Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
The Cruelest Cut

By stzu in Culture
Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 06:58:23 AM EST
Tags: Culture (all tags)
Culture

"It is like sex was in colour before and is now in black and white." - middle aged man speaking 6 months after his circumcision.

I was circumcised at 3 years of age - it is my first memory. The memory is of blowing into a balloon at the doctors surgery, falling unconscious and then waking up with a fire in my lap. My penis hurt incredibly and was wrapped very tightly in many bandages. When we were walking from the surgery to the car I had to stop in the street and ask my mother to unwrap the bandages which were so tight and constricting. She was embarrassed and refused at first, until I stopped walking any further and started screaming. People stared at us while she unwound the bandages on the sidewalk. There was a momentary relief when the tight bandages came off but the pain didn't go away.

At that moment I knew something important had been lost, even at 3 there was a real sense of loss and astonishment at what had happened. It is only now at nigh on 33 that this trauma is finally healing and being dealt with.


Effects of Circumcision

Circumcised men experience less sexual pleasure.

Circumcision eliminates over twenty thousand nerve-endings, the most sensitive part of the penis. Circumcision removes the penis' only moving part, that which enables the natural gliding action during sex. Circumcision exposes the sensitive mucosal membranes of the glans, drying it out as it was never meant to further reducing lubrication and sensation. Circumcision takes away the glan's protection - the rubbing of clothing on the glans causes the skin to thicken considerably deadening sensation.

Studies done by the Institute of Human Sexuality using micro-filament pressure wires have shown that circumcision causes losses of sensation of between 30% and 60%. This is just straight sensitivity and does not account for losses in pleasure due to calluses forming on the glans and the loss of the penis' only moving part. The gliding of the penis within the foreskin is an important mechanism, without it sex lasting longer than 20 minutes causes pain for both partners without artificial lubrication. A related study has shown men without foreskins are 3 times more likely to suffer from erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation than their intact counterparts. The issue of sexual sensitivity is one that has been largely ignored, there are two reasons for this: firstly most circumcisions take place on boys before they are sexually active so they have no benchmark; secondly circumcised men who hear this often go into denial, they do not want to confront the unpleasant fact that they have been robbed.

Women report that sex with intact men causes a lot less irritation to the vaginal walls. There are three primary reasons for this:

  • The man experiences more sensitivity thus is less prone to "Slamming away all night"
  • The lack of hair on the shaft eliminates abrasion caused by hair (as skin is pulled forward for circumcision, what was originally scrotum hair is present on the penis shaft)
  • The ample skin acts as a dam keeping lubricants inside the vagina during sex.

Anecdotal reports from women and gay men who have had a number of partners, intact and circumcised, indicate that circumcised men are in general more likely to seek additional sensation around sex, requesting anal sex or being obsessed with pornography.


Circumcision Trauma

Your best shot at convincing parents considering circumcision to reconsider is to get them to watch a video of a circumcision. It is horrific.

The baby boy is strapped to a Y-shaped board, legs spread eagled, this is to provide easy access to his penis and stop him from thrashing about. A clamp is then placed on his penis, between the glans and the foreskin, this clamp needs to be forced into place as the baby's foreskin is not yet separate from the glans. By now the child is screaming. The foreskin is then cut off. Anaesthetic is not given - as anaesthetising a baby might be dangerous.

Most psychologists now agree that childhood trauma even if not remembered stays with us. The first association these boys have with their penises is incredible pain. Later in life this pain often manifests in a host of sexual problems. When I first started having sex I was never quite satisfied and always had a feeling that something was missing. I was lucky because I remembered my circumcision and the trauma surrounding it the knowledge was there that this is where the problem lay and I discovered information about circumcision and restoration in my early twenties shortly after becoming sexually active. Many circumcised men also have the feeling that sex is not quite what it could be. Unfortunately as is natural these men often look outside themselves finding dissatisfaction with their partners or the way they are having sex not realising the primary problem is that their penises do not work quite the way they were meant to.

Thus is the initial trauma and loss due to circumcision later multiplied into many more sexual, self-esteem and relationship traumas. The tragedy is that many men are completely unaware that the root cause of much of this is their childhood circumcision.


History of Circumcision

Originally circumcisions were performed for religious reasons. In early cultures tribal and community wisdom was passed along orally and soon afterward the shaman or priest was circumcised. This religious circumcision was a powerful initiatory experience which imprinted the sacred knowledge within the new priest. Circumcision also had the effect of distinguishing the holy men from the general populace. There seems to be some evidence that ancient Egypt priests were circumcised to make them "more" masculine as androgyny was believed to be the preserve of the Gods. Circumcision made a man less androgynous because the ancient Egyptians believed a man's feminine soul resided in his foreskin (similarly a woman's male soul resided in her clitoris).

The Jews adopted circumcision as a religious ritual. Apparently covenant is made between God and Abraham that God would make Abraham a rich and powerful man and the father of a great nation, and in return, Abraham's people would adhere to a certain way of life (described in the Torah). According to the Torah, God commanded Abraham to "circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, as a sign of the covenant between Me and you.". A strange way to seal an agreement.

The circumcision of Abraham removed only the very tip that extended beyond the glans. Moses and his sons were not circumcised. (Exodus 4:25). Moses apparently prohibited circumcision during the 40 years in the wilderness, (Joshua 5:5) but Joshua reinstituted circumcision at Gilgal after the death of Moses (Joshua 5:2-10). It is interesting to note that after the Israelites were circumcised, they immediately became soldiers in Joshua's army for the conquest of Palestine. (Joshua 6:1-3).

In the Hellenic period, about 140 C.E., the circumcision procedure was modified to make it impossible for a Jew to appear to be an uncircumcised Greek. A radical new procedure called peri'ah was introduced by the priests and rabbis. In this procedure the foreskin was stripped away from the glans, with which it is fused in the infant. In a painful procedure known today as a synechotomy, more foreskin was removed than before and the injury was correspondingly greater. With the introduction of peri'ah, the glans could not easily be recovered, and so no Jewish male would easily be able to appear as an uncircumcised Greek.

The Christians took a strong stand against circumcision in the first century. Christians rejected circumcision at the Council at Jerusalem.16 (Acts 15) St. Paul, the apostle to the gentiles, taught parents that they should not circumcise their children. (Acts 21:25).

Islam, basically an Abrahamanic religion, adopted circumcision for a similar reason to the Jews - Abraham. In Islam, Abraham is the spiritual ancestor and the physical forefather of the Arabs, through his son Ishmael. Along with Ishmael, Abraham built the Kabah, the holiest shrine of Islam, and established many of the rituals practiced there. There is no mention of circumcision in the Q'uran although Mohammed was believed to have been born circumcised and to have recommended circumcision.

An Indian friend of mine was circumcised in his twenties because he wanted to become a Sufi (esoteric form of Islam). He insisted sex was better since his circumcision but later admitted that he was not having much, in his words - "jiggy", before and that his foreskin was actually very tight. After a few years of decreasing sensitivity, and no more desire to be an orthodox Sufi he now grants that it may have been even better had the foreskin simply been loosened.

Until the 19th Century, medical circumcisions were performed to only treat conditions local to the penis: phimosis, balanitis, and penile cancer. However circumcision was increasingly recommended as a cure for male masturbation from the 1850s onwards. Part of this process was the demonisation of the foreskin as a source of nervous and physical disease and circumcision was central to the late Victorian redefinition of manliness in terms of self-restraint and cleanliness: "Widely believed to dampen sexual desire, circumcision was seen positively as a means of both promoting chastity and physical health" [p. 65 - Moscucci].

In 1870, Lewis Sayre, a prominent New York orthopaedic surgeon and vice president of the newly-formed American Medical Association, examined a five-year-old boy who was unable to straighten his legs, and whose condition had so far defied treatment. Upon noting that the boy's genitals were inflamed, Sayre hypothesized that chronic irritation of the boy's foreskin had paralysed his knees via reflex neurosis. Sayre circumcised the boy, and within a few weeks, he recovered from his paralysis. After several additional incidents in which circumcision also appeared effective in treating paralysed joints, Sayre began to promote circumcision as a powerful orthopaedic remedy. Sayre's prominence within the medical profession allowed him to reach a wide audience. By the 1890s, hernia, bladder infections, kidney stones, insomnia, chronic indigestion, rheumatism, epilepsy, asthma, bedwetting, Bright's disease, erectile dysfunction, syphilis, insanity, and skin cancer had all been linked to the foreskin, and many physicians advocated universal circumcision as a preventive health measure.

In 1949, a lack of consensus in the medical community as to whether circumcision carried with it any notable health benefit motivated the United Kingdom's newly-formed National Health Service to remove routine infant circumcision from its list of covered services. One factor in this rejection of circumcision may have been Douglas Gardiner's famous paper, 'The fate of the foreskin' which revealed that for the years 1942 -1947, about 16 children per year had died because of circumcision in England and Wales.

This was the start of a re-examination of the medical case for circumcision something which is ongoing today. Although the tide has decidedly turned with the incidence of circumcision worldwide dropping between 10% and 25% of the boys are still circumcised globally making it the world's most commonly performed operation.


Why boys are circumcised today?

Jewish and Muslim boys and boys of some other regions are circumcised for religious reasons - someone somewhere started believing God made a mistake when equipping men with foreskins and this dogma has carried on until today.

Some cultures and tribes circumcise boys as part of manhood rituals. This is especially common among warrior peoples. Being non-consensually mutilated as a child and having 40-60% of your sexual pleasure removed is pretty much guaranteed to make you pissed at the world.

In The U.S.A, South Africa, South Korea, Australia and other places influenced by Anglo-Saxon culture circumcision is performed for medical reasons based primarily on 19th century medicine and inertia - all reasons given for circumcision except some extreme medical cases have been shown to be invalid. Perpetuation of the practice boils down to ignorant or unscrupulous doctors pushing the procedure.

Another common reason is that many fathers feel their sons should look like them, not having their son's circumcised would be an admission that they are lacking something. This is the "Well I am circumcised and I'm just fine!" line of reasoning. A friend of mine who is definitely in this camp recently gave the most ludicrous argument I've yet heard for the pending circumcision of his then son-to-be. "Hey what if he gets teased by the other children in the changing rooms.". Fantastic reasoning for removing a critical part of a child's penis! Hey kid I'm sorry about that - I argued long and hard for your right to keep your dick intact. Hopefully when you grow up we will have better methods for restoring foreskins than we do today.


Why routine infant circumcision should be outlawed

  • It is non-consensual
  • It is incredibly traumatic, the trauma stays with the person throughout their life
  • It is dangerous, circumcision has lead to numerous fatalities due to infection
  • There are no health benefits to being circumcised
  • It lessens sexual pleasure for both men and women

These points really need no further explanation.


Why routine infant circumcision might not be outlawed anytime soon

Inertia. Lack of emotional honesty among many men, who prefer to stay in denial than admitting they were robbed. These men include doctors, paediatricians unwilling to admit they are missing anything.

Money. Circumcision is a nice little earner, in the US a doctor can pick up a quick fee of a few hundred odd dollars for performing a circumcision making the performing of circumcisions a business worth hundreds of millions of dollars. This however pales in comparison to the aftermarket business. Foreskins are the most sensitive human tissue known and are used in an incredible range of skin care and anti-aging creams as well as in treatments for burns. Estimates put the aftermarket at over a billion dollars.


Foreskin Restoration

Some men (numbering now in the tens of thousands) who have suffered circumcision have figured out they are missing something and are trying to reverse the process. Surgery to restore the foreskin, where available, is expensive and fraught with complications. Stretching of the skin is much safer but the process takes many years, is inconvenient and uncomfortable and somewhat farcical as guys tug, pull, stretch and attach sticky tape, weights, rubber o-rings and various other homemade skin stretching paraphernalia to their dicks.

Restoration through stretching of the skin works, it restores the cosmetic appearance of the intact penis (bat close inspection!), allows the calluses on the glans to slough off, and restores the gliding action during sex. The nerve endings and prepuce are gone forever. Those who have completed the restoration process are uniformly ecstatic with the additional pleasure they experience and the sense of wholeness the process brings.

I am in the midst of this process. This is my third attempt at foreskin restoration, the first ended because I was just 20 and it was too emotionally harrowing, the second because of lack of support from my then partner and an active lifestyle which did not suit dick taping. This time is going better, it was initially an emotionally intense process as I not only have had to come to terms with having had a large portion of my sexual pleasure irretrievably taken but also to deal with healing the physical and psychological scarring the circumcision caused.

Although there are many foreskin restoration methods and devices my experience was nearly all devices are tricky to use, uncomfortable, restrictive of ones range of movement and inhibiting of spontaneous sex so now I stick with manual methods


Healing

The physical restoration is just a part of the healing process and beginning the physical restoration normally brings many strong emotions to the surface. If you decide to restore be prepared for this and get some support. There are online mailing lists and NORM (National Organisation of Restoring Men) groups who meet in most cities.

For me a big emotional hurdle was talking to my mother and asking her why she'd decided to have me circumcised. I was born in Austria where they refused to circumcise me but when back in South Africa the doctor suggested circumcision and she went along with it. She was ignorant and a product of her social conditioning having had only circumcised boyfriends (she grew up in South Africa where male circumcision is the norm). She felt a lot of guilt when I first explained how I felt and told her I was restoring. We have both come to terms with what happened and are moving on. Our relationship improved immensely since this, which I attribute to my letting go of a subconscious bitterness toward her.


References

http://www.cirp.org
http://www.noharmm.org
htttp://www.norm.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision
"The joy of Uncircumcising" by Dr Jim Bigelow


Personal Weblog

http://www.simontzu.org

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
What is your foreskin status?
o I'm intact! 55%
o I'm circumcised and restoring. 0%
o I'm circumcised and considering restoration. 6%
o I'm circumcised, but am quite content. 31%
o I'm a girl! 5%

Votes: 174
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o manual methods
o NORM
o http://www .cirp.org
o http://www .noharmm.org
o htttp://ww w.norm.org
o http://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision
o "The joy of Uncircumcising" by Dr Jim Bigelow
o http://www .simontzu.org
o Also by stzu


Display: Sort:
The Cruelest Cut | 981 comments (959 topical, 22 editorial, 0 hidden)
A question (2.50 / 6) (#1)
by starsky on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 11:50:33 AM EST

thats been baffling me for a while. I'm not circumcised, and my foreskin, if you roll it back, is attached to the bottom of my glans at the end. So, if my foreskin was cut off, I'd have a horrific one inch gap in the skin on my penis, rather than exposing my glans (well, it would be exposed as well, but the minging non-skin-covered part of my penis would be alot more obvious). So how the hell does that work?

Hmm. (3.00 / 7) (#3)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 12:04:58 PM EST

First off, as a small child or baby, it wouldn't be quite 1", now would it?

I've heard though, that for grown men, it always involves stitches. Mostly this happens when religious conversion is an issue. No idea if the rabbi has to do it, or if they let a doctor in that case... not that I'd want even a surgeon cutting around on my dick.

My favorite is when some bitch at work started talking about it (just had a baby). She was all for it, when not 3 months before she had been ranting about female circumcision and how horrible that is. Guess its ok to mutilate the little boys though.


--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

Implied. (2.50 / 2) (#5)
by your_desired_username on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 12:10:36 PM EST

'as skin is pulled forward for circumcision, what was originally scrotum hair is present on the penis shaft'

Seems to answer your question. The skin needs to be pulled forward to close the gap you are thinking of, I would guess.

[ Parent ]

Does that mean (2.66 / 3) (#22)
by Psychopath on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 02:57:17 PM EST

that uncircumcisioned men do not have any hair on their penis shafts?
--
The only antidote to mental suffering is physical pain. -- Karl Marx
[ Parent ]
Dude, I actually locked myself in my office (2.57 / 7) (#26)
by frijolito on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 04:34:33 PM EST

.. just so I could answer your question.

Actually, when I first read the piece, I was left wondering if I really didn't have any hair on my own piece. A quick check reveals that there is indeed a little growth of hair that does extend beyond the base... but it's not nearly as thick as the growth of hair on the body proper.

In any case, I don't there's too much to the "hair gets inside the vagina and irritates" argument... after all, isn't that hair there precisely to reduce friction? Plus, I've found that intercourse with unshaved women tends to go a lot, er, smoother.

[ Parent ]

Thank you very much for your efforts (2.50 / 2) (#53)
by Psychopath on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 08:09:37 PM EST

I hope there wasn't a video camera in your office. I never really cared about hair in anyone's vagina, but more about more shaving work. I always miss the hair on the shaft. bleh. Thanks again. ;) regards!
--
The only antidote to mental suffering is physical pain. -- Karl Marx
[ Parent ]
Indeed .. (none / 1) (#149)
by stevey on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 01:06:33 PM EST

However that attachment isn't very "firm", and apparently is commonly torn, like mine.

The second time I ever had sex I let my girlfriend go on top, she slid down far too quickly and that attachment was torn.

Blood everywhere, as you might expect!

Everything still works out OK, except I can peel the foreskin all the way back - and I have a small scar. No stiches required - although I was only 14 and there was no way I was telling my parents or going to a doctors!

I suspect in circumcisions the attachment is sliced down, and would just leave you with a little scar the same that I have - where the attached "line" of flesh is sliced. There wouldn't be any tissue loss per se, just a small scar.

Steve



[ Parent ]
Nah (none / 0) (#707)
by starsky on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 09:38:53 AM EST

I'm not just talking about the tiny bit that can get torn when you're having sex, but its attached all the way round underneath that. I am still totally baffled.

[ Parent ]
Circumcision (2.00 / 4) (#10)
by dhall on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 12:46:33 PM EST

Apparently it was done to prevent masturbation.

I'm glad I'm not circumcised.

not originally (2.50 / 2) (#24)
by Delirium on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 03:20:44 PM EST

Historically it was a hygiene/health issue; same as many of the other commandments and laws of the Old Testament.

[ Parent ]
No but I mean (none / 1) (#58)
by dhall on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 10:09:54 PM EST

Like in our society. Western modern society.

Circumcision only started up again in the 1800s.

[ Parent ]

Actually if look at the history of.. (none / 1) (#598)
by forety on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:24:52 PM EST

circumcision, you would find that it started in the west due to hysteria surrounding the hideous sin of masturbation--to stop masturbation, cut off the most nerve-laden part.

It didn't work, but hey, it continues to bring in billions of dollars.

It doesn't work for any of the other cures or preventions either, but hey, it continues to bring in billions of dollars.

[ Parent ]

Boy, talk about rewriting history.. (none / 0) (#475)
by forety on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 06:23:07 PM EST

the GERM theory was not known then--just superstitions..

[ Parent ]
You don't need to know about germs (none / 0) (#654)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 07:12:05 AM EST

to realise that smelly smegma collecting under your foreskin can't be good, and that maybe getting rid of it would be healthier for you and your sex life.

I'm not saying that's a reason to continue circumcision today. I'm saying that at the times and places that Judaism and Islam were beginning, it was hot, dusty and there was no soap or hot running water. It would have made sense then, and would have protected men, not ruined them. The spread of circumcision in the western world is another matter entirely. I'm British, and most men who are not Jewish, Muslim or suffering from a medical condition are not circumcised.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

Are you an idiot? (none / 0) (#656)
by I ABHOR TROLLS on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 07:30:49 AM EST

You think the human body intentionally secretes fluids whose purpose is to.. harm the human body? Why does smegma exist, do you think it has no purpose or what? Maybe you'd like mouthes much better if they weren't making this sticky, gooey, smelly saliva all the time. Or your own vagina is it wasn't all gross and awash with sticky, stinky fluids.

Seriously Holly maybe you should think for perhaps 0.3 seconds before you say something in future. While you're waiting for your operation to remove you saliva glands you can read this: http://www.cirp.org/library/normal/wright1/

[ Parent ]

You are seriously stupid (none / 0) (#657)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 07:39:57 AM EST

I don't fancy getting into a discussion about scrot-rot in times gone by. But you've provided me with more proof than I ever needed that nothing you have to say on this matter is valid. All you can do is hurl insults like a screaming toddler, and it's getting boring. I am tired of taking the flak for your feelings of inadequacy following your circumcision. I can only guess that the reason you're so pissed off about it is because it halved the length of your dick or something. But worry not. Substitute your head for your genitals, and you'll be fine, being the dickhead that you are.

Yes, I'm stooping to your level because it's all you understand and reasoned debate is lost on you. Bugger off and see a counsellor to deal with all your penis issues.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

He said he wasn't cut u dum bitch (none / 0) (#793)
by kbudha on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 03:04:20 PM EST



[ Parent ]
It's a good thing you're cut, by the way (none / 0) (#659)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 07:50:52 AM EST

because you have no concept that fluids produced by the body can become harmful if they're not cleaned away properly, such as sweat or genital secretions. You should be very happy that you're cut because otherwise your penis would probably have dropped off by now with all the knowledge you appear not to have about personal hygiene. Ick, ick, ick.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

I'm not "cut", (none / 0) (#661)
by I ABHOR TROLLS on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 07:52:08 AM EST

idiot.

[ Parent ]
Then you should do it (none / 0) (#662)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 07:53:19 AM EST

because you don't understand that fluids produced by the body are not necessarily harmful in themselves, but if they cannot be cleaned away properly - as they probably couldn't be in biblical Palestine - they can do damage.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

They weren't able to retract their foreskins (none / 0) (#665)
by I ABHOR TROLLS on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 07:55:51 AM EST

in biblical Palestine? Please. You are the one who knows nothing about the foreskin, I on the other hand do. Cleaning underneath the foreskin is a joke, the idea that it even has to be done only exists because it's part of a ridiculous argument for circumcision.

[ Parent ]
They were able (none / 0) (#667)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 07:57:51 AM EST

but it was an added inconvenience and difficulty. Furthermore, people did not wash so often, so having it permanently retracted - ie, removed - so that nothing could be trapped beneath it, would probably have seemed like a good idea in the desert 2,000 years ago.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

More idiocy (none / 0) (#669)
by I ABHOR TROLLS on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 08:00:56 AM EST

You don't understand what it is to have a penis, I do. I have never had an object under my foreskin that I did not intentionally put there. If I want to (for some reason, I have never in fact needed or desired to do it intentionally) clean the lubricant under my foreskin away, I could do it with a cloth, my hand, anything. Saying you have to clean the foreskin as if it's some complex ordeal is like saying you have to spit out sand you accidentally swallow, except that's far more likely than any foreign object ever getting under the foreskin. It's a joke. You simply do not understand how a penis works.

[ Parent ]
I never called it a complex ordeal (none / 0) (#671)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 08:03:38 AM EST

I used words to the effect of it being a minor inconvenience, especially in that place and time, that people probably preferred being rid of.

Where did you learn to argue? The school of Insults And Putting Words Into Your Opponent's Mouth?


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

As for the insults (none / 0) (#676)
by I ABHOR TROLLS on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 08:14:19 AM EST

I think that's a little hypocritical considering you do the exact same thing, and do it in an even more juvenile and less effective manner.

As for putting words into someone's mouth, I don't argue meaningless semantics, and I will aruge with the message between the lines. Your implications are obvious even if you don't say them. If it wasn't an ordeal with mentioning you wouldn't continue to argue about it. The fact that you do shows you either believe it is significant or wish to portray it to be significant. Additional your first comment mentioned it in present-day terms sugesting it is a present-day issue.

[ Parent ]

Hypocritical it may be (none / 0) (#678)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 08:19:20 AM EST

but at least it's teaching you to realise how absurd and pointless it is.

You may call it the message between the lines, but in fact if what you say is true (which it isn't), then I said something completely different. If you're going to disagree, I'd like you to disagree with what I actually said, not what you wish I'd said to make your case easier to argue.

I said nowhere, neither explicitly nor implied, that circumcision was necessary for penile health in days gone by. I simply said that it was brought about for those reasons, and I can see how they might have reached that conclusion. Never did I imply that cleaning beneath your foreskin is such an onerous task that all men would be better off without them.

As for my not understanding how a penis works - jeez, man, I've seen and handled several of them, cut and uncut, and in various stages of the process, and I've done things with them that you sure as hell haven't. I won't pretend to know what it's like to own one, but believe me I know how they work.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

You clearly don't understand (none / 0) (#682)
by I ABHOR TROLLS on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 08:22:29 AM EST

Or you wouldn't have said half the crap you have. You'd probably be offended if I read some fucking website and came in here speculating about what cleaning our your vagina is or how often foreign objects become lodged in it, or how it operates in the hot desert sun or whatever the fuck else. Fact is Holly, you could suck dick all day and you wouldn't know shit.

[ Parent ]
What an insightful, substantiated and (none / 0) (#695)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 09:19:37 AM EST

well-researched comment that was. Maybe I should re-enter that discussion with you. Obviously speaking with you is educational and informative. Without you, I wouldn't know zillions of new ways to lose an argument or to insult a woman.

Oh, and by the way - you are not allowed to express any views on abortion, because you're not capable of falling pregnant.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

Wrong (none / 0) (#696)
by I ABHOR TROLLS on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 09:28:45 AM EST

I can discuss it philosophically, ethically, etc. just fine. What I can't do is act like I know how it feels to be pregnant, the practicalities of carrying an infant, etc.

[ Parent ]
Neither, it seems, can you (none / 0) (#699)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 09:30:08 AM EST

carry out an intelligent and reasoned conversation with someone who consistently disagrees with you. Waaaaaaa.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

Wow this is great Holly (none / 0) (#702)
by I ABHOR TROLLS on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 09:32:34 AM EST

Now we're up to the level of making noises instead of using actual language. I'll give that a go now. WAAA BLEH GUHG UMF BLEH WAAAA. That better, easier for you? Personally I think it's shockingly immature, but you seem to want to go there.

[ Parent ]
You would certainly recognise (none / 0) (#706)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 09:38:18 AM EST

shockingly immature stuff. It's your forte. But if I wasn't clear enough, the "waaaa" was my impression of your type of arguing - basically to whinge and cry like a baby without actually making coherent, sensible points. But since you don't grasp stuff even easier and more explicit than that, I should not have overestimated you.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

Oh, it was clear (none / 0) (#715)
by I ABHOR TROLLS on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 09:44:09 AM EST

it's just one of the most pathetic and juvenile things I've ever seen here. Or would you have preferred for me to just type "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA" instead of this comment? Making noises like that being so sophisticated and all.

[ Parent ]
In which case (none / 0) (#718)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 09:46:44 AM EST

I fully expect to see a version of it cropping up in one of your trolly posts, which are of course greatly intellectual and in the most delicate taste.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

Fact is Holly (none / 0) (#721)
by I ABHOR TROLLS on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 09:48:26 AM EST

I may be a troll, but you're the one being juvenile and making noises. I'm the one arguing with dignity.

[ Parent ]
Yes, dignity (none / 0) (#723)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 09:49:13 AM EST

A very dignified presence you are, indeed.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

Compared (none / 0) (#725)
by I ABHOR TROLLS on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 09:50:15 AM EST

so you, clearly I am. Remind me who's the one making childish noises again? You? Oh yes, that's right, you.

[ Parent ]
But I am not the one (none / 0) (#728)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 09:54:26 AM EST

claiming that I come across as an impressive, dignified gentleman for doing so.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

That's because you don't. (none / 0) (#729)
by I ABHOR TROLLS on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 09:55:05 AM EST

I on ther other hand am a superb debater.

[ Parent ]
Trained (none / 0) (#730)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 09:55:46 AM EST

at the school of lame insults and made-up opposing arguments.

Certainly your type is popular.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

train you (none / 0) (#779)
by kbudha on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 12:32:37 AM EST

to shove a cock down your throat everytime you open that fucking bottomless trap you call a mouth. It runs like a duck's ass. Shuddap already.

[ Parent ]
she wishes she knew (none / 0) (#774)
by kbudha on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 12:10:37 AM EST

she really does. Wants to grow one for christmas so she can fuck herself. Eliminates the hassle of finding someone who will put up with her ass.

[ Parent ]
Difficult? Inconvenient? (none / 0) (#746)
by Coryoth on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 12:47:36 PM EST

but it was an added inconvenience and difficulty.

Have you actually cleaned under a foreskin, perhaps for a partner? In practice it is no more difficult than cleaning under your armpit (roll back, wash compared to lieft arm, wash). If you consider that an inconvenience then I would have to be questioning your personal hygiene habits. In practice I expect you are probably quite scrupulous about personal hygiene and simply aren't very experienced at cleaning penises. Let me assure you that it isn't any more difficult or inconvenient than cleaning any other part of your body.

Jedidiah.

[ Parent ]

Nah (2.00 / 2) (#92)
by HollyHopDrive on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 07:46:42 AM EST

Originally it was done because the Jewish and Muslim faiths began in hot, dusty climates without antibacterial soap and running hot water. It was a protective measure. In those times, men's pleasure was high on the agenda.

I'm not saying that's a reason to continue it now, just that it didn't begin to ruin young men's sex lives. Quite the opposite.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

Lies. (none / 0) (#236)
by it certainly is on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 07:16:10 AM EST

It WAS done to stop masturbation, in 19th/20th century America. There was a moral panic. Circumcision and Cornflakes were promoted as the best way forward.

This is why it's so prevalent in the USA amongst the Christian / secular population. Obviously the Jews and the Muslims have their own religious and societal reasons for it.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

I was talking about Jews and Muslims (none / 1) (#267)
by HollyHopDrive on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 04:48:50 PM EST

and the origins of their faiths.

I was not lying.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

You said "Nah" (none / 1) (#316)
by it certainly is on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 09:41:20 AM EST

in response to "Apparently it was done to prevent masturbation."

As you say you're not lying, you must genuinely believe that circumcision was not done to prevent masturbation. This puts you at odds with the history of secular circumcision.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

Heard of a misunderstanding? (none / 1) (#541)
by HollyHopDrive on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:56:03 AM EST

It seems the guy who made the parent post there was talking about circumcision in the western world. Surely it's obvious to you that I wasn't, because I misunderstood what he was referring to. Other responses to his post show I was not the only one.

I was not lying, and the number of assumptions you put on a casual word that expresses disagreement is staggering.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

Please (1.65 / 20) (#12)
by psychologist on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 01:12:34 PM EST

Drop this bloody topic, if you want to not be circumsized go do it in silence. I'm circumsized, and I'm fine with myself the way it is. Most men are.

So don't go about sowing discontent, ok? You want to make people feel bad about what they cannot change anyways? What are you, a member of the green party?

Errr... (2.57 / 7) (#27)
by famanoran on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 04:41:00 PM EST

It's not specifically about him not wanting to be circumsized. It's about informing parents-to-be that this mutilation has adverse affects on childrens psychology and sexual well-being later in life.

Look at it like this - female circumsizion is categorically mutilation of the worst kind. Personally, I interpret male circumsizion as being absolutely no better.

And I thank the stars everyday that I'm not circumsized.

[ Parent ]
And I curse my mother (2.66 / 3) (#51)
by LilDebbie on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 07:41:34 PM EST

and the doctor she listened to every day that I am.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
to be fair (3.00 / 4) (#65)
by Delirium on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 01:19:39 AM EST

You curse most other people too you know.

[ Parent ]
True (none / 1) (#142)
by LilDebbie on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 12:45:46 PM EST

but for different reasons.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
Don't go about sowing content, then. [nt] (none / 0) (#32)
by Pat Chalmers on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 04:56:44 PM EST



[ Parent ]
You're probably fine with it... (3.00 / 4) (#40)
by SoupIsGoodFood on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 05:50:20 PM EST

Because you don't know of it any other way.

If you were someone who had been cut after puberty, and didn't have any problems with your foreskin beforehand, then your opinion might hold some more weight.

[ Parent ]

classic denial (2.50 / 6) (#74)
by livus on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 02:23:48 AM EST

if you're so fine with it you wouldn't have such a problem with other people discussing it.

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]
No one can make you feel inferior... (none / 0) (#391)
by Jazu on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 12:15:54 PM EST

...without your consent.

*the more you know*

[ Parent ]

Counterfactual (none / 1) (#601)
by dhk on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 04:47:13 AM EST

I'm circumsized, and I'm fine with myself the way it is. Most men are.
What does this mean? That most men are circumsized? This would be grossly wrong.
That most circumsized men are happy with it? Here I would question both the validity of the assumption (a) and its relevance (b).
WRT a: How do you know?
WRT b: How can you tell that they wouldn't be happier if they weren't? But even if this would be the case: As long as a minority is unhappy with it, it would count as an unethical measure to perform an unconsented procedure when there is a non-null probability that the subject ungoing this procedure is unhappy with it.

- please forgive my bad english, I'm not a native speaker
[ Parent ]
For a more balnced view (2.75 / 8) (#13)
by minerboy on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 01:18:05 PM EST

See http://www.circinfo.net/#statements. And by the way, How do you measure sexual pleasure quantitatively?



mmmh (none / 1) (#238)
by creaothceann on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 07:41:33 AM EST

The time from foreplay to orgasm? Surveys?

Sex has been scientifily (sp?) monitored before - there're sufficient means for sure. (I just don't want to search for them right now... I'm writing from a public terminal and am glad that the pr0n filter has't triggered yet.)

[ Parent ]
I have this (3.00 / 5) (#17)
by TheVenicianEffect on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 01:52:31 PM EST

very weird feeling that I have read this before.

About once a year (3.00 / 4) (#18)
by wiredog on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 02:14:36 PM EST

It shows up here in one form or another.

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

[ Parent ]
Great. (2.25 / 20) (#21)
by lonelyhobo on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 02:47:00 PM EST

Let's find another way to make ourselves into a victim.

I'm utterly sick of this sort of pity-whoring.

WIPO (1.66 / 9) (#23)
by frijolito on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 03:04:52 PM EST

I'm Fen!

Balancing the views on circumcision (2.00 / 6) (#25)
by stuaart on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 03:44:05 PM EST

I'm fortunate enough to not be circumcised, but I can understand the anger that you might feel about being circumcised essentially against your will. It is quite clear to any uncircumcised male that circumcision will have adverse effects upon the health of your penis. The head of the penis is incredibly sensitive, and it is not exposed (i.e., covered with foreskin) for that very reason. Exposing it through circumcision is therefore going to be a Bad Thing (TM).

Although there are religious precedents for circumcision, I think that it is too important for parents to just assume responsibility. There are potential health issues, of course, but let's be honest: cleaning your penis daily is not a hard thing to do. One of my friends in primary school was circumcised because his foreskin was too tight, however.

Overall, your article is good, however there are statements that seem to be rather unfounded, hence the +1S only.

Linkwhore: [Hidden stories.] Baldrtainment: Corporate concubines and Baldrson: An Introspective


most MDs are quacks (2.00 / 9) (#28)
by krkrbt on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 04:48:49 PM EST

Your best shot at convincing parents considering circumcision to reconsider is to get them to watch a video of a circumcision. It is horrific.

My mom is a nurse, and saw the procedure first hand.  So when her two boys came along, she "swam against the tide", so to speak.  

In 1870, Lewis Sayre, a prominent New York orthopaedic surgeon and vice president of the newly-formed American Medical Association,

The AMA was formed to lobby for a monopoly for the "Medical Doctor".  See these articles:

100 years of Medical Robery
Real Medical Freedom

Conventional Medicine:  Drugs and Surgery
so-called "Alternative Medicine":  Everything Else

A conventional medical doctor looks at a health problem, and asks himself, "what drug can I perscribe?" or "What kind of surgery is necessary?"  And they call people who advocate anything else "quacks".  Somebody needs to tell them to look in the mirror...

Best of luck in fixing your jimmy.  You might want to learn self-hypnosis to amplify sensation from the nerves you have left.

No offence, (2.00 / 3) (#29)
by topynate on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 04:50:48 PM EST

but you don't sound as convincing as those you oppose. Or as knowledgable.


"...identifying authors with their works is a feckless game. Simply to go by their books, Agatha Christie is a mass murderess, while William Buckley is a practicing Christian." --Gore Vidal
[ Parent ]
that's what the links are for (2.00 / 5) (#39)
by krkrbt on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 05:46:32 PM EST

these are just quickie posts, and I don't want to spend two hours refining a point for a story which may or may not get posted.  

You know I have a point...  I don't know how your family's health is, but when I look at my family:

  • Paternal grandfather had his prostate taken out some 20 years ago.  Before surgery he couldn't pee, now he pees all the time because the surgeon nicked the nerve that formerly allowed him to perform flow control.  
  • Paternal grandmother went down with cancer last fall.  Started intensive chemotheraputic drugs (because she kind of wanted to keep on living, and medicare was paying for most of her treatment anyways).  Lasted almost exactly 6 months.  Died less than one week after starting hospice care.
  • Maternal Grandmother's on half a dozen drugs to "manage" her various symptoms, primary of which is a degenerate disc in her back.  She can kind of walk...
  • Maternal Grandfather has had a knee replaced.  Needs a hip replaced, but he doesn't want to go through with another rehabilitation...  He's actually in the best health of my three remaining grandparents.
  • Mother's on blood pressure meds, and is overweight.
  • father's digestive system sucks, which is likely involved in his "depression".  Takes prilosec OTC to cover up the problem.

Every one of them has a "condition" that they "manage" with drugs.  Drugs don't "cure" a problem.  Sometimes they can facilitate health, but the body fixes itself, if it has the proper building blocks to work with.

[ Parent ]

And if it doesn't have the proper building blocks? (none / 1) (#43)
by SoupIsGoodFood on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 06:24:14 PM EST

Perhaps you should study genetics for a while.

[ Parent ]
Oh, ok. (3.00 / 3) (#54)
by topynate on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 08:10:51 PM EST

Let me ask you a single question to determine whether or we can reach the same point of view, in that case.

Do you believe in the validity of the scientific method?


"...identifying authors with their works is a feckless game. Simply to go by their books, Agatha Christie is a mass murderess, while William Buckley is a practicing Christian." --Gore Vidal
[ Parent ]

scientific method is fine... (2.33 / 3) (#63)
by krkrbt on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 11:50:47 PM EST

scientism as religion is counterproductive.  Many people confuse "science" with worshiping currently accepted scientific facts.  I've read reports of so-called "scientitists" fudging their research to support their pre-conceived view of how things are supposed to opperate.

More than I care to get into right now...  Maybe a story, someday.

[ Parent ]

doctors aren't necessarily scientists (3.00 / 2) (#66)
by Delirium on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 01:22:16 AM EST

The clearest evidence of this can be seen by comparing and contrasting what goes on in academic psychologic research, carried out by scientists holding PhDs in the field, with what goes on in psychiatry, carried out by doctors holding MDs. There is, as you might expect, a much stronger bias towards prescribing medication in psychiatry than the available data would warrant. Perhaps not surprising, since their ability to prescribe medication is their primary distinguishing factor, so it's in their personal interests to overestimate its importance.

[ Parent ]
Single answer... (none / 1) (#85)
by dhk on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 07:09:24 AM EST

although the question was not directed to me. I believe in the validity of the scientific method. But I know that standard medical practice is far away from being grounded in (medical) science. Why else would there be such a fuss about "evidence based medicine"?

- please forgive my bad english, I'm not a native speaker
[ Parent ]
Drug cures (3.00 / 7) (#57)
by NoBeardPete on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 09:47:12 PM EST

Several years ago I came down with an obscure autoimmune problem. Without drugs, the 5 year survival rate is %13. Over half of patients die within 3 months of onset.

However, I was treated with drugs. With the drug treatment I received, the five year survival rate is generally quoted as somewhere between %50 and %80. Once placed on these drugs, I rapidly recovered. Once I had recovered, the drug treatment was tapered off over about half of a year. I've been totally healthy, and have had no need for drugs, for about 6 years now.

So, yeah, drugs can cure people. They cured me. I'd almost certainly be dead now without them.


Arrr, it be the infamous pirate, No Beard Pete!
[ Parent ]

Of course. (3.00 / 2) (#84)
by dhk on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 07:06:06 AM EST

Drugs can cure. On the other hand If adverse drug reactions where tabulated as a cause of death this would be betwenn the fourth leading and sixth cause of death in the United States
source
See the point?

- please forgive my bad english, I'm not a native speaker
[ Parent ]
YOU DON'T KNOW THE HISTORY OF MEDICINE! I DO! (3.00 / 3) (#82)
by alby on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 05:45:58 AM EST

Thanks, Tom.

--
Alby
[ Parent ]

No kidding. (none / 0) (#35)
by Back Spaced on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 05:11:02 PM EST

n/c

Bluto: My advice to you is to start drinking heavily.
Otter: Better listen to him, Flounder. He's pre-med.
[ Parent ]

When I saw this story... (1.33 / 3) (#30)
by Pat Chalmers on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 04:54:45 PM EST

...I thought it was going to be about that poor sod who got his dick cut up by shitbag yank soldiers in Iraq. USA! USA!

morocco! morocco! morocco! (none / 1) (#44)
by minerboy on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 06:28:41 PM EST

damn backward arab losers

[ Parent ]
+1FP Maybe it will save some boy from this horror (2.55 / 9) (#31)
by StephenThompson on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 04:56:19 PM EST

I had no say in the matter, and I am pissed off about it. When you become a parent of a little boy, just don't do it. Circumcision is irreversible so let the boy decide when he is 18 if he wants this body modification. I sure very few informed adult men will choose circumcision for reasons specified in this article.

What? No transhumanism thread yet? Fen? (2.33 / 3) (#33)
by nlscb on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 04:58:01 PM EST

Circumcision always stuck me as kind of stupid. Then again, I've always been creeped out by body piercings as well, even ear rings (though they're great for complimenting so you can flirt with chicks - I guess I'm a bit of a hypocrite that way).

Comment Search has returned - Like a beaten wife, I am pathetically grateful. - mr strange

Circumsized. (3.00 / 3) (#34)
by Fen on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 05:01:09 PM EST

At birth. Obviously that will be utterly moot soon.
--Self.
[ Parent ]
Lubrication. (2.72 / 11) (#36)
by Back Spaced on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 05:13:21 PM EST

The gliding of the penis within the foreskin is an important mechanism, without it sex lasting longer than 20 minutes causes pain for both partners without artificial lubrication.

Not for me or mine. But you like making blanket statements without qualifiers, don't you?

Bluto: My advice to you is to start drinking heavily.
Otter: Better listen to him, Flounder. He's pre-med.

xaccrocheur (none / 0) (#497)
by xaccrocheur on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:41:45 AM EST

You did not read right. Comments by happy circumcised people are irrelevant. This is religious idiocy to the fullest.

You don't touch anybody without his willing consent, it's just common sense, come on. Hopefully this will vanish after years, andand years, and years, and years, and years, and years, and years, of bigotic stupidity.

[ Parent ]

+1FP, my son will thank me some day! (2.22 / 9) (#37)
by solstice on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 05:24:52 PM EST

My 2 year old is uncut, unfortunately the same can't be said for me. Fucking stupid parents... :(

Best comment in whole thread (none / 0) (#217)
by smallstepforman on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 09:55:09 PM EST

People, we have a winner. Best comment in entire thread.

[ Parent ]
Wow, thank you for the really informative article. (2.33 / 3) (#38)
by Sesquipundalian on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 05:32:07 PM EST

I will definitely not be having my male children circumcised.


Did you know that gullible is not actually an english word?
I don't get it (2.95 / 20) (#42)
by Coryoth on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 06:22:53 PM EST

It's worth looking at the table on the Wikipedia page.  Circumcision is widespread in the US, but not  in other western countries. Here's the tale reproduced below (references for the stats can be found on Wikipedia).

Table 1
International circumcision rates
Country         Year    Neonatal circumcisions (%)
United States   2003    55.9%
Canada          2003    11.5%
Australia       2004    12.7%
New Zealand     1995    0.35%
United Kingdom  1972    0.41%

Why is the US so different to other western countries? What's the appeal of circumcision there? I'm from New Zealand where, as you can see, circumcision is very uncommon and it just strikes me as a very odd barbaric practice.

Jedidiah.

Exactly. (2.50 / 4) (#68)
by your_desired_username on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 01:46:25 AM EST

The ancient Celts reportedly charged into battle naked, with raging hard-ons. Now, imagine how much more terrified you would be if said hard-on was horrifically scarred. YES. I see you understand now. We are a nation of brutal, Disgusting, CIRCUMCISED BARBARIANS.

P.S. Ultra-secret genetic research conducted by the USA government has discovered there is exactly one ethnic group with a substantial genetic contribution from Homo neanderthalensis. YES. It's the USA ethnic group.

[ Parent ]

There's a USA ethnic group? (none / 0) (#90)
by maozo on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 07:35:36 AM EST



[ Parent ]
must be why our brains are so much bigger (none / 0) (#181)
by speek on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 05:21:50 PM EST


--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Prudery (1.50 / 6) (#100)
by schrotie on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 08:20:33 AM EST

I'm not from the US but to me the usual hypocritically bigot American prudery sounds like a good explanation.


[ Parent ]
OMG ZOG CONSPIRACY <nt> (none / 1) (#110)
by The Diary Section on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 10:18:07 AM EST


Spend 10 minutes in the company of an American and you end up feeling like a Keats or a Shelley: Thin, brilliant, suave, and desperate for industrial-scale quantities of opium.
[ Parent ]
General American (3.00 / 2) (#244)
by daani on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 08:32:01 AM EST

obsession with sex and stopping it from occuring too often?

[ Parent ]
Doesn't seem to be rational (none / 1) (#257)
by stevie on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 01:03:56 PM EST

I don't claim to know the real reasons why circumcision is so popular in the U.S. but the first time I heard that it's very common there I couldn't believe it. I mean, why would you perform non-essential (at least that's what the rest of the world seems to think) surgery on infants? It's always interesting to read arguments of (circumcised) Americans telling you why circumcision is important. Yet somehow most uncircumcised men don't seem to have any of the problems that circumcision advocates mention. After reading the discussion on the Wikipedia talk pages a while ago it seems to me to be in part about an irrational fear of smegma. I think the foreskin is pretty important for lubricating the penis. Who knows, maybe it's all a giant conspiracy by the American lube industry :-). The use of lube does seem to be more prevalent in the U.S. than elsewhere. Here in Europe circumcisions are only done when it's necessary (e.g. a friend of mine had a foreskin that was too tight).

[ Parent ]
One causal factor... (none / 1) (#348)
by Pseudonym on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 09:22:27 PM EST

One reason that circumcision rates have dropped in many non-US countries in recent years is that the nationalised health care systems stopped paying for it. When you have to fork out your own money, it's a disincentive to get it done.


sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
[ Parent ]
I'm amazed. (1.63 / 19) (#45)
by V on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 06:33:02 PM EST

what is this morality of resentment that you unclean uncut guys have against us clean cut ones?

Do you envy that our dicks don't smell? That we can bang several girls in a row? That we don't get so many diseases?

Get a life. If you envy the benefits of out lifestyle you should be getting an operation instead of bitch and moan.

V.
---
What my fans are saying:
"That, and the fact that V is a total, utter scumbag." VZAMaZ.
"well look up little troll" cts.
"I think you're a worthless little cuntmonkey but you made me lol, so I sigged you." re
"goodness gracious you're an idiot" mariahkillschickens

LOL! (2.83 / 12) (#64)
by esrever on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 12:24:17 AM EST

Allow me to paraphrase you:

"""
I don't feel obliged to shower daily, because I'm missing my foreskin, which magically makes me cleaner!
"""

ROFFLE.

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]

Dicks are filthy! (none / 1) (#122)
by Jazu on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 11:03:53 AM EST

I've never had a dick-related ailment that I can remember, and my dick doesn't smell. And I'm not even very diligent about hygene. Congradulations if you can fuck several women in a row(depending on your definition of 'in a row'), but I have no idea what that has to do with circumcision. Also, I note you have taken a manliness angle with this, and I conclude you, like so many others, take criticism of circumcision as a personal insult to your penis.

[ Parent ]
I can smell you from here. (1.00 / 3) (#130)
by Veritech on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 11:34:43 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Maybe, but it's not from my dick! (none / 0) (#390)
by Jazu on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 12:13:17 PM EST



[ Parent ]
My dick does not smell (3.00 / 2) (#169)
by Raindoll on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:09:36 PM EST

My dick does not smell. I did even have a condition when I was a kid where I could not even retract my foreskin - but it did not smell then either!

And by the way, the sexual performance time depends more on hormonal levels in the body than on circumcision.
The spot on the underside of the head, and the shaft of the penis are sensitive enough. We have to retract the foreskin to the back of the penis when using a condom anyway.

... which you should really be starting using, if you really do get to bang more than one chick in a row (which I doubt)

[ Parent ]

lol, u dont have a 4skin [nt] (none / 1) (#230)
by Pat Chalmers on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 02:19:22 AM EST



[ Parent ]
All I can say is... (2.88 / 9) (#47)
by hackle577 on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 06:56:34 PM EST

I am circumcised and it doesn't bother me any.

--
Yeah, that's right. "Turd Ferguson." It's a funny name.

why i -1 (2.22 / 18) (#49)
by loteck on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 07:33:13 PM EST

i have nothing against those who do/dont wish to cut their kid's dick skin off. its your kid, its your choice. i -1 your article because:

1) Bullshit. Bullshit like

Circumcised men experience less sexual pleasure.

Which is like saying uncut/cut men are "happier" or that kids with brown hair "have more fun". These things are not quantifiable in the sense that you are insinuating they are, so your statement is a troll and good stories dont troll (they leave that to the comments).

2) Misrepresentation. This relates closesly to #1. Since you are implying that everything you say is truth, even though proving your statements would be akin to proving the existence of god, you now go on to misrepresent a huge number of people in this world with more of aforementioned bullshit like

Anecdotal reports from women and gay men who have had a number of partners, intact and circumcised, indicate that circumcised men are in general more likely to seek additional sensation around sex, requesting anal sex or being obsessed with pornography.

The insinuation that you are attempting to make with this kind of statement is that cut men are morally and ethically inferior to men with loose skin all over their dick, which is has no basis in reality or logic whatsoever.

3) Patheticness. There are countless other topics that are more important in this life than this "issue", and you are attempting to attract an amount of attention to it which it does not deserve. Let people do what they want. You seem to desire a support group where you and other pussies can get together and rub your junk together and mourn the loss of your blankies and foreskins. Grow fucking up, if you don't like it, dont choose to do it to your kid.

it is possible to write an objective, informative article on this topic. you have not done that.
--
"You're in tune to the musical sound of loteck hi-fi, the musical sound that moves right round. Keep on moving ya'll." -Mylakovich
"WHAT AN ETERNAL MOBIUS STRIP OF FELLATIATIC BANALITY THIS IS." -Harry B Otch

In my book... (2.90 / 10) (#55)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 08:58:37 PM EST

That's a little fucked up.

its your kid, its your choice.

I don't agree that parents have the right to sexually mutilate their children, certainly not in a way that isn't reversible. And for what amounts to cosmetic reasons, society as a whole has mental problems.

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

A little meat tenderizer + choice (none / 0) (#163)
by Veritech on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 02:10:18 PM EST

Goes a long way.

[ Parent ]
well (2.75 / 4) (#75)
by gdanjo on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 02:32:59 AM EST

) Bullshit. Bullshit like

Circumcised men experience less sexual pleasure

Which is like saying uncut/cut men are "happier" or that kids with brown hair "have more fun". These things are not quantifiable in the sense that you are insinuating they are, so your statement is a troll and good stories dont troll (they leave that to the comments).

There are nerve endings in the foreskin. When cut off, you no longer have access to these nerve endings.

There's "less sexual pleasure" in the sense that you mean it, and there's "less sexual pleasure" in the sense of a quantifyable number of nerve endings that transmit pleasure to your brain, now missing. I think the author meant the later.

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

I have my doubts. (3.00 / 2) (#150)
by grendelkhan on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 01:11:08 PM EST

Can an event that really takes place in the brain---the sensation of pleasure---be quantified in terms of nerve endings? I'm not talking about their presence or absence, but let's say one fellow was born with n nerve endings in his penis, and this other fellow was born with 0.6n, just as a matter of random variation. Would you feel as confident telling the second guy, when he was all grown up, that he wasn't really enjoying sex like the first guy was?

I have a hard time believing that modifying an organ that an adult has grown accustomed to is the same as modifying that same organ at birth. How would the circumcised man know that he was missing out on? How do you know that he's missing out on something? No one can have both the experience of living with uncircumcised equipment for a lifetime and the experience of living with circumcised equipment for that lifetime. Fact is, you cannot know what someone else is feeling, not exactly.

--grendelkhan
-- Laws do not persuade just because they threaten --Seneca
[ Parent ]

but what's the point of your argument? (none / 0) (#186)
by speek on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 05:50:43 PM EST

you cut off X number of nerve endings at birth for no reason anyone can pin down, and now you're busy arguing we can't measure the subjective value of those X nerve endings. Who cares? Did it make any sense whatsoever to cut them off? Does it not seem reasonable that cutting them off could have a detrimental effect on one's subjective pleasure? It just seems like everyone who argues this way wants to split hairs to avoid the point, which is that there is no good reason to circumsize every newborn.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Point is: (2.00 / 3) (#220)
by grendelkhan on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 10:17:11 PM EST

I take issue with telling folks who were circumcised near birth that they're missing out on something. Ain't necessarily so. (Well, except in the strictly physical sense. That's not really debatable.)

--grendelkhan
-- Laws do not persuade just because they threaten --Seneca
[ Parent ]

take issue all you want (3.00 / 2) (#281)
by speek on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 08:10:35 PM EST

Who cares? If you're not bothered, then stop being bothered. The real point is reducing future circumcisions. You and I are what we are and that's not going to change.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

sure (none / 1) (#234)
by gdanjo on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 06:56:33 AM EST

Can an event that really takes place in the brain---the sensation of pleasure---be quantified in terms of nerve endings?
Not as an absolute value of the quality of the signal that the brain recieves, but certainly as a relative ability to give better resolution of signal (which defines its quality), given the simple fact that quality of signal is correlated with the number of nerve endings.

Ever wondered what the implication is of our hands having more nerve endings than our knees?

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

Response (2.80 / 5) (#88)
by stzu on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 07:25:33 AM EST

***The sexual pleasure bit.***

Its hard to do a survey as most men are circumcised before being sexually active.  Yet:

- a large majority of those circumcised later in life have said there has been a decline in pleasure.

- Of the tens of thousands of men who have restored they all claim sex is better.  Not a little better but much better.  And they are missing  there have been no reports of recircumcision.  

- There are nerve ending which were there which are now gone.  Your glans is rubbing against underwear and becoming less sensitive.  Ask an intact man to pull his foreskin back and leave his glans rubbing against clothes and he'll say "Now way! That would fucking hurt"). Yet yours does not hurt when it brushes against underwear.  Why? It has become desensitised.

As for the guy's who argue you last longer after being circumcised this can be true in certain cases but is not uniformly so.  Men who have restored say that during sex the pleasure grows gradually 10%, 20%, 30% all in increments up till orgasm.  In my and many other circ'd men's experience it is more like we get up to 30 or 40% hang around there for a long time then skip to 90% and orgasm.

You simply cannot say because you have never had a foreskin but men who have restored report waves of pleasure washing through their bodies and full body tingling sensations. Do you get these? They say it is like night and day.

***The Misrepresentation***

Yeah I did that a bit.  This was a focused and directed rant not an attempt to be totally balanced and fair.  This point was strictly anecdotal and a bit of a stretch but I myself was obsessed with porn and continually wanted to up the sexual heat with my partrners.  As I have begun restoring I'm becoming much happier with vanilla sex. So perhaps my circumcision had something to do with the need for extra stimulation...

***The Patheticness bit***

I think you're in denial.  This is the first stage, anger will come next.  This is normal nearly all men now restoring went through it.  The first reaction is overwhelmingly, "This can't be true!" and your mind says a bug "No.".

It sucks to have had something wonderful taken from you by man which was yours by nature's design.  

The purpose of writing about it is that the proccess can be reversed and a large degree of sensitivity regained.  The good news is that intact men never new what they were missing so if you do restore you'll apprecaite your foreskin waaaaaayyyyy more.

The other reson for writing about it is to get the  anti-circ meme spreading. Even you loteck will, I'm sure, think twice before circumcising any sons you have in the future.

I wish you much good sex in the future!

love,
Simon

[ Parent ]

OK, I'll Take This One Too (3.00 / 4) (#109)
by virg on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 10:01:47 AM EST

I'm with loteck here. Your post is full of stuff that just rings as complete BS put together for the express purpose of scaremongering, and I don't think it's "a bit". As a personal note, I have two sons who were both circumcised, and if I went back to that time I'd probably have decided not to do it, but none of the crap you're shoveling would have been the reason. The reason is that considerations of personal autonomy weigh more strongly on me now than they did then, so I'd be more inclined to leave it to them to decide.

Let me put the lie to at least one of your stories, which will show why I find it easy to question virtually everything else. I was personally present at both my sons' circumcisions, and at three others. First, your quote from the article:
Your best shot at convincing parents considering circumcision to reconsider is to get them to watch a video of a circumcision. It is horrific. The baby boy is strapped to a Y-shaped board, legs spread eagled, this is to provide easy access to his penis and stop him from thrashing about. A clamp is then placed on his penis, between the glans and the foreskin, this clamp needs to be forced into place as the baby's foreskin is not yet separate from the glans. By now the child is screaming. The foreskin is then cut off. Anaesthetic is not given - as anaesthetising a baby might be dangerous.
Firstly, it's got one simple lie. All five of the boys were given a shot of local anesthetic. The other is the screaming. Remember, I personally watched five. Of the five, the only one who cried at all was a boy who was screaming like he was dying before he even got to the room. He cried through the whole thing, and was crying when he left. None of the others cried at all. None of them "thrashed about" in any way. My youngest son was so "traumatized" by this horrific event that he dozed off in the middle of it.

On the basis of this, I'm left to wonder how much of the rest of your article is just lies to change my mind. Remember that I actually agree with you that circumcision shouldn't be done to infants, and you'll see why you're failing at your point so badly. If you get those on your side of the argument calling "bullshit" then you blew it.

Virg
"Imagine (it won't be hard) that most people would prefer seeing Carrot Top beaten to death with a bag of walnuts." - Jmzero
[ Parent ]
You need to go to a VA hospital. (3.00 / 2) (#121)
by Veritech on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 11:02:47 AM EST

Then you can see people who truly have an excuse to lament missing pieces of there bodies. I hope you choke.

[ Parent ]
Taking the 'pussies' angle, are we? (3.00 / 2) (#117)
by Jazu on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 10:46:06 AM EST

Translation: I have taken this discussion as a personal insult to my penis.

[ Parent ]
After seeing the aftermath (2.95 / 20) (#52)
by LilDebbie on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 07:50:32 PM EST

of my brother's circumcision, my mother swore she wouldn't do that to another boy, not that she was planning on having another anyway.

Well, I unexpectedly came along and when the doctor asked her if she wanted me circumsized she initially said no, but he eventually managed to persuade her.

The convincing argument: I didn't want to look "different" from the other boys while changing for gym class.

Guess what, Doc? WE DON'T FUCKING LOOK AT EACH OTHER'S DICKS, YOU FUCKING FAGGOT QUACK!

As you can see, I'm still a little upset about it.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

Actually, *WE* do. And we get grossed out. (2.00 / 2) (#129)
by Veritech on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 11:32:50 AM EST



[ Parent ]
You look at my penis while changing? (none / 1) (#141)
by LilDebbie on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 12:42:01 PM EST

That's kind of weird, dude.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
Less talk, more beef-peeping. (3.00 / 6) (#148)
by Veritech on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 01:03:13 PM EST



[ Parent ]
but you're turned on by the circumsized ones? (3.00 / 2) (#180)
by speek on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 05:20:17 PM EST

I think I'm missing something.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Maybe because you are not turned on by scars? (none / 1) (#383)
by forety on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 11:33:55 AM EST

NT

[ Parent ]
For the potential parents reading this: (2.53 / 15) (#56)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 09:16:47 PM EST

By all means, circumsize your little boys. Despite this misinformed alarmist's paranoid rantings, circumcision offers many benefits as you are no doubt aware.

But you knew that. I'm here to tell you something you may not be aware of... it works for little girls too! The cleanliness issues, looking like the other little girls in gym class... you don't want them making fun of her abnormally large labia or clitoris! These and many more. Please consider carving off her labia and clitoris for her own good.

After all, you should treat all your children equally. Do you want to explain to her why you were willing to fix her brother's peepee, but you left hers grossly misshapen?


--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.

uneducated or just plain stupid (2.00 / 2) (#94)
by Maqzoid on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 07:55:25 AM EST

What you are referring to is female genital mutilation, a practice that should be outlawed. The procedure can result in pain, shock, haemorrhage and death. Commonly, chronic infections, intermittent bleeding, abscesses and tumours of the nerve can result from cliteroidectomy.

Infibulation can have more serious long term effects, such as chronic urinary infections, bladder and kidney stones, damage to the kidneys, infections of the reproductive tract, pelvic infections and infetility.

The first sexual intercourse can only be achieved after gradual and painful dilation of the opening after mutilation, making first intercourse an ordeal for women. It can be extremely painful and dangerous.

So before you make such a ridiculous comment, think about what you are saying, or better still, go get an education that will, hopefully, empower you with enough wisdom to say anything at all.

[ Parent ]

YHBT. (none / 0) (#101)
by shm on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 08:23:01 AM EST

Congratulations.

[ Parent ]
I do troll. (none / 1) (#102)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 08:46:53 AM EST

But this was more like sarcasm to make a point.

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]
Oops. PHBT (none / 0) (#113)
by shm on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 10:34:15 AM EST

PHBT == parent had been trolled.

Sorry, my hand must have slipped.

[ Parent ]

And don't forget... (3.00 / 9) (#104)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 08:55:38 AM EST

Male genital mutilation. Where sometimes the doctor/mohim's hand slips, they cut off a little too much penis and then force the poor kid to grow up as a girl. Very few of the symptons you describe are unique to female circumcision.

It amazes me that you make such a big deal out of mutilating little girls, but say nothing about little boys. Do you hate men? Are they worth less in your eyes? Do you belond to some extremist feminist organization?

So before you make such a ridiculous comment, think about what you are saying

Like I did before I posted that, hoping that someone like you might realize that if one were horrible, the equivalent procedure for little boys is just as awful? Your feelings about female circumcision are justified in my opinion... you've got one last step to go, please connect these dots. Oh, and don't mention wisdom to me again until you learn a little of it yourself.

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

Actually (none / 1) (#125)
by Maqzoid on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 11:20:47 AM EST

You are wrong on that. Male circumcision is not linked to increases in the incidence chronic urinary infections, bladder and kidney stones, kidney damage, pelvic infections or infertility. I also wish to add, first, that male circumcision, if performed by a competent medical practitioner, will not result in "a little too much penis" being cut off and second I do not belong to any extremist feminist organisation. I am simply a male who believes that genital mutilation of any description is a wrongful act that should be stopped.

[ Parent ]
ow ow ow (none / 1) (#184)
by speek on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 05:37:42 PM EST

The irony is hurting my dick.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Can't you see the comment was satire... (none / 1) (#168)
by Raindoll on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 02:59:28 PM EST

On a more serious note...

I noticed from another post a claim that the practice of circumcision comes from muslim and jews, who were desert dwellers in ancient times.
Well.. The cultures performing female circumcision today are desert dwellers of northern africa and the arab world.

Don't you think that the reason for "female circumcision" are not the same as for male circumcision?
To strip the person of his/her ability to seek sexual experiences (with him/herself or others) before marriage.

[ Parent ]

Isn't it a little demeaning to those women? (none / 1) (#134)
by grendelkhan on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 11:54:45 AM EST

Come on. "Female circumcision" would be equivalent to cutting off most of the penis. If it really were analogous, it would be slicing a bit off of the clitoral hood.

Oh, wait, this is kuro5hin, the Magical Land of Moral Equivalence. I forgot. My bad.

--grendelkhan
-- Laws do not persuade just because they threaten --Seneca
[ Parent ]

Nope (3.00 / 3) (#136)
by Have A Nice Day on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 12:03:29 PM EST

It would be like exposing the clitoris completely to desensitisation by cutting off....

Analogies don't really work here because men and women are different. However the original post is trying to make a valid point, that female infant genital alteration (I'm going to avoid the word mutilation) is generally seen as a universal bad thing and very much condemned whereas male infant genital alteration is either ignored or actively pursued. There is a double standard here.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
It *does* matter. (3.00 / 2) (#164)
by grendelkhan on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 02:14:26 PM EST

There's a difference between slicing off the foreskin and entirely de-dicking someone. Are you telling me there isn't?
-- Laws do not persuade just because they threaten --Seneca
[ Parent ]
How in the hell did you get that from my post? (none / 1) (#214)
by Have A Nice Day on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 09:23:03 PM EST

I said nothing about de-dicking, or the extent of alteration. You admit then that you think that female genital alteration of any kind, which is thoroughly frowned upon, is somehow "different" to doing the same to boys?

There is a double standard. I'm not talking about the ability to experience pleasure here, or medical reasons, but the very concept of unnecessary surgery on infants' reproductive organs.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Uh, no. (none / 0) (#222)
by grendelkhan on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 10:18:24 PM EST

I'm not familiar with any traditional female genital alterations that involve only shortening the clitoral hood. Just as I am firmly and strongly against lopping off the whole clit and inner labia, I am firmly and strongly against lopping off the whole cock.

And I take issue with an equivalence being drawn between unnecessary surgery designed to makes one incapable of sexual pleasure, and unnecessary surgery designed to have a cosmetic effect. That too. Can you tell the difference?

--grendelkhan
-- Laws do not persuade just because they threaten --Seneca
[ Parent ]

Great! (none / 0) (#353)
by esrever on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 10:42:13 PM EST

So you agree with the OP that cutting off or trimming parts of a females genitalia is OK!  Wonderful!  Thanks for coming clean about that with all of us!

Moron.

You are a misandrist and an idiot of the highest order.

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]

Huh? (none / 0) (#690)
by grendelkhan on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 09:09:29 AM EST

I hate men? What?
-- Laws do not persuade just because they threaten --Seneca
[ Parent ]
Please answer (none / 1) (#552)
by Viliam Bur on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:44:45 PM EST

"I'm not familiar with any traditional female genital alterations that involve only shortening the clitoral hood."

If there would exist such a tradition (or if today a new religion would start that demands doing such alterations), then would you support the parent's right to do it to their daughters?

If not, then that would be called "double standard".

[ Parent ]

Sure. (none / 0) (#691)
by grendelkhan on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 09:10:31 AM EST

Assuming the effect on women is analogous to the effect on men when performed at the same age, I'd consider it the same sort of cosmetic procedure.

--grendelkhan
-- Laws do not persuade just because they threaten --Seneca
[ Parent ]

So do you think cosmetic surgery on infants is ok? (none / 0) (#822)
by Have A Nice Day on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 09:17:48 AM EST

Because it sound's to me like you think that's the case.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Circumcised men experience less sexual pleasure. (2.26 / 15) (#60)
by D Jade on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 10:13:44 PM EST

I'm not sure if I agree to this. I am circumcised and I get more than enough pleasure from having sex. Personally, I think that I would be at a disadvantage if I had more of those nerve endings. It would definitely affect my staying power which would actually reduce my sexual pleasure far more than having less sensation. I don't get this statement and it's subjective. It's not really relevant to the case for/against because it depends how you define sexual pleasure.

My sexual pleasure is derived from knowing that I am making my girl feel good. I derive far more pleasure in making her feel good than I do from a 20 second orgasm. Regardless of whether I have a foreskin or not, I doubt that the numb sensation and the lack of interest I experience after shooting off a load would go away. I'd wager that it would be exactly the same.

Also, there are hygeine issues associated with foreskins. My little bro is uncut and when he was younger he got some nasty infections because he didn't clean his penis properly. The foreskin is a breeding ground for bacteria and I would not want to expose a woman to this through sexual acts.

I think your argument is bollocks because it's really inconsequential whether you are or are not circumcised. Besides, I've been with women who prefer cut, and also who prefer uncut. I've known men who have been circumcised later in life who say that they actually gained more satisfaction after getting cut as well and that they lasted longer in the sack.

And it's not mutilation, so you should edit that part out of your article.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive

Sounds like someone (2.08 / 12) (#69)
by I ABHOR TROLLS on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 01:48:05 AM EST

has foreskin envy.

[ Parent ]
Sounds like someone... (1.40 / 10) (#70)
by D Jade on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 02:04:50 AM EST

Is a stupid fucking troll...

If you actually bothered to read my comment, it's quite the opposite friend. But then, I suppose a chronic masturbator/self ass fucker like you wouldn't appreciate the pleasure derived from getting a woman off. The most exciting thing you have to look forward to in life is coming on here to mod my comments down. Come back when your balls drop... Oh that's right, you don't have any.

FUCK OFF TROLL!

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

Careful man (3.00 / 4) (#81)
by I ABHOR TROLLS on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:41:13 AM EST

You might pop a vein.

[ Parent ]
Come on. (3.00 / 1) (#99)
by shm on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 08:18:04 AM EST

That was actually pretty funny. Dunno why you're bouncing off the ceiling there.

[ Parent ]
Only because (none / 0) (#808)
by D Jade on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 07:39:31 PM EST

It's that guy... I'm not really bouncing off the ceiling, I just say this in response to any of his lame witticisms...

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
FFS... (2.83 / 12) (#73)
by gordonjcp on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 02:12:14 AM EST

My little bro is uncut and when he was younger he got some nasty infections because he didn't clean his penis properly.

Ok, I don't know if you have these in America, but here in the UK we have these things called "showers", which is where you can "wash" yourself. We use stuff called "soap" which helps get dirt off and makes you smell nice.

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


[ Parent ]
Pretty much, yeah (3.00 / 3) (#76)
by Coryoth on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 02:35:55 AM EST

The only minor issue is during puberty when the foreskin detaches - there can be a short period when it is not fully detached (still clings in places) and can be hard for a young boy to clean. This is the cause of almost all the cases of infection I have ever heard of. It's a brief period that lasts a few months at most and isn't a problem thereafter. The majority of kids manage to keep themselves clean  even during this period (it's only really a problem if the detaching happens to be slow), and it certainly isn't a problem for anyone who is through puberty... unless you never shower.

Jedidiah.

[ Parent ]

Um... there's a flaw in your argument (none / 0) (#813)
by D Jade on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 11:04:47 PM EST

Poms taking showers? Hahahahahaha... You might be on your way to beating us in the ashes but you're still dirty bastards... In fact, that's probably why you're winning because our batsmen can't stand the smell.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
infected cock = windows (2.71 / 7) (#91)
by The Diary Section on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 07:35:38 AM EST

I find this fascinating. You know how the only people who have really, really bad and bizarre problems with Windows are Linux users who can't keep old WinXP up for more than 10 minutes without flames spurting from the box?

Well it seems that there is some sort of clustering of viley infected penises around advocates of circumcision.

I think these phenomena require some serious investigation.

Spend 10 minutes in the company of an American and you end up feeling like a Keats or a Shelley: Thin, brilliant, suave, and desperate for industrial-scale quantities of opium.
[ Parent ]

Numb sensation and lack of interest (none / 1) (#171)
by synaesthesia on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:23:36 PM EST

You don't exactly strengthen your argument by describing an orgasm as a "numb sensation and lack of interest". A well-orchestrated orgasm can be mind-blowing! Sounds to me like your parents deprived your girl of the main sexual pleasure you describe: making your partner feel amazing.


Sausages or cheese?
[ Parent ]
ding ding ding - warning! (none / 1) (#189)
by speek on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 05:59:50 PM EST

My sexual pleasure is derived from knowing that I am making my girl feel good.

Yeah, because your own orgasm is such an insignificant thing lasting a few seconds, and highly localized to your crotch. No wonder making her feel good provides the bulk of your sexual enjoyment.

In what sense is it not mutilation except in the sense that "everyone else is doing it"?

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Define Mutilation (none / 0) (#812)
by D Jade on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 11:01:59 PM EST

1 - An injury that deprives you of a limb or other important body part

So it really depends whether you think the foreskin is important. I would say it was important if it actually impaired the function of the penis. However, as many cirumcised men are also fathers, it does not fit the definition of mutilation.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

Yet, uncircumcised cocks are dirty... (1.45 / 11) (#67)
by nostalgiphile on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 01:24:39 AM EST

and less sensitive than mine, mine, mine! Doctors say these kinds of cocks get herpes, genital warts, trich, etc., at a much higher rate than circumcised cocks. So, if you want your kids to have dirty, disease-infested cocks when they grow up, then just leave that foreskin on.

Btw, WOMENsay they don't enjoy penetration as much with un-circumcised men. :-P

"Depending on your perspective you are an optimist or a pessimist[,] and a hopeless one too." --trhurler
You know... (2.72 / 11) (#86)
by Znork on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 07:16:28 AM EST

... if you're sticking your dick in places where you may contract herpes, genital warts, etc, you should consider using better protection than circumcision.

[ Parent ]
Your argument is fallacious (2.50 / 4) (#115)
by nostalgiphile on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 10:40:38 AM EST

First, circumcision is not a choice most people make--it is a choice that parents make--so no one gets circumcised as an excuse to have unprotected sex (which is actually exactly what you claim). Anti-circumcisionists (apparently you and the author) who claim that circumcision is "used" to prevent STDs are in fact using the same bogus logic to argue against a practice they think is bad.

Second, STDs are only one reason doctors suggest circumcision. (Less infections and lower cancer rates are others). Yet, since doctors know that that uncircumcised men get the dirty dick easier (warts/herpes/HIV etc.) and more frequently than circumcised men, why shouldn't they encourage parents to do this for the health of their child?

Sure, it would be nice if we lived in a world where all people everywhere responsibly taught their kids to wash the wee-wee and wear the helmet, but we don't so doctors do what they do--they offer health advice. Relax, it's not a conspiracy.

My take on this is a bit personal. One of my friends got herpes from her ex-, who had genital warts and didn't tell her so, and guess what? He was an uncircumcised dirty dick w/HPV. When I went with my friend to see the doctor he said, "sure, you get this alot with uncircumcised men, and if they give it to the woman she can get ovarian cancer." So she had the polyps removed, but she has herpes for the rest of her life...The doctor made it sound like a routine deal.

I'm always annoyed to find that these anti-circumcision activists (and the author included) never seem to get around to mentioning the risk of cervical cancer from HPV in women. But then, this is an issue about, for, and by MEN about DICKS...Or is it?

"Depending on your perspective you are an optimist or a pessimist[,] and a hopeless one too." --trhurler
[ Parent ]
What a sad world (1.66 / 6) (#118)
by Have A Nice Day on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 10:47:37 AM EST

where you americans would rather mutilate each other's genitalia than wash and use proper contraception.

Also, here's a hint, those warts came from an infection someone else had. The problem there is not that he was uncircumcised but that he had unsafe sex with an infected individual and was a dangerous LIAR. There's no reason to think that a circumcised guy in the same situation wouldn't have infected your friend just the same.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Women should be circumcised (2.40 / 5) (#231)
by ubernostrum on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 02:37:18 AM EST

After all, if a woman has a clitoris she's more likely to find pleasure in sex, and thus to have more sex than an uncircumcised woman. Which means she's more likely to get a filthy vagina full of STDs and to spread those STDs to others. I know this is true because a friend of mine got herpes from a woman who had an uncircumcised filthy vagina. He used to have a beautiful, circumcised clean cock but now it's a disgusting dirty dick, and it's all the fault of that uncircumcised two-dollar whore he fucked without a condom in Shanghai.

I'm always annoyed to find that these anti-circumcision activists (and you included) never seem to get around to mentioning the risk of STDs from uncircumcised women. But then, this is an issue about, for, and by WOMEN about VAGINAS...Or is it?

For the sake of our children and ourselves, we'd better start snipping clits at birth.




--
You cooin' with my bird?
[ Parent ]
Since you don't appreciate satire (2.00 / 3) (#237)
by ubernostrum on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 07:27:40 AM EST

Here's the sound-bite version of my other comment: when STDs are spread, it's the fault of one or all of the people involved, not of bits of their genitals which were or weren't cut off previously. Really, it's a flap of skin, not the spawn of Satan.

And honestly, there really isn't much that can happen to an uncircumcised penis that can't be prevented with common sense and good hygiene -- use protection when you don't know if your partner's clean, and keep yourself clean. So to go around spouting off that an uncircumcised penis is a "dirty dick" just waiting to pick up herpes and infect as many innocents as possible is ludicrously narrow-minded and hateful. Get the fuck over yourself already.




--
You cooin' with my bird?
[ Parent ]
Ummm (none / 0) (#296)
by MKalus on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 12:58:52 AM EST

I'm always annoyed to find that these anti-circumcision activists (and the author included) never seem to get around to mentioning the risk of cervical cancer from HPV in women. But then, this is an issue about, for, and by MEN about DICKS...Or is it?

Just because the circumsized guy hs a lower risk of getting HPV etc. doesn't mean they can't transmit it either.

Then there is the question: Why the heck didn't she insist on a condome?

HPV would have also showed up in a blood test. I am a guy, but geez, condome and if it goes beyond that and to the stage where you would go "naked" get a bloodtest first (both of you) and then there is no doubt.

And there women are said to be the smart ones, yeah right.
-- Michael
[ Parent ]

Ahhhh (none / 0) (#298)
by nostalgiphile on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 01:33:31 AM EST

But then, I never said that circ'd dudes couldn't get herpes, did I?

And I like the way you imply this not wearing a condom is the girl's fault. "Well, it's her own fault for not MAKING the guy wear a condom." Typical guy-logic there. Jeez, the prick KNEW that he had herpes, ergo, it was doubly his responsibility to wear one.

"Depending on your perspective you are an optimist or a pessimist[,] and a hopeless one too." --trhurler
[ Parent ]
Excuse me (none / 0) (#597)
by MKalus on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:18:51 PM EST

And I like the way you imply this not wearing a condom is the girl's fault.
Ultimatly who has the power to say no? Him or her? Obviously both, but WHO is at a higher risk? It's not her fault that he wasn't wearing one, but if she had said no, I am pretty sure she wouldn't hvae gotten it. Granted, he could have forced her, but then we are getting into a whole new thing.
Jeez, the prick KNEW that he had herpes, ergo, it was doubly his responsibility to wear one.
Yes he was, not only to wear one, but to tell her upfront. But even if the guy would have been clean, was it smart to go naked? Doesn't sound like she had known him for long, but maybe I am just old fashioned, you know, 1985 and AIDS scare and all.
-- Michael
[ Parent ]
Feh! (none / 0) (#283)
by scorchio on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 08:51:28 PM EST

Btw, WOMEN say they don't enjoy penetration as much with un-circumcised men. :-P

Fuck 'em

[ Parent ]

I asked 2 women about it... (none / 0) (#293)
by nostalgiphile on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 11:48:40 PM EST

Yeah, and they both said "um, well, it just doesn't feel quite as good down there w/un-circ'd guys" (I'm paraphrasing of course).

"Depending on your perspective you are an optimist or a pessimist[,] and a hopeless one too." --trhurler
[ Parent ]
That makes no sense <nt> (none / 0) (#323)
by The Diary Section on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 12:41:21 PM EST


Spend 10 minutes in the company of an American and you end up feeling like a Keats or a Shelley: Thin, brilliant, suave, and desperate for industrial-scale quantities of opium.
[ Parent ]
Instead of relying on myths.. (none / 0) (#381)
by forety on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 11:26:06 AM EST

you might want to see what women who have had both normal and cut sex REALLY say. http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/

[ Parent ]
Cirp.org...the mouthpiece of running dog (none / 0) (#389)
by nostalgiphile on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 12:08:37 PM EST

Anti-circ activists. Not exactly an unbiased, non-mythological angle on things. Besides, what's wrong with mythology, I like the Greeks...

"Depending on your perspective you are an optimist or a pessimist[,] and a hopeless one too." --trhurler
[ Parent ]
So, you prefer to believe what some doctors say.. (none / 0) (#382)
by forety on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 11:29:43 AM EST

"and less sensitive than mine, mine, mine!" and disregard the evidence..loss of nerves = loss of sensation. http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/ OR: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/servlet/useragent?func=synergy&synergyActio n=showAbstract&doi=10.1046/j.1464-410x.1996.85023.x&area=production& prevSearch=allfield%3A%28circumcision%29

[ Parent ]
At least... (none / 0) (#388)
by nostalgiphile on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 12:06:38 PM EST

I know how to cite stuff w/html...

"Depending on your perspective you are an optimist or a pessimist[,] and a hopeless one too." --trhurler
[ Parent ]
Another case of forcing ideals in America (2.75 / 12) (#72)
by coder66 on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 02:10:25 AM EST

Parents can choose to murder an unborn child, so why would they not be able to mutilate one that was just born?

I am circumsised. I didn't know anything was wrong for a long time. Everyone in my kindergarten class thought that the one guy that wasn't circumsised was deformed. When I was old enough to know what had happened, I asked my parents why they did it. They told me that they were not asked, the doctor just did it(B'day 1979).

Now, on to my real point. This is allowed because it is what is "socially acceptable". I believe that barring some real medical reason, it should be left to the child to decide upon reaching majority. I decided when I was 16 that I wanted to mutilate myself. In Alabama you need to be 18 to do this, but I told my father that I wanted my tongue and my eyebrow pierced(I don't wear the eyberow ring anymore, it is a tiny hole pretty unnoticable, but the tongue piercing actually takes a plug like a core sample out). So, we talked about it and my father decided I was mature enough to make my own decision. We went to a local tattoo parlor to get it done. The lady there told us that no one would pierce me, even with my parents consent until I was 17 years old. Needless to say I was pissed, I mean my little sister had gotten her ears pierced when she was 8 without my parents signing anything. We went back when I was 17 and my father signed for me.

The bottom line is it is what the majority of America has chosen to do, so that makes it okay. I would not have chosen circumcision myself, but I don't feel traumatized. I have thought about getting a PA, but I know that would be traumatizing, so I haven't been able to bring myself to do it. I am not bitter. I am not trying to restore anything that I was never aware of having. I do feel that it was wrong for a permanent decision to be made about my body when I was not able to choose or even speak for myself.

+1 Encourages discussion on dicks (2.00 / 4) (#77)
by livus on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 02:38:39 AM EST

Besides, hardly anyone voted in my latest poll in which I sought to determine the current state of foreskins here at K5.

Although of course our poll options are somewhat different, at least I'll get some info from this one.

Am also considering polling to see who apart from Fen (and it seems Frijolito and Psychopath, below) has hair follicles on the shaft.

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

WIPO Cut but not content, not seeking restoration. (2.75 / 8) (#78)
by IceTitan on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 02:38:51 AM EST

That said, if I ever have any male children, they will not be cut. If they are, the doctor will be likewise.
Nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Made Me Laugh (none / 1) (#79)
by thelizman on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:02:01 AM EST

Not because of anything the author did, it just reminded me of that scene in 28 Days where the gay guy said something about "I vant my fuskin back. Novun asked me if I vanted it, zey joos took eat."

Alas, this article is well written and informative, but I confused with the f-1ction in the queue that's up for a vote in the other tab, and accidentally voted to kill it. Oh well.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
question (2.25 / 8) (#80)
by Linux or FreeBSD on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:15:28 AM EST

could i just keep like "restoring" it and then getting it chopped off again every week or two for the rest of my life. basically is there some kind of "law of diminishing returns" but instead "law of diminishing foreskins." yes or no.

Restoration (none / 0) (#89)
by stzu on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 07:35:13 AM EST

Restoration typically takes about 2-3 years.  but sure you could we humans can grow skin up until death.

[ Parent ]
Sadly, your dignity will never be restored. nt. (none / 1) (#120)
by Veritech on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 11:00:34 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Attitude of women (2.90 / 10) (#87)
by The Diary Section on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 07:20:25 AM EST

to this issue is chilling to say the least.

Click here and type circumcision in and you'll see what I mean.
Its not that I'm as such against circumcision, its a private decision, arguments can be made either way, its the casual and stupid reasons for it. The winner thus far must be "well, we read the baby book and couldn't figure out how to clean our baby's foreskin so we took him to have it taken off".

Poor little tyke, imagine having a knife taken to your cock just because your parents are morons and too proud to ask when they don't understand something.
Spend 10 minutes in the company of an American and you end up feeling like a Keats or a Shelley: Thin, brilliant, suave, and desperate for industrial-scale quantities of opium.

Well, here's my attitude (3.00 / 3) (#93)
by HollyHopDrive on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 07:52:10 AM EST

Personally I find it more attractive. I would never, ever tell someone to get it done just because I thought it looked a bit nicer, and let's be honest, with the penis it's more about how it feels than how it looks anyway. But if you asked my personal preference, I'd say I preferred circumcised ones.

My ex was circumcised. He had a fine time. He woke me up a lot. I honestly do not believe he was missing out on anything.

My current fella is not circumcised. He also has a fine time.

That is all.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

Stop being irresonsible (2.66 / 9) (#97)
by I ABHOR TROLLS on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 08:10:02 AM EST

Saying you 'prefer' men who have unwillingly undergone an irreversible surgical procedure like circumcision is irresponsible. It's off-the-cuff comments like these (and 'locker room' paranoia, etc.) that perpetuate circumcision. It may look like nothing to you, but it's all the excuse a father needs to force this procedure on his son if he believes that women can 'prefer' circumcised men. Your behavior contributes to this unquestionably and allows the cycle of barbarism to continue. Kindly think before you speak in future, don't provide an excuse for one more man to circumcise his son (who is given no say in the matter whatsoever). And before you retort--it doesn't matter one fucking bit if what you're saying is true or false. What matters is the impact it has.

[ Parent ]
Please stop defending your gross weiner. (1.40 / 5) (#128)
by Veritech on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 11:28:40 AM EST



[ Parent ]
I thought before I made this post: (3.00 / 2) (#199)
by HollyHopDrive on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 06:47:25 PM EST

I find circumcised penises more attractive.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

A little daft, aren't you? (1.33 / 3) (#223)
by I ABHOR TROLLS on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 10:30:13 PM EST



[ Parent ]
That's part of my idiosyncratic charm. (none / 0) (#268)
by HollyHopDrive on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 04:50:19 PM EST

<bats eyes>


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

okay (none / 0) (#773)
by kbudha on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 12:03:43 AM EST

All the charm of a 3 year old throwing a temper tantrum because Daddy won't listen to her.

[ Parent ]
Unbelievable (none / 0) (#830)
by HollyHopDrive on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 10:35:13 AM EST

You're actually going through this whole thread, trying to pick out my comments and then making the silliest, least constructive comments you can think of that don't make any reference whatsoever to the discussion at hand.

It would be amusing anyway, but the fact that you do this while boasting about the busy, fun-packed life you lead is sidesplitting.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

On the off-chance you're not trolling (none / 1) (#271)
by HollyHopDrive on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 05:31:27 PM EST

I expect you never again to say you prefer a woman with big boobs or thin thighs, because then you are perpetuating the idea that young women need silicone implants or liposuction to meet your exacting standards, thus providing a reason for plastic surgeons to persuade women to go under the knife.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

At least (none / 1) (#284)
by I ABHOR TROLLS on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 09:29:04 PM EST

there's some sort of volition involved on the part of those women. In the case of circumcision, the victim has no choice whatsoever.

[ Parent ]
But your saying what you prefer (none / 0) (#540)
by HollyHopDrive on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:52:58 AM EST

makes women miserable that they can't live up to the standards plastered on the pages of Zoo and FHM, and makes them so miserable they feel they have to get implants and God knows what because nobody would ever love them otherwise. Plus it leads to parents being so worried nobody will find their daughters attractive that they instil in them unhealthy relationships with food and exercise.

I suspect you were trolling anyway.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

Did I say (3.00 / 2) (#542)
by I ABHOR TROLLS on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:59:01 AM EST

there was no negative effect to saying something like that of one's preferences in women? No. Did you actually read my comment? Apparently not. Of course there are negative effects for something like that, but none of them involve irreversible involuntary surgury being performed on non-consenting infants now, do they? No matter how much your parents or society fucks with your head, you have an opportunity to overcome that. What opportunity does a victim of involuntary surgury have to recover his lost body part? Zero. Stop pretending like they're the same thing, they VERY obviously are not. Maybe you struggle with 'media pressure' on you to be thin or whatever, big fucking deal. Men deal with shit like that too, everybody alive does. Struggle struggle, watever. A man who has been circumcised, however, will never have a foreskin again, ever, in his whole life, no matter how much he wants to have one. Pretty fucking simple isn't it.

[ Parent ]
Man, you're angry (none / 0) (#608)
by HollyHopDrive on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 09:48:22 AM EST

Perhaps you weren't trolling after all, or maybe you're just very good at it. I'll take the risk. <shrug>

Your problem is clearly with parents who circumcise their infant sons. Did I disagree with that? No. I simply said I personally found it more attractive, and your anger is misplaced. You should not be angry at me for saying what I find preferable, but with people who believe the opinions of random online strangers are justification for circumcision.

Clearly you are the one who is not reading, but I guess with all that red mist around your head it's not surprising. The parent post was a wonderful sweeping generalisation about what wimmin think about the issue (which I ignored, please note), so I threw in my approach to it - which is that personally I find it more attractive but I'd never in a million years ask a man to have it done just because I thought it looked a bit better. Jeez, my fella isn't circumcised. Did you read THAT bit? Of course not.

Yes, we all suffer media pressure to be beautiful but women suffer it far more, and I don't notice you foaming at the mouth over all the k5ers and others who openly complain about wimmin who don't meet their standards. Yes, circumcision is permanent. So is mental and physical damage caused by people who think all members of the opposite sex have a duty to look good for them. You whinge about your issues, I'll whinge about mine and stop acting as if it's all one-sided when it plainly is not.

I also prefer dark-haired men, by the way. But I don't expect you to dye your hair because of that.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

So you admit there's a difference (none / 1) (#619)
by I ABHOR TROLLS on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 10:16:58 AM EST

But you don't admit that the difference (permanence, non-consent) makes what you're doing worse than 'I prefer big breasts'. Clearly, it fucking does. Actually, I'm sure you realise this. You know that saying 'I prefer circumcised men' is far worse than the breast equivalent for all the reasons I've just said. It has to be worse. You're just (as usual) so obsessed with defending yourself, so afraid of saying that you were wrong, that you're unwilling to admit it.

Fact is, you know and I know there is a difference between 'I like big breasts' (problem always solved with consent) and 'I like circumcised dicks' (problem almost always solved without consent). What you don't understand is just how much more irresponsible encouraging the latter is compared to encouraging the former. I bet you'd have a wildly different view of it if your parents removed a part of your body when you were a child for ridiculous cosmetic reasons, because they thought 'men would like it better' or you'd be teased in class or equally moronic shit like that. But you're not a victim, so you don't have to be empathetic, right? Talk about immaturity.

[ Parent ]

What you don't understand (none / 0) (#623)
by HollyHopDrive on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 10:32:08 AM EST

(and which you probably could grasp if you weren't so obsessed with personal insults and venom) is my point. Your anger is misplaced. Don't be angry with me for saying I prefer circumcised penises, especially as I've made it clear I'd never expect someone to do it just to please me. Be angry with the people who actually do it to their sons. And by the way, you do not help your point by just accusing me, emptily and unfairly, of not wanting to admit I was wrong. I do not believe I was wrong.

I think we can draw a comparison between the two, if you believe they are dangerous. I personally don't, so this is all on your logic, not mine. If I'm not allowed to say what I prefer because I might sway the decision of some unknown stranger, you are not allowed to do it either for the same reason. Either way, we are both still talking about influencing someone else's decisions of what to do with their own or their child's body. If the parents are worried about how attractive women might find their son, this is the exact same concern that would be projected on women seeking male approval, and the comparison therefore fits. But again, this is all assuming you're right in attacking me for saying what I prefer, and I don't believe you are - so this is based on your logic, not mine.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

I assume you're not 16 any more (none / 1) (#629)
by I ABHOR TROLLS on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 10:46:52 AM EST

but you seem to think like a 16 year old, totally egocentrically. Tell me this then. Someone comes up to you who is considering suicide. They say there is no point living because they have no prospects in life, will never amount to anything, etc. You believe that they are correct--they will never amount to anything, have no prospects, etc. Do you tell them the truth, or do you encourage them to continue to live? Telling someone what you honestly believe means shit all--it is neither wrong or right. Simply because you believe something does not make saying it inherently right or justified. If you tell a person commiting suicide that they have no reason to live, even if you believe it, the effect is that you encourage them to commit suicide. Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant: they may very well commit suicide because of what you say to them. That's why you don't tell them the truth, you don't tell them what you believe. You tell them the thing that has the correct effect.

Now there's a pretty clear example on one end of the scale. Everything you say fits onto that scale somewhere. I like french toast, I like big breasts, I like circumcised men, etc. What you say has an effect entirely seperate from its truth or falsehood. What you said sits on this scale, and it sits in a place far more damaging than your other examples. There is no absolute black and white, that's teenager thinking and you know it. Some things are damaging but true and you say them anyway. Some things are damaging but true and you definitely don't (suicide example). Again, that it's true is irrelevant. What matters is it impact, and saying things whose impact is to perpetuate circumcision is irresponsible.

[ Parent ]

Oh, how irrelevant (none / 0) (#649)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 06:01:58 AM EST

If you have been circumcised against your will and are angry about it, I am genuinely sorry for your suffering, and I'm certainly interested in hearing what you have to say about it. The problem, though, is that what you have to say has so far been little more than pointless personal insults (I know it's k5, but this was a serious discussion and it would be nice to have something worthwhile in there) and rantings that, because I disagree with you on something, I'm simply not admitting I'm wrong and I'm immature and stupid and blah blah blah. It is pointless having a discussion with you unless you're actually going to have a proper back-and-forth debate, referring to what I say and not just skimming over it with, "well, you just won't admit you're wrong and you're stupid and immature and nur nur nur." If you're not going to keep to the relevant and worthwhile, I'm not going to waste my time on the discussion.

To your first irrelevant comparison. The suicidal person who asks my advice. Please explain to me how my face-to-face, real life conduct towards a suicidal person is in any way comparable to my remarking, casually and in context with a discussion, that personally I find circumcision more attractive. I did take pains to emphasise that that's no reason to make someone do it, but I was expressing my personal attitude towards it, which is that I think it looks nice but that's not reason enough to do it. Did you read that qualifier, or did YOU act like an egocentric, idiotic 16-year-old who hears only what he wants to hear and disregards the rest?

If someone asks me if they should commit suicide, I say no, get help, there are people who love you. How this is any way fits with my casual expression that I find circumcision more attractive is beyond me. You'll need to explain.

To your second point. Impact. This was your logic, not mine. By your logic, I am responsible for people circumcising their kids because I said in a single, offhand online comment that it was attractive. You constantly ignored the fact that I did make it clear that wasn't a reason to do it. If anything, I'm strengthening your point, but like a 16-year-old who wants to take everything badly, you just went off on a rant. A pointless, unsubstantiated and empty rant that was so ridiculous I assumed it was a troll.

If I'm not allowed to make casual remarks like that because it could indirectly cause harm elsewhere, you are not allowed to make them either in case you influence young girls to undergo drastic unnecessary surgery. YES, I KNOW YOU'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT CONSENSUAL SURGERY, BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN DAMAGED BY IT AND ANYWAY YOUR ANGER IS MISPLACED BECAUSE YOUR BEEF IS WITH PEOPLE WHO DO IT, NOT PEOPLE WHO MENTION WHAT THEY FIND ATTRACTIVE. IF YOU ARE HOLDING OUT FOR THE WORLD TO STOP MAKING ANYTHING YOU DISAGREE WITH EVEN SLIGHTLY ATTRACTIVE YOU WILL BE THERE FOR A VERY LONG TIME. AND ANYWAY, THIS IS ALL IRRELEVANT BECAUSE YOU'RE THE ONE PLACING BLAME ON PEOPLE MENTIONING WHAT THEY LIKE, NOT ME. I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE TO STOP SAYING WHAT YOU FIND ATTRACTIVE BECAUSE IF I'M DUMB ENOUGH TO GO UNDER THE KNIFE FOR IT THAT'S NOT YOUR DECISION.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

More egocentricism (none / 1) (#655)
by I ABHOR TROLLS on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 07:22:53 AM EST

You claim you are not responsible for the actions of those who hear your words and actu upon them without good reason. That's wrong, especially when you know the listener is not logical. Another analogy: a terrorist is pointing a gun at a child and tells you to raise your hands or he will shoot the child. You say "No", lower you hands, and the child is shot. The situation is caused by the terrorist, yes. He is the primary party responsible. But within that system, even though the fact that the system exists is wrong and bad, YOU lowered your hands and caused the child to die. Of course the terrorist killed the child, but you enouraged him to do it. You are partially responsible. It's that simple.

Again, for the fiftieth time, that fact that it's true does not mean it's right to say it. The fact that circumcision exists is not your fault. The fact that people will take what you say seriously (that you find circumcised dicks more attractive) is not your fault. The fact that they will ignore your little 'but that doesn't mean you should do it' qualification is not your fault. It is unfortunate that all these things exist, but it does NOT absolve you of your responsibilities. We all live in a world where some shit it unfair, we work within it to achieve the ebst result. If you lower your hands a child dies, that is the reality, unfair as it is. Simply saying "well the terrorist shouldn't have asked me to do that in the first place then!!" does not justify not complying with his wishes. The responsible thing to do is the thing with the correct effect. Stop trying to lay the blame on others, take responsibility for what you say and do as a member of an "unfair" world. You are being completely irresponsible and self-centered.

[ Parent ]

Enough. (none / 0) (#658)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 07:48:34 AM EST

I'm making this last post to you, and if you continue to scream like a child and ignore the important points that ruin what you're trying to pass off as a valid argument, I won't be continuing.

I do not have a responsibility to stop mentioning casually that I find circumcision more attractive. If I have, because of indirectly causing harm, you also have a responsibility not to mention that you like big tits on women because that causes feminine body hang-ups and parents putting undue pressure on their daughters. I realise you're talking about non-consensual circumcision, but your argument is one of the impact I have on others, and if it applies to your issues, it applies to the others as well.

More ridiculous analogies of yours do not help. I was not told by anyone, "Say you hate circumcision or else I will circumcise my child." That's the last of your ridiculous, extreme and entirely irrelevant analogies that I'm going to dignify with a response.

Now I have tried to have a decent conversation with you, but you're incapable of reading anything I say or behaving in a calm manner. So now I'm going to do something with the sole purpose of pissing you off. I hope I succeed royally.

I PREFER CIRCUMCISED PENISES. I FIND THEM MORE ATTRACTIVE AND I SHALL BE PUTTING THIS INFORMATION ON MY WEBSITE. I DON'T BELIEVE YOU SHOULD CIRCUMCISE YOUR SON BECAUSE OF THIS, BUT SINCE THAT QUALIFIER IS IGNORED BY SOMEONE WANTING TO BLAME ME FOR SOMETHING THAT IS NOT IMMORAL IN ANY SENSE, YOU HAVE PROBABLY NOT READ THIS FAR.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

I notice (none / 1) (#660)
by I ABHOR TROLLS on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 07:51:37 AM EST

you like to claim I "scream like a child", while your posts are the ones containing entire paragraphs of all-caps, all-bold text, while mine contain merely a sentence or two of personal attack (generalised from your statements). Please two the lines in my last post in this thread that you claim contain me "screaming like a child", I'm genuinely interested, because by my critera I can't find a single one.

[ Parent ]
Of course you can't find it. (none / 0) (#664)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 07:55:13 AM EST

You don't find the important points in my posts that I took pains to emphasise, because they didn't suit you, so naturally you can't find the empty accusations and insults of teenage immaturity and whatever the hell else, because they don't suit you either.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

You're wrong (none / 1) (#666)
by I ABHOR TROLLS on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 07:56:44 AM EST

I've addressed every relevent point you've made. Name one that I haven't.

[ Parent ]
Jesus Christ (none / 0) (#668)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 07:58:33 AM EST

I addressed every point you made and you ignored several of mine. I'm not copying and pasting my damn posts, just read them again.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

Wrong. (none / 1) (#673)
by I ABHOR TROLLS on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 08:11:06 AM EST

All you've done is say the same crap over and over while refusing to acknowledge that you have to take responsibility for what you say. You seem to have trouble understanding simple analogies, I don't know why. I showed you why saying this can be irresponsible and your retarded response is the equivalent of DUHHH WERE TALKIN ABOUT CIRCUMCISION NOT SUICIDE THAT ONLY APLIES TO SUICIDE. I truly cannot believe I'm arguing with someone over the age of 16, your level of thinking is just that simplistic.

If you agree with the suicide analogy (saying the thing with the correct effect rather than what is true) then you necessarily agree that you have to take responsibility for what you say. You can still argue that circumcision doesn't fit on a place on that scale where you shuld remain silent or lie (which would be a perfectly valid argument) but instead I'm met with teenager level thinking by someone clearly unable to argue in non-specific or abstract terms. Rather you prefer to bleat on and on about the same shit over and over. It's pathetic.

I'll ask it like I'm talking to a 6-year-old now, since apparently abstract thoought and long sentences confuse and anger you:

Do you believe that (generally speaking) people have to take responsibility for what they do and say?

Now that's about as simple as it gets. If you can answer that we'll be able to get somewhere. I'll keep it all My Pet Goat style too, just to help you along.

[ Parent ]

Sorry, but (none / 0) (#675)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 08:13:36 AM EST

I'm not carrying on with a discussion this pointless.

I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

In other words (none / 1) (#677)
by I ABHOR TROLLS on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 08:17:35 AM EST

You're too irrational and egocentric to answer a simeple question whose answer consists of only one word. If you can't bleat on incessantly typing in BOLD ALL CAPS LIKE YOUR WORDS ARE SOMEHOW MORE CONVINCING BECAUSE OF THE TYPEFACE then it's not worth it to you.

In that case, if you're unwilling to argue fairly, please leave this article now. It's offensive that you think you can come in here and spread ridiculous misinformation (e.g. pretending you know what smegma actually is) and then not even have to defend yourself.

[ Parent ]

In other words (none / 0) (#680)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 08:20:56 AM EST

I refuse to have a discussion with someone who is able only to hurl insults and ignore vital points made, unless it amuses me to do so. In this case, it doesn't. So no more.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

Like I said (none / 1) (#684)
by I ABHOR TROLLS on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 08:23:50 AM EST

Tell me one point you've raised that I haven't addressed and I'll address it. Fact is, you're the one ignoring valid points.

[ Parent ]
Reread the posts (none / 0) (#686)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 08:27:29 AM EST

They are there, there is no point in my simply repeating them.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

I read them (none / 1) (#689)
by I ABHOR TROLLS on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 08:29:42 AM EST

I don't know what you're talking about. As far as I can see you're the one ignoring my points while I've addressed all yours. If you disagree post what I haven't addressed.

[ Parent ]
Reread them (none / 0) (#693)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 09:13:10 AM EST

and this time, read everything, not just glossing over the bits you don't like.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

No. (none / 0) (#698)
by I ABHOR TROLLS on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 09:29:25 AM EST



[ Parent ]
In which case (none / 0) (#701)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 09:31:18 AM EST

we both understand that you are just ignoring the points I made that destroyed your case. I'm glad we finally have that sorted.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

No, we don't. (none / 0) (#703)
by I ABHOR TROLLS on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 09:33:39 AM EST

You've yet to name one point of yours I ignored. Meanwhile I posted a since little question in italics so you notice it, one that only requires a one-word answer, and you refuse to answer it. Seems like you're the one intentionally ignoring things.

[ Parent ]
You have yet (none / 0) (#704)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 09:36:02 AM EST

to read the posts, clearly, since you're denying the existence of pretty explicit text. But I'm glad to know you realise that.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

No, I read the explicit text (none / 0) (#705)
by I ABHOR TROLLS on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 09:37:34 AM EST

and I answered it. If you disagree point me to the text in question.

[ Parent ]
Once again: (none / 0) (#708)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 09:39:16 AM EST

reread the posts. Damn if I'm copying and pasting for you. You're too boring and your typical responses too infantile to warrant that amount of effort. Just click on the things.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

I told you: (none / 0) (#713)
by I ABHOR TROLLS on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 09:42:55 AM EST

I did. I've read them like 5 fucking times and I don't know what you're talking about. If you want me to know, tell me.

[ Parent ]
Duh (none / 0) (#714)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 09:43:48 AM EST

you're very stupid.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

Please quote the lines, rather. (none / 0) (#663)
by I ABHOR TROLLS on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 07:53:30 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Note that (none / 1) (#544)
by I ABHOR TROLLS on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:02:45 PM EST

I don't give a shit if you say you want a man to be 3% body fat and have abs of steel. Maybe you saying that convinces some guy that he's inadequate and he fucks his shit up trying to be Mr. Abs just for you. That's bad, sure. But that guy had a fucking choice. He may have done it under pressure from society or whatever, but he fundamentally had an option. A man who is circumcised has no option, no choice, ever. His parents made that choice for him, took that choice away from him. Saying thigns that encourage parents to take that choice away from their sons, before the son is old enough to make it for himself, is irresponsible.

[ Parent ]
But its true (none / 0) (#590)
by The Diary Section on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 04:55:04 PM EST

If you don't look the right way, nobody will love you. But thats hardly a male-only vice. Perhaps their parents are right to get them to eat better and exercise. Harsh world isn't it.

Spend 10 minutes in the company of an American and you end up feeling like a Keats or a Shelley: Thin, brilliant, suave, and desperate for industrial-scale quantities of opium.
[ Parent ]
Of course it's not male-only (none / 0) (#609)
by HollyHopDrive on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 09:54:03 AM EST

But I do believe, and forgive me if this sounds misandristic (I am not a misandrist, I promise) that generally speaking, men are more ready to proclaim loudly when they like or don't like the way a woman looks, and women are generally more sensitive to hearing this sort of thing than men are. Male-only vice? Of course not. But I am generalising, and I think it is fair to say it. If you want to balance the scales a bit by giving some examples of where women generally fail it a bit more than men, feel free, there are certainly some things to say on that too.

Basically, put it this way. I made a post saying I prefer circumcision, but would never ever ask a man to get it done just to please me. Made a point of mentioning my boyfriend isn't circumcised and it's all just fine and dandy. Got several hot responses. Had I been a man saying that I liked women with large breasts, I don't believe I'd have had the same reaction. And yes, I know the issue is about circumcision of children who can't consent, but I never defended doing that. I just gave a personal preference, and got what I consider to be an unwarranted amount of flak for it.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

Yes but c'mon (none / 0) (#635)
by The Diary Section on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 12:06:25 PM EST

its a personal perference with regard to a form of mutilation. Having big breats or thin thighs, some people have that anyway, not out of a catalogue. Nobody has a naturally cirucumcised penis. See the difference?
Spend 10 minutes in the company of an American and you end up feeling like a Keats or a Shelley: Thin, brilliant, suave, and desperate for industrial-scale quantities of opium.
[ Parent ]
Yes, but (none / 0) (#648)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 05:48:44 AM EST

I am not to blame for mentioning that I personally prefer it, especially when I took pains to emphasise that I'd never ask someone to do it just to please me. Your issue is with parents who do it to their children, not random strangers who say they find it nicer looking.

Parents who base a decision that huge on a random stranger's casual remarks are probably doing something worse to their kids further along the line.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

so you do understand the harm you do? (none / 0) (#326)
by speek on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 02:15:41 PM EST

You picked some other good examples.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

No, I don't. (none / 0) (#612)
by HollyHopDrive on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 10:04:29 AM EST

I understand the debatable harm caused by parents who do things to their children, not by me mentioning what I personally prefer in an anonymous online conversation.

You miss the point. If you believe it's damaging, don't do it. Somehow, though, I don't think I ABHOR TROLLS is going to stop telling people what he thinks about women's bits. I, however, don't hold other people responsible for my choices, so my conscience is perfectly clear in making this statement: I prefer circumcised penises.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

would you circumsize your son? (none / 0) (#634)
by speek on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 11:55:44 AM EST


--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Not because I thought women in the future (none / 1) (#652)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 06:36:47 AM EST

might like it, no.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

Different things (3.00 / 2) (#329)
by Have A Nice Day on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 02:33:12 PM EST

Whilst the societal pressure on these things is reprehensible, it does not result in surgery being done to unconsenting infants. Saying those things makes women feel inadequate and pursue surgery on herself. An adult. With consent. She does not go out and get her 2 month old daughter implanted with silicone, but after your comment may go out and get a piece chopped off her two month old son.

Sorry but it's just not the same thing.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
I understand but (none / 0) (#539)
by HollyHopDrive on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:48:25 AM EST

it's the logical conclusion of saying people aren't allowed to express personal preferences when it comes up in conversation, because someone somewhere might take it too personally. k5 is full of people saying what they like in a partner.

But I suspect it was a troll, to be honest.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

info for you (none / 1) (#413)
by I Mod Everything Up But Kitten on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 02:31:47 PM EST

Yohannon's List of Fat Sexual Positions

Well, to start there's the missionary position. Yes, I hear the groans already: But some of my favorite sexual experiences happen in this position. True, it was because we were both really into each other (no puns!) and cared about each other deeply, but done correctly there are several variants that breath life into this old chestnut, even if you thought you couldn't do it previously.

For example, I've heard from a lot of fat women with very large or hanging bellies that they thought that they couldn't perform this position. Well, if you place your butt on several cushions (this may require some experimentation. I think I mentioned that I like to experiment previously...you should too. ;-) this will lift you up enough so that your partener can kneel between your legs. If you're at the "right" height (this can vary depending on what angles feel comfortable for the two of you) he can insert his penis into your vagina fairly easily while holding on to you by the hips or whatever folds are accessible...and don't hurt when grasped in ecstacy. :) Note that this will also angle you back so that the woman body leans back. This will allow the stomach to lift up and away from her pussy, eliminating a lot of difficulty in entering.

The only drawback with this position is with women with extremely heavy thighs. For example Teighlor (oooh, I'm such a name dropper! :) actually doesn't have that big a stomach proportionate to the rest of her (extremely sexy!) body, but the size of her thighs makes this position difficult. However, if the man isn't too large himself he can literally work himself between them carefully to acheive penetration.

Quick aside: If the man can't get close enough to her to penetrate her in this situation, try some penis to clit stimulation. I find it to be a very pleasant feeling, and most women that I've tried it with enjoy it as well. Be careful not to be too energetic about that, tho'...you don't want to break a rubber!

Now, there's a variant on the missionary that I really like. A lot. And it even can work with women with very large thighs. But before I tell you about it, here's a tip: How many of you think to STRETCH before having sex? Yes, BOTH of you. Do you know how many times that I, or someone I'm with, has had a cramp...sometimes really intense, maybe this wasn't a good idea, why don't we watch lettermen instead kind of cramp? Please try to remember, sex is STRENOUS excercise. You both should be fit, and try to stretch a little first. If you do it right and help each other with it, it can be a form of foreplay. ;-)

Here's why I'm stressing stretching: The modified missionary starts out with him between her legs, and inserting. Then she brings her legs flat, and he swings one leg over one of her so that it's around her waist. She brings that leg toward the other one, and he swings his other leg over so that he's now straddling her, her legs closed around his hard penis.

Yes, this is possible. And yes, you can get some pretty good penetration with this. It requires a bit of practice not to pull out while geting it right, but one in place he can pump away with some very nice clitoral stimulation. If you do it just right this seems like it was the position people were MEANT to have sex in, as you both can see each others faces, play with each others nipples, and generally have a great time. If the man is feeling particularly mean he can reach down and put more pressure on her clit, which can produce some interesting results. ;-)

Now, the thing here is that a large woman requires that the man STRETCH his legs to get them around her legs (see why I think stretching is important?). I've managed it on women up to 600 pounds, but I suspect there are times it might not work. Don't get upset about it...I'm sure that some of the other positions will.

Now, oral sex on a fat woman can be a challenge if she's very large. There are several techniques that permit a man easy access to her clit with his tongue (as well as other sensitive areas that produce the most exciting noises from her throat!) while allowing him to breathe easily. First, use lots of pillows (pillows are your friends -- stock a variety sizes of firm, wide pillows and you will never run out of configurations you can try!) like you did in the missionary position, and you'll have less of a problem with large bellies. If she's been doing HER stretching excercises, you'll be able to get her legs spread. If she has difficulty with this, you can also just bend them at the knees and lift them toward her head. Again only the woman with extrememly large legs or other difficulties will this not allow you to slowly circle your tongue around her clit, perhaps teasing first by nibbling the inner thigh lightly with your lips.

If she has leg problems, or just big thighs, then place the pillow and approach the problem from the other direction...literally. lay to her side with your feet towards her head, and tongue her "upside down". While this position is like a 69, I tend to prefer it without her giving a concerted effort to get me off. Why? Well, for one thing I like to pay attention to what I'm doing, and I want her to relax and ENJOY it. I've only met two women who didn't like oral sex, and neither of those worked out. :)

BTW, if there are some people that simply can't perform a 69 on you, at least not while you're eating them...don't get hung up on it. 69's are incredibly over-rated as anything other than a form of sexplay (I have only managed to simultaneously come with someone that way once, and let me tell you I was surprised! :).

Now, if you're feeling very adventurous and there's nothing wrong with her knees, then try it with her on top. YMMV big time: Some people, again, either don't feel right when they're on top of me, or the positioning is awkward. Some people, however, fit perfectly like this even if I had trouble eating them when they were underneath...flesh changes position radically when you switch things around like that.

Now, back to insertion -- a great position that virtually gaurantees deep penetration is with her laying on one the side. This one has SEVERAL variations -- my personal favorite is this. She lies on her side (yes, the direction she faces can make a difference, so try both...don't ask me why, I really don't know. Some of you may not notice a difference). She lays down, with the lower leg extended straight, and she brings the upper leg toward her chest. He straddles the lower leg, nestles up and penetrates. Now, she can either point that upper leg's knee down and pull it up to her chest as far as it can go (he can help!) or she can lean so her back is twisitng toward the ground, and that knee is now in the air (unless she has thighs of steel he'll HAVE to help, though I've known women who can actually point that leg straight into the air with only minor assistance). If you can get this far the advantages of this position become VERY obvious.

Now, for the sake of completeness here's a repost of something I just discussed with Linda, one of my other lovers, in this newsgroup:

(begin repost)

Try the Woman on top but have her sit instead of kneeling. Easier on her knees and spreads her weight out better over your pelvis area (a very strong muscler area) and allows for very deep penetration.

[Hey! Who taught you that position, wench? ;-)]

It should be noted that it may take practice to perform the initial sitting... If you can at all manage it, squatting first and bringing one leg forward is best, but you can also start from a kneeling position and lean to first one side and bring one leg forward (the one opposite the lean) and then the other. You then have several options:

   1. She leans forward and back, rocking up and down on his hard cock
   2. He thrusts up with his pelvis (there is a LOT more play when she's in this position than you might imagine, boys! :)
   3. If she's been doing her kegels she can rythmically grasp the man's penis with her pussy (a very subtle feeling...this one's very intense, especially if you both are very connected on levels other than just physical. :)

The man can easily play with her nipples and clit in this position, making for a fine show... ;-)

Also note that this position works if she's facing toward your feet as well...and presents a very pretty view, though you can't have as much fun with her errogenous zones in this variant. You also miss out on some WONDERFUL facial expressions (which to me are a MAJOR turn on...:)

(end repost)

BTW, I can't say enough about feminine superior...but even Teighlor required a great deal of convincing regarding the safety of it when the woman is very large.

Here are several tips on getting very large women to sit in your lap and coo loudly:

The Couch Method: This one has turned up in fat porn films a few times, and yes, I stole it from there: What else are fat porn films good for if you can't liven up your own sex life? :) Seriously, I've tried it, and it works great form women who are too large bellied or have knees that can bend, but don't like being kneeled on. The man sits on a couch (or a VERY sturdy, preferably armless chair!) and she sits down on him, Essentially she keeps "changing her mind", or supports herself by holding the back of the couch, and he "helps" by lifting up into her.

Weight Benchs: This can also be done using any low, flat, narrow STURDY bench. He lays on the bench, she straddles him and the bench. Now, the reason weight benches are popular to use this way is that most of them can be adjusted, whereas she can't. Also, I apologise if I offend people by stressing the word STURDY, but neither of you would enjoy it much if you broke something and injured one or both of you. Remember, when one is having sex you can forget how, er, vigorous you can get. Even skinny people can shred furniture that normally could support both your weights...just think about it. Note: I once managed this on a chaise lounge and, of all things, an ottoman. YMMV.

Southward Bound: This is a normal, she gets on top of you and straddles on her hands and knees position...only she faces your feet. I make mention of this above with the sitting position, but didn't say that this will allow those women you have good knees but a very large stomach that makes this difficult normally to ride his penis while her stomach lies between his legs.

BTW, the above tips can also work for straddling a face instead of a dick. This can require a LOT of practice (particularly for those people with limited ability to hold their breath), but it can be done. I should also note that I have done the above with women 450-600+ pounds, and my pelvis and back are fine, thank you. You may discover that some people have to keep moving inthis position to be comfortable...sometimes, after coming with a woman on top, I realize that she is now resting in a position that is less than comfortable. Just make sure there is plenty of room on the bed (floor? Carpet? :) for her to safely roll to one side quickly if either of you gets nervous or uncomfortable.

Finally, there's good old "doggy" style. A dumb name, if you've ever seen dogs have sex -- but I digress...

There have been no women that I have EVER had sex with who haven't been able to do this position, and despite propaganda to the contrary this position can be EXTREMELY pleasurable to a lot of women. That because if you get the angle right you can nail her g-spot, which (from this position) would be toward the front of her vaginal canal. The more flexible men can always reach down and play with her asshole and clit (ask, guys...not all women like assplay!). You can also, like earlier position, straddle her ass and waist (STRETCH!) and have her lie flat if she can't stay on her knees for very long.

(note: since I posted this article "live" I received one response from a woman who claimed to have a butt large enough to preclude rear entry. However, it's possible she was putting us on. :-)

One last comment...you ARE playing safe, aren't you? ;-)

[ Parent ]

Jesus Christ (none / 0) (#537)
by HollyHopDrive on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:45:31 AM EST

How much spare time do you HAVE, you sad man? Wow, having your own lame insults thrown back at you really hurts you, doesn't it? If I had any doubt you were an overweight loser before, they've gone. You must be, because nobody without body hang-ups would respond this much to someone in cyberspace calling them fat.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

ns (none / 1) (#562)
by I Mod Everything Up But Kitten on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 02:09:18 PM EST

Yohannon's List of Fat Sexual Positions

Well, to start there's the missionary position. Yes, I hear the groans already: But some of my favorite sexual experiences happen in this position. True, it was because we were both really into each other (no puns!) and cared about each other deeply, but done correctly there are several variants that breath life into this old chestnut, even if you thought you couldn't do it previously.

For example, I've heard from a lot of fat women with very large or hanging bellies that they thought that they couldn't perform this position. Well, if you place your butt on several cushions (this may require some experimentation. I think I mentioned that I like to experiment previously...you should too. ;-) this will lift you up enough so that your partener can kneel between your legs. If you're at the "right" height (this can vary depending on what angles feel comfortable for the two of you) he can insert his penis into your vagina fairly easily while holding on to you by the hips or whatever folds are accessible...and don't hurt when grasped in ecstacy. :) Note that this will also angle you back so that the woman body leans back. This will allow the stomach to lift up and away from her pussy, eliminating a lot of difficulty in entering.

The only drawback with this position is with women with extremely heavy thighs. For example Teighlor (oooh, I'm such a name dropper! :) actually doesn't have that big a stomach proportionate to the rest of her (extremely sexy!) body, but the size of her thighs makes this position difficult. However, if the man isn't too large himself he can literally work himself between them carefully to acheive penetration.

Quick aside: If the man can't get close enough to her to penetrate her in this situation, try some penis to clit stimulation. I find it to be a very pleasant feeling, and most women that I've tried it with enjoy it as well. Be careful not to be too energetic about that, tho'...you don't want to break a rubber!

Now, there's a variant on the missionary that I really like. A lot. And it even can work with women with very large thighs. But before I tell you about it, here's a tip: How many of you think to STRETCH before having sex? Yes, BOTH of you. Do you know how many times that I, or someone I'm with, has had a cramp...sometimes really intense, maybe this wasn't a good idea, why don't we watch lettermen instead kind of cramp? Please try to remember, sex is STRENOUS excercise. You both should be fit, and try to stretch a little first. If you do it right and help each other with it, it can be a form of foreplay. ;-)

Here's why I'm stressing stretching: The modified missionary starts out with him between her legs, and inserting. Then she brings her legs flat, and he swings one leg over one of her so that it's around her waist. She brings that leg toward the other one, and he swings his other leg over so that he's now straddling her, her legs closed around his hard penis.

Yes, this is possible. And yes, you can get some pretty good penetration with this. It requires a bit of practice not to pull out while geting it right, but one in place he can pump away with some very nice clitoral stimulation. If you do it just right this seems like it was the position people were MEANT to have sex in, as you both can see each others faces, play with each others nipples, and generally have a great time. If the man is feeling particularly mean he can reach down and put more pressure on her clit, which can produce some interesting results. ;-)

Now, the thing here is that a large woman requires that the man STRETCH his legs to get them around her legs (see why I think stretching is important?). I've managed it on women up to 600 pounds, but I suspect there are times it might not work. Don't get upset about it...I'm sure that some of the other positions will.

Now, oral sex on a fat woman can be a challenge if she's very large. There are several techniques that permit a man easy access to her clit with his tongue (as well as other sensitive areas that produce the most exciting noises from her throat!) while allowing him to breathe easily. First, use lots of pillows (pillows are your friends -- stock a variety sizes of firm, wide pillows and you will never run out of configurations you can try!) like you did in the missionary position, and you'll have less of a problem with large bellies. If she's been doing HER stretching excercises, you'll be able to get her legs spread. If she has difficulty with this, you can also just bend them at the knees and lift them toward her head. Again only the woman with extrememly large legs or other difficulties will this not allow you to slowly circle your tongue around her clit, perhaps teasing first by nibbling the inner thigh lightly with your lips.

If she has leg problems, or just big thighs, then place the pillow and approach the problem from the other direction...literally. lay to her side with your feet towards her head, and tongue her "upside down". While this position is like a 69, I tend to prefer it without her giving a concerted effort to get me off. Why? Well, for one thing I like to pay attention to what I'm doing, and I want her to relax and ENJOY it. I've only met two women who didn't like oral sex, and neither of those worked out. :)

BTW, if there are some people that simply can't perform a 69 on you, at least not while you're eating them...don't get hung up on it. 69's are incredibly over-rated as anything other than a form of sexplay (I have only managed to simultaneously come with someone that way once, and let me tell you I was surprised! :).

Now, if you're feeling very adventurous and there's nothing wrong with her knees, then try it with her on top. YMMV big time: Some people, again, either don't feel right when they're on top of me, or the positioning is awkward. Some people, however, fit perfectly like this even if I had trouble eating them when they were underneath...flesh changes position radically when you switch things around like that.

Now, back to insertion -- a great position that virtually gaurantees deep penetration is with her laying on one the side. This one has SEVERAL variations -- my personal favorite is this. She lies on her side (yes, the direction she faces can make a difference, so try both...don't ask me why, I really don't know. Some of you may not notice a difference). She lays down, with the lower leg extended straight, and she brings the upper leg toward her chest. He straddles the lower leg, nestles up and penetrates. Now, she can either point that upper leg's knee down and pull it up to her chest as far as it can go (he can help!) or she can lean so her back is twisitng toward the ground, and that knee is now in the air (unless she has thighs of steel he'll HAVE to help, though I've known women who can actually point that leg straight into the air with only minor assistance). If you can get this far the advantages of this position become VERY obvious.

Now, for the sake of completeness here's a repost of something I just discussed with Linda, one of my other lovers, in this newsgroup:

(begin repost)

Try the Woman on top but have her sit instead of kneeling. Easier on her knees and spreads her weight out better over your pelvis area (a very strong muscler area) and allows for very deep penetration.

[Hey! Who taught you that position, wench? ;-)]

It should be noted that it may take practice to perform the initial sitting... If you can at all manage it, squatting first and bringing one leg forward is best, but you can also start from a kneeling position and lean to first one side and bring one leg forward (the one opposite the lean) and then the other. You then have several options:

   1. She leans forward and back, rocking up and down on his hard cock
   2. He thrusts up with his pelvis (there is a LOT more play when she's in this position than you might imagine, boys! :)
   3. If she's been doing her kegels she can rythmically grasp the man's penis with her pussy (a very subtle feeling...this one's very intense, especially if you both are very connected on levels other than just physical. :)

The man can easily play with her nipples and clit in this position, making for a fine show... ;-)

Also note that this position works if she's facing toward your feet as well...and presents a very pretty view, though you can't have as much fun with her errogenous zones in this variant. You also miss out on some WONDERFUL facial expressions (which to me are a MAJOR turn on...:)

(end repost)

BTW, I can't say enough about feminine superior...but even Teighlor required a great deal of convincing regarding the safety of it when the woman is very large.

Here are several tips on getting very large women to sit in your lap and coo loudly:

The Couch Method: This one has turned up in fat porn films a few times, and yes, I stole it from there: What else are fat porn films good for if you can't liven up your own sex life? :) Seriously, I've tried it, and it works great form women who are too large bellied or have knees that can bend, but don't like being kneeled on. The man sits on a couch (or a VERY sturdy, preferably armless chair!) and she sits down on him, Essentially she keeps "changing her mind", or supports herself by holding the back of the couch, and he "helps" by lifting up into her.

Weight Benchs: This can also be done using any low, flat, narrow STURDY bench. He lays on the bench, she straddles him and the bench. Now, the reason weight benches are popular to use this way is that most of them can be adjusted, whereas she can't. Also, I apologise if I offend people by stressing the word STURDY, but neither of you would enjoy it much if you broke something and injured one or both of you. Remember, when one is having sex you can forget how, er, vigorous you can get. Even skinny people can shred furniture that normally could support both your weights...just think about it. Note: I once managed this on a chaise lounge and, of all things, an ottoman. YMMV.

Southward Bound: This is a normal, she gets on top of you and straddles on her hands and knees position...only she faces your feet. I make mention of this above with the sitting position, but didn't say that this will allow those women you have good knees but a very large stomach that makes this difficult normally to ride his penis while her stomach lies between his legs.

BTW, the above tips can also work for straddling a face instead of a dick. This can require a LOT of practice (particularly for those people with limited ability to hold their breath), but it can be done. I should also note that I have done the above with women 450-600+ pounds, and my pelvis and back are fine, thank you. You may discover that some people have to keep moving inthis position to be comfortable...sometimes, after coming with a woman on top, I realize that she is now resting in a position that is less than comfortable. Just make sure there is plenty of room on the bed (floor? Carpet? :) for her to safely roll to one side quickly if either of you gets nervous or uncomfortable.

Finally, there's good old "doggy" style. A dumb name, if you've ever seen dogs have sex -- but I digress...

There have been no women that I have EVER had sex with who haven't been able to do this position, and despite propaganda to the contrary this position can be EXTREMELY pleasurable to a lot of women. That because if you get the angle right you can nail her g-spot, which (from this position) would be toward the front of her vaginal canal. The more flexible men can always reach down and play with her asshole and clit (ask, guys...not all women like assplay!). You can also, like earlier position, straddle her ass and waist (STRETCH!) and have her lie flat if she can't stay on her knees for very long.

(note: since I posted this article "live" I received one response from a woman who claimed to have a butt large enough to preclude rear entry. However, it's possible she was putting us on. :-)

One last comment...you ARE playing safe, aren't you? ;-)

[ Parent ]

Wow (none / 0) (#607)
by HollyHopDrive on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 09:41:54 AM EST

Originally, I threw your "you're fat" insult back at you to show you just how lame it was. But it clearly got you very hot and bothered because now you can't stop making endless posts, modbombing me and generally doing all those things nobody with a job and a normal weight would have the emotional energy for.

I do like proving that shitty, stupid trolls are the easiest people to wind up and anger. Thanks for demonstrating.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

ns (none / 1) (#611)
by I Mod Everything Up But Kitten on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 10:00:48 AM EST

Yohannon's List of Fat Sexual Positions

Well, to start there's the missionary position. Yes, I hear the groans already: But some of my favorite sexual experiences happen in this position. True, it was because we were both really into each other (no puns!) and cared about each other deeply, but done correctly there are several variants that breath life into this old chestnut, even if you thought you couldn't do it previously.

For example, I've heard from a lot of fat women with very large or hanging bellies that they thought that they couldn't perform this position. Well, if you place your butt on several cushions (this may require some experimentation. I think I mentioned that I like to experiment previously...you should too. ;-) this will lift you up enough so that your partener can kneel between your legs. If you're at the "right" height (this can vary depending on what angles feel comfortable for the two of you) he can insert his penis into your vagina fairly easily while holding on to you by the hips or whatever folds are accessible...and don't hurt when grasped in ecstacy. :) Note that this will also angle you back so that the woman body leans back. This will allow the stomach to lift up and away from her pussy, eliminating a lot of difficulty in entering.

The only drawback with this position is with women with extremely heavy thighs. For example Teighlor (oooh, I'm such a name dropper! :) actually doesn't have that big a stomach proportionate to the rest of her (extremely sexy!) body, but the size of her thighs makes this position difficult. However, if the man isn't too large himself he can literally work himself between them carefully to acheive penetration.

Quick aside: If the man can't get close enough to her to penetrate her in this situation, try some penis to clit stimulation. I find it to be a very pleasant feeling, and most women that I've tried it with enjoy it as well. Be careful not to be too energetic about that, tho'...you don't want to break a rubber!

Now, there's a variant on the missionary that I really like. A lot. And it even can work with women with very large thighs. But before I tell you about it, here's a tip: How many of you think to STRETCH before having sex? Yes, BOTH of you. Do you know how many times that I, or someone I'm with, has had a cramp...sometimes really intense, maybe this wasn't a good idea, why don't we watch lettermen instead kind of cramp? Please try to remember, sex is STRENOUS excercise. You both should be fit, and try to stretch a little first. If you do it right and help each other with it, it can be a form of foreplay. ;-)

Here's why I'm stressing stretching: The modified missionary starts out with him between her legs, and inserting. Then she brings her legs flat, and he swings one leg over one of her so that it's around her waist. She brings that leg toward the other one, and he swings his other leg over so that he's now straddling her, her legs closed around his hard penis.

Yes, this is possible. And yes, you can get some pretty good penetration with this. It requires a bit of practice not to pull out while geting it right, but one in place he can pump away with some very nice clitoral stimulation. If you do it just right this seems like it was the position people were MEANT to have sex in, as you both can see each others faces, play with each others nipples, and generally have a great time. If the man is feeling particularly mean he can reach down and put more pressure on her clit, which can produce some interesting results. ;-)

Now, the thing here is that a large woman requires that the man STRETCH his legs to get them around her legs (see why I think stretching is important?). I've managed it on women up to 600 pounds, but I suspect there are times it might not work. Don't get upset about it...I'm sure that some of the other positions will.

Now, oral sex on a fat woman can be a challenge if she's very large. There are several techniques that permit a man easy access to her clit with his tongue (as well as other sensitive areas that produce the most exciting noises from her throat!) while allowing him to breathe easily. First, use lots of pillows (pillows are your friends -- stock a variety sizes of firm, wide pillows and you will never run out of configurations you can try!) like you did in the missionary position, and you'll have less of a problem with large bellies. If she's been doing HER stretching excercises, you'll be able to get her legs spread. If she has difficulty with this, you can also just bend them at the knees and lift them toward her head. Again only the woman with extrememly large legs or other difficulties will this not allow you to slowly circle your tongue around her clit, perhaps teasing first by nibbling the inner thigh lightly with your lips.

If she has leg problems, or just big thighs, then place the pillow and approach the problem from the other direction...literally. lay to her side with your feet towards her head, and tongue her "upside down". While this position is like a 69, I tend to prefer it without her giving a concerted effort to get me off. Why? Well, for one thing I like to pay attention to what I'm doing, and I want her to relax and ENJOY it. I've only met two women who didn't like oral sex, and neither of those worked out. :)

BTW, if there are some people that simply can't perform a 69 on you, at least not while you're eating them...don't get hung up on it. 69's are incredibly over-rated as anything other than a form of sexplay (I have only managed to simultaneously come with someone that way once, and let me tell you I was surprised! :).

Now, if you're feeling very adventurous and there's nothing wrong with her knees, then try it with her on top. YMMV big time: Some people, again, either don't feel right when they're on top of me, or the positioning is awkward. Some people, however, fit perfectly like this even if I had trouble eating them when they were underneath...flesh changes position radically when you switch things around like that.

Now, back to insertion -- a great position that virtually gaurantees deep penetration is with her laying on one the side. This one has SEVERAL variations -- my personal favorite is this. She lies on her side (yes, the direction she faces can make a difference, so try both...don't ask me why, I really don't know. Some of you may not notice a difference). She lays down, with the lower leg extended straight, and she brings the upper leg toward her chest. He straddles the lower leg, nestles up and penetrates. Now, she can either point that upper leg's knee down and pull it up to her chest as far as it can go (he can help!) or she can lean so her back is twisitng toward the ground, and that knee is now in the air (unless she has thighs of steel he'll HAVE to help, though I've known women who can actually point that leg straight into the air with only minor assistance). If you can get this far the advantages of this position become VERY obvious.

Now, for the sake of completeness here's a repost of something I just discussed with Linda, one of my other lovers, in this newsgroup:

(begin repost)

Try the Woman on top but have her sit instead of kneeling. Easier on her knees and spreads her weight out better over your pelvis area (a very strong muscler area) and allows for very deep penetration.

[Hey! Who taught you that position, wench? ;-)]

It should be noted that it may take practice to perform the initial sitting... If you can at all manage it, squatting first and bringing one leg forward is best, but you can also start from a kneeling position and lean to first one side and bring one leg forward (the one opposite the lean) and then the other. You then have several options:

   1. She leans forward and back, rocking up and down on his hard cock
   2. He thrusts up with his pelvis (there is a LOT more play when she's in this position than you might imagine, boys! :)
   3. If she's been doing her kegels she can rythmically grasp the man's penis with her pussy (a very subtle feeling...this one's very intense, especially if you both are very connected on levels other than just physical. :)

The man can easily play with her nipples and clit in this position, making for a fine show... ;-)

Also note that this position works if she's facing toward your feet as well...and presents a very pretty view, though you can't have as much fun with her errogenous zones in this variant. You also miss out on some WONDERFUL facial expressions (which to me are a MAJOR turn on...:)

(end repost)

BTW, I can't say enough about feminine superior...but even Teighlor required a great deal of convincing regarding the safety of it when the woman is very large.

Here are several tips on getting very large women to sit in your lap and coo loudly:

The Couch Method: This one has turned up in fat porn films a few times, and yes, I stole it from there: What else are fat porn films good for if you can't liven up your own sex life? :) Seriously, I've tried it, and it works great form women who are too large bellied or have knees that can bend, but don't like being kneeled on. The man sits on a couch (or a VERY sturdy, preferably armless chair!) and she sits down on him, Essentially she keeps "changing her mind", or supports herself by holding the back of the couch, and he "helps" by lifting up into her.

Weight Benchs: This can also be done using any low, flat, narrow STURDY bench. He lays on the bench, she straddles him and the bench. Now, the reason weight benches are popular to use this way is that most of them can be adjusted, whereas she can't. Also, I apologise if I offend people by stressing the word STURDY, but neither of you would enjoy it much if you broke something and injured one or both of you. Remember, when one is having sex you can forget how, er, vigorous you can get. Even skinny people can shred furniture that normally could support both your weights...just think about it. Note: I once managed this on a chaise lounge and, of all things, an ottoman. YMMV.

Southward Bound: This is a normal, she gets on top of you and straddles on her hands and knees position...only she faces your feet. I make mention of this above with the sitting position, but didn't say that this will allow those women you have good knees but a very large stomach that makes this difficult normally to ride his penis while her stomach lies between his legs.

BTW, the above tips can also work for straddling a face instead of a dick. This can require a LOT of practice (particularly for those people with limited ability to hold their breath), but it can be done. I should also note that I have done the above with women 450-600+ pounds, and my pelvis and back are fine, thank you. You may discover that some people have to keep moving inthis position to be comfortable...sometimes, after coming with a woman on top, I realize that she is now resting in a position that is less than comfortable. Just make sure there is plenty of room on the bed (floor? Carpet? :) for her to safely roll to one side quickly if either of you gets nervous or uncomfortable.

Finally, there's good old "doggy" style. A dumb name, if you've ever seen dogs have sex -- but I digress...

There have been no women that I have EVER had sex with who haven't been able to do this position, and despite propaganda to the contrary this position can be EXTREMELY pleasurable to a lot of women. That because if you get the angle right you can nail her g-spot, which (from this position) would be toward the front of her vaginal canal. The more flexible men can always reach down and play with her asshole and clit (ask, guys...not all women like assplay!). You can also, like earlier position, straddle her ass and waist (STRETCH!) and have her lie flat if she can't stay on her knees for very long.

(note: since I posted this article "live" I received one response from a woman who claimed to have a butt large enough to preclude rear entry. However, it's possible she was putting us on. :-)

One last comment...you ARE playing safe, aren't you? ;-)

[ Parent ]

What an angry little man you are. (none / 0) (#613)
by HollyHopDrive on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 10:05:13 AM EST


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

ns (none / 1) (#615)
by I Mod Everything Up But Kitten on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 10:10:35 AM EST

Yohannon's List of Fat Sexual Positions

Well, to start there's the missionary position. Yes, I hear the groans already: But some of my favorite sexual experiences happen in this position. True, it was because we were both really into each other (no puns!) and cared about each other deeply, but done correctly there are several variants that breath life into this old chestnut, even if you thought you couldn't do it previously.

For example, I've heard from a lot of fat women with very large or hanging bellies that they thought that they couldn't perform this position. Well, if you place your butt on several cushions (this may require some experimentation. I think I mentioned that I like to experiment previously...you should too. ;-) this will lift you up enough so that your partener can kneel between your legs. If you're at the "right" height (this can vary depending on what angles feel comfortable for the two of you) he can insert his penis into your vagina fairly easily while holding on to you by the hips or whatever folds are accessible...and don't hurt when grasped in ecstacy. :) Note that this will also angle you back so that the woman body leans back. This will allow the stomach to lift up and away from her pussy, eliminating a lot of difficulty in entering.

The only drawback with this position is with women with extremely heavy thighs. For example Teighlor (oooh, I'm such a name dropper! :) actually doesn't have that big a stomach proportionate to the rest of her (extremely sexy!) body, but the size of her thighs makes this position difficult. However, if the man isn't too large himself he can literally work himself between them carefully to acheive penetration.

Quick aside: If the man can't get close enough to her to penetrate her in this situation, try some penis to clit stimulation. I find it to be a very pleasant feeling, and most women that I've tried it with enjoy it as well. Be careful not to be too energetic about that, tho'...you don't want to break a rubber!

Now, there's a variant on the missionary that I really like. A lot. And it even can work with women with very large thighs. But before I tell you about it, here's a tip: How many of you think to STRETCH before having sex? Yes, BOTH of you. Do you know how many times that I, or someone I'm with, has had a cramp...sometimes really intense, maybe this wasn't a good idea, why don't we watch lettermen instead kind of cramp? Please try to remember, sex is STRENOUS excercise. You both should be fit, and try to stretch a little first. If you do it right and help each other with it, it can be a form of foreplay. ;-)

Here's why I'm stressing stretching: The modified missionary starts out with him between her legs, and inserting. Then she brings her legs flat, and he swings one leg over one of her so that it's around her waist. She brings that leg toward the other one, and he swings his other leg over so that he's now straddling her, her legs closed around his hard penis.

Yes, this is possible. And yes, you can get some pretty good penetration with this. It requires a bit of practice not to pull out while geting it right, but one in place he can pump away with some very nice clitoral stimulation. If you do it just right this seems like it was the position people were MEANT to have sex in, as you both can see each others faces, play with each others nipples, and generally have a great time. If the man is feeling particularly mean he can reach down and put more pressure on her clit, which can produce some interesting results. ;-)

Now, the thing here is that a large woman requires that the man STRETCH his legs to get them around her legs (see why I think stretching is important?). I've managed it on women up to 600 pounds, but I suspect there are times it might not work. Don't get upset about it...I'm sure that some of the other positions will.

Now, oral sex on a fat woman can be a challenge if she's very large. There are several techniques that permit a man easy access to her clit with his tongue (as well as other sensitive areas that produce the most exciting noises from her throat!) while allowing him to breathe easily. First, use lots of pillows (pillows are your friends -- stock a variety sizes of firm, wide pillows and you will never run out of configurations you can try!) like you did in the missionary position, and you'll have less of a problem with large bellies. If she's been doing HER stretching excercises, you'll be able to get her legs spread. If she has difficulty with this, you can also just bend them at the knees and lift them toward her head. Again only the woman with extrememly large legs or other difficulties will this not allow you to slowly circle your tongue around her clit, perhaps teasing first by nibbling the inner thigh lightly with your lips.

If she has leg problems, or just big thighs, then place the pillow and approach the problem from the other direction...literally. lay to her side with your feet towards her head, and tongue her "upside down". While this position is like a 69, I tend to prefer it without her giving a concerted effort to get me off. Why? Well, for one thing I like to pay attention to what I'm doing, and I want her to relax and ENJOY it. I've only met two women who didn't like oral sex, and neither of those worked out. :)

BTW, if there are some people that simply can't perform a 69 on you, at least not while you're eating them...don't get hung up on it. 69's are incredibly over-rated as anything other than a form of sexplay (I have only managed to simultaneously come with someone that way once, and let me tell you I was surprised! :).

Now, if you're feeling very adventurous and there's nothing wrong with her knees, then try it with her on top. YMMV big time: Some people, again, either don't feel right when they're on top of me, or the positioning is awkward. Some people, however, fit perfectly like this even if I had trouble eating them when they were underneath...flesh changes position radically when you switch things around like that.

Now, back to insertion -- a great position that virtually gaurantees deep penetration is with her laying on one the side. This one has SEVERAL variations -- my personal favorite is this. She lies on her side (yes, the direction she faces can make a difference, so try both...don't ask me why, I really don't know. Some of you may not notice a difference). She lays down, with the lower leg extended straight, and she brings the upper leg toward her chest. He straddles the lower leg, nestles up and penetrates. Now, she can either point that upper leg's knee down and pull it up to her chest as far as it can go (he can help!) or she can lean so her back is twisitng toward the ground, and that knee is now in the air (unless she has thighs of steel he'll HAVE to help, though I've known women who can actually point that leg straight into the air with only minor assistance). If you can get this far the advantages of this position become VERY obvious.

Now, for the sake of completeness here's a repost of something I just discussed with Linda, one of my other lovers, in this newsgroup:

(begin repost)

Try the Woman on top but have her sit instead of kneeling. Easier on her knees and spreads her weight out better over your pelvis area (a very strong muscler area) and allows for very deep penetration.

[Hey! Who taught you that position, wench? ;-)]

It should be noted that it may take practice to perform the initial sitting... If you can at all manage it, squatting first and bringing one leg forward is best, but you can also start from a kneeling position and lean to first one side and bring one leg forward (the one opposite the lean) and then the other. You then have several options:

   1. She leans forward and back, rocking up and down on his hard cock
   2. He thrusts up with his pelvis (there is a LOT more play when she's in this position than you might imagine, boys! :)
   3. If she's been doing her kegels she can rythmically grasp the man's penis with her pussy (a very subtle feeling...this one's very intense, especially if you both are very connected on levels other than just physical. :)

The man can easily play with her nipples and clit in this position, making for a fine show... ;-)

Also note that this position works if she's facing toward your feet as well...and presents a very pretty view, though you can't have as much fun with her errogenous zones in this variant. You also miss out on some WONDERFUL facial expressions (which to me are a MAJOR turn on...:)

(end repost)

BTW, I can't say enough about feminine superior...but even Teighlor required a great deal of convincing regarding the safety of it when the woman is very large.

Here are several tips on getting very large women to sit in your lap and coo loudly:

The Couch Method: This one has turned up in fat porn films a few times, and yes, I stole it from there: What else are fat porn films good for if you can't liven up your own sex life? :) Seriously, I've tried it, and it works great form women who are too large bellied or have knees that can bend, but don't like being kneeled on. The man sits on a couch (or a VERY sturdy, preferably armless chair!) and she sits down on him, Essentially she keeps "changing her mind", or supports herself by holding the back of the couch, and he "helps" by lifting up into her.

Weight Benchs: This can also be done using any low, flat, narrow STURDY bench. He lays on the bench, she straddles him and the bench. Now, the reason weight benches are popular to use this way is that most of them can be adjusted, whereas she can't. Also, I apologise if I offend people by stressing the word STURDY, but neither of you would enjoy it much if you broke something and injured one or both of you. Remember, when one is having sex you can forget how, er, vigorous you can get. Even skinny people can shred furniture that normally could support both your weights...just think about it. Note: I once managed this on a chaise lounge and, of all things, an ottoman. YMMV.

Southward Bound: This is a normal, she gets on top of you and straddles on her hands and knees position...only she faces your feet. I make mention of this above with the sitting position, but didn't say that this will allow those women you have good knees but a very large stomach that makes this difficult normally to ride his penis while her stomach lies between his legs.

BTW, the above tips can also work for straddling a face instead of a dick. This can require a LOT of practice (particularly for those people with limited ability to hold their breath), but it can be done. I should also note that I have done the above with women 450-600+ pounds, and my pelvis and back are fine, thank you. You may discover that some people have to keep moving inthis position to be comfortable...sometimes, after coming with a woman on top, I realize that she is now resting in a position that is less than comfortable. Just make sure there is plenty of room on the bed (floor? Carpet? :) for her to safely roll to one side quickly if either of you gets nervous or uncomfortable.

Finally, there's good old "doggy" style. A dumb name, if you've ever seen dogs have sex -- but I digress...

There have been no women that I have EVER had sex with who haven't been able to do this position, and despite propaganda to the contrary this position can be EXTREMELY pleasurable to a lot of women. That because if you get the angle right you can nail her g-spot, which (from this position) would be toward the front of her vaginal canal. The more flexible men can always reach down and play with her asshole and clit (ask, guys...not all women like assplay!). You can also, like earlier position, straddle her ass and waist (STRETCH!) and have her lie flat if she can't stay on her knees for very long.

(note: since I posted this article "live" I received one response from a woman who claimed to have a butt large enough to preclude rear entry. However, it's possible she was putting us on. :-)

One last comment...you ARE playing safe, aren't you? ;-)

[ Parent ]

I'd love to watch you embarrass yourself further (none / 0) (#624)
by HollyHopDrive on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 10:33:34 AM EST

but I've got a show to see now, and then a plane to catch. Ta-ta.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

ns (none / 1) (#625)
by I Mod Everything Up But Kitten on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 10:33:53 AM EST

Yohannon's List of Fat Sexual Positions

Well, to start there's the missionary position. Yes, I hear the groans already: But some of my favorite sexual experiences happen in this position. True, it was because we were both really into each other (no puns!) and cared about each other deeply, but done correctly there are several variants that breath life into this old chestnut, even if you thought you couldn't do it previously.

For example, I've heard from a lot of fat women with very large or hanging bellies that they thought that they couldn't perform this position. Well, if you place your butt on several cushions (this may require some experimentation. I think I mentioned that I like to experiment previously...you should too. ;-) this will lift you up enough so that your partener can kneel between your legs. If you're at the "right" height (this can vary depending on what angles feel comfortable for the two of you) he can insert his penis into your vagina fairly easily while holding on to you by the hips or whatever folds are accessible...and don't hurt when grasped in ecstacy. :) Note that this will also angle you back so that the woman body leans back. This will allow the stomach to lift up and away from her pussy, eliminating a lot of difficulty in entering.

The only drawback with this position is with women with extremely heavy thighs. For example Teighlor (oooh, I'm such a name dropper! :) actually doesn't have that big a stomach proportionate to the rest of her (extremely sexy!) body, but the size of her thighs makes this position difficult. However, if the man isn't too large himself he can literally work himself between them carefully to acheive penetration.

Quick aside: If the man can't get close enough to her to penetrate her in this situation, try some penis to clit stimulation. I find it to be a very pleasant feeling, and most women that I've tried it with enjoy it as well. Be careful not to be too energetic about that, tho'...you don't want to break a rubber!

Now, there's a variant on the missionary that I really like. A lot. And it even can work with women with very large thighs. But before I tell you about it, here's a tip: How many of you think to STRETCH before having sex? Yes, BOTH of you. Do you know how many times that I, or someone I'm with, has had a cramp...sometimes really intense, maybe this wasn't a good idea, why don't we watch lettermen instead kind of cramp? Please try to remember, sex is STRENOUS excercise. You both should be fit, and try to stretch a little first. If you do it right and help each other with it, it can be a form of foreplay. ;-)

Here's why I'm stressing stretching: The modified missionary starts out with him between her legs, and inserting. Then she brings her legs flat, and he swings one leg over one of her so that it's around her waist. She brings that leg toward the other one, and he swings his other leg over so that he's now straddling her, her legs closed around his hard penis.

Yes, this is possible. And yes, you can get some pretty good penetration with this. It requires a bit of practice not to pull out while geting it right, but one in place he can pump away with some very nice clitoral stimulation. If you do it just right this seems like it was the position people were MEANT to have sex in, as you both can see each others faces, play with each others nipples, and generally have a great time. If the man is feeling particularly mean he can reach down and put more pressure on her clit, which can produce some interesting results. ;-)

Now, the thing here is that a large woman requires that the man STRETCH his legs to get them around her legs (see why I think stretching is important?). I've managed it on women up to 600 pounds, but I suspect there are times it might not work. Don't get upset about it...I'm sure that some of the other positions will.

Now, oral sex on a fat woman can be a challenge if she's very large. There are several techniques that permit a man easy access to her clit with his tongue (as well as other sensitive areas that produce the most exciting noises from her throat!) while allowing him to breathe easily. First, use lots of pillows (pillows are your friends -- stock a variety sizes of firm, wide pillows and you will never run out of configurations you can try!) like you did in the missionary position, and you'll have less of a problem with large bellies. If she's been doing HER stretching excercises, you'll be able to get her legs spread. If she has difficulty with this, you can also just bend them at the knees and lift them toward her head. Again only the woman with extrememly large legs or other difficulties will this not allow you to slowly circle your tongue around her clit, perhaps teasing first by nibbling the inner thigh lightly with your lips.

If she has leg problems, or just big thighs, then place the pillow and approach the problem from the other direction...literally. lay to her side with your feet towards her head, and tongue her "upside down". While this position is like a 69, I tend to prefer it without her giving a concerted effort to get me off. Why? Well, for one thing I like to pay attention to what I'm doing, and I want her to relax and ENJOY it. I've only met two women who didn't like oral sex, and neither of those worked out. :)

BTW, if there are some people that simply can't perform a 69 on you, at least not while you're eating them...don't get hung up on it. 69's are incredibly over-rated as anything other than a form of sexplay (I have only managed to simultaneously come with someone that way once, and let me tell you I was surprised! :).

Now, if you're feeling very adventurous and there's nothing wrong with her knees, then try it with her on top. YMMV big time: Some people, again, either don't feel right when they're on top of me, or the positioning is awkward. Some people, however, fit perfectly like this even if I had trouble eating them when they were underneath...flesh changes position radically when you switch things around like that.

Now, back to insertion -- a great position that virtually gaurantees deep penetration is with her laying on one the side. This one has SEVERAL variations -- my personal favorite is this. She lies on her side (yes, the direction she faces can make a difference, so try both...don't ask me why, I really don't know. Some of you may not notice a difference). She lays down, with the lower leg extended straight, and she brings the upper leg toward her chest. He straddles the lower leg, nestles up and penetrates. Now, she can either point that upper leg's knee down and pull it up to her chest as far as it can go (he can help!) or she can lean so her back is twisitng toward the ground, and that knee is now in the air (unless she has thighs of steel he'll HAVE to help, though I've known women who can actually point that leg straight into the air with only minor assistance). If you can get this far the advantages of this position become VERY obvious.

Now, for the sake of completeness here's a repost of something I just discussed with Linda, one of my other lovers, in this newsgroup:

(begin repost)

Try the Woman on top but have her sit instead of kneeling. Easier on her knees and spreads her weight out better over your pelvis area (a very strong muscler area) and allows for very deep penetration.

[Hey! Who taught you that position, wench? ;-)]

It should be noted that it may take practice to perform the initial sitting... If you can at all manage it, squatting first and bringing one leg forward is best, but you can also start from a kneeling position and lean to first one side and bring one leg forward (the one opposite the lean) and then the other. You then have several options:

   1. She leans forward and back, rocking up and down on his hard cock
   2. He thrusts up with his pelvis (there is a LOT more play when she's in this position than you might imagine, boys! :)
   3. If she's been doing her kegels she can rythmically grasp the man's penis with her pussy (a very subtle feeling...this one's very intense, especially if you both are very connected on levels other than just physical. :)

The man can easily play with her nipples and clit in this position, making for a fine show... ;-)

Also note that this position works if she's facing toward your feet as well...and presents a very pretty view, though you can't have as much fun with her errogenous zones in this variant. You also miss out on some WONDERFUL facial expressions (which to me are a MAJOR turn on...:)

(end repost)

BTW, I can't say enough about feminine superior...but even Teighlor required a great deal of convincing regarding the safety of it when the woman is very large.

Here are several tips on getting very large women to sit in your lap and coo loudly:

The Couch Method: This one has turned up in fat porn films a few times, and yes, I stole it from there: What else are fat porn films good for if you can't liven up your own sex life? :) Seriously, I've tried it, and it works great form women who are too large bellied or have knees that can bend, but don't like being kneeled on. The man sits on a couch (or a VERY sturdy, preferably armless chair!) and she sits down on him, Essentially she keeps "changing her mind", or supports herself by holding the back of the couch, and he "helps" by lifting up into her.

Weight Benchs: This can also be done using any low, flat, narrow STURDY bench. He lays on the bench, she straddles him and the bench. Now, the reason weight benches are popular to use this way is that most of them can be adjusted, whereas she can't. Also, I apologise if I offend people by stressing the word STURDY, but neither of you would enjoy it much if you broke something and injured one or both of you. Remember, when one is having sex you can forget how, er, vigorous you can get. Even skinny people can shred furniture that normally could support both your weights...just think about it. Note: I once managed this on a chaise lounge and, of all things, an ottoman. YMMV.

Southward Bound: This is a normal, she gets on top of you and straddles on her hands and knees position...only she faces your feet. I make mention of this above with the sitting position, but didn't say that this will allow those women you have good knees but a very large stomach that makes this difficult normally to ride his penis while her stomach lies between his legs.

BTW, the above tips can also work for straddling a face instead of a dick. This can require a LOT of practice (particularly for those people with limited ability to hold their breath), but it can be done. I should also note that I have done the above with women 450-600+ pounds, and my pelvis and back are fine, thank you. You may discover that some people have to keep moving inthis position to be comfortable...sometimes, after coming with a woman on top, I realize that she is now resting in a position that is less than comfortable. Just make sure there is plenty of room on the bed (floor? Carpet? :) for her to safely roll to one side quickly if either of you gets nervous or uncomfortable.

Finally, there's good old "doggy" style. A dumb name, if you've ever seen dogs have sex -- but I digress...

There have been no women that I have EVER had sex with who haven't been able to do this position, and despite propaganda to the contrary this position can be EXTREMELY pleasurable to a lot of women. That because if you get the angle right you can nail her g-spot, which (from this position) would be toward the front of her vaginal canal. The more flexible men can always reach down and play with her asshole and clit (ask, guys...not all women like assplay!). You can also, like earlier position, straddle her ass and waist (STRETCH!) and have her lie flat if she can't stay on her knees for very long.

(note: since I posted this article "live" I received one response from a woman who claimed to have a butt large enough to preclude rear entry. However, it's possible she was putting us on. :-)

One last comment...you ARE playing safe, aren't you? ;-)

[ Parent ]

omg (none / 0) (#441)
by kbudha on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 03:49:12 PM EST

You are way too uptight. Stick to a topic you know something about.

[ Parent ]
For the tiniest moment (none / 0) (#538)
by HollyHopDrive on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:46:57 AM EST

I was going to read your post. Then I saw it was by you and decided not to waste my time. Go defend a rapist somewhere or something, you prick.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

I like my women shaved... (none / 1) (#242)
by SoupIsGoodFood on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 08:19:19 AM EST

...down below.

[ Parent ]
Me too. (3.00 / 3) (#359)
by Entendre Entendre on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 02:34:56 AM EST

That is why I'm having my daughter surgically depilated at three weeks of age.

--
Reduce firearm violence: aim carefully.
[ Parent ]

But seriously... (none / 0) (#243)
by SoupIsGoodFood on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 08:22:52 AM EST

How much time do you really spend looking at your man's dick when it's not erect?

[ Parent ]
That is classified information! (none / 1) (#269)
by HollyHopDrive on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 04:51:46 PM EST

It's a personal preference. It's not a necessary requirement, and my loss if it were. My fella isn't circumcised and we're both happy.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

That was a horrendously stupid comment (none / 1) (#507)
by debillitatus on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:09:09 AM EST

And that should be obvious to anyone.

First, according to your logic, noone can ever make a preference about people public because of the fear that they'd take it too personally and make major life decisions. Look, I am sure that there are many people out there who disagree with my lifestyle or choices. But, being an adult with more than zero self-confidence, I ignore them.

Another way of looking at this issue is the flip: Who on this planet is so flaked-out that, when making a major medical decision concerning their new-born son, would allow a comment on k5 to tip the scales?

Damn you and your daily doubles, you brigand!
[ Parent ]

Thousands of stupid americans (none / 0) (#522)
by Have A Nice Day on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:11:50 AM EST

apparently.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Ahem but (none / 1) (#98)
by The Diary Section on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 08:13:20 AM EST

surely when the privates are on parade (as it were) you aren't going to be able to tell the difference anyway? Sex isn't the issue really, its masturbation.
Spend 10 minutes in the company of an American and you end up feeling like a Keats or a Shelley: Thin, brilliant, suave, and desperate for industrial-scale quantities of opium.
[ Parent ]
Amazing (3.00 / 7) (#95)
by I ABHOR TROLLS on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 08:04:32 AM EST

All those women saying it's their choice, their husband's choice, their doctor's choice, etc. What about the son's choice? If he reaches maturity and doesn't like it, he can go get it lopped off any time he likes. Sadly he has no real ability to undo the damage done to him by his father's circumfetishist whims.

[ Parent ]
Actually you can (none / 0) (#203)
by eightyford on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 07:15:45 PM EST

Check out the Penn and Teller Bullshit episode on the subject. Some aging doctor whips down his pants and shows how to 're-stretch' it. A little creepy to see though...



New Religion Message Board
[ Parent ]
whatever... (3.00 / 2) (#210)
by rhiannon on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 08:30:01 PM EST

That's fucking bullshit. The human body has almost no ability to regenerate lost organs. If you chop your ear/finger/dick/nose/whatever off it's never coming back. Those people who 'stretch' or whatever don't have a foreskin, they have a close approximation. Their foreskin is fucking gone, forever.

-----------------------------------------
I continued to rebuff the advances... so many advances... of so many attractive women. -MC
[ Parent ]
Really scarry (none / 1) (#545)
by Viliam Bur on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:06:51 PM EST

to read those comments, and to see which factors decide whether the baby's part of body will or will not be cut. Really, really scary. If in the Kenya more people would use internet and speak English, it would be probably also interesting to read the most frequent reasons for female genital mutuilation. Probably equally scary.

[ Parent ]
Scaremongering a little (3.00 / 12) (#96)
by Owl on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 08:08:53 AM EST

(Background info: I'm 23, married and living in the UK.)

While I totally agree that (except where a religion enforces it) infant circumcision should not be performed as a matter of routine (outside of the USA and South Korea it is not, anyway), I can't help feeling that your article scaremongers a little.

Since birth, I suffered from phimosis, which means that I couldn't retract my foreskin at all. Sex was painful and I would regularly drip after going to the toilet. This year I decided finally to bite the bullet and go through with a circumcision. My operation was last week.

I had a reasonably lengthy discussion with the surgeon before going through with my operation and he explained to me that the main purpose of the foreskin is simply that when one's body is growing, it simply does not know how long the penis will be when erect, so it provides a whole load of extra skin just in case. He made an analogy to the liver or the kidneys, whereby the body provides a huge amount more than it actually needs, just in case.

Now, it is true that the foreskin increases the sensation during sex, but the surgeon explained to me that many of his patients have come back later and thanked him, saying that as it now takes them longer to reach orgasm, it has put them more on an equal par with their wives, and both partners have had a more exciting sex life since the circumcision. Whatever research suggested that circumcision leads to higher chances of premature ejaculation seems totally ridiculous.

Now, I haven't healed enough yet to resume any kind of sexual activity, but judging by the feeling I get when touching my glans gently, I would guess that my sensation hasn't decreased much, if at all.


 ___
{o,o} ~ Owl
/)  ) Homepage
-"-"-

surgery for better sex? (none / 1) (#103)
by sal5ero on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 08:55:14 AM EST

saying that as it now takes them longer to reach orgasm, it has put them more on an equal par with their wives

that's a little extreme for a result that can be achieved by other means. you don't have to cut your foreskin off to become a better lover.



[ Parent ]
I wasn't suggesting... (none / 0) (#105)
by Owl on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 08:59:03 AM EST

...that the people he had operated on had the operation in order to improve their sex, but simply that this was an unexpected pleasant side-effect.


 ___
{o,o} ~ Owl
/)  ) Homepage
-"-"-

[ Parent ]
but .. (none / 0) (#380)
by forety on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 11:22:18 AM EST

how can this "unexpected pleasure side-effect exist when the evidence says otherwise?

[ Parent ]
Teaching of two schools.. (none / 0) (#618)
by forety on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 10:15:59 AM EST

School for normals:

Loss of nerves = loss of sensation

School for the logically challenged:

Loss of nerves = increase of sensation.

[ Parent ]

A post to shift the screen" (none / 0) (#617)
by forety on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 10:13:59 AM EST

NT

[ Parent ]
Then how do we reconcile this? (none / 0) (#374)
by forety on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 10:18:46 AM EST

http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/vissing1/ SCANDANAVIAN JOURNAL OF SEXOLOGY, Volume 2, Number 4: Page 103. PREMATURE EJACULATION AND CIRCUMCISION BIOGENIC OR A CULTURAL FACTOR VISSING M Premature ejaculation ( PE ) seems to be the most common male sexual dysfunction world-wide. Reports from the Middle East, India and Asia show a much higher incidence of PE than in the western world. In these areas the vast majority of men have had a ritual circumcision. In our clinic we also found a significantly higher incidence of PE in men from these parts of the world. Is it a biogenic factor due to circumcision or a psychogenic disorder due to cultural differences? We investigated penile sensitivity with TSA 2001 Thermal Analyzer ( cold / warm and tactile sensation ) in normal men and and with PE who had a ritual circumcision and in non-circumcised men. The literature will be discussed and the results presented. Correspondence Institute of clinical sexology Rigshospitalet Copenhagen Denmark

[ Parent ]
So you prefer a study with no conclusion... (none / 0) (#405)
by jwaskett on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 02:21:07 PM EST

...that indirectly assessed a possible influence of circumcision, to the direct evidence demonstrating that circumcised males have less risk of premature ejaculation?

Laumann found that 28% of circumcised men reported premature ejaculation, vs 91% of uncircumcised men. Adjusting for other variables, the odds ratio was 0.87 (though not statistically significant). Senkul and Fink both reported increased ejaculation delay following circumcision. Fredricsson reported solving premature ejaculation with circumcision.

Fredricsson B. Not all ejaculation disorders are difficult to treat--circumcision was an excellent solution of the problem. Lakartidningen. 1991 Apr 24;88(17):1601.

http://www.circs.org/library/laumann/
http://www.circs.org/library/senkul/
http://www.circs.org/library/fink/

Once again, you seem to ignore the bulk of evidence showing no difference or a benefit, but rely heavily on indirect data that only hints at a harm. This is not objective.



[ Parent ]
I can read.. (none / 0) (#422)
by forety on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 02:50:28 PM EST

the data.. laumann also included the age factor and found a different conclusion at different ages..

really, and other than in your "personal correspondence", nowhere does Fink state this..
another one of those "take my word for it?

BTW, your links do not work

[ Parent ]

Fink (none / 0) (#425)
by jwaskett on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 03:04:57 PM EST

Please go to the end of Fink's study. In the appendix, you will find the questions that were in the 'sensitivity' category. As you will see, two addressed ejaculation time, while one addressed sensitivity.

Thanks for the note concerning non-functioning links. I expect it's temporary.



[ Parent ]
What questions section? (none / 0) (#434)
by forety on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 03:32:23 PM EST

interesting concept--adding a questions section..

[ Parent ]
Huh? (none / 0) (#446)
by jwaskett on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 04:04:27 PM EST

What are you talking about? In the appendix, Fink details the questions that patients were asked. It can be found towards the end of his paper, just before the references.



[ Parent ]
No matter what search engines I use.. (none / 0) (#458)
by forety on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 04:34:52 PM EST

I cannot find this section to which you refer..

[ Parent ]
How can you miss it? (none / 0) (#466)
by jwaskett on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 04:50:51 PM EST

It is under a heading: "Appendix: Items Included in the Sexual Function Outcomes Categories"

[ Parent ]
Table 3?? (none / 0) (#470)
by forety on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 05:12:52 PM EST

I see no mention that ties sensitivity to  ejaculation time???????

[ Parent ]
No, I didn't say table 3 (none / 0) (#501)
by jwaskett on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:06:36 AM EST

I said the appendix. Now, beneath table 3 you will find some text in a large, bold typeface that says "Discussion". That's called a section heading. A little further down, you'll find another that says "Conclusions". A little further, you'll find one that says "Appendix: Items Included in the Sexual Function Outcomes Categories". This is the relevant section. You'll see that there are four categories: "Erectile Function", "Penile Sensitivity", "Sexual Activity", and "Satisfaction". Found it yet?

Now, under the "Penile Sensitivity" category, you'll find that there are 3 questions. In the "Methods" section, Fink explains how these are used: "The Likert scores for 3 items were combined to yield each of the 4 category scores of sexual function outcomes, such that all categories had a potential maximum score of 15. The survey items used to calculate each category score are shown in the Appendix." So, 2/3rds of the sensitivity category was determined by questions on ejaculation time.

Understand?



[ Parent ]
Soory, but still not able to find these.. (none / 0) (#514)
by forety on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:46:47 AM EST

questions..

now as for this.. I still see NO connection between sensitivity and ejaculations time--and wonder HOW you reached this conclusion since no where in the the study do I see ejaculation time recorded or noted.

"Now, under the "Penile Sensitivity" category, you'll find that there are 3 questions. In the "Methods" section, Fink explains how these are used: "The Likert scores for 3 items were combined to yield each of the 4 category scores of sexual function outcomes, such that all categories had a potential maximum score of 15. The survey items used to calculate each category score are shown in the Appendix." So, 2/3rds of the sensitivity category was determined by questions on ejaculation time."

[ Parent ]

Perhaps we can clear up the confusion.. (none / 0) (#521)
by forety on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:06:13 AM EST

if you post YOUR link to the study where I can find these "questions" that you claim is the crux of this discussion?

[ Parent ]
Here it is again (none / 0) (#530)
by jwaskett on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:28:57 AM EST

Here (or Google's cache).

And here are the three questions in the sensitivity category:

  • It takes me longer than I like to have an orgasm.*
  • My penis is not sensitive enough.*
  • I have premature ejaculations.

* Likert scale scoring was reversed.

As can be seen the first and third question relate to ejaculation time.



[ Parent ]
Oh, I am SOOOO relieved (none / 0) (#546)
by forety on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:07:00 PM EST

you link to your PERSONAL website that seems to be the only place these questions exist..

perhaps you can supply another link to the study that has these questions..

BTW nice font for these questions..adds a bit of emphasis--now all we need to do is have them verified.

[ Parent ]

Strange (none / 0) (#553)
by jwaskett on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:46:43 PM EST

Well, you'll find exactly the same paper at CIRP (link). Once again, just before the references is a section entitled "APPENDIX: ITEMS INCLUDED IN THE SEXUAL FUNCTION OUTCOMES CATEGORIES". Different font (for all the difference it makes), but identical content.

Alternatively, you can go to the Journal of Urology online (link), click on the "Full text" link, pay a fee, and read the article there.

Now, perhaps you'll construct some bizarre conspiracy theory in which I have somehow bribed both CIRP and J Urol to sneakily add these questions. If that's the case, you'll have to go to a medical library and view the print edition, where you'll find - guess - the same questions.

Is it really that hard to admit you made a mistake?



[ Parent ]
I beg your pardon.. (none / 0) (#565)
by forety on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 02:20:38 PM EST

I was looking for a "question" section at CIRP, and it was notlabeled as such, so I didn't go on to read it..

So, this is what we have..do you agree?

Penile Sensitivity:

It takes me longer than I like to have an orgasm.*
My penis is not sensitive enough.*
I have premature ejaculations.

* Likert scale scoring was reversed.

The survey contained questions to obtain demographic information (age, race), co-morbidities (depression, diabetes, heart disease) and basic sexual histories (sexual orientation, sexual activity before and after circumcision). To evaluate sexual function outcomes we used Likert scales ranging from 1 to 5 to measure strength of agreement/disagreement with statements and to quantify the frequency of specific sexual practices. We asked responses for before and after circumcision. We also included open ended questions to gather descriptive information about perceived benefits and harms, and any general comments.

[ Parent ]

Look for what I told you (none / 0) (#568)
by jwaskett on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 02:46:39 PM EST

If you look for a section labelled "Question", you won't find it at CIRP or elsewhere, since as I have told you numerous times, it is labelled "APPENDIX: ITEMS INCLUDED IN THE SEXUAL FUNCTION OUTCOMES CATEGORIES".

Nevertheless, yes, this is what we have. An additional paragraph that explains the relevance is the following, taken from the "Methods" section:

For individual items on the survey we performed paired t tests on the Likert scores before and after circumcision. The Likert scores for 3 items were combined to yield each of the 4 category scores of sexual function outcomes, such that all categories had a potential maximum score of 15. The survey items used to calculate each category score are shown in the Appendix. Sample size was not sufficiently large to perform factor analyses. Items were grouped into a priori categories based on similarity of content. Higher scores for all of the categories represent increases, and so for some items the Likert scale scoring was reversed. Therefore, all responders had 4 category scores for sexual function before and 4 scores for after circumcision. We used paired t tests to compare each category score before and after circumcision.

Please will you indicate that you agree that the first and third questions relate to ejaculation time.



[ Parent ]
So, after all of this.. (3.00 / 2) (#575)
by forety on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:32:50 PM EST

here is where we stand..

Even with the criteria used by Fink, he has shown subjectively that circumcision results in a loss of senstivity..

Which is supported by the logical tenet:

Lost nerves = lost senastion..

This logic is predicted on the concrete evidence supplied by Taylor..

So, there is no other conclusion that one can logically reach than that circumcision results in lost sensation.

Case closed.

[ Parent ]

Strange statement (none / 0) (#589)
by jwaskett on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 04:52:01 PM EST

No, Fink has shown that subjective assessment of sensitivity and ejaculation time combined are affected. Fink interprets ejaculation time as sensitivity.

Taylor showed that in his sample, there were more nerves of a certain type in one part of the foreskin than another.

Other evidence - which you ignore - from Masood found that "Penile sensation improved after circumcision in 38% (p = 0.01) but got worse in 18%, with the remainder having no change."



[ Parent ]
Your honor.. (none / 1) (#593)
by forety on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 05:55:22 PM EST

I realize that there is subjective evidence:

logic,

and concrete evidence to show that sensastion is lost,

BUT I do not like that conclusion--it does not satisfy my wants, desires, and need. And unless you can prove that MY wants, needs, and desires do not trump reality, you must dismiss the evidence.

Three year olds believe the world should revolve around what they want, but fortunatelly most grow out of that stage.

[ Parent ]

LOL.. (none / 1) (#594)
by forety on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:00:11 PM EST

still reality should change to make you feel warm and fuzzy?

"No, Fink has shown that subjective assessment of sensitivity and ejaculation time combined are affected. Fink interprets ejaculation time as sensitivity."

By HIS criteria, there IS subjective los, so?

"Taylor showed that in his sample, there were more nerves of a certain type in one part of the foreskin than another."

Taylor showed some nerves are lost from circumcision.

"Other evidence - which you ignore - from Masood found that "Penile sensation improved after circumcision in 38% (p = 0.01) but got worse in 18%, with the remainder having no change."

Then he needs to logically refute the same logical tenet I posed to you..

LOST nerves = LOST sensation..

See no matter how you try to dance around this basic premise, you accomplish nothing.

Illogical studies, are simply nonsense.

[ Parent ]

Interesting (none / 0) (#605)
by jwaskett on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 07:29:22 AM EST

By HIS criteria, there IS subjective los, so?

Agreed. Now, is that criteria reasonable?

Then he needs to logically refute the same logical tenet I posed to you..
LOST nerves = LOST sensation..

Not at all. Masood reports a finding. He's under no more obligation to explain the difference than Taylor is. What we have here is one of those situations that frequently occur, when results differ, and that's an indicator that understanding is incomplete.

The theory is that loss of foreskin nerves would result in loss of sensation.

In practice, however, we're finding that despite the loss of the foreskin nerves, we're frequently seeing an improvement or no change in sensation, with loss much less common.

The first thing to note is that Taylor's research was based upon a small sample size (n=22), he noted considerable variation in innervation, and did not report any quantitative data. We do not know whether a typical man would have any great density of foreskin nerves, nor do we have any idea how many nerves are normal. Clearly, a certain number will be needed for them to make more than a negligible contribution.

One observation is that the men are reporting their subjective assessment of sensation. (But then, what is an objective measure of sensation?)

Another observation is that the men were asked a fairly open-ended question. They were not asked about foreskin sensitivity directly, but penile sensation. They will have answered this accordingly. Hypothetically, they might well have answered about overall sexual sensation.



[ Parent ]
How did Masood measure the.. (none / 0) (#627)
by forety on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 10:40:23 AM EST

sensation in the missing foreskin?

[ Parent ]
Can I assume you're being purposefully obtuse? (none / 0) (#631)
by jwaskett on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 10:53:39 AM EST

Since I have already stated that the men were not asked about the foreskin directly.

[ Parent ]
Then I am afraid that you still are not.. (none / 0) (#633)
by forety on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 11:15:46 AM EST

addressing the fundamental logical premise of the sensation lost with lost nerves..

the elephant is still in the living room.

[ Parent ]

You seem happier with theory (none / 0) (#636)
by jwaskett on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 12:19:07 PM EST

...than with practice. Theory is saying one thing, yet experiment is saying another. If theory predicts something, and experiment finds something different, then it is reasonable to reassess the theory.

In this case, that means realising that the "lost nerves = lost sensation" hypothesis is too simplistic, and a better theory is required that incorporates knowledge of nerve type and mechanical changes leading to different stimulation of remaining nerves.



[ Parent ]
This is supposed to .. (none / 0) (#638)
by forety on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 12:24:30 PM EST

make the elephant vanish?

Any data, study, conclusion , or opinion contradicted by reality and/or logic is inherently flawed and invalid.

So, stating again, WHO cares what the nerves respond to--they exist--and unless are non-functional, they produce sensation.

No amount of subjective opinions will alter this.

[ Parent ]

Reality? (none / 0) (#639)
by jwaskett on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 12:37:12 PM EST

Why should a histological study of a small number (22) of cadavers be more "real" than a study of 88 men who can actually express what they feel? Dead men are not known for their sensitivity.



[ Parent ]
And I counter with my usual.. (none / 0) (#642)
by forety on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 03:06:08 PM EST

dead bodies do not grow new nerves..the slides exist in substance, not opinions.

Opinions are ephemeral...and ofetn contradcited by the evidence.

Let these men evaluate the sensations from these missing nerves, then you MIGHT have a valid point.

[ Parent ]

Yet (none / 0) (#643)
by jwaskett on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 04:43:08 PM EST

Any slides were taken from different men, and it is only an assumption that the innervation of the men concerned is similar.

With the known problems of small sample sizes, it is unwise to make that assumption.

You may care to recall that the function of nerves was first determined by noting a reaction to certain stimulation of those nerves. If you believe that such a response is to be disbelieved, since it is only opinion, would it not be appropriate to discard that knowledge?



[ Parent ]
Gee, apparently you are.. (none / 0) (#646)
by forety on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 05:22:10 PM EST

not aware of the concept of individual variation.. your feeble attempt at refuting it is like trying to say that ALL anatomical studies are invald because SOME of the specimens had blue eyes and some had brown eyes..

And again, I don't give a rat's ass as to some speculated function.. I only know that the nerves exist and that removing them means the sensation they had were removed.

And it is unwise to suppose that guile and speculation, and word games will ever defeat logic and intelligence.

[ Parent ]

I am aware of the concept, but (none / 0) (#653)
by jwaskett on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 06:49:49 AM EST

Are you?

Our widely accepted knowledge of anatomy comes from hundreds or thousands of subjects - large, representative samples, in other words. With such a sample, we can be confident that findings are applicable to human beings in general. With Taylor's smaller sample, we cannot be certain.



[ Parent ]
Oh, perhaps then you can.. (none / 0) (#712)
by forety on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 09:42:09 AM EST

can supply evidence showing the required number of samples necessary to have a valid study?

[ Parent ]
It's not so much a case of valid (none / 0) (#748)
by jwaskett on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 02:40:47 PM EST

But more a study that is presumed, at a reasonable and quantified level of confidence, to be representative. As a rule, the larger the sample, the greater the confidence.

The numbers are usually calculated based upon an estimated minimum level of variation in the general population, so as a result of investigation, it may become necessary to refine the calculations.

I'd have to suggest asking a professional statistician.



[ Parent ]
Gee, I asked for .. (none / 0) (#750)
by forety on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 04:45:05 PM EST

evidence of what is an acceptable number to be a valid study.. and all I got was this..

I had always assumed that evidence was a bit more concrete than word games.

[ Parent ]

You got an honest explanation (none / 0) (#756)
by jwaskett on Fri Aug 12, 2005 at 07:13:49 AM EST

Including both what I know and what I don't. If I can't answer, I tell you. To do otherwise would be dishonest.

Yet I get - surprise, surprise - accusations.



[ Parent ]
Gee, (none / 0) (#757)
by forety on Fri Aug 12, 2005 at 09:06:44 AM EST

I asked for evidence.. you know--that thing you require from others..

and I get an explanation..

interesting double standard..

So tell me you have NO evidence--don't try to put me off with anything less.

[ Parent ]

Spelling it out for you (none / 0) (#758)
by jwaskett on Fri Aug 12, 2005 at 11:02:39 AM EST

You asked a dumb question that betrayed ignorance of the distinction between what is representative and what is valid. Like many dumb questions, it is impossible to answer. You cannot hold me responsible for the fact that the world is not as simple as you'd like it to be.

A meaningful question could be answered, such as: "What sample size would be required to be reasonably confident that the results can be used to predict the general population, given a reasonable assumption of variation? Further, please quantify the 'reasonable' values chosen.

I do not know the answer to that question, as I have already answered, though I know that it can be answered. A professional statistician would, by definition, have the necessary skills to be able to answer.



[ Parent ]
And I am spelling it out for YOU.. (none / 0) (#760)
by forety on Fri Aug 12, 2005 at 12:47:55 PM EST

all of your assumptions..can hardly be called EVIDENCE..

And since YOU require evidence FROM others, I think it is only fair that you provide it TO others.

[ Parent ]

And indeed I do (none / 0) (#761)
by jwaskett on Fri Aug 12, 2005 at 01:29:50 PM EST

When evidence is available. When it is not, however, I say so. I ask only the same in return.



[ Parent ]
So, you are conceding there.. (none / 0) (#763)
by forety on Fri Aug 12, 2005 at 02:25:42 PM EST

is no evidence to support your assumptions that you are using to TRY to refute a study?

Just so we are still on the same page..

and henceforth you will discontinue using this tactic?

[ Parent ]

Incorrect (none / 0) (#765)
by jwaskett on Fri Aug 12, 2005 at 04:09:03 PM EST

The evidence (or more specifically, statistical know-how) does exist. The fact that I do not currently possess the skill to calculate sample size does not mean that nobody possesses the skill.

[ Parent ]
Ok, let's settle on this.. (none / 0) (#771)
by forety on Fri Aug 12, 2005 at 07:58:30 PM EST

You tried to refute something with an assertion that you cannot support.. maybe next time you make an assertion, hopefully you can support it.

And lastly, after this "evidence" is provided, I wonder if EVERY accepted anatomical study passes this requirement. Interesting to see if the evidence really IS evidence for each and every "study". I cannot remember many (if any) anatomical studies I have see even mention the number of specimens used.

[ Parent ]

Avoiding logic? (none / 0) (#784)
by jwaskett on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 08:27:56 AM EST

Forety, surely you can understand that in general, a smaller sample is less reliable than a larger one? Does it not follow from this that as sample size decreases, so too must confidence?

In your second paragraph, you once again demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding. A certain sample size is not a "requirement", and it is not a boolean attribute. Larger studies are simply considered to be more reliable.

For example, in this study, there's a suggestion that there may be an anatomical cause of obsessive-compulsive disorder in children. However, due to the small sample size (19 cases), the finding is recognised as preliminary.



[ Parent ]
and by examining the argument,, (none / 0) (#785)
by forety on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 09:52:27 AM EST

this does not prove that THIS study IS invalid..or "unreliable".

Still waiting for evidence to refute the study.. got any?

"In your second paragraph, you once again demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding. A certain sample size is not a "requirement", and it is not a boolean attribute. Larger studies are simply considered to be more reliable."

[ Parent ]

The simple fact (none / 0) (#795)
by jwaskett on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 04:05:36 PM EST

Is that as sample size falls, confidence in it falls, and reliability decreases.

We cannot prove that it is valid or reliable, nor can we prove that it is invalid or unreliable. There are only degrees of confidence, and at n=22, we cannot be very confident that the results are generally applicable.



[ Parent ]
So, the best you have is to claim that .. (none / 0) (#798)
by forety on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 05:47:21 PM EST

that it MAY have a lower confidence ratio?

OHHHH, n=22? such scientitific lingo--it sure impresses me.

Again, this is lacking tha little something called evidence.

[ Parent ]

Just.... (none / 0) (#809)
by vile on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 08:24:26 PM EST

couldn't... help... myself... extending... this... thread.

~
The money is in the treatment, not the cure.
[ Parent ]
Nice abstract.. (none / 0) (#626)
by forety on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 10:39:00 AM EST

I wonder what criterion/ criteria Masood used to determine sensitivity?

Perhaps how long one can gargle peanut butter?

[ Parent ]

From Table 2 in the full text (none / 0) (#632)
by jwaskett on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 10:55:11 AM EST

It was a choice of better/worse/same ratings to "Penile sensations".



[ Parent ]
So,,, (none / 0) (#637)
by forety on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 12:19:31 PM EST

we have objective evidence of lost nerves,

and the logical premise of lost nerves = lost sensation..

and you hope to refute this with a bunch of strawmen with subjective opinions?

it seems that hope does spring eternal.

[ Parent ]

If the theory says... (none / 0) (#640)
by jwaskett on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 12:39:30 PM EST

That there will be a loss of sensation, and in fact there isn't, then it's logical to suggest that the theory is probably incorrect.

Taylor did use a small sample size. Perhaps his results are not representative.

Or perhaps interpreting them as significant to sexual sensation is mistaken.

There may be other explanations. We cannot know which is correct without further investigation.



[ Parent ]
Posting to try to shift the screen.. (none / 0) (#616)
by forety on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 10:13:01 AM EST

NT

[ Parent ]
Argh (none / 0) (#670)
by stuaart on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 08:03:09 AM EST

It's happening again (see below).

There's a curve right off my screen.

And my monitor is 21".

Linkwhore: [Hidden stories.] Baldrtainment: Corporate concubines and Baldrson: An Introspective


[ Parent ]
It takes time (none / 0) (#123)
by Coryoth on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 11:17:30 AM EST

Now, I haven't healed enough yet to resume any kind of sexual activity, but judging by the feeling I get when touching my glans gently, I would guess that my sensation hasn't decreased much, if at all.

I believe the claims of reduced senstivity in the glans itself are a result of it being "out there" exposed permanently and hence feeling degrades due to the lack of protection.  That means you wouldn't notice ny reduced feeling for quite some time, and the process will be gradual.

I'm not suggesting it is necessarily true, merely that your comment isn't really an effective refutation.

Jedidiah.

[ Parent ]

This isn't how it was explained to me (none / 0) (#162)
by Owl on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 01:58:32 PM EST

As I understand it, there are two parts of the penis that create sensation during sex, the foreskin and the glans. The reduction in sensation is apparently just due to the large number of nerve-endings being removed as part of the operation.

Secondly, it was explained to me that there's no evidence that the foreskin actually protects anything. Based on the way other things in the body work, it appears to be very little more than another vestigial organ.

I guess the reason my sensation hasn't really decreased is because my glans was never exposed before, so I have lost one of the two "sensation organs" and gained the other one.


 ___
{o,o} ~ Owl
/)  ) Homepage
-"-"-

[ Parent ]
HUH? (none / 0) (#379)
by forety on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 11:19:41 AM EST

I guess the reason my sensation hasn't really decreased is because my glans was never exposed before, so I have lost one of the two "sensation organs" and gained the other one. How can you "GAIN" what you already had?

[ Parent ]
Steroid cream (none / 0) (#143)
by frankwork on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 12:45:50 PM EST

I heard there's a topical steroid cream you can apply for a couple of weeks that will loosen things up if you have this issue.

I hope you tried that first?

[ Parent ]

That depends... (none / 1) (#159)
by Owl on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 01:53:58 PM EST

...on the level of phimosis. The cream (and various other methods, such as stretching-by-massage) only really helps with people who could (if incredibly painfully) retract their foreskin if they pulled it hard enough.

At first my surgeon wanted to try a frenuloplasty, whereby the frenulum is split and extended, but on closer inspection he realised that even this would not be enough to cure my phimosis. Just to give you an idea, pre-operation, the most fully-retracted my foreskin would go left a hole of about 8mm diameter open in the tip. Any more than that was just not possible - the surgeon tried himself.


 ___
{o,o} ~ Owl
/)  ) Homepage
-"-"-

[ Parent ]
I don't believe it (3.00 / 3) (#167)
by Raindoll on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 02:48:53 PM EST

I had a reasonably lengthy discussion with the surgeon before going through with my operation and he explained to me that the main purpose of the foreskin is simply that when one's body is growing, it simply does not know how long the penis will be when erect, so it provides a whole load of extra skin just in case. I don't buy it. Circumcised people have performed penis enlargement surgery and that procedure does not require extra skin to be added to the penis. I am not circumsized. I believe the extra skin is there to protect it, because the head of my penis can be quite sensitive, especially after ejaculation. Btw. I did have phimosis when I was a kid, but it loosened up during puberty. I have never experienced any pain, health problems or hygiene problems (bad smells, dripping etc.). A close relative of mine could still not retract the foreskin when he became a teenager, so he did undergo surgery, using anaesthetics of course.

[ Parent ]
If it's too sensitive... (none / 1) (#190)
by SoupIsGoodFood on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 06:02:09 PM EST

...why not just put on another comdom, or learn techniques? Seems a much better way to prolong orgasms. So I find the "better sex" reason to get cut hard to buy.

Of course, your reason for getting it cut is different. Although, I still find hard to believe that it's possible to restore foreskin, but not stretch or fix foreskin that is too tight.

[ Parent ]

The old man gave me a hint when I was a teenager, (3.00 / 5) (#241)
by daani on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 08:16:43 AM EST

which I will now share with you. If you're not controlling it too well, you just need to distract yourself a bit during the first couple minutes of sex for a while. I used to multiply three-digit numbers in my head whilst doing the horizontal samba. Pretty sick eh?

A few such sessions and your body will get used to sex without quick ejaculation and you'll have complete control.

That, and the fact that I'm not circumcised, is why I'm such a fucking champion in the sack.

[ Parent ]

Uhuuu (3.00 / 2) (#295)
by MKalus on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 12:47:54 AM EST

Now, it is true that the foreskin increases the sensation during sex, but the surgeon explained to me that many of his patients have come back later and thanked him, saying that as it now takes them longer to reach orgasm, it has put them more on an equal par with their wives, and both partners have had a more exciting sex life since the circumcision.

Yeah, well, newsflash: It's all in the head dude.

No need to chop part of your anatomy off just to "last longer".
-- Michael
[ Parent ]

the latest: male circumcision guards against HIV (2.73 / 19) (#106)
by Lode Runner on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 09:10:02 AM EST

It's a legit finding and it's raising hackles.

p.s. - this is like, what, K5's fourth or fifth whacker-snipper-whicker fest? I think the subject resonates because it's an avenue for white males to claim oppression too.

Castration of the entire penis guards against HIV (2.00 / 2) (#107)
by sholden on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 09:45:55 AM EST

It's common sense, and a study is difficult since it's hard to convince half the men in the study to get "cut".

--
The world's dullest web page


[ Parent ]
castration? (3.00 / 2) (#133)
by Lode Runner on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 11:52:54 AM EST

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[ Parent ]
Keep? (none / 0) (#294)
by sholden on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 12:13:41 AM EST

I used it once. Can you not count to just 1?

It does mean what I think it means which is loss of the testes (the topic is men) - which would explain why I explicetely qualified it with the "of the entire penis" bit. Yes I could have used the term penectomy, but why bother when every one other than people who can't count to one understands what is meant.

--
The world's dullest web page


[ Parent ]
then it becomes redundant (none / 0) (#314)
by Lode Runner on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 08:49:38 AM EST

"Penectomy of the entire penis" has 100 superfluous words.

[ Parent ]
Wrong again (none / 0) (#317)
by sholden on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 10:43:40 AM EST

partial penectomies are a common enough treatment for penile cancer.

Are you always wrong?

--
The world's dullest web page


[ Parent ]
now you're qualifying it (none / 0) (#331)
by Lode Runner on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 02:44:15 PM EST

with "partial". On its own, penectomy denotes cutting off the whole thing.

[ Parent ]
Every reference I've read (none / 0) (#356)
by sholden on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 11:51:39 PM EST

Calls the complete version a "radical penectomy" or "total penectomy".

--
The world's dullest web page


[ Parent ]
forgive me if (none / 0) (#599)
by Lode Runner on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:52:10 PM EST

I have trouble believing that someone who spoke of "Castration of the entire penis" is familiar with even the most basic medical references.

[ Parent ]
Fine by me (none / 0) (#641)
by sholden on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 12:39:57 PM EST

You have trouble with people using language that people might understand rather than perfect technical correctness. No skin off my nose.

--
The world's dullest web page


[ Parent ]
"No skin off my nose" (none / 0) (#749)
by Lode Runner on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 03:57:49 PM EST

That's not where circumcision removes skin. Just sayin'. . .

[ Parent ]
Oh shit (none / 0) (#778)
by sholden on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 12:30:34 AM EST

That's what has been confusing me all this time.

Thanks.

--
The world's dullest web page


[ Parent ]
that is not legit (2.50 / 4) (#108)
by LO313 on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 09:53:21 AM EST

That study is assining bullshit. I was generally curious when I saw a news report. They took about 3000 uncircumcised men in SA. They claimed they were all hetero. Hald the men were selected at random to undergo a circumcision procedure. More than likely they were compensated for this. In a poor country it might have been significant. After a year and a half 69 of the men had contracted HIV. 18 were cirmcumcised 51 were not. That's significant? That's 1.7% versus .6%! That proves nothing. That is junk science. How do you know that the ones who were cut didn't wear condoms more often because they had been circumcised? How many actually engaged in homosexual activity? And with or with out condoms? This study proves nothing. I love the quote "We prevented 6 or 7 out of 10 infections." Huh? How do you arrive at that number? I took a statistics class and that doesn't make sense.

[ Parent ]
Even better... (2.75 / 4) (#112)
by bugmenot on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 10:27:36 AM EST

What if all the circumsized men no longer desired sex as much as the uncircumsized men, leading to a decline in sex, leading to a decline in unsafe sexual practices, leading to a decline in HIV transmission.  So all this study proves is that circumcision makes sex less good.  Or at least that it can be interpreted any number of ways.

---

I am living on borrowed time.
[ Parent ]

Only a conference paper (3.00 / 2) (#111)
by The Diary Section on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 10:25:25 AM EST

I wouldn't buy into it. I've seen some bizarre stuff at conferences. The standard of reviewing is usually a lot lower than for journal papers. Speaking of which, it was rejected by the Lancet btw, so its failed peer review on at least one occasion.

Whats the obsession with iron willed warriors slapping down whining and "claiming oppression" lately? Apparently you can't discuss any topic that might lead to the implication that someone somewhere in the world is having a problem with something. I find it bizarre and disturbing quite frankly.
Spend 10 minutes in the company of an American and you end up feeling like a Keats or a Shelley: Thin, brilliant, suave, and desperate for industrial-scale quantities of opium.
[ Parent ]

or in other words: (none / 1) (#137)
by Lode Runner on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 12:04:50 PM EST

Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

[ Parent ]
No, thats the point (none / 0) (#140)
by The Diary Section on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 12:40:41 PM EST

I sport a "cavalier" not a "roundhead" FWIW.
Not that you wanted to know that. Thats the point, its an interesting enough topic. I don't see why people feel so threatened by anything like this (cf. the sex abuse article). I wasn't sexually abused either. I just don't get what people's problem is. I'm not joking when I say its mystifying to me, really it is. I find it quite easy to ignore other people's sob stories when I'm not interested but OTOH I find the topics themselves quite interesting. Just don't get it, what is it you are afraid of? Do you suffer from emotional incontinence or something? Can't control yourself so you need others to take responsibility for not presenting you with material you'll respond to? I DO NOT UNDERSTAND.
Spend 10 minutes in the company of an American and you end up feeling like a Keats or a Shelley: Thin, brilliant, suave, and desperate for industrial-scale quantities of opium.
[ Parent ]
The first discussion (none / 1) (#161)
by Lode Runner on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 01:58:06 PM EST

of circumcision had its merits. But K5 revists the subject with such regularity and intensity that it seems worthwhile to explore the possible causes of this effect. I don't see how you could have a problem with this. Afraid of something?

[ Parent ]
could be the ongoing pointless circumcisions (none / 1) (#183)
by speek on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 05:33:52 PM EST

The first four articles didn't stamp out the problem, so here's the fifth. It's that try-try-again thing.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Gee. (3.00 / 2) (#124)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 11:20:21 AM EST

Use a rubber, or cut off part of my dick. You know that's a tough choice, conisdering that:

A) Circumcision at best gives me a fraction of a percentage point of safty vs. 99% effectiveness of a properly used condom
B) It's controversial and hardly proven
C) Even circumsized men should use condoms

Not to mention, that I've avoided AIDS all my life quite easily without resorting to cock chopping. Undoubtedly, chopping the entire thing off would offer even great protection against AIDS. Keeping that in mind, go remove yours now.

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

But then... (none / 1) (#550)
by Viliam Bur on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:24:56 PM EST

"Undoubtedly, chopping the entire thing off would offer even great protection against AIDS."

...you would have to change your username to NoMoreDicksLeft!

[ Parent ]

Sure... (none / 1) (#135)
by Saggi on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 12:01:51 PM EST

When they are cut, the looses 30%-60% of the sexual drive... therefore they have less sex... therefore less risk of HIV. See? Its easy to put up som statistical notes on the subject. But it dosn't make it so. I'm no specialist in this area, but I do know there are quite a few who have problems with their circumcision. Respect that. In regards to HIV, I belive this is an other topic. It has nothing to do with if its right or wrong to do circumcision. If it was an argument like: Cutting off the male penis entirely would make a 90% reduction in the risk of getting HIV. The only 100% risk reduction can be made bu killing the persion... (ect... and these kind of arguments is stupid).
-:) Oh no, not again.
www.rednebula.com
[ Parent ]
"looses 30%-60% of the sexual drive" (none / 1) (#138)
by Lode Runner on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 12:10:53 PM EST

ROWRRRRRRRRRRR!

[ Parent ]
Wait, it's 60-70% less than it WOULD have been? (none / 0) (#172)
by Just this guy on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:25:57 PM EST

Ye gods. The world really dodged a bullet when I got snipped.

[ Parent ]
I question it's validility (3.00 / 2) (#193)
by SoupIsGoodFood on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 06:19:06 PM EST

AFAIK, that's the only test, and it's questionable. Why only men from SA? SA has one of the highest HIV rates in the world. How does that fit in to the study?

I've read enough scientific research to know that you need more than one study to get to the bottom of something and make it fact.

I think it's probably on the right track, but how it affects people in other countries is quite different.
Here in NZ, circumcision is very low (0.35%), but our HIV rate (0.1%) is even lower than the USA (0.6%), who has a much higher circumcision rate (55.9%).

[ Parent ]

it means that (none / 0) (#279)
by Lode Runner on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 07:49:08 PM EST

if you're going to sex with people who likely have HIV, you're gonna want to be cut. But don't worry, if you keep out HIV-ridden swarthy types, as in the case of New Zealand, the uncut should have nothing to worry about. I'm impressed that there are so few Hebrews and Muslims in NZ; congratulations!

[ Parent ]
Unnecessary non-consensual surgery on infants (2.86 / 15) (#114)
by chase the dragon on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 10:35:29 AM EST

Regardless of whether you are for or against circumcision as a medical procedure, the larger issue here is unnecessary non-consensual surgery performed on infants. Once you accept that parents can modify the bodies of their children in essentially arbitary and non-medically justifiable ways, you opens a pandora's box. What about cosmetic surgery performed on infants? Or decorative body modification such as piercings and tattoos?

I'm not suggesting these possibilities just to be provocative. Obviously there are some medical benefits to circumcision in some cases. But circumcision is generally unnecessary. There is no clear and present need for normal male infants, who do not suffer from phimosis or other abnormalities, to be circumcised.

I believe in personal liberty from birth to death. I don't believe that abstract entities such as cultures or religions can trump those rights and I don't think it's right that children are treated as slabs of meat owned by their parents, even for supposedly legitimate religious or cultural reasons. It's up to the children to decide for themselves whether they want to adhere to the beliefs of their parents.

I'm not even against circumcision per se. As other posters have pointed out, there are legitimate medical conditions that require circumcision and it may even provide a slightly reduced risk of contracting certain sexually transmitted diseases. I do find many pro-circumcision arguments ridiculous, such as that cut penises are more attractive (who cares?) and that boys won't "fit in" unless their members look like their peers' (from my experience, boys generally don't compare penises).

Interestingly, in South Korea, circumcision is performed on adolescents and is seen as a coming of age ritual. I believe (though I'm not sure) that this is due to the influence of the American military presence since the Korean war and that many conscripts in the South Korean army were circumcised as adults.

My point is that it may be possible to ban unnecessary infant circumcision but keep circumcision as a cultural practice. Being anti-infant circumcision does not make one anti-circumcision; the two are actually orthogonal issues.

Yes, this is one of the main points. (3.00 / 2) (#194)
by SoupIsGoodFood on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 06:25:55 PM EST

I remember hearing about some lesbien couple who are both deaf. They wanted to have their child's ear-drums (or something) removed, so that the child could experience the world "in a better way, more peaceful way, as they did" (or something to that effect).

I'm sorry, but that's the child's choice, not their's.

[ Parent ]

No extra context (none / 0) (#198)
by pacanukeha on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 06:45:59 PM EST

Just curious why you referred to them as "a lesbian couple" instead of just "a couple". Doesn't add any information.

[ Parent ]
Not sure. (none / 1) (#200)
by SoupIsGoodFood on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 06:57:28 PM EST

The original artical made it prominent. Perhaps one could go into the psychological side as to why they want to do that to their child, and the sexuality of the couple might play a roll in that. It does add information, just probably not much.

I was almost going to leave it out, but it wasn't that hard to leave in, and I didn't want to take it out just to make sure it was "unprejudice" if you know what I mean.

Also, if you were to go looking for the original article, the lesbien part would make it easier to find.

[ Parent ]

I remember the incident too (none / 1) (#239)
by daani on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 08:09:33 AM EST

but I might not of if he hadn't mentioned the two chicks bit. So it is indeed extra context, but no extra relevant information.

[ Parent ]
All I have to add to this thread... (1.00 / 12) (#116)
by PoopyPeanutz on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 10:46:00 AM EST

Is this.




every once in a while, an article appears on K5 that makes me ashamed to be associated with the site.--Zenofchai
If k5 could do comment filtering (none / 1) (#126)
by stuaart on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 11:20:50 AM EST

I'd be adding your username(s) to it.

Linkwhore: [Hidden stories.] Baldrtainment: Corporate concubines and Baldrson: An Introspective


[ Parent ]
fwiw (none / 0) (#738)
by ffrinch on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 10:41:35 AM EST

I do it with Greasemonkey. Only tested with the One True View (i.e. nested oldest first), fragile, and very slow on stories with lots of comments. But easy.

-◊-
"I learned the hard way that rock music ... is a powerful demonic force controlled by Satan." — Jack Chick
[ Parent ]
STFU n00bz0r. (1.00 / 10) (#119)
by Veritech on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 10:50:01 AM EST

"OMFG, like millions of others, I got circumcised and I'm so totally traumatized by it, like I can possibly remember that much about being 3, and by the way, my parents were retarded".

As a certain pimp would say, "KILL YOURSELF"



Sorry you had it at 3 years old (2.33 / 12) (#127)
by actmodern on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 11:23:19 AM EST

I was circumsized inside a machine a few days after birth. From what my parents told me it was quick and  the nurse told my mom I'd make my wife very happy jokingly.

I don't experience any of the problems you mention. Maybe it's because they are just myths? I have no real data except my life experience and most of the data you present is suspect at best.

From what I understand it's a matter of hygiene. Muslims and Jews do it because in the desert having foreskin can be a real problem. You don't have water around to readily clean that area and you don't want to use desert sand or flat stones like you could use in open areas of your body.

Perhaps you should stop being so upset over this and realize that in all likelyhood the human body is very resilient and if it is done at a young age you shouldn't suffer any real side effects.

I met a guy a few days after he got circumsized. He was in his twenties. When I asked him why he said he was tired of having to make sure that area of his body was clean. He felt a lot better after the pain subsided.


--
LilDebbie challenge: produce the water sports scene from bable or stfu. It does not exist.

It's not all myth (2.66 / 3) (#139)
by Coryoth on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 12:29:45 PM EST

While I think his phrase "less sexual pleasure" is being a little disingenuous as it's talking more about the subjective side, his points just below that are quite valid. There are a great many nerve endings in the foreskin and they have all been removed. Tests have shown that the glans becomes less sensitive. In short, you do, empircally, have less feeling in your penis due to fewer nerves and degradation of some of the remaining nerves. Whether that actually translates to less sexual pleasure is a different issue.

Jedidiah.

[ Parent ]

It keeps me going (none / 1) (#152)
by uptownpimp on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 01:14:53 PM EST

for longer though. Thus increasing the pleasure of sex overall.

=========================
My name is actmodern and I approve of this message.
[ Parent ]
I can think of better ways (3.00 / 2) (#170)
by Coryoth on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:21:48 PM EST

Uh, there are plenty of other ways to prolong sex and sexual pleasure. At the most basic level there's simply taking it slowly and enjoying it - slow down if you need to. If you're more determined you can work on pc muscle control and have multiple orgasms. I would suggest that deadening your senses so you can last longer is probably one of the least useful and least productive methods.

I'm not going to get into a pointless pissing contest of who can last the longest, but for me sex lasts as long as I (and my partner, she gets a say too of course) want it to last, so I don't really see how "staying power" is an issue.

Jedidiah.

[ Parent ]

So you can have sex for 19 hrs straight? (none / 0) (#185)
by uptownpimp on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 05:40:22 PM EST

If you wanted to of course.

=========================
My name is actmodern and I approve of this message.
[ Parent ]
3 max for me (3.00 / 2) (#196)
by actmodern on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 06:39:57 PM EST

And I'm not being distasteful. After 3 my body just gives in and I'm completely out of energy.

Personally my most enjoyable sex partner did it 3-4 times a day for 20-30 minutes each time. It was like scratching an itch and then getting on with the business of the day.

--
LilDebbie challenge: produce the water sports scene from bable or stfu. It does not exist.
[ Parent ]

In theory, yes. (3.00 / 2) (#211)
by Coryoth on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 08:38:52 PM EST

Though that would probably take some extra effort and training to avoid things like cramp and muscle fatigue. I'm not really sure why you would want to.  I agree with the other poster though I tend to max out around the 1-2 hour mark (perhaps I'm not as fit). Sex is something that takes as long as it takes for my partner and I to both feel sated and happy.  Sometimes that can be 10 minutes if she's just in the mood for something playful and quick, and sometimes that can take an hour or more. I don't really see it as a competition.  Is my partner happy? Am I happy? then however long it was, it was the right amount of time.

Jedidiah.

[ Parent ]

It seems easy to me (2.80 / 5) (#151)
by triddle on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 01:12:45 PM EST

I want as many sensors as possible in that warm happy spot. Why does it make sense to remove pleasure inducing chunks of the human body? When a finger loses its fingernail its also extremely sensitive; eventually you smack your uncovered fingernail pad against enough stuff and it toughens up. But your finger isn't the main pleasure inducing appendage on your body. I was glad when my fingernail pad stopped hurting so damn much but am I going to be glad when I've lost X% of feeling in my dick?

There are side effects including loss of feeling (this will happen any time a covered body part is exposed); you might be ok with such side effects but claiming that you shouldn't really suffer any side effects seems to be wishful thinking. By the way, when I want to make sure my penis is clean I wash it with soap and water in the shower; I don't think I'd ever do something as drastic as ripping a chunk of it off to replace that method of cleaning.

[ Parent ]

Were you crying when you wrote this article? (1.46 / 13) (#131)
by Veritech on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 11:39:43 AM EST

Man up. There's infinitely worse things in life - for instance, being a self-centered jackass who considers circumcision to be the pinnicle of injustice in the world.

LOL (1.50 / 4) (#132)
by The Diary Section on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 11:43:01 AM EST

You fucking suck.
Shotgun mouthwash time honeybun, nobody loves you and they never will either.
Do us all a favour please.
Spend 10 minutes in the company of an American and you end up feeling like a Keats or a Shelley: Thin, brilliant, suave, and desperate for industrial-scale quantities of opium.
[ Parent ]
I like you, too! *kisses -n- hugs* (none / 0) (#147)
by Veritech on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 01:02:20 PM EST



[ Parent ]
This issue is plain stupid (2.75 / 8) (#144)
by uptownpimp on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 12:53:17 PM EST

It's backed by little or no evidence. I was circumsized and have no problem with sexual stimulation. Anyone who thinks sex can get better needs to get laid more. I thought a infant didn't have the ability to form memories till a certain age, so how are infants circumsized at birth traumatized? Go back and do some actual research, you'll find the points you are trying to prove are wrong.

=========================
My name is actmodern and I approve of this message.
Little evidence? (2.25 / 4) (#153)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 01:25:43 PM EST

We could probably amputate pinky fingers at birth, and yet have little evidence that it causes any trauma, disadvantage, or disability. Keeping that in mind, do you intend to force your child to have 8 fingers?

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]
Thats irrelevant. (1.16 / 6) (#155)
by uptownpimp on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 01:29:26 PM EST

Chopping off fingers for pleasure and doing something that can improve both quality and quantity of life for your child is different. Suck my black ass.

=========================
My name is actmodern and I approve of this message.
[ Parent ]
"Improve both quality and quantity..." (none / 1) (#174)
by shambles on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:43:35 PM EST

...of life for your child? How does it do that?

Do you have any links that show a correlation between long life and circumcision? Between general health and circumcision?

or are you talking out of your "black ass"?

And don't give me that crap about less chance of getting an STD or AID's. If you wear a condom the chance is the same whether you're cut or not. If you don't wear a condom, you're an idiot.

People are more important than Truth - Edgar Malroy
[ Parent ]
Cancer. (none / 1) (#179)
by uptownpimp on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 05:17:26 PM EST

There is a previous post below that mentions uncircumsized males have a higher chance of getting cancer and non sexual infections. So again, eat my black ass.

=========================
My name is actmodern and I approve of this message.
[ Parent ]
Really? (none / 0) (#377)
by forety on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 11:14:10 AM EST

Perhaps you might want to read what the cancer experts at the ACS have to say.. From The American Cancer Society "However, the penile cancer risk is low in some uncircumcised populations, and the practice of circumcision is strongly associated with socio-ethnic factors, which in turn are associated with lessened risk. The consensus among studies that have taken these other factors into account is circumcision is not of value in preventing cancer of the penis." http://www3.cancer.org/cancerinfo/load_cont.asp?st=pr&ct=35 In the past, circumcision has been suggested as a strategy for preventing penile cancer. This suggestion is based on studies that reported much lower penile cancer rates among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men. However, most researchers now believe those studies were flawed, because they failed to consider other factors that are now known to affect penile cancer risk.

[ Parent ]
Gee, here is what the CDC says about STD's.. (none / 1) (#378)
by forety on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 11:15:31 AM EST

CDC: "The reported ***gonorrhea rate in the United States remains the highest of any industrialized country*** and is roughly 50 times that of Sweden and eight times that of Canada". The CDC says 15 million people in the United States become infected every year with an STD, ***half of which are INCURABLE viral infections such as herpes or human papilloma virus (HPV), the CAUSE of genital warts and cervical cancer****. Such ***incurable*** STD's affect 65 million Americans. It says 5.5 million Americans are infected with HPV every year, 3 million get chlamydia, 1 million get herpes and 650,000 get gonorrhea. "The United States looks bad when compared to other rich countries, the NY report said." http://www.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/12/05/health.stds.reut/index.html

[ Parent ]
Well, being American is clearly unsafe but... (none / 0) (#387)
by jwaskett on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 12:02:12 PM EST

What about being circumcised? Do the CDC have any comments?

[ Parent ]
Why must they address this? (none / 0) (#396)
by forety on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 01:34:09 PM EST

we have reality..

Circ rates

USA - 60 - 90%

Europe - <1%

Again simple logic that that seems to escape you.

[ Parent ]

For several reasons (none / 0) (#401)
by jwaskett on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 01:51:31 PM EST

One, if rates are not 0% or 100%, we are assuming that people with STDs are circumcised (or not), rather than knowing their status. In science, we generally prefer to measure a variable than guess.

Two, there are many other differences than circumcision alone. What about religion? Social and cultural attitudes? Sexual attitudes? Sex education? Poverty? All of these things can influence condom usage, so making the assumption that circumcision is the main difference is foolish.



[ Parent ]
Gee, if this is your "out".. (none / 0) (#415)
by forety on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 02:36:25 PM EST

then all you have to do is provide valid rates for these "variables, and then develop a model to show that they negate and even REVERSE the claims of a benefit for circumcsiion..

BS'ing around something with no evidence is hardly compelling..well at least when one understands what constitutes evidence.

[ Parent ]

Nice try... (none / 0) (#423)
by jwaskett on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 02:55:35 PM EST

But if you turn up with a poorly designed study, it is your job to fix it (or have it ignored), not mine.

If I try to measure gravity but accidentally turn my measuring device upside down, I have no right to demand that you perform the calculations to correct my result. It's my mess. This is a similar situation.



[ Parent ]
To me, a lot better,.. (none / 0) (#431)
by forety on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 03:24:57 PM EST

than selectively posting my evidence.

[ Parent ]
That's precisely what you've been doing (none / 0) (#445)
by jwaskett on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 04:00:04 PM EST

You have been highly selective, both with studies of condom use/failure and with premature ejaculation. How do you have the cheek to claim that I am doing so?



[ Parent ]
But the basic diffrence is.. (none / 0) (#455)
by forety on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 04:28:49 PM EST

that I am not trying to support an assertion.. I only need to refute those used to support it.

[ Parent ]
How do you figure that out? (none / 0) (#459)
by jwaskett on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 04:37:56 PM EST

You claimed that circumcised men had problems with condoms, and tried to support it with selectively chosen studies.

You claimed that circumcised men were more prone to premature ejaculation, and tried to support it with selectively chosen studies.

In what possible way can you describe this as "not trying to support an assertion"?



[ Parent ]
Consider it a rebuttal.. (none / 0) (#469)
by forety on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 05:08:21 PM EST

to your asertions.. "I" am not the one that bears the "burden of proof".

[ Parent ]
Anyone who claims he doesn't have to prove... (none / 0) (#500)
by jwaskett on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:58:31 AM EST

...his assertions loses a lot of credibility.

It is also amusing that you claim to be rebutting my assertions. If you care to look, you'll see that you posted in this thread before I did, and my comments since then have addressed flaws in your arguments.



[ Parent ]
He's right though (none / 1) (#505)
by Have A Nice Day on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:01:42 AM EST

You do have the burden of proof. You are in favour of a procedure that seems pointless at best and is dangerous (in a percentage of cases) at worst. One nedds evidence in order to justify action, not inaction.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
it is amusing that.. (none / 0) (#511)
by forety on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:24:48 AM EST

circumcisers never seem to grasp (or adamently refuse to accept) this simple concept--maybe all of those lost brain cels between their legs?

[ Parent ]
Burden of proof (none / 0) (#524)
by jwaskett on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:15:04 AM EST

Actually, I'm not advocating circumcision, I'm just answering dumb claims made about it. Whereas he is trying to persuade people not to circumcise.

Consider a different situation: suppose there were anti-lettuce activists who were trying to persuade parents to not feed their kids lettuce. Now suppose I am here saying "hey, don't worry, lettuce is perfectly ok." Now who needs to prove their case?

Let's keep an open mind, and accept the possibility that lettuce is harmful. In this case, we are willing to listen to what anti-lettuce activists have to say, but they'd better have some compelling evidence, otherwise we'll just carry on feeding our kids nice salads. So despite preaching inaction, as you put it, they still have a burden of proof.

Ok, now let's suppose that they cite some evidence. Now I come along and say that they're misrepresenting their evidence, and it is rubbish. Are you going to believe me? I would hope not. You don't want to put your kids at unnecessary risk, and lettuce might after all do that, so you want evidence from me, too.

So we both have a burden of proof, regardless of action or inaction.



[ Parent ]
Ah, here we go.. (none / 0) (#527)
by forety on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:19:03 AM EST

off into red herring and speculation--the usual and expected actions...and lettuce, no less..

And not to forget the obfuscations to try to shift the burden of proof..

[ Parent ]

Avoidance (none / 0) (#532)
by jwaskett on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:37:20 AM EST

I see something of a pattern here, Forety. Whenever I make a logical argument that you can't counter, you deflect by making wild accusations.

Now, do you agree with my analysis on the burden of proof in the lettuce example? If so, please explain why the same reasoning does not apply here. If not, please explain why you disagree.



[ Parent ]
You're both guilty of that (none / 1) (#534)
by Have A Nice Day on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:38:59 AM EST

He made some very simple logical propostions in other posts that you flat out avoided addressing....

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Personally I'd stop giving them lettuce (none / 1) (#533)
by Have A Nice Day on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:38:05 AM EST

Look at the (perfectly valid IMHO) switch from MMR to undisputed alternatives in the UK when the MMR/autism controversy was going on.

MMR is a very parallel argument to your lettuce scenario above - there's a benefit to the multiple vaccination route (lettuce), there was a perceived risk that was based on controversial and badly founded 'evidence' (anti-lettuce activists), people stopped using MMR (burden of proof on action), the 'evidence' was thoroughly discredited (burden of proof undertaken by pro-lettuce side) and people started using MMR (lettuce) again.

The simplest comeback to your post above is that there is no burden of proof on both sides there. Whilst you and the anti-lettuce crowd are arguing, I'm not eating lettuce because it might be poisonous.

Also stopping eating lettuce doesn't involve permanent body modification of an infant.....

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Well, ok, but... (none / 0) (#554)
by jwaskett on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:50:00 PM EST

Where do you draw the line? Sooner or later somebody's going to claim something so unlikely (say that feeding kids anything but chocolate is harmful) that you're going to want to see and evaluate some evidence before taking it seriously.



[ Parent ]
My other post said it better (none / 1) (#569)
by Have A Nice Day on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:19:52 PM EST

here

Basically, lettuce is of know safety and known benefit, so it already has evidence on its side and the scales become harder to tip the other way. Circumcision doesn't have reason behind it in most cases, and the reasons that are being pointed out are more of the "quick, let's try justify this thing we're doing, any way we can!" type than proper evidence.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
These observations (none / 0) (#576)
by jwaskett on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:35:31 PM EST

Seem rather like prejudices to me, unless you happen to be an expert on nutritional benefits of lettuce (which, knowing k5, is a distinct possibility).

Can you think of any food or activity that you are essentially neutral on, as a default position?



[ Parent ]
Prejudice? (none / 1) (#578)
by Have A Nice Day on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:52:37 PM EST

Lettuce constitutes little to no harm to anyone and provides tangible benefits in the form of (limited) nutritional value and taste. If you want to dispute that then I'm leaving.

These facts put the burden on the person wanting you to stop eating lettuce. Circumcision is not proven to be of clear tangible benefit to or by anyone (hence the debate on this site). The two are not good analogues. Eating lettuce is done for a reason, circumcision is lacking said reason.

Where is the prejudice?

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
I don't disagree (none / 0) (#586)
by jwaskett on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 04:37:06 PM EST

Lettuce constitutes little to no harm to anyone and provides tangible benefits in the form of (limited) nutritional value and taste. If you want to dispute that then I'm leaving.

I adore lettuce, and agree completely. But I haven't evaluated any scientific evidence on the subject - I just take people's word for it that it's healthy. And as such, I'm the first to admit that I'm prejudiced in favour of lettuce. It's not based upon any real evidence (save for eating a lot of it and not keeling over), nor is it particularly objective. Just an instinct, really. Cross-examine me in a courtroom on the benefits of lettuce, and even the worse lawyer will make a laughing stock of me.

As far as circumcision goes, there is a lot of evidence on the subject, and educated, intelligent people have formed views based upon this evidence. Unfortunately, no two people seem to form the dame opinion, but the reasons for that are complicated.

Your suggestion that circumcision is not done for a reason is perplexing. Of course it is done for a reason. The reasons, however, vary according to the individual case. I can accept that you may disagree with some or all of those reasons, and you may feel that they lack validity, but that does not mean that the reasons don't exist.



[ Parent ]
ok, (none / 0) (#592)
by forety on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 05:51:35 PM EST

"As far as circumcision goes, there is a lot of evidence on the subject, and educated, intelligent people have formed views based upon this evidence. Unfortunately, no two people seem to form the dame opinion, but the reasons for that are complicated."

And intelligent people base their opinions on what can be proven.. and the only things that are proven are AGAINST circumcision, and the things left unproven are FOR circumcision.

"Your suggestion that circumcision is not done for a reason is perplexing. Of course it is done for a reason. The reasons, however, vary according to the individual case. I can accept that you may disagree with some or all of those reasons, and you may feel that they lack validity, but that does not mean that the reasons don't exist."

If you use the root word "to reason" than this is not appropriate.. a better word is excuses.

[ Parent ]

Not in science of medicine (none / 0) (#604)
by jwaskett on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 06:50:39 AM EST

And intelligent people base their opinions on what can be proven..

No. Anyone who has any understanding of science or medicine will understand that in this field, absolute proof is an impossibility. In this field, we have to accept that there are varying degrees of certainty, but nothing is proven. And so, consequently, we base opinions on the strength of evidence available.

If you use the root word "to reason" than this is not appropriate.. a better word is excuses.

Arrogant use of language, for it implies that your assessment of the legitimacy is superior to that of the person making the decision. "Reason" is more appropriate, unless the person concerned has doubts of the legitimacy themselves.



[ Parent ]
Don't confuse what is acceptable.. (none / 0) (#614)
by forety on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 10:05:15 AM EST

in SCIENCE, and what is acceptable in "medical
science".

Proof in science has the rigorous requirement to fulfill the implied  or stated prediction . "medical science" seems to overlook this most basic requirement.

"Anyone who has any understanding of science or medicine will understand that in this field, absolute proof is an impossibility. In this field, we have to accept that there are varying degrees of certainty, but nothing is proven. And so, consequently, we base opinions on the strength of evidence available."

[ Parent ]

Actually (none / 0) (#620)
by jwaskett on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 10:19:29 AM EST

Absolute proof is rare in any science. That's why our fundamental theories change every 50 years or so, such as the transition from Newton's to Einstein's theory of gravitational attraction. It may be that Einstein's model will be rejected in time to come - it isn't proven, though it is supported by available evidence - but for the time being, it's the best we have. I'm confident that when I drop an apple, it will hit the ground.

Medical science is limited in the possible experiments that can be done, due to ethical as well as practical constraints. In spite of this, medicine progresses, and I for one am glad of it, since I might well not be alive if it were not for medical advances.

Contrary to your assertion, medical science does make and test predictions. Perhaps you're just unhappy because nobody chooses to test your predictions.



[ Parent ]
And.... (none / 1) (#536)
by Have A Nice Day on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:43:33 AM EST

Lettuce is of clearly known benefit (calorific, vitamin and taste-wise), so the balance of action/inaction is already tipped towards action, therefore there is a corresponding need for more solid evidence to tip the scales back.

Circumcision is not, by any stretch of the imagination, of clearly known benefit. The burden of proof tips the needle much more towards inaction when there is no good reason to be doing something in the first place.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Also, then all of these.. (none / 1) (#417)
by forety on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 02:38:33 PM EST

need to be included in EVERY study purporting a "benefit" for circumcision.

Unlike every study so far.

"Two, there are many other differences than circumcision alone. What about religion? Social and cultural attitudes? Sexual attitudes? Sex education? Poverty? All of these things can influence condom usage, so making the assumption that circumcision is the main difference is foolish."

or do you subscribe to some double standard?

[ Parent ]

Few studies are perfect (none / 0) (#424)
by jwaskett on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 03:00:58 PM EST

But some studies are better than others.

Take the recent randomised controlled trial looking at the protective effect of circumcision against HIV, for example. Inevitably, there would have been differences between individuals in terms of religion and attitudes and so on, but because they were randomly assigned to either the control group or the intervention group, these differences did not influence the results.



[ Parent ]
gee, and with sll of this.. (none / 1) (#432)
by forety on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 03:26:39 PM EST

NO medical organization accepts it..makes one ask WHY?

[ Parent ]
I am afraid that so far.. (none / 0) (#419)
by forety on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 02:40:58 PM EST

You have not provided any compelling evidence for any benefit.

What you post is predicated on selectivity..both inclusive and exclusive.

there are lies of omission and lies of commission.

[ Parent ]

Circumcised men less likely to get HIV, says study (none / 0) (#253)
by rookkey on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 12:20:17 PM EST

Unlike us, actual health researchers have recently presented a study to an international AIDS conference:

Circumcised men less likely to get HIV, says study

Your point about condoms is irrelevant to a discussion of circumcision. Mentioning condoms is a straw man designed to divert attention from this fact: If circumcision reduces the chance of getting HIV, then circumcision reduces the chance of getting HIV. It's just a logical identity and any attempt to ignore it is just muddling the issue.



[ Parent ]
Maybe (none / 0) (#349)
by asret on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 10:08:30 PM EST

But how closely did they keep track of them? How many partners did the circumcised ones have compared to the rest? What were the rates of condom usage like between the groups?

It just seems like a fairly safe topic to make whatever claims you like about. It's not as if anyone's going to conduct a study by getting the two groups to go at it with anyone known to have AIDS on purpose.


Be happy. You're cute when you smile.
[ Parent ]
Circumcision "Trauma" (3.00 / 2) (#145)
by qcubed on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 12:53:36 PM EST

Wow, so being circumcised explains a lot about why I don't like people, physical contact, and why my relationships don't seem to be satisfying?

I always chalked it up to the fact that I was the child of a messy, ugly divorce when I was 11, not the fact that my pecker was nicked.

Surely there are other things to protest? Personally, I'd say that a divorce is slightly more formative--just barely--compared to an event that I don't remember at all,

Guess I was wrong.

===

Incidentally, there's a guy, every day, who demonstrates in front of the University of Chicago hospitals in regards to saying no about circumcision. "The Forefront of Medicine should know that the Foreskin is not a Defect," or so his sign says.

hmmm (none / 0) (#192)
by speek on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 06:13:51 PM EST

I must've missed the part where he compared divorce and circumcision.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

It can be both! (none / 0) (#333)
by skim123 on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 02:58:17 PM EST

I mean, if you define your life by your childhood trauma, why stop at picking one thing or the other? Why not both, or more things? Why stop at two, I'm sure you can think of other traumatizing events if you think hard enough and spend adequate time mulling over your past. I mean, what else better do you have to do?

Money is in some respects like fire; it is a very excellent servant but a terrible master.
PT Barnum


[ Parent ]
OMG (1.21 / 14) (#146)
by Elvis Priestley on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 12:53:38 PM EST

This was really fucking stupid.
Buy clothes that will make you cooler
seems a little off (2.80 / 10) (#154)
by scliffster on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 01:26:50 PM EST

Uh...not sure about anyone else, but sex for longer than 20 minutes sure doesn't cause me any pain. "losses of sensation of between 30% and 60%"-is this consistent with a higher incidence of premature ejaculation? "Anecdotal reports from...gay men...indicate that circumcised men are in general more likely to seek...anal sex"- well yeah, I wonder how that one got skewed?

Circumcision is bad m'kay (2.60 / 10) (#156)
by 175 4 7r4p on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 01:39:04 PM EST

The argument that I use that every one seems to agree with no matter what you think: People have lost their penises from circumcision. There are horror stories out there to read. There is a chance, though small, that your boy will lose it from circumcision. Is taking any chance, no matter how small, of destroying your son's penis worth having to explain to your son what happened, years later? Could it possibly worth losing your son to anger or suicide for the sake of "cleanliness" or "attractiveness"? There is also a large middle ground, the damaged but still "functional" circumcised penises. I happen to be in that group. I don't know what went on when the doc did mine, but I can get erect, and ejaculate, but I don't orgasm. Well, there is something, but it is comparable in pleasure to farting. Circumcision has taken a lot away from me. When people say it is acceptable as a societal construct, I really take offense to that, because they are also saying that collateral damage such as myself is acceptable. For "cleanliness" and "attractiveness". I think that deserves a repeat: "cleanliness" and "attractiveness" I laughed at the locker room argument posted earlier. I, personally, don't see the benefit, as I was made fun of a hell of a lot more than then the uncircumcized guys. So, for you pro-circ trolls out there, just be glad you're OK and shut the fuck up.

Your stupid (1.66 / 3) (#158)
by uptownpimp on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 01:52:06 PM EST

this is nonsense. It doesn't make any sense at all.

=========================
My name is actmodern and I approve of this message.
[ Parent ]
Huh? (2.83 / 6) (#165)
by 175 4 7r4p on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 02:30:52 PM EST

Whats there to not get?

  • Circumcision causes some dicks to be lost
  • Circumcision causes some dicks to be damaged
  • Do you really want to chance your son's dick getting fucked up?
  • My dick was damaged
  • I don't feel pleasure during sex
  • Be glad you are not me, and shut the fuck up
  • Main point: If you think circumcision always has a happy ending, think again.

    [ Parent ]
    The way you wrote (2.00 / 2) (#178)
    by uptownpimp on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 05:05:12 PM EST

    that was confusing as hell. I doubt your inablity to feel sexual pleasure stems from you being circumsized.

    =========================
    My name is actmodern and I approve of this message.
    [ Parent ]
    that's right (none / 0) (#204)
    by binford2k on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 07:34:26 PM EST

    I'm sure that you know so much more than the doctors who've treated him.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm glad you know the truth (none / 0) (#218)
    by uptownpimp on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 10:01:19 PM EST

    He never said a doctor told him anything about his inability to orgasm either. So fuck youself. Thanks.

    =========================
    My name is actmodern and I approve of this message.
    [ Parent ]
    You don't orgasm when you ejaculate? (none / 0) (#166)
    by chase the dragon on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 02:44:34 PM EST

    Have you never achieved orgasm? That sounds like a very serious sexual dysfunction. Have doctors tried treating it?

    [ Parent ]
    I believe they've had their shot already (none / 0) (#191)
    by speek on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 06:12:03 PM EST


    --
    al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
    [ Parent ]

    devil's advocate (2.28 / 7) (#157)
    by khallow on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 01:44:19 PM EST

    Why routine infant circumcision should be outlawed
    • It is non-consensual

    • It is incredibly traumatic, the trauma stays with the person throughout their life

    • It is dangerous, circumcision has lead to numerous fatalities due to infection

    • There are no health benefits to being circumcised

    • It lessens sexual pleasure for both men and women

    These points really need no further explanation.

    My take on that.

    • Being born or aborted is nonconsensual too. Parents for legal and ethical reasons have a lot of control over their children. But getting circumsized at three years is far too late. As you say, you developed memories of the event.

    • As others have mentioned, it isn't tramatic, if you don't remember. Further we can compare the well-being of circumcized people to non-circumcised people. Frankly, I see no signs of trama.

    • Numerous fatalities? How many per million circumcisions? You need to put it in that perspective.

    • As I recall, there are studies showing that circumcision reduces the transmission of SVD's. Eg, chlamydia infection rates have been shown to be substantially lower in circumcised populations.

    • What's wrong with lesser sexual pleasure? I know I'm running counter to the horde of pro-hedonists on K5, but I imagine that's always been a key reason for why circumcision existed and perhaps why populations which practiced it, fared well.

    Stating the obvious since 1969.

    So you're also pro female circumcision then? (n/t) (2.33 / 3) (#173)
    by shambles on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 03:34:40 PM EST

    The arguments about the reduction in transmission of STD's are completely fatuous.

    Wear a condom! Your risk is then much, much lower, whether you're circumcised or not.

    "Fatalities caused by circumcision accidents may approximate the mortality rate from penile cancer." American Cancer Society

    For an unnecessary operation, any is too many.

    People are more important than Truth - Edgar Malroy
    [ Parent ]
    hrmmm (none / 0) (#213)
    by khallow on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 09:11:07 PM EST

    The arguments about the reduction in transmission of STD's are completely fatuous.

    Well, obviously not, since we have STD's in the first place.

    Stating the obvious since 1969.
    [ Parent ]

    Speak for yourself mate <nt> (none / 0) (#226)
    by The Diary Section on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 10:39:27 PM EST


    Spend 10 minutes in the company of an American and you end up feeling like a Keats or a Shelley: Thin, brilliant, suave, and desperate for industrial-scale quantities of opium.
    [ Parent ]
    that is true (none / 0) (#264)
    by khallow on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 02:40:41 PM EST

    But the point remains. If it's so easy to avoid STD's, then why do we have them? People often don't use protection. In those frequent circumstances, circumcision helps in two different ways. First, by reducing the transmission of these diseases and by reducing the pleasure from sex (particularly unprotected sex) and hence reducing the lure of unprotected sex.

    Stating the obvious since 1969.
    [ Parent ]

    Then they get what's coming to them (none / 1) (#310)
    by xcham on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 05:51:54 AM EST

    But the point remains. If it's so easy to avoid STD's, then why do we have them? People often don't use protection.

    Uh huh. So educate, rather than mutilate, your child.

    [ Parent ]

    Trauma and memory (none / 1) (#647)
    by jadibd on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 06:15:31 PM EST

    As others have mentioned, it isn't tramatic, if you don't remember.

    And, if I may ask, on what evidence do you base this claim?

    To the best of my knowledge what makes a real trauma so difficult to treat and heal is exactly the fact, that it's stored in (evolutionary very old) parts of the brain, that are almost completely disconnected from the higher functions like normal memory, conscious thought or language.

    This is what enables us to react much faster than conscious thought allows in emergency situations, but it also makes it almost impossible to treat a trauma with the usual talk therapies. You just don't get through to that level that easy.

    There are actually quite a number of persons living with the results of traumata that happened way before they were able to talk or remember a thing.

    But even if this wasn't the case, what about those for example who were abused as a child and cannot remember anything about it because the memory got locked away? For the simple reason that it was just to painful to let the person survive psychologically if it wasn't. They don't remember a thing, so they weren't traumatized in your book?

    Ridicullous.



    [ Parent ]

    K5's strangest obsession? (2.77 / 9) (#160)
    by Big Sexxy Joe on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 01:54:40 PM EST

    OK, you've convinced me that circumsion shouldn't be routine.  That being said, I hardly think it's that big a deal that they are done routinely.  

    We get anti-circumsion articles probably about once a year (or more).  Why does this keep coming up?  And why do people keep voting them up?

    Talking point:  Is American circumsion a zionist conspiracy?

    I'm like Jesus, only better.
    Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour

    You gotta wonder. (none / 1) (#260)
    by NoMoreNicksLeft on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 01:26:56 PM EST

    Without any reasonable explanation other than goofy victorians 150 years ago and massive social inertia, this area is ripe for zionist conspiracy theories.

    Baldrson, care to comment?

    --
    Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
    [ Parent ]

    I've considered suing my parents/doctor (2.00 / 4) (#175)
    by bored on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 04:10:04 PM EST

    For having me cut as an infant. Not to partiularly gain anything (because what has been lost cannot be regained) but rather to set a precedent, for new parents that if you have your child cut, you can be held liable for it when they grow up and decide that you made a mistake. Since neither the medical community (which has said its not a recommened procedure for infants) nor the politicians in the US seem to be able to do anything. Its time to use the legal system aginst them.

    Stupid. (none / 1) (#182)
    by BigZaphod on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 05:31:54 PM EST

    What's the point?  If they don't cut and the kid ends up getting some condition where it would have been better had he been cut, then he can sue too, right?  This wouldn't solve anything.

    Deal with the reality of it.  Get over it.  Then try to fix it for the future.  Leave the courts out of it.  Go to the media.  Get some dissenting doctors to speak out and write letters to the editors.  Make a fuss and deal with the consequences.  Going to court over what is essentially a cultural issue is lame.

    "We're all patients, there are no doctors, our meds ran out a long time ago and nobody loves us." - skyknight
    [ Parent ]

    LOL.. (none / 1) (#373)
    by forety on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 10:12:28 AM EST

    yes, and a person can sue his parents for NOT having his appendix removed as a child wjhen he later gets appendicitis?

    [ Parent ]
    Wouldn't work (none / 0) (#188)
    by LilDebbie on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 05:59:16 PM EST

    Parents have many rights over their children, among them being the right to mutilate them in culturally acceptable ways.

    My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
    - hugin -

    [ Parent ]
    Except... (none / 1) (#207)
    by elgardo on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 07:39:43 PM EST

    ...if you refuse to let your child take a vaccine that might cause more harm than good, in which case you're likely to lose your child to the gov'ment.

    (Or perhaps I listen too much to C2C)

    [ Parent ]

    You can do that (3.00 / 2) (#209)
    by LilDebbie on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 07:55:34 PM EST

    Hell, Christian Scientist refuse to treat their children for very real diseases and they get away with it.

    My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
    - hugin -

    [ Parent ]
    Actually,,, (none / 0) (#321)
    by elgardo on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 12:17:36 PM EST

    The regulations differ from state to state. In quite a number of states now, you can't refuse compulsary vaccinations. I guess it depends on which Chistian cults they harbour, and how strong these cults are politically.

    [ Parent ]
    Will you get more sex... (2.75 / 4) (#176)
    by claes on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 04:25:19 PM EST

    if you're cut?

    No, really, it's a serious question. Anyone ever been turned down/ turned down for sex because they or their potential partner was uncut?

    -- claes (can't provide any first-hand (haha!) data)

    Actually opposite (2.50 / 2) (#187)
    by doombob on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 05:55:16 PM EST

    I've had a couple interested parties request to see what it looked like. In addition, some were curious what it would be like.

    [ Parent ]
    the same reaction that Colin Farrel gets.. (none / 0) (#372)
    by forety on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 10:09:28 AM EST

    http://www.colin-farrell.org/articles/cfplayboy303.html

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, less sex for me. (3.00 / 2) (#227)
    by Stoutlimb on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 11:33:23 PM EST

    I can only speak for myself.  I am the first uncut man my wife has encountered.  She says she has a hard time giving me head, because I'm uncut.  She has even gone as far as to suggest that I get circumcised.  Personally I think she has some other issues, and it's a convenient excuse, but there it is.

    And...  I would never cut myself there in the promise of getting more sex, so I tough it out.

    Bork!

    [ Parent ]

    mixed reactions (none / 0) (#265)
    by Squidman2501 on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 04:18:49 PM EST

    I've had some think that my uncutness was ugly and disgusting, and I've had some that thought it was really interesting and sexy; it just depends on the person. There are women who like uncut dicks and there are women who don't like uncut dicks...it's a luck of the draw thing.
    Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggie" until you can find a rock. -Hank Arendall
    [ Parent ]
    I love these circumcision articles. (2.22 / 9) (#177)
    by Torka on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 05:02:28 PM EST

    It's always hilarious watching the angry insecure cut guys yelling VERY loudly about how they don't care.

    Hm. (none / 1) (#206)
    by lostincali on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 07:39:14 PM EST

    When I first saw one of these stories on circumcision, I reacted loudly. I just couldn't believe the author's POV -- he seemed to be so focused on this issue as a major trauma in his life.

    Which shocked me, because it never even crossed my mind that I was deprived in some way, yet , here is some internet person (and lots of supporters) going off about how bad they've got it.

    Your POV seems to be that someone like me is secretly angsty and pissed about being it, that I'm just trying to hide it by talking about how it isn't an issue for me personally.

    Well, to you I say, enjoy your amateur psychology. I dabble from time to time too, and it is fun.

    "The least busy day [at McDonalds] is Monday, and then sales increase throughout the week, I guess as enthusiasm for life dwindles."
    [ Parent ]

    Yeah (2.00 / 5) (#208)
    by kitten on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 07:42:06 PM EST

    But I really don't care, is the thing.

    When I first became aware that this was even a controversial issue, I thought it was a joke at first. Surely, no one could seriously care that much one way or the other about it. I've come to understand that there are indeed some wackjobs out there who insist they've been "emotionally scarred" by something they had no biological way of remembering, and how traumatic it's been for them, blah blah blah.

    Fact is, if you're cut when you're a newborn, you'll never know the difference. To you, it's just the way your penis is, and always has been. Exactly what are these loons comparing their experience to? They have no basis. For all they know, having a foreskin really sucks. They're bitching about something they have no qualification to comment on, just for the sake of hearing themselves bitch. I know, because I'm a master at that art. :P

    Frankly, if you think you've been "emotionally scared" and "traumatized" by something like this, you've got problems that go way beyond a bit of skin off your dick.

    As for me, I don't feel "mutilated", I enjoy sex immensely, and that's pretty much the end of it. I'm still having a hard time believing anyone can honestly care about this.
    mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
    [ Parent ]
    What is the justification (3.00 / 3) (#215)
    by MrMikey on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 09:25:03 PM EST

    for removing healthy tissue from a healthy child? We could remove a child's earlobes shortly after birth and they "wouldn't know the difference." To them it would be the way their ears were, and always had been. "But, his father had his earlobes removed, and I want our son to look the same."

    Is that a good reason? "They won't miss it." ?

    [ Parent ]

    None at all. (1.00 / 3) (#361)
    by kitten on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 03:52:58 AM EST

    I didn't say it was justified, did I? I just said that it's nothing to get in such a tizzy over. I think the other commenter had it right -- it's just people trying to find something to play the victim over (or, if uncut, to be on a mission).

    Once again, I have to say that, as a cut man, I don't go into existential angst over it, the way these people claim I should, using such words as "traumatized" and "mutilated" and "emotionally scarred". Christ. This really is one of those times when "get over it" is the only appropriate response.

    If all circumcision practices were halted tomorrow, that'd be fine by me. Likewise, if the practice continues, that's also fine by me. I just can't be bothered to care. No one has put forth a very good argument, and few have managed to put forth any argument that doesn't involve loaded words for effect.
    mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
    [ Parent ]
    No qualification to comment? (3.00 / 2) (#219)
    by bpt on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 10:12:52 PM EST

    Actually, a number of anti-circ people who were circumcised as infants undergo foreskin restoration, so some of them do know what they're talking about. Some people are circumcized as an adult and then feel that it was a mistake; they also know firsthand what foreskin versus no-foreskin is like.
    --
    Lisp Users: Due to the holiday next Monday, there will be no garbage collection.
    [ Parent ]
    If you stand in front of a mirror (3.00 / 2) (#224)
    by I ABHOR TROLLS on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 10:32:46 PM EST

    and read this post out loud very night before you go to bed, EVERYTHING will be okay.

    [ Parent ]
    It's called the "culture of complaint" (none / 1) (#232)
    by nostalgiphile on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 03:50:55 AM EST

    After all, if you're not a victim of some kind what are you? Personally, I think all these complaints from circumcised men (and the uncircumcised men with a mission) should be directed at their parents, the people who made or didn't make the decision in the first place.

    If you don't have your kids circ'd then good for you, I don't give a damn one way or the other. But don't tell me I was traumatized and should feel I'm missing out on something.

    "Depending on your perspective you are an optimist or a pessimist[,] and a hopeless one too." --trhurler
    [ Parent ]
    Yeh, you'll never know the difference. (2.00 / 2) (#259)
    by NoMoreNicksLeft on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 01:23:02 PM EST

    Fact is, if you're cut when you're a newborn, you'll never know the difference.

    Unless, of course, you kick just at exactly the wrong moment, of the doctor is in a hurry because the HMO isn't paying him enough to support both a wife and a mistress and pay for his new boat, or he's a drunk, or an old man with shaky hands that should only be prescribing things now and not holding a scalpel, or there's an earthquake, or any number of other things that might just happen and cause him to cut a little too much.

    Especially when he could have not cut at all, and avoided a real risk altogether.

    So, all you fake girls out there, that mommy and daddy are trying to force you to take estrogen at age 13, and you're not getting your periods like other girls your age, and your body feels "wrong"... just tell kitten here that you don't know the difference.

    Doctors who perform such are violating their oaths, I'd think, whether they're too dumb to see it or not. Why aren't we trying to get their licenses yanked? The reasons to do it sounds more like something you'd hear in a tatoo/body modification parlor, than in a doctor's office.

    --
    Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
    [ Parent ]

    I think this explains... (none / 0) (#981)
    by SoupIsGoodFood on Mon Sep 05, 2005 at 05:24:44 AM EST

    where your bitterness comes from.

    [ Parent ]
    It's because they are sick... (3.00 / 2) (#228)
    by nostalgiphile on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 11:59:29 PM EST

    Of hearing all these uncut dicks speculating about how their cocks must feel, how much trauma they musta gone through, etc. etc....All highly speculative and, frankly, kinda twisted. Which kinda makes you think, "gee these uncircumcised dudes are really obsessed with dicks and cutting."

    What is really annoying to most people, I think, is that if you're thinking of having kids and want serious advice, you can't easily get it on the internet because the Cult of Anti-circumcision seems to have flooded the web (mixed metaphor, sorry) with propaganda in the fight against circumcised babies.

    Don't believe me? Google "circumcision advice" and see what you get.

    "Depending on your perspective you are an optimist or a pessimist[,] and a hopeless one too." --trhurler
    [ Parent ]
    Yes. (3.00 / 3) (#258)
    by NoMoreNicksLeft on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 01:15:52 PM EST

    And when you want to drown your 3 month old in a barrel of water because diapers are too damned expensive, the cult of the anti-child murder rears its ugly head... it's impossible to get decent advice.

    What advice could you possibly hope to hear? That's its somehow therapeutic to randomly amputate parts of infants bodies?

    That it will put your child on the shortlist of highly-valued slaves when baldrson's conspiracy theories come true?

    His appendix is probably more worthy of being cut out, we know that can cause problems from time to time. Why not chop that out too?

    --
    Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
    [ Parent ]

    and then you could got to the actual medical studi (none / 0) (#369)
    by forety on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 09:30:17 AM EST

    http://www.cirp.org/

    [ Parent ]
    Or alternatively you could get the bigger picture (none / 0) (#392)
    by jwaskett on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 12:26:11 PM EST

    Sure, you could go to CIRP, and get a carefully selected set of studies that would seem to support an anti-circumcision viewpoint.

    You could go to Circs.org and get another set of studies.

    Alternatively, you could go to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed database, type in 'circumcision', and get the full story.



    [ Parent ]
    But one would still have to.. (none / 0) (#479)
    by forety on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 08:12:00 PM EST

    refute the studies reprinted on CIRP..

    BTW, your links still do not work--isn't that your personal site of SELECTED studies?

    Pubmed--the full story?

    Are ALL of the studies posted at CIRP there? Are there studies and not just abstracts?

    [ Parent ]

    Hey, I'll admit it, I care. (3.00 / 2) (#274)
    by GhostfacedFiddlah on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 05:51:34 PM EST

    It does piss me off a bit that parts of my cock are missing because of some religious mumbo-jumbo and a few medical quacks.

    That said, it's long in the past, I'll never know the difference, and it really isn't that important in the long run.  

    I'll settle for not putting my kids through it and if anyone brings it up, I'll give them my honest opinion and change the subject.

    (Although if the author waqs circumcised at the age of three, I can certainly understand where he's coming from.  Three days people, not three fucking years)

    [ Parent ]

    TMI - the bane of the civilised world (1.11 / 9) (#195)
    by tweetsygalore on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 06:31:58 PM EST


    Uh-huh!

    After each perceived security crisis ended, the United States has remorsefully realised that the abrogation of civil liberties was unnecessary. But it has proven unable to prevent itself from repeating the error when the next crisis comes along. --- Justice William Brennan
    Nice plagiarism. (1.85 / 7) (#197)
    by brettd on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 06:42:55 PM EST

    Nice job cutting + pasting blocks of text from the Wikipedia article, and others.

    Next time, provide proper citations- ie indent, quote marks, italics- SOMETHING to indicate A SECTION OF YOUR TEXT IS NOT YOUR OWN WORK. It is not acceptable (even with a bibliography) to simply copy the text word for word. There are clear citation standards, and I suggest you pick up virtually any style guide or middle school english textbook. This is not Slashdot- and in "the real world", respected researchers and educators loose their jobs over stuff like this, so if you're going to play pseudo-intellectual on "teh intarweb", at least give it a try.

    I also notice you didn't preserve the GNU FDL: "[...]You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies[...]"

    Take it easy (2.50 / 4) (#202)
    by eightyford on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 07:09:18 PM EST

    I agree mostly, but this isn't exactly a formal publication. Wikipedia is meant to be 'plagiarised' too. And why do you have to be so angry? Circumcised lately?



    New Religion Message Board
    [ Parent ]
    Oh Please! (none / 0) (#235)
    by stzu on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 07:14:41 AM EST

    Care to back up that assertion with links and references? Plus a line by line breakdown of the text and where it came from?

    Yes there is some cutting and pasting...primarily in the history section.  It makes up about 15% of the article.

    All in all a pretty unfair accusation.

    love,
    Simon

    [ Parent ]

    In other news ... (2.16 / 12) (#201)
    by foilhl2 on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 07:07:18 PM EST

    Ok - Maybe I should just ignore the following then:

    http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/mg18725113.700

    Look, I'm sorry you've had such a traumatic experience, but your arguments and conclusion are very foolish. I quote:

    "Why routine infant circumcision should be outlawed

    * It is non-consensual"

    Everything that is done for or to an infant is non-consensual, do we wait for them to get old enough to sign a form before we do the open heart surgery?

    "* It is incredibly traumatic, the trauma stays with the person throughout their life"

    Based on what? Does anyone remember anything from when they were a newborn infant? Based on this ridiculous point, I suppose we have all been brutally traumatized by the painful memories of being born, being hungry for our next bottle, and having to learn to sleep through the night. The fact is, an infant's brain has not even properly developed the regions that allow it to retain memories until a bit later.

    "* It is dangerous, circumcision has lead to numerous fatalities due to infection"

    Looking for hard evidence on this one too. "Numerous fatalities" is just plain hyperbole. I think any tenuous data here would be greatly outwieghed by the long term health benefits of the studies cited at the beginning of this articles (not to mention the many others you can look up if you care.)

    "* There are no health benefits to being circumcised"

    Once again just plain wrong. Does wanting it to be true make it real for you? Does saying it is for everyone in your article make it a fact so you can base an argument around it? The link I have cited is far from being the first study on the matter, and not to be the last as two more important studies will present their similiar findings soon. The health benefits deal mainly with the fact that the foreskin greatly concentrates the various viruses and bacteria in question in the areas that allow it to quickly enter the body. Better hygiene will help, but only if you take a hot soapy shower immediatly following every encounter! (Or we could discuss condoms, but that would destroy your next point here.)

    "* It lessens sexual pleasure for both men and women"

    I think this is the only possibly valid point you have here, even if the part about lessening pleasure for women is pretty tenuous at best (adverse arguments could very much hold true for millions of women that have been quite disappointed at the brevity of their encounters!), and seems to be the only realy conclusion of your whole article as you deal mostly of it on the "bad things" that happened to people's sexual expression later in life.

    "The points really need no furuther explanation."

    Why because we feel so sorry for the little babies that have to get hurt? Give me freaking break - your reasoning is just based on emotional response to your psycological difficulties in this area. Circumcision is a perfectly viable choice for parents with infant boys, should it be done early,  and provides substantial medical benefits throughout life. 3 is a poor age I admit as the child's mental capacity to both make a true consensual decision and to undertand what is happening throughout the process has not matured.  Likewise, they have reach the cognitive level to remember the experience, but not to be able to process it until much later in life and with no small effort, just as you have. Later in life, it is also a viable option for those who wish to take it and deal with the same consequences as any such surgery.

    Which brings me to my summary of what you have written. Overall, your argument is neither medical nor logical, contains no real facts to base your opinions upon, but is merely a rambling angst-ridden treatise on how your mother and some doctors made a very poor decision to circumcise a 3 year old and how you now live and are dealing with the emotional baggage. Parents of newborn boys have every justifiable right to choose circumcision for either religious or medical reasons. This article is purely a selfish endeavor and does only a disservice to those who read this seeking any honest direction or answers on this serious subject. I encourage anyone who has read this and feels any associated guilt or remorse because of it to talk to your doctor and get the facts straight. Don't listen to this foolishness.

    -- ab
    --ab

    wrong (2.66 / 3) (#205)
    by smegmatic on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 07:34:30 PM EST

    "Based on what? Does anyone remember anything from when they were a newborn infant? Based on this ridiculous point, I suppose we have all been brutally traumatized by the painful memories of being born, being hungry for our next bottle, and having to learn to sleep through the night. The fact is, an infant's brain has not even properly developed the regions that allow it to retain memories until a bit later." I don't feel like looking up a study to support this, as I am not the author of the article or anything, but even if you don't have a conscious memory of something that happens when you are an infant, it does affect you and you have some sort of memory of it. A study was done where they played a noise or something to infants, and then later, none of them claimed remembered it, but they reacted different upon hearing it than peoplep who hadn't heard it earlier. I'm probably messing up details, but that's the jist of it.

    [ Parent ]
    and let's not forget.. (none / 0) (#371)
    by forety on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 10:07:15 AM EST

    that circumcised boys show a stronger response to the pain of vaccinations later than do intact boys. http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/taddio2/

    [ Parent ]
    More specifically... (none / 0) (#386)
    by jwaskett on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 11:57:34 AM EST

    Boys who had either no anaesthesia or EMLA cream showed a stronger response to pain. The researchers themselves acknowledge that results might have differed with more effective anaesthesia: "Study of the vaccination pain response of infants who had received more effective circumcision pain management (ie, dorsal penile nerve block and adequate postoperative pain management) would be interesting."

    [ Parent ]
    Gee, more word games? (none / 0) (#414)
    by forety on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 02:33:21 PM EST

    Look at their inital statement.. and THEN look at this..
    New Recommendations: The American Academy of Pediatrics released its new circumcision policy statement on March 1, 1999. The AAP has withdrawn its previous recommendation for neonatal circumcision but states that, if a circumcision is to be done, analgesia should be used. The AAP says the ring block method is the most effective. Furthermore the AAP states that all methods*** reduce but do not eliminate pain.*** CIRP has more information about the new AAP statement.

    "There is a common belief that the effects of circumcision pain are short-lived and clinically insignificant, and, therefore, that the benefits of analgesic treatment do not outweigh the risks of adverse effects from currently available therapies."

    EFFECT OF NEONATAL CIRCUMCISION ON PAIN RESPONSE
    THE LANCET, Volume 349 Number 9052: Pages 599-603, March 1, 1997.

    Meritcare (Internet) states that  "Besides anesthesia, securing your child in the padded restraint chair and giving him a sugar-dipped pacifier can help reduce his level of stress (and yours). Used together, these methods can decrease discomfort by more than 50%."

    http://www.meritcare.com/kidshealth/PageManager.asp?dn=MeritCare&ps=104&article_set=22652&cat_id=177&lic=19&pg=3

    [ Parent ]

    More misrepresentations (none / 0) (#421)
    by jwaskett on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 02:49:46 PM EST

    "The AAP has withdrawn its previous recommendation for neonatal circumcision but states that, if a circumcision is to be done, analgesia should be used."

    This is a misrepresentation. The AAP's previous (1989) statement did not recommend neonatal circumcision either. Like the most recent statement, it recommends that parents should make the decision for their son.

    It has only been established that circumcision with EMLA or no anaesthesia is associated with a heightened pain response later. It may be the case that this is the case for circumcision in general, but this is speculative at best.

    You quote CIRP's take on the AAP statement. The AAP, however, say that: "In summary, analgesia is safe and effective in reducing the procedural pain associated with circumcision"



    [ Parent ]
    Ah, but you are ignoring .. (none / 0) (#429)
    by forety on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 03:22:59 PM EST

    that this statement came from the AAP..and also choosing to ignore the Merit statement..

    I guess, that 50$% is considered "effective" by the AAP, but not where I come from.

    I have noticed that you like to SELECT evidence you wish to respond to..

    lies of omission?

    [ Parent ]

    Actually (none / 0) (#436)
    by jwaskett on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 03:37:16 PM EST

    The phrase "reduce but do not eliminate pain" does not come from the AAP. It is from CIRP, and represents their views, not the AAP's statement.

    Meritcare's article is unreferenced and cannot be given more credibility than any other opinion piece. Hard data please.



    [ Parent ]
    Ah, but that phrase.. (none / 0) (#440)
    by forety on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 03:48:26 PM EST

    WAS taken from  the AAP.

    Might I request "hard data. from you also?

    [ Parent ]

    No it was not (none / 0) (#442)
    by jwaskett on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 03:52:54 PM EST

    That statement cannot be found in any of the AAP's documents. It is CIRP's invention.



    [ Parent ]
    Funny, that is where (none / 0) (#453)
    by forety on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 04:27:08 PM EST

    "I" initially found it..but not seen since they turned their site over to another group..interesting? No?

    [ Parent ]
    If it can be found elsewhere, provide evidence NT (none / 0) (#457)
    by jwaskett on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 04:34:22 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    When you can refute the statement for Merit.. (none / 0) (#468)
    by forety on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 05:06:46 PM EST

    nt

    [ Parent ]
    Already have (none / 0) (#496)
    by jwaskett on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:41:36 AM EST

    It's unreferenced, and thus is simply an opinion, as valid or invalid as any other. It certainly is not what you could call evidence.



    [ Parent ]
    If YOU can cite the OPINIONS.. (none / 0) (#510)
    by forety on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:22:18 AM EST

    of the AAP to support your position, you should have no problem accepting the opinions of others... or is this a convenient double standard?

    and when done, try this refuting this one..

    http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/cold-taylor/

    British Journal of Urology (1999), 83, Suppl. 1, 34-44

    The prepuce

    C.J. COLD and J.R. TAYLOR*

    Departments of Pathology, Marshfield Clinic, Wisconsin, USA, and *Health Sciences Centre, University of Manitoba, Canada

    "The male prepuce has somatosensory innervation by the dorsal nerve of the penis and branches of the perineal nerve (including the posterior scrotal nerves) [35,36]. Autonomic innervation of the prepuce arises from the pelvic plexus. The parasympathetic visceral efferent and afferent fibres arise from the sacral centre (S2-S4), and sympathetic preganglionic afferent and visceral afferent fibres from the thoracolumbar centre (T11-L2). The parasympathetic nerves run adjacent to and through the wall of the membranous urethra [35]. Although most neonatal and childhood circumcisions are performed with no anaesthesia [37], the complicated innervation of the penis explains why a dorsal penile nerve block provides incomplete pain relief for neonatal male circumcision [37,38]. Likewise, a penile ring block cannot block the visceral afferent fibres from the cavernosal nerve nor the posterior scrotal somatosensory branches of the perineal nerve [38]. A eutectic mixture of local anaesthetic cream (EMLA) does not relieve the pain associated with circumcision because of the complexity of penile innervation and the multiple layers that would have to be penetrated by the topical cream in the newborn penis [39]. Amazingly, some modern urology textbooks even recommend wine as an anaesthetic for newborn circumcision [24]."

    [ Parent ]

    Actually (none / 0) (#520)
    by jwaskett on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:05:44 AM EST

    You cited (or pretended to cite) the opinion of the AAP to begin with. I merely corrected your misrepresentation.

    You then introduce the opinion of two anti-circumcision activists, Taylor and Cold, who are hardly neutral or objective on the issue.

    These authors cite Lander as evidence that the DPNB is less than fully effective. However, they then cite a letter from Van Howe as evidence that the ring block is ineffective, ignoring Lander's finding that "Of the 3 anesthetics considered in this investigation, ring block is clearly superior. It provides satisfactory anesthesia for all stages of the circumcision."

    Ignoring relevant results from studies that you cite when they don't suit your purpose is simply bad science.



    [ Parent ]
    Ah, but crucial to the point is the.. (none / 0) (#525)
    by forety on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:16:27 AM EST

    actual innervation of the penis..which you are completely ignoring..

    When can we expect a rebuttal based on the BASIC information and not just the supporting information?

    You do seem to avoid the critical points.. WHY?

    [ Parent ]

    Test (none / 0) (#531)
    by jwaskett on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:34:27 AM EST

    Theory is all very well, Forety, but a fundamental principle of science is that if you test a hypothesis, and it disagrees with your experiment, something's wrong with one of the two. Either your theory was incorrect, or your experiment was badly designed.

    Now, we have evidence from experiment showing that ring block is effective, vs the cited opinion of Van Howe that it wouldn't be. That's a clue that the opinion is incorrect.



    [ Parent ]
    Yes, and the fundamental requirement is.. (none / 0) (#543)
    by forety on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:01:01 PM EST

    the ability to fulfill the predictions..

    And since there is NO fulfillment of the prediction that anesthesia eliminaes the pain, and the innervation indicates it cannot.. we are left with not meeting this basic requirement.

    Now unless you can provide this EVIDENCE of which you speak, we are left with an unsubstantiated assertions.

    And to merely say something is "effective" is a subjective assertion..

    To me, "effective" means eliminates ALL of the pain..during and after.

    [ Parent ]

    Nope (none / 0) (#556)
    by jwaskett on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 01:00:05 PM EST

    And since there is NO fulfillment of the prediction that anesthesia eliminaes the pain

    That's not a prediction, it's a result. It's based upon measurement.

    In contrast, Van Howe predicted that effective anaesthesia is impossible. This prediction, as tested by experiment, is shown to be incorrect.



    [ Parent ]
    Sorry, that opinion predicts that.. (none / 0) (#559)
    by forety on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 02:04:11 PM EST

    anesthesia used in circumcision IS effective..

    NOW what we are waiting for is PROOF for that prediction' fulfillment..

    You keep saying there is evidence available, it is about time you provided it..

    [ Parent ]

    And you have yet to provide an acceptable (none / 0) (#560)
    by forety on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 02:06:56 PM EST

    defintition for "effective"..

    Since this is an unnecessary procedure on an unconsenting infant, the only logical,acceptable justification as far as the pain aspect goes, is there be NO unnecessary pain..before and after.

    [ Parent ]

    ignoring the .. (none / 0) (#563)
    by forety on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 02:09:49 PM EST

    Cold Taylor anatomical evidence why existing pain relief does not eliminate pain from this procedure..

    perhaps you might wish to statt addressing ALL of the points in my posts--this selectivity is not only tired, but it hardly show integriry.

    [ Parent ]

    Theory (none / 0) (#567)
    by jwaskett on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 02:39:38 PM EST

    No, Cold and Taylor offer a theory that pain relief doesn't eliminate pain. Like any theory, it requires testing.

    The obvious way of testing whether anaesthesia is effective is to perform the surgery with it and see whether the patient feels pain. Lander did this with children, and reported that it was effective.

    Of course, with young children who have not yet learned sufficient language skills, we have to make an educated guess at whether they are in pain, based on their heart rate and so on. In contrast, adults are able to clearly express whether they are in pain or not. This study, ring block was shown to be effective in prevention of pain in adults.



    [ Parent ]
    hmm (3.00 / 2) (#212)
    by ske on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 08:55:23 PM EST

    "Everything that is done for or to an infant is non-consensual, do we wait for them to get old enough to sign a form before we do the open heart surgery?"

    Even though you argue health benefits is this really as urgent as heart surgery? This seems honestly to be more of a religous thing. Why dont we wait for consent until we permanently cut someones body up to sign him up?

    [ Parent ]

    The glaring error in the HIV study (1.00 / 6) (#216)
    by StephenThompson on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 09:47:31 PM EST

    No shit the guys who got circumcised got HIV less: they had sex less because first off they had to heal after the surgery, next, sex remained more painful for them, and third their sexual appetite was reduced because they had been imasculated. There was no control that counted the number of times people had sex with infected people, so, its a bullshit study.

    [ Parent ]
    Incorrect (none / 0) (#247)
    by jwaskett on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 09:14:14 AM EST

    StephenThompson states: "they had sex less because first off they had to heal after the surgery." As the figures show, the protective effect remained long after healing (which is typically 4-6 weeks):

    0-3 months: Circ: 2, Uncirc: 9, UC:C Ratio: 4.5:1
    4-12 months: Circ: 7, Uncirc: 15, UC:C Ratio: 2.1:1
    13-21 months: Circ: 9, Uncirc: 27, UC:C Ratio: 3:1

    Data from Cohen J. AIDS RESEARCH: Male Circumcision Thwarts HIV Infection. Science. 2005 Aug 5;309(5736):860. Ratios are my own calculations.

    He goes on to say: "next, sex remained more painful for them." There is no credible evidence for this.

    "third their sexual appetite was reduced because they had been imasculated." Nonsense. From the study: "When controlling for sexual behavior, including condom use and health seeking behavior, the RR was unchanged: RR=2.93 (p=0.0003)." http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=2675

    "There was no control that counted the number of times people had sex with infected people, so, its a bullshit study." From the article in Science, cited above: "Further bolstering the results, men in the circumcised group reported 18% more sexual contacts than controls."



    [ Parent ]
    nice try (3.00 / 2) (#225)
    by thankyougustad on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 10:38:42 PM EST

    Everything that is done for or to an infant is non-consensual, do we wait for them to get old enough to sign a form before we do the open heart surgery?
    I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but circumcision is not a live saving procedure. I'm not sure why you're such an ardent proponent of mutilating genitals. . . I suspect you may have some propriety interest.

    No no thanks no
    Je n'aime que le bourbon
    no no thanks no
    c'est une affaire de goût.

    [ Parent ]
    As I have already said... (none / 0) (#240)
    by SoupIsGoodFood on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 08:10:24 AM EST

    That study doesn't mean much.

    [ Parent ]
    Wear a condom! (none / 0) (#248)
    by shambles on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 09:40:22 AM EST

    You have the same, and much lower, chance of getting HIV when wearing a condom if you're cut or not.

    If you don't wear one, you're a idiot and surgery can't correct that.

    People are more important than Truth - Edgar Malroy
    [ Parent ]
    ah, yes, but there is evidence.. (none / 0) (#347)
    by forety on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 07:15:23 PM EST

    that this surgery makes it problematic for cut men TO were condoms.. hence a self-defeating bit of nonsense..

    [ Parent ]
    Look again (none / 0) (#362)
    by jwaskett on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 07:18:31 AM EST

    According to Family Health International:

    "Data regarding circumcised men and condom failure are limited and inconclusive."

    http://www.fhi.org/en/RH/Pubs/booksReports/latexcondom/behavcharac.htm



    [ Parent ]
    selctive evidence? (none / 1) (#368)
    by forety on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 09:23:46 AM EST

    Ah yes, but you are ignoring these.. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, Volume 88, Number 5: Pages 749-754, May 1998. Private sexual behavior, public opinion, and public health policy related to sexually transmitted diseases: a US-British comparison. Michael RT, Wadsworth J, Feinleib J, Johnson AM, Laumann EO, Wellings K. Harris School of Public Policy Studies, University of Chicago, IL 60637, USA. RESULTS: In comparison with that of Britain, the US population has greater variability in sexual behavior, less tolerant opinions about sexual behavior, and a higher STD prevalence and*** lower condom usage among men.*** http://www.rho.org/html/cont-male_condoms.htm Failure also may be caused by the condom user's behavior. A recent study found that breakage related to: (1) having a male sexual partner, (2) infrequent condom use, (3) having the condom partially slip, and (4) the technique use to don the condom (Richters, 1995). Slippage was related to: (1) young age, (2) having less lifetime condom experience, (3) being circumcised, and (4) the donning technique. 78.Richters J, Gerofi J, Donovan B. Why do condoms break or slip off in use? An exploratory study. Int J STD AIDS 1995;6:11-18 "American men are reluctant to use condoms. Studies indicate a considerably higher acceptance and usage rate for condoms in Europe and Japan, where circumcision is almost never practised. Some have suggested that American men are resisting a layer of latex that would further decrease sensation from a glans already desensitized from the keritinization following circumcision. Moreover, condoms are more likely to fall off the circumcised penis78."

    [ Parent ]
    It's not a Zionist conspiracy... (1.25 / 4) (#221)
    by BlahFace on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 10:17:55 PM EST

    ...women talked their men into making it a common practice, to decrease our pleasure and sex drive.

    Blame the cunts!

    (kidding everyone)

    A matter of choice to a person (2.66 / 3) (#229)
    by Pkchukiss on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 02:11:47 AM EST

    I am convinced that circumcision is a medical procedure that should not be decided by parents, unless the foreskin is threatening the very life of their child, in which case, parents should have the free will to decide for their charge.

    In other cases, forcing their child to undergo an unnecessary surgery only serve to put his life to the risk that all operations carry: do their parents want to risk a post-operation infection to their boy's penis? And all that pain just because their parents have decided that circumcision was recommended by their religion, and that everybody else is doing it?


    Quote from article:
    The baby boy is strapped to a Y-shaped board, legs spread eagled, this is to provide easy access to his penis and stop him from thrashing about. A clamp is then placed on his penis, between the glans and the foreskin, this clamp needs to be forced into place as the baby's foreskin is not yet separate from the glans. By now the child is screaming. The foreskin is then cut off. Anaesthetic is not given - as anaesthetising a baby might be dangerous.

    And what of his rights to not mutiliate himself? He would inherit a body modified for the religious expedition of the parents. It further pushes home the point if the person does not want to follow his parents' footsteps, like some of my friends.

    Parents' deciding circumcision? A definite no-no.

    ________________
    Ignorant no more
    My blog

    Children don't have rights (1.50 / 4) (#233)
    by nostalgiphile on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 03:53:12 AM EST

    And you sound like a fascist (parents have no right) and a libertarian (it's the baby's penis, let him decide!) in one breath, impressive.

    "Depending on your perspective you are an optimist or a pessimist[,] and a hopeless one too." --trhurler
    [ Parent ]
    Uhhhh (3.00 / 3) (#309)
    by xcham on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 05:46:30 AM EST

    You're probably beyond help, but let me try:

    Parents do not have a right to put their child in harms way unnecessarily. The law reflects this. If you are running a crack house and child services find out, you are no longer a parent. You put your kid on a table and tell some schmuck to chop part of his pecker off for no good reason, potentially exposing him to the danger of being left dickless if the guy messes up, you're praised in some circles. That is retarded.

    [ Parent ]

    Backwards argument (none / 0) (#454)
    by rpresser on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 04:27:12 PM EST

    You have decided unilaterally that none of the reasons for circumcision, including religious ones, are good reasons. Then you find it possible to say that it is retarded to "chop part of his pecker off for no good reason."

    Others disagree with you. You do not have the right to force your conclusions on others in this area.
    ------------
    "In terms of both hyperbolic overreaching and eventual wrongness, the Permanent [Republican] Majority has set a new, and truly difficult to beat, standard." --rusty
    [ Parent ]

    xaccrocheur (none / 1) (#498)
    by xaccrocheur on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:46:17 AM EST

    Your point is ? Don't like the sound of it ? Bah.

    I don't care how it sounds, and if that offenses anybody, parents do have no rights, and yes it's the baby's penis, let him decide.

    Damn. People should STOP breeding. Do I sound pissed ? I am. This religious butchery really disgusts me.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm Jewish (none / 0) (#802)
    by bbzzz on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 12:55:10 AM EST

    I'm a Jewish man. One of the reasons for that is because I'm circumcised. If I weren't, I wouldn't be Jewish. Period. We Jews don't do this because in the desert we didn't have water to clean our schlongs, or because it looks cuter, or some other of the blahblah reasons i've read: we do this because circumcision is the Mark of the Covenant between God and the People of Israel. Resigning to circumcision = resigning to Judaism = going to Hell. The only way you are going to make the Jewish People stop performing circumcision on our males, is with a Second Holocaust, fuckstick. You're gonna have to kill every last one of us, because circumcision is not some fad, it's an essential part of our being Jewish. If you make me choose between restoration and a horrible and painfull death, I choose the horrible death. Funny thing is, I'm not even religious. I'm just proud to be Jewish.

    [ Parent ]
    I'd say it wouldn't have to be life-threatening (none / 0) (#827)
    by HollyHopDrive on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 09:52:26 AM EST

    If my baby son was suffering from a too-tight foreskin, and the doctors warned me it could cause him considerable pain and distress, I'd have him circumcised when he was still a baby and unlikely to remember anything about it. I feel that would cause him less pain and distress than having to suffer a tight foreskin and then having to suffer circumcision as an adult or older child.

    If he grew up angry at me for it, I'd apologise and explain that I honestly had only his happiness at heart.


    I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
    [ Parent ]

    whine whine whine (1.00 / 5) (#245)
    by hakaisya on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 08:33:01 AM EST

    Go cry to Dr. Philoprah or something or join a support group. While the article itself is somewhat interesting, it comes off sounding like PETA/Save the Childeren/et cetera slop.

    Sadly misinformed (2.63 / 11) (#246)
    by jwaskett on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 08:56:01 AM EST

    The article is sadly misinformed, repeating tired old anti-circumcision propaganda.

    Just over two years ago, I was circumcised as an adult. I spent a lot of time researching the issue beforehand, and have been actively working to stop this deceptive and misleading misinformation ever since.

    Anecdotal evidence can be found to support just about any conceivable view, on any subject. Let's stick to more meaningful scientific data.

    Sexual effects

    A number of studies have investigated possible sexual effects of circumcision, and have had mixed results.[1-7,10,11]

    The author claims that "Circumcised men experience less sexual pleasure." This is unsupported by the evidence. Only two studies have directly investigated sexual pleasure following circumcision. Fink[3] reported a decrease in sensitivity of borderline statistical significance, but this result was achieved by combining data from questions on ejaculatory time. The question directly addressing sensitivity ("My penis is not sensitive enough") was totally insignificant (p=0.345; personal correspondence from Dr Fink). Masood[7] reported that "Penile sensation improved after circumcision in 38% (p = 0.01) but got worse in 18%, with the remainder having no change."

    The author claims that "Circumcision eliminates over twenty thousand nerve-endings, the most sensitive part of the penis." There is absolutely no evidence for either claim. Taylor[8] reported that one part of the foreskin has more of a certain type of nerve ending than the remainder, but did not give quantitative data. Indeed, no study has ever counted the number of nerve endings: this is nothing but a guess. The type of nerve ending reported by Taylor - Meissner's corpuscles - are sensitive only to very light touch and fluttering sensations, and furthermore are rapidly-adapting (they stop 'reporting news' after a short period). This is probably why there is no apparent effect of their removal on sexual sensation, as observed above. No study has ever compared the relative sensitivity of various parts of the penis.

    The author claims that "Circumcision exposes the sensitive mucosal membranes of the glans, drying it out as it was never meant to further reducing lubrication and sensation. Circumcision takes away the glan's [sic] protection - the rubbing of clothing on the glans causes the skin to thicken considerably deadening sensation." This has been disproven. Szabo and Short[9] demonstrated that there is no difference in keratinisation (skin 'thickness') between circumcised and uncircumcised men. Masters and Johnson[10] demonstrated that there is no difference in sensation from the glans, a finding supported by more recent research from Bleustein et al.[5,11]

    The author claims that "Studies done by the Institute of Human Sexuality using micro-filament pressure wires have shown that circumcision causes losses of sensation of between 30% and 60%." If true, such studies have never been published and there is no mention of them elsewhere on the web. Perhaps the author is confused? The author goes on to say that "This is just straight sensitivity and does not account for losses in pleasure due to calluses forming on the glans and the loss of the penis' only moving part." The "callusing" has been disproven, as noted, and any benefit from movement is purely speculative.

    The author claims that "The gliding of the penis within the foreskin is an important mechanism, without it sex lasting longer than 20 minutes causes pain for both partners without artificial lubrication." This is an absolute fabrication.

    The author goes on to assert that: "A related study has shown men without foreskins are 3 times more likely to suffer from erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation than their intact counterparts." This is absolute nonsense. No study has ever shown such a thing. In terms of erectile dysfunction, Senkul[1] found no difference, Fink[3] showed a slight (15%) reduction, Collins[6] showed no difference, and Masood found a slight (5%) reduction. None of these studies controlled for the effects of aging and diabetes, both known causes of erectile problems. Laumann[2] found that circumcised men experienced less erectile dysfunction. In terms of premature ejaculation, Senkul[1] found greater time to ejaculate, as did Fink[3] (in the sensitivity category), Collins[6] found no difference, and Laumann[2] reported less premature ejaculation in circumcised men.

    The author claims that: "Women report that sex with intact men causes a lot less irritation to the vaginal walls." This is only true of studies conducted by anti-circumcision activists, and of members of their own lobby groups. Such studies have obvious credibility problems. While it may be true, it has not been demonstrated in unbiased research.

    I could go on, but as I think I have demonstrated, this article is appallingly misinformed and misleading.

    1. http://www.circs.org/library/senkul/index.html
    2. http://www.circs.org/library/laumann/index.html
    3. http://www.circs.org/library/fink/index.html
    4. http://www.circs.org/library/waskett/index.html
    5. http://www.circs.org/library/bleustein/index.html
    6. http://www.circs.org/library/collins/index.html
    7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dop t=Abstract&list_uids=16037710&query_hl=1
    8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dop t=Abstract&list_uids=8800902&query_hl=2
    9. http://www.circs.org/library/szabo/index.html
    10. http://www.circs.org/library/masters/index.html
    11. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dop t=Abstract&list_uids=15833526&query_hl=5


    Credibility problems of activists (2.50 / 4) (#249)
    by chase the dragon on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 09:59:53 AM EST

    The author claims that: "Women report that sex with intact men causes a lot less irritation to the vaginal walls." This is only true of studies conducted by anti-circumcision activists, and of members of their own lobby groups. Such studies have obvious credibility problems. While it may be true, it has not been demonstrated in unbiased research.
    Dismissing scientific research on the grounds that it has been conducted by the wrong people is unscientific, unreasonable and a symptom of prejudiced thought. One would think it would be safer to dismiss the commentary of a self-admitted pro-circumcision activist who mainly seems to cite a dubious pro-infant circumcision website.  Furthermore, re-interpretation of Fink's research (which does conclude reduced sensitivity with p=0.04) and criticism of his methodologies should be left to scientists in the field, not partisan laypeople.

    It amuses me how militant pro-circumcision advocates such as yourself argue in favour of the medical benefits of adult circumcision yet ignore the fact that the vast majority of circumcision is unnecessary, untherapeutic, non-consensual and performed on infants.


    [ Parent ]

    Credibility problems indeed (none / 1) (#251)
    by jwaskett on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 10:15:44 AM EST

    "Dismissing scientific research on the grounds that it has been conducted by the wrong people is unscientific, unreasonable and a symptom of prejudiced thought."

    Once one gets used to these people, it is an entirely reasonable reaction. If somebody lies time and time again, wouldn't you be skeptical of his claims? I suggest that you read the tale of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf."

    Regardless, if the study population consists of activists, there is considerable reason to suspect that selection bias is involved.

    "One would think it would be safer to dismiss the commentary of a self-admitted pro-circumcision activist who mainly seems to cite a dubious pro-infant circumcision website."

    Would this "dubious" website be the National Library of Medicine's PubMed database, which exclusively contains articles published in peer-reviewed journals, or would it be circs.org, which exclusively contains articles published in peer-reviewed journals? From what does the dubiousness arise?

    "Furthermore, re-interpretation of Fink's research (which does conclude reduced sensitivity with p=0.04)"

    Wrong. From the paper: "decreased penile sensitivity (p = 0.08)." And my comment about borderline significance is confirmed by the authors: "The reported decrease in penile sensitivity that resulted from circumcision bordered on statistical significance." Nor is my comment reinterpretation. The figures I give were supplied by the lead author of the paper (http://www.circs.org/library/fink/index.html).

    So, why do you feel the need to misrepresent the medical literature?



    [ Parent ]
    Oops (none / 1) (#301)
    by chase the dragon on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 04:48:33 AM EST

    I made a honest mistake. Still, Fink has 0.01 is for the impairment of erections and 0.08 is for the sensitivity. You were still misrepresenting the research by not quoting the 0.01 figure.

    Once one gets used to these people, it is an entirely reasonable reaction. If somebody lies time and time again, wouldn't you be skeptical of his claims? I suggest that you read the tale of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf."
    You haven't provided any evidence that the scientific is deceptive or that anyone has lied "time and time again". You sound like a paranoid kook. Considering your Wikipedia background, I'm not surprised.

    And I like how you completely ignored my final paragraph. How do you feel about unnecessary, untherapeutic, non-consensual surgery performed on infants?

    [ Parent ]

    Understood (none / 0) (#311)
    by jwaskett on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 06:24:02 AM EST

    Ok, I accept that you made a mistake. Concerning erectile dysfunction, while I did not quote the p value you'll find that I did mention Fink's finding, so I think it is unfair of you to claim that I misrepresented the research.

    If you need more evidence of anti-circ deception after this article then I am puzzled as to what would be enough to convince you. If you think that's paranoia on my part, then that is your right and privilege.

    Just ask yourself this: if you thought that by telling a white lie you could prevent a child being 'mutilated', his human rights 'abused', and him being 'sexually assaulted', would you do it? If the answer is yes (and frankly I'd be surprised if it wasn't), that doesn't mean that you will never tell the truth about that subject, but it gives me reason to be very skeptical and cautious.

    Forgetting the authors for a moment, what about the activist participants? They have less to lose from answering a questionnaire dishonestly, and doing so would help their cause.

    There is also a strong possibility of selection bias: they might be opposed to circumcision because of a preference for uncircumcised penes.

    This is why credible research is essential.



    [ Parent ]
    Bias is on both sides (none / 1) (#312)
    by chase the dragon on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 08:14:44 AM EST

    You appear fixated on the anti-circumcision bias but there is equal and opposite pro-circumcision activism. There are many with vested interests in defending circumcision: established religions who wish to justify a long-standing cultural practice, those in the medical fraternity who financially benefit from performing circumcision and those who believe that circumcision improves moral hygiene. It's a partisan issue with powerful forces on both sides.

    Just because there is activism and propaganda does not mean we can dismiss legitimate scientific research simply because it has the wrong authors or the wrong participants. That's simply prejudice and leads to your own selection bias if you only focus on studies which give the "right" results. You say: While it may be true, it has not been demonstrated in unbiased research. Circumcision is so contentious that little research will truly be "unbiased" by your stringent standards. If you are concerned that the methodology allows biased respondents to affect results, then you must equally dismiss all studies that use any questionnaires at all, a difficult position to maintain seriously.

    Just ask yourself this: if you thought that by telling a white lie you could prevent a child being 'mutilated', his human rights 'abused', and him being 'sexually assaulted', would you do it?
    Ask yourself this: If you believed circumcision was essential to moral hygiene, was a lucrative and harmless source of income or was essential to your culture or religion, would you tell white lies about it? Of course you would. There are activists on both sides who are prepared to deceive and propagandize.

    However, I think the greatest and most effective deception in the circumcision debate is rather subtle and it's in the way the argument is framed. As I pointed out in another comment, there are two almost entirely orthogonal issues in the debate, a medical and a bio-ethical question. The medical debate is whether circumcision is harmful or beneficial as a procedure. The bio-ethical debate is around whether circumcision, and by implication other unnecessary surgery, should be performed on infants without consent. Many pro-circumcision advocates attempt to win the debate by solely arguing about the first question and ignoring the second.

    The medical question has yet to be answered conclusively, and because there is much inertia behind circumcision, it's a winning argument for pro-circumcisionists. Anti-circumcision advocates tend to distort this issue by exaggerating the harm, but ro-circumcision advocates equally exaggerate the benefits. I believe it is reasonable, for the purpose of simplifying the argument, to assume that circumcision is a therapeutically neutral procedure, i.e. the harm cancels out the benefit.

    So if we grant that circumcision is neutral then the bio-ethical question is what should be debated. Because, ethically, if one allows that parents can perform unnecessary surgery that is neither significantly harmful nor beneficial on their infants, then where do we draw the line? At whatever society deems to be "normal"? That is hardly an objective ethical stance, and reeks of cultural relativism. For eaxmple, tattoos, piercings, body modifications are just as neutral as circumcision. At the end of the day, it is a double standard to allow one form of non-consensual modification but to ban others.

    [ Parent ]

    Agreed, noone has the monopoly on bias (none / 0) (#338)
    by jwaskett on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 04:39:50 PM EST

    I think it's fair to say that nobody has a monopoly on bias. I have seen misleading articles from both sides. My own (admittedly subjective and probably biased) impression is that the greatest distortions come from those with an anti-circumcision agenda.

    I'd partly agree with your statements concerning dismissal of research. Certainly, one should look at research objectively. Selecting research based upon the conclusions is a pointless exercise. However, I disagree with your objection to 'wrong participants'. It is essential to research that one chooses a representative sample, and if there is good reason to believe that a sample may not be representative, it is unwise to rely upon the findings.

    My advocacy of caution towards certain authors is more controversial. Indeed, it's technically a logical fallacy (ad hominem), but I stand by it nonetheless because it is pragmatic. If person X lies repeatedly to me, I will probably disbelieve him the next time he tells me the moon is made of blue cheese, fallacies or not.

    Concerning your question regarding telling white lies, I would not for the latter reasons, but I suppose I might if I thought it were essential to moral hygiene. Even then, it would be much less likely than my example. The reason comes from my personal moral code: to me, a wrong is acceptable only if it prevents a greater wrong. Making money is morally neutral, and I know of no religion that requires believers to spread propaganda about circumcision. Conceivably, lack of "moral hygiene" might be a greater wrong, to some minds (not my own, but I acknowledge the possibility).

    I think that your ethical question somewhat misses the point. Discussion of the pros and cons of the procedure is essential before meaningful ethical debate can take place.

    You suggest assuming that circumcision is neutral overall, but this is a huge assumption. Furthermore, you then go on to describe tattoos and piercings as neutral. This seems bizarre. These have known medical risks (infections, mostly) but no known benefits. They would thus seem to be a net (medical) harm.

    Another typically non-therapeutic, and non-essential procedure that is commonly performed is vaccination. Most people agree that these have a net benefit, though there is debate over that matter.

    I imagine a kind of line, with essential life-saving procedures at one end and murder at the other. At the center lie procedures that are truly neutral, and surrounding this is a region in which parental discretion is reasonable. I suspect you would agree that a parent refusing essential treatment or murdering a child is unacceptable. Any disagreement would seem to be on the boundaries of the parental discretion region and where on the line circumcision falls. Clearly, discussion of the evidence is essential in answering the latter question.



    [ Parent ]
    And yet, bias aside, we need scientific proof (none / 1) (#341)
    by forety on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 05:49:06 PM EST

    lies of commission are as bad as lies of omission

    [ Parent ]
    Harm and benefits (none / 0) (#350)
    by chase the dragon on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 10:24:23 PM EST

    This seems bizarre. These have known medical risks (infections, mostly) but no known benefits. They would thus seem to be a net (medical) harm.
    Professional tattooing with sterilized instruments and correct care post-op is unlikely to cause infection. The same goes for piercing. Regardless, the risk of either procedure is less than that of circumcision. If you think that circumcision is more neutral overall than tattooing or piercing, the by implication you must believe that circumcision has medical benefits.

    You have been using studies to argue that the supposed risk and harm of circumcision is overstated. But you haven't actually argued that it has any medical benefits. The main benefit that advocates mention is the minor protection from STDs. This is a marginal benefit because anyone can completely avoid the risk of STDs simply by practising safe sex; the sense of false security may actually be more harmful in the long term.

    Another typically non-therapeutic, and non-essential procedure that is commonly performed is vaccination. Most people agree that these have a net benefit, though there is debate over that matter.
    No, vaccination is definitely, if not directly, therapeutic as it trains the body's immune system to recognize and attack harmful pathogens.

    I imagine a kind of line, with essential life-saving procedures at one end and murder at the other. At the center lie procedures that are truly neutral, and surrounding this is a region in which parental discretion is reasonable. I suspect you would agree that a parent refusing essential treatment or murdering a child is unacceptable. Any disagreement would seem to be on the boundaries of the parental discretion region and where on the line circumcision falls. Clearly, discussion of the evidence is essential in answering the latter question.
    A fair summary, but I think that even if non-therapeutic circumcision is not exactly medically neutral it is close enough that there is not significant difference. Given that there has been ongoing debate about circumcision for more than a century, I don't think the medical argument is going to be concluded one way or another for some time. Until then, it's best to deal with the questions we can answer. Particularly with the possibility of genetic alteration, the question of a child's right to be protected from modification by it's parents is more relevant than ever.

    [ Parent ]
    Some interesting points (none / 1) (#365)
    by jwaskett on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 08:00:24 AM EST

    Professional tattooing with sterilized instruments and correct care post-op is unlikely to cause infection. The same goes for piercing.

    I don't have exact figures to hand, but I would suspect that a few percent become infected, especially with tattoos, which make a relatively large surface area susceptible. Certainly the risk is non-zero, and thus with no medical benefit there is a small net harm, statistically speaking.

    If you think that circumcision is more neutral overall than tattooing or piercing, the by implication you must believe that circumcision has medical benefits.

    Good deduction.

    You have been using studies to argue that the supposed risk and harm of circumcision is overstated. But you haven't actually argued that it has any medical benefits.

    That's true, I haven't. That's because I don't intend to argue for circumcision here, only to expose the propaganda.

    The main benefit that advocates mention is the minor protection from STDs. This is a marginal benefit because anyone can completely avoid the risk of STDs simply by practising safe sex; the sense of false security may actually be more harmful in the long term.

    It seems unwise to make such a generalisation about the "main" benefit. Different people argue for different things. Certainly STDs - specifically HIV - have been in the news a lot recently. In the context of Africa, where AIDS is killing huge numbers of people, it is going to be a significant concern. Priorities may be different elsewhere.

    I'd also take issue with your characterisation of reduction of STDs as "marginal". The fact is, people do get STDs, so obviously the existence of condoms is not totally effective. In large part, this is because not everybody uses them (which is certainly helpful for the survival of the species). Also, they can and do fail. Please don't misunderstand me here: I am a big believer in safer sex, and feel that it isn't promoted enough.

    Your comment about a false sense of security is valid, and must be addressed through cautious reporting and education.

    No, vaccination is definitely, if not directly, therapeutic as it trains the body's immune system to recognize and attack harmful pathogens.

    It is prophylactic but not ordinarily therapeutic, since it does not normally address a pre-existing disease.

    A fair summary, but I think that even if non-therapeutic circumcision is not exactly medically neutral it is close enough that there is not significant difference.

    That's your opinion, which of course you're entitled to, but you must accept that other people have other opinions. I can't see how we can come to meaningful conclusions without hard data.



    [ Parent ]
    what is even more amusing about this.. (none / 0) (#343)
    by forety on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 06:00:29 PM EST

    is that Jake is British, and his own medical societies have come out against it.. maybe he has a lot of missconceptions of thimngs in America? "It amuses me how militant pro-circumcision advocates such as yourself argue in favour of the medical benefits of adult circumcision yet ignore the fact that the vast majority of circumcision is unnecessary, untherapeutic, non-consensual and performed on infants."

    [ Parent ]
    Why did you do it? NT (none / 0) (#261)
    by Eight Star on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 01:37:47 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    I see that he has not answered, (none / 1) (#342)
    by forety on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 05:56:42 PM EST

    I can tell you what he has told others on different boards-- He likes how it looks. But what he has never abswered is whether of not his Boyfrind likes how it looks.

    [ Parent ]
    The elephant in the living room (1.50 / 2) (#322)
    by forety on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 12:35:34 PM EST

    Hi, Jake, I still see that you are pretending that the elephant in the living room really isn't there.. Lost nerves = lost sensation

    [ Parent ]
    Would that be the pink elephant? (none / 0) (#337)
    by jwaskett on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 04:12:04 PM EST

    The pink elephant who tells you what to do? Well, that elephant is what's known as a hallucination, and no, it isn't there.

    Now, returning to the subject at hand, different types of nerve respond to different stimulation. Those in the retina respond to light, for example, but not touch. Clearly, then, it is too simplistic to equate lost nerves with lost sensation. Instead, our analysis must include an understanding of the nature of the nerve endings involved.

    The nerves in the foreskin are primarily Meissner's corpuscles. These respond to very light touch or fluttering sensations, with optimal response at about 50Hz vibration. They are rapidly adapting, meaning that they signal new sensations but ignore continuing stimulus. Stimulation during sex, of course, is continuous, under moderate pressure, and relatively slow.



    [ Parent ]
    The elephant is still here (none / 1) (#340)
    by forety on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 05:46:54 PM EST

    lost nerves =lost sensation..no amount of BS will change that.. so BS away.

    [ Parent ]
    None so blind (none / 0) (#363)
    by jwaskett on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 07:20:41 AM EST

    If you refuse to look at all the evidence, then that is up to you. If you don't want to understand, you never will.

    Let me know if and when you want to look at this objectively.



    [ Parent ]
    loss of penile nerves = loss of brain cells? (none / 0) (#367)
    by forety on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 09:20:33 AM EST

    There is a common saying that a man keeps his brains between his legs.... If this is true, it might explain how circumcised circumcision advocates cannot understand this simple logic: loss of nerves = loss of sensation.

    [ Parent ]
    Type of nerves (none / 0) (#385)
    by jwaskett on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 11:42:21 AM EST

    Ok, demonstrate that severing the optic nerve has any effect on the sense of touch.

    You will fail.



    [ Parent ]
    NO YUO! (none / 0) (#393)
    by Have A Nice Day on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 12:37:49 PM EST

    What the holy fuck are you talking about?

    Nerves in the eye = for teh sight
    Nerves in the skin = for teh touch (or heat sensing)

    Unless you're trying to argue that the foreskin is actually a visual organ....? Either way the post you're responing to said "sensation" and whilst he probably meant touch it doesn' matter because you're talking utter nonsense!

    --------------
    Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
    [ Parent ]
    It is simple (none / 1) (#398)
    by jwaskett on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 01:39:14 PM EST

    Thank you for recognising that nerves can sense different types of stimulation. As you can see, I am having difficulty explaining this concept to another poster.



    [ Parent ]
    Gee, now all you have to prove , is.. (none / 0) (#410)
    by forety on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 02:28:33 PM EST

    that the elephant is NOT in the living room..

    Right back to the original logic..

    and right back to waiting for a logical addressing it.

    [ Parent ]

    Still waiting for evidence .. (none / 0) (#395)
    by forety on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 01:29:09 PM EST

    that adequately and logically addresses this simple logic..

    Loss of nerves = loss of sensation..

    you can paint the elephant any color you wish, but he is still in the living room.

    [ Parent ]

    Huh? (none / 0) (#400)
    by Coryoth on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 01:50:15 PM EST

    You cut the optic nerve and you will lose sight (in one eye).  That is a loss of sensation (vision providing sensory input). If you cut or remove you nerves you remove sensoty inputs and hence receive less sensation (sensory data).  I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to argue here, ut it doesn't make a whole lot of sense so far.

    Jedidiah.

    [ Parent ]

    You will lose sight, but not touch (none / 0) (#402)
    by jwaskett on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 01:57:28 PM EST

    That is precisely the point. The type of sensation lost depends entirely on what the nerve in question was capable of sensing.

    We are talking here about sexual (touch) sensations. My point is that if the nerves concerned do not play a role in these sensations, then their removal will not make a difference in terms of sex.

    This is why it is essential to look at the types of nerve endings involved. Only then can we hope to understand whether their removal makes a difference.

    A simplistic assessment is inadequate.



    [ Parent ]
    Gee, (none / 1) (#412)
    by forety on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 02:30:04 PM EST

    substantiation by speculation? How imaginative..

    "We are talking here about sexual (touch) sensations. My point is that if the nerves concerned do not play a role in these sensations, then their removal will not make a difference in terms of sex."

    [ Parent ]

    Why not learn about Meissner's corpuscles? (NT) (none / 0) (#420)
    by jwaskett on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 02:42:49 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Why not learn to use logic? (none / 0) (#428)
    by forety on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 03:17:52 PM EST

    nt

    [ Parent ]
    Logic (none / 0) (#447)
    by jwaskett on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 04:07:55 PM EST

    Question: If I remove nerves X, will it affect my ability to sense Y?

    Logically, one can only answer the question if one knows whether nerves X are capable of sensing Y. Is this really too difficult to understand?



    [ Parent ]
    Painting the elephant a different color.. (none / 0) (#451)
    by forety on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 04:24:14 PM EST

    doesn't make it go away..


    [ Parent ]
    Dodging the issue (none / 1) (#461)
    by jwaskett on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 04:40:37 PM EST

    You're very good at avoiding the issue, Forety.

    Now, would you like to address my argument? Do you agree or disagree?



    [ Parent ]
    Now would YOU.. (none / 0) (#474)
    by forety on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 05:45:31 PM EST

    like to address the logic I presented..?

    Do you agree, or disagree?

    [ Parent ]

    Where was the logic? (none / 0) (#494)
    by jwaskett on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:33:34 AM EST

    Lots of strange analogies involving elephants, but where was the logic?



    [ Parent ]
    Avoidance also shows a lack of integrity. (none / 0) (#509)
    by forety on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:13:50 AM EST

    nt

    [ Parent ]
    So (none / 0) (#516)
    by jwaskett on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:55:07 AM EST

    What does that say about your avoidance of my questions?



    [ Parent ]
    Are you retarded? (none / 1) (#478)
    by Have A Nice Day on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 07:27:33 PM EST

    Removing nerves 'X' will ALWAYS REMOVE SOME SENSATION. Regardless of what you think that sensation is.

    Once there were nerves, and now there aren't.

    --------------
    Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
    [ Parent ]
    Puzzling (none / 1) (#483)
    by Coryoth on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 10:00:35 PM EST

    I think he's trying to claim that the nerves in the forskin are never stimulated during sex - that is unlike nerves in the skin in any other part of the body they are neither touch nor temperature senstive, but instead have some other use (perhaps they improve your hearing?) that isn't triggered during sex.

    Jedidiah,

    [ Parent ]

    It is a little weird..... (none / 1) (#491)
    by Have A Nice Day on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 04:37:48 AM EST

    Even then he doesn't really have an argument, even in the (profoundly ridiculous) situation where they are rogue taste/sound/pain sensitive cells then you've still lost something.... I think maybe IHBT.

    --------------
    Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
    [ Parent ]
    So I guess it is fair to say.. (none / 1) (#523)
    by forety on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:13:46 AM EST

    his "logic" is lacking..

    as is his answer to the real logic?

    [ Parent ]

    Identify the type of sensation (none / 0) (#495)
    by jwaskett on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:39:41 AM EST

    If nerve X senses stimulation of type Y, then removal of nerve X will reduce one's ability to sense Y. Agree?

    However, if we want to know whether our sensations during activity Z are affected, we have to know whether activity Z involves stimulation Y. If it does, then our sensations during Z will be affected. If it doesn't, then the sensations during Z will be unaffected. Agree?

    Please note that the above is specific to sensations during activity Z (in this case, sex), not a more general sense.



    [ Parent ]
    You once again avoid the subject (none / 1) (#499)
    by Have A Nice Day on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:50:12 AM EST

    I agree with the purely logical construct you have there. However you STILL HAVE NOT ADDRESSED THE ORIGINAL POINT.

    It also looks like you are trying to argue that there is no sensitivity to touch or to sexual stimulation in the foreskin.

    1 - That's irrelevant to the discussion. The argument was over loss of nerves at all leading to loss of sensation of any kind. You clearly agree with this position (as you must because any other position is ridiculous) but won't admit it. It doesn't matter if the nerves in question are involved in sexual function, there's a high concentration of nerve endings there that nature (or god if you're that way inclined) put there for a reason. Why get rid of them without good reason?
    (and the whole cleanliness/std/performance issue is postulation and rhetoric, not fact)

    2 - You're wrong. I don't know about the "less sexual pleasure" angle, I can't compare, but I do know that it's a very sensitive bit of tissue and removing it would remove some of the parts that most respond to stimulation.

    --------------
    Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
    [ Parent ]
    Cross purposes (none / 0) (#502)
    by jwaskett on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:20:40 AM EST

    Thank you for indicating your agreement with the logic so far. I'm sorry that I have created confusion about what I am trying to argue. To clarify: I accept that if nerves are removed then one can no longer sense whatever it is they were capable of sensing.

    My argument is specifically concerning sexual sensation. My position is that the only good way to determine whether circumcision results in lost sexual sensation is by experiment. A theoretical attempt to answer the question is a poor alternative, but if used, it must take account of the types of nerve removed and the characteristics of that receptor.

    As far as "nature knows best" arguments are concerned, that's a philosophical position which you're entitled to. My own belief is to make no assumption about inherent superiority, and to assess this purely in terms of the evidence available. I can't see that you and I can do anything more than recognise and accept a fundamental difference of opinion here.

    On your second point, you offer little in the way of evidence. What is your opinion based upon? Is it personal experience? Academic research? What?



    [ Parent ]
    "Nature knows best" was misleading..... (none / 1) (#503)
    by Have A Nice Day on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:18:49 AM EST

    But the sentence afterwards was not, why chop anything off, especially anything with a high concentration of nerve endings, without a really good reason?

    My second point is personal experience and I do accept that as such does not constitute evidence as it is anecdotal. All I can offer in respect my second point is I know I'd be upset if someone wanted to take it away now (even if was guaranteed to be completely painless), so I have sympathy for those that had no choice in the matter and feel hard done by.

    As an aside; do you not think that if there was benefit to the procedure that we'd see significant numbers of people in Europe having the procedure done in adulthood? (Though I concede that the pain would be offputting enough for most)

    --------------
    Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
    [ Parent ]
    I apologise for my misunderstanding (none / 0) (#515)
    by jwaskett on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:54:20 AM EST

    But your argument still seems prejudiced against altering the natural form. It's a valid point of view, but make no mistake - it is a point of view, and it implies a value judgement.

    My point of view is subtly different in that I make no prior assumptions. I just look at the costs and benefits of each possible choice. In many cases, both approaches will yield the same result.

    In answer to your aside, according to some reports there is growing interest in Europe (I myself am in England), though it is not widespread. Yes, the pain - or more specifically, the fear of anticipated pain - does put people off, along with the considerable cost. Unfortunately, people tend to do what is easy than what is best, hence the fact that many people smoke, eat too much, and exercise too little.



    [ Parent ]
    I am predjudiced to inaction, perhaps (none / 0) (#519)
    by Have A Nice Day on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:04:02 AM EST

    I tend to think things should only be done with a reason, and since circumcision is an action (whereas not circumcising is not), I think there should be good reasons before you do it.

    It's like my approach to religion - I do not believe in a god (which would be an action) because there has never been any valid reason to do so, whereas as some take the view that one should remain in a state of agnosticism or indecision because it can't be proven either way. (note that I am not asserting that I know there is no god, merely that no reason to think there is one has come along to shift me from my 'base state' or non-belief, much as no reason has come along to shift my attitude towards circumcision from "unnecessary").

    When one proposes an action one should have reasons.

    --------------
    Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
    [ Parent ]
    Funny (none / 0) (#529)
    by jwaskett on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:22:43 AM EST

    I'm basically agnostic, rather than atheistic, as my "base state" is that it is unknown. The differences perhaps reflect general philosophical differences between us.

    That said, based on reasoned thought modifying the "base state", I am on the atheistic side of agnosticism.



    [ Parent ]
    Base states (none / 1) (#561)
    by Coryoth on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 02:09:05 PM EST

    Surely the logical base state in this discussion is that circumcision will result in loss of sexual sensation. Yes, it is possible that that is not the case. It is possible that the nerves in the foreskin, unlike any other nerves in the skin, do not sense touch and temperature. Yes, unless someone provides a peer reviewed study we won't have any strong scientific evidence either way... But I would think the burden of proof falls squarely on the claim that these nerves are somehow different from all other nerves in the skin. Without reason to believe otherwise it is natural to assume that the nerves in the foreskin are no different from the nerves on the shaft, or the nerves on the hip, on the face, or on the hands. I doubt there will be a study on the matter because I doubt the findings will be at all surprising.

    For a quick informal study: the nerves on my foreskin are sensitive to touch.  The nerves on "Have a Nice Day"'s foreskin are apparently also sensitive to touch. I have asked some of my uncircumcised friends ("Is your foreskin sensitive to the touch?") and all 4 that I asked responded in the affirmative. A sample size of 6 is still too small to make any truly meaningful statistical assertions, however it is enough for me to conclude that I would require significant evidence to the contrary before my base assumption changes.

    Jedidiah.

    [ Parent ]

    Well what you have to consider (none / 0) (#566)
    by jwaskett on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 02:24:35 PM EST

    Is firstly the type of nerves in the foreskin, and whether they are likely to be responsive to sexual stimulation. Anatomical studies suggest that the nerves are primarily Meissner's corpuscles, so we have something to go on there.

    Secondly, we have to ask ourselves whether the loss of these nerves is the only effect on sexual stimulation. Now, in fact, there is a mechanical change, since the shaft and glans are stimulated directly, rather than indirectly via the movement of loose skin. How much difference will this make?

    We have two studies that have directly asked what effect circumcision, with decidedly mixed results. Unfortunately, no study has yet reported on a reasonably large sample of healthy men.

    Your informal study is interesting, but I'd like you to investigate some things for me. Firstly, what kind of touch is it responsive to? Does it seem equally sensitive to light brushing and moderate pressure? Importantly, how does it react to touch over time? For how long can HaND feel the touch?



    [ Parent ]
    By this speculation.. (none / 1) (#570)
    by forety on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:24:17 PM EST

    one has to assume then that every nerve in the body has to conform to some criterion defined only by you.

    [ Parent ]
    If the assertion (none / 0) (#574)
    by jwaskett on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:29:28 PM EST

    Is that that particular nerve is sexually responsive, then yes, to evaluate the assertion we would have to consider the characteristics of that nerve. This is only reasonable.

    But there is no reason why I alone should define any criteria.



    [ Parent ]
    I still don't get why it matters (none / 1) (#579)
    by Have A Nice Day on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:57:18 PM EST

    that the nerve be sexually responsive? Why is that even an issue? It could be heat sensing, it could be moisture, fer chrissakes it could be light sensitive, it's still chopped off and lost....

    --------------
    Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
    [ Parent ]
    Well, I don't know about you (none / 0) (#582)
    by jwaskett on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 04:22:19 PM EST

    But when it comes to sensations from my penis, there are only two main kinds that I care about. One is sexual sensation (the fact that it feels nice is a big part of why we bother). The other is pain: I want to avoid it whereever possible, yet I also appreciate it as it warns me of impeding damage.

    Maybe I'm making a false assumption here. Maybe you read Braille with yours.



    [ Parent ]
    so just how does your OPINION.. (none / 1) (#585)
    by forety on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 04:30:52 PM EST

    desires, and wants refute the simple logic---

    lost nerves = lost sensation..

    From the subjective evidence of Fink,

    to the logic,

    to the concrete evidence..

    we have sensation loss..

    [ Parent ]

    You're asking the wrong questions (none / 0) (#588)
    by jwaskett on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 04:45:31 PM EST

    If you care to look at the post to which I replied, the poster asked why it mattered. Since value judgements are inherently unprovable, a reasonable exchange of opinions is entirely appropriate.



    [ Parent ]
    Yes, and that is why YOUR evualation.. (none / 1) (#591)
    by forety on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 05:43:05 PM EST

    and opinion on whether or not the lost sensation is, or is not this or that; nor desireable, or undesirable.

    [ Parent ]
    Huh? (none / 0) (#603)
    by jwaskett on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 06:43:38 AM EST

    Am I reading this correctly? Someone asks a question that implicitly requires an opinion, and that is why an opinion is undesirable?

    Sorry, but if you're not interested in my opinion, don't read my comment. You are not the only person here, and you must accept that other people might be interested.

    Moreover, each and every one of us gives our evaluation of relevant evidence. To exclude that is simply ludicrous.



    [ Parent ]
    It doesn't matter (none / 1) (#571)
    by Have A Nice Day on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:25:09 PM EST

    The fact is I can, so I would have lost sensitive tissue had I been cut. It's that simple. Come up with a good reason why people should be cut or leave it alone....

    --------------
    Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
    [ Parent ]
    Which leads us back to the basic logical tenet... (none / 1) (#573)
    by forety on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:27:09 PM EST

    lost nerves = lost sensation.. no mtter what the sensation is--it is LOST!!

    and that is what circumcisioers have to justify--the sensation unnecessarily lost

    [ Parent ]

    And then you have to prove.. (none / 1) (#572)
    by forety on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:25:18 PM EST

    that they are not stimulated by a sexual act..

    [ Parent ]
    Right... (none / 1) (#577)
    by Coryoth on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:42:05 PM EST

    Anatomical studies suggest that the nerves are primarily Meissner's corpuscles, so we have something to go on there.

    Yes, we can assume that, like other Meissner's corpuscles they are responsve to tactile sensation, and will this be stimulated if rubbed (as will occur during various phases of sexual contact).  Thus losing these nerves will result in less sensation during sex. You next question whether this is made up for by increased sensation in the glans and shaft. I would note that the glans and frenulum are generally exposed when an uncircumcised penis is erect, so there is no extra gain likely there. The skin of the shaft will see less exposure as the foreskin rolls back and this skin if pushed further down the shaft, but given that this skin has significantly less nerves that the foreskin which will be in the same position during sex, I think claiming that this will replace sensation will fully replace that lost by the lack of foreskin is a very bold assertion that most definitely requires some evidence.

    In general you are engaging in a great deal of speculation to attempt to explain away why the loss of nerves will not result in less sensation. It is possible that the shaft becomes more senstive. It is possible that removing the testicles will enhance other nerves exposure and result in better sex. I'd like to have some decent evidence before I go believing either.

    We have two studies that have directly asked what effect circumcision, with decidedly mixed results. Unfortunately, no study has yet reported on a reasonably large sample of healthy men.

    So there are no comprehensive studies on this matter that provide reproducible results. Given the lack of such evidence and study the logical base state is to assume that the removal of tactile nerves in the foreskin will result in less tactile sensation during sex. It is possible to speculate why this might not be so, but there is no evidence to support such speculation. Why are you so determined to assume that removal of the foreskin does not reduce sensation?

    Jedidiah.

    [ Parent ]

    An important point at Wikipedia (none / 0) (#580)
    by jwaskett on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 04:18:38 PM EST

    "Since they are rapidly adapting or phasic, the action potentials generated quickly decrease and eventually cease. If the stimulus is removed, the corpuscle regains its shape and while doing so (ie: while physically reforming) causes another volley of action potentials to be generated. (This is the reason one stops "feeling" one's clothes.)"



    [ Parent ]
    So in your opinion (none / 0) (#584)
    by jwaskett on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 04:29:25 PM EST

    What would be the best way to test overall sensation.

    Incidentally, while the glans may be fully exposes during erection in some males, there is considerable variation. The foreskin can sometimes cover part (especially the sensitive coronal rim) of the glans at certain times during intercourse. Here is an illustration from an anti-circumcision website.



    [ Parent ]
    It's still a lost sense (none / 0) (#473)
    by Coryoth on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 05:39:46 PM EST

    You are removing nerves, and thus removing a sense, and reducing sensation. Given that the nerves in question are located around the most sensitive part of the male sexual organ I would think the burden of evidence is to prove that they are not in any way related to sensation (be it touch, temperature, or other) felt during sexual contact. Are you suggesting that contact, temperature difference and wetness all fail to stimulate these nerves? What are you suggesting these nerves are for exactly?

    Alternatively: my foreskin is sensitive to touch. That means that there are nerves there that produce touch sensations, and thus their removal would reduce sexual sensation. Perhaps that's just me though - perhaps everyone else has foreskins that are quite numb. An interesting assertion, certainly.

    Jedidiah.

    [ Parent ]

    a one-eyed man gets less enjoyment from a sunset? (none / 0) (#792)
    by hardcorejon on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 02:57:59 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    He sure gets less sensory input.. (none / 0) (#797)
    by forety on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 05:42:44 PM EST

    HOW he interprets it, is purely subjective.

    But no matter HOW hard he tries, he will not expereince it that way a man who has full sight can.

    [ Parent ]

    maximizing sensory input - the ultimate goal? (none / 0) (#801)
    by hardcorejon on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 12:04:22 AM EST

    if it were, we'd all be dropping acid every morning.

    [ Parent ]
    And if we were concerned with.. (none / 0) (#919)
    by forety on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 04:21:16 PM EST

    Minimizing sensation, we would lop off men's foreskins?

    [ Parent ]
    Thank you for completely missing the point (none / 0) (#979)
    by hardcorejon on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 07:16:41 PM EST