on the sensitivity thing, and yes they are biased, but I still think it is fairly clear that there is a difference and that an intact penis would be more ‘responsive’ than a circumcised.
Damn spellcheck got me.
Disregard concussion above.
=)
::shrug::
Fair enough. I don’t think there’s any reason to come to that conclusion, personally. You’re perfectly welcome to your opinion, but don’t expect to win anyone over to it without something besides “it’s common sense.” I think it’s only common sense to eat peanut butter and bacon sandwiches, but not many people agree with that.
Time for a little levity…
Two little kids are in a hospital admitting room. The first kid leans over and asks, “What are you in here for?”
The second kid says," I’m in here to get my tonsils out and I’m a little nervous."
The first kid responds," You’ve got nothing to worry about, I had that done to me once. They put you to sleep and when you wake up they give you lots of Jell-O and ice cream. It’s a piece of cake!"
The second kid then asks, “What are you in here for?”
The first kid responds, “Well, I’m here for a circumcision.”
The second kid says, “Whoa! I had that done when I was born. I couldn’t walk for a year!”
Why do I get this feeling you have an aversion to going down on a woman?
It seems obvious that the response would be different between cut and uncut, but I don’t have any reason to believe that uncut is “more” responsive across the board.
Personal beliefs and choices are just that, but I can turn the tables and ask you to prove what real harm is done if I clip off the pinky toes of my child. Zotar’s covenant requires it, and I kinda like the way it looks. Personal beliefs and choices don’t give one the right to mutilate their children (in my book).
I used the word more because I think it is applicable. More skin, more protection, and a larger number of (and more exposed) nerve endings when the foreskin is retracted seem to point to a more responsive penis.
::shrug again::
I can’t, and wouldn’t try. It’s not my place. I wouldn’t do it to my child, but I have no problems with your doing it to yours, provided there’s no evidence it causes lasting harm. When there is such evidence, I’ll consider it child abuse.
But then, I wouldn’t have my child’s ears pierced, either. To me, it’s all cosmetic. And until I can see some real evidence that circumcision causes real lasting harm, I have no reason to think that’s not cosmetic also. Again, unnecessary and not a choice I make, but cosmetic nonetheless.