Ban all genital mutilation of children

[Animavore]

The "data" argument is skewered and stupid. It talks about the benefit of doing it vs the negative of doing it. It says not much about the negative of doing it vs not doing it at all. Reducing penile cancer, which it says is already rare, is not an argument. Cutting off the penis altogether completely eliminates the risk of penile cancer. But who would do or even argue that?

[Brian Peacock]

It's quite normal that anything touching the glans without lubrication creates an intense sensation. Both the penis and the vagina produce secrets that function as lubricants when their owners are aroused so that sex is even possible. That cut people can tolerate things touching their glans without lubrication is a clear sign that the sensation in the glans has been lowered. Like listening to too much too loud music harms the hearing.

Pardon?

[NineBerry]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaginal_lubrication

[mistermack]

Forty two's argument about sensitivity is EXACTLY like a blind person debating colour.
It's sadly pathetic, trying to look knowledgeable about something you can't ever understand.

I'll try to make it simple enough for even him.

My uncircumcised dick is super-sensitive UNDER the forskin. It's not painful to wear clothes, unless you pulled your foreskin back and left the glans exposed.

So uncircumcised people have TWO grades of sensitivity. One for sex, (when the foreskin automatically gets pushed back) and one for the rest of the time, when it's protected by the LESS SENSITIVE foreskin.

So circumcised people have one level of sensitivity. LOW.
Uncircumcised people have two. High and low.
That's how I know that the claim from the so-called study is bollocks. Because it's obviously comparing low with low, and ignoring the high sensitivity of an uncircumcised glans.

In any case, it's obscene that parents are allowed to make such a decision that will be with the child for life.
They are assuming that the child will prefer it, AND assuming that the child will want to remain in whichever ludicrous religion preaches this kind of mutilation.

And you have to include the Christian religion in that. Even though it's not required, it's approved of and there is even the "feast" of the circumcision of Jesus.

[NineBerry]

If Jesus had not been circumcised, Saturn would not have rings!!

[Brian Peacock]

Forty two's argument about sensitivity is EXACTLY like a blind person debating colour.
It's sadly pathetic, trying to look knowledgeable about something you can't ever understand.

I'll try to make it simple enough for even him.

My uncircumcised dick is super-sensitive UNDER the forskin. It's not painful to wear clothes, unless you pulled your foreskin back and left the glans exposed.

So uncircumcised people have TWO grades of sensitivity. One for sex, (when the foreskin automatically gets pushed back) and one for the rest of the time, when it's protected by the LESS SENSITIVE foreskin.

So circumcised people have one level of sensitivity. LOW.
Uncircumcised people have two. High and low.
That's how I know that the claim from the so-called study is bollocks. Because it's obviously comparing low with low, and ignoring the high sensitivity of an uncircumcised glans.

In any case, it's obscene that parents are allowed to make such a decision that will be with the child for life.
They are assuming that the child will prefer it, AND assuming that the child will want to remain in whichever ludicrous religion preaches this kind of mutilation.

And you have to include the Christian religion in that. Even though it's not required, it's approved of and there is even the "feast" of the circumcision of Jesus.

I take your point.

[527] Jesus' circumcision, on the eighth day after his birth, is the sign of his incorporation into Abraham's descendants, into the people of the covenant. It is the sign of his submission to the Law and his deputation to Israel's worship, in which he will participate throughout his life. This sign prefigures that "circumcision of Christ" which is Baptism.

[579] This principle of integral observance of the Law not only in letter but in spirit was dear to the Pharisees. By giving Israel this principle they had led many Jews of Jesus' time to an extreme religious zeal This zeal, were it not to lapse into "hypocritical" casuistry, could only prepare the People for the unprecedented intervention of God through the perfect fulfillment of the Law by the only Righteous One in place of all sinners.

Basically, Catholics should get the snip.

[NineBerry]

No, it's in the Bible. Circumcision of the heart instead of circumcision of the flesh.

So, basically, Christian children should have a heart surgery after birth.

[Svartalf]

it's still mutilation, and you forget Africa where it's commonplace

[Forty Two]

Forty two's argument about sensitivity is EXACTLY like a blind person debating colour.
It's sadly pathetic, trying to look knowledgeable about something you can't ever understand.

This is what happens when you get overly emotionally invested with an issue, your eyes become so misty that you can't even listen what other people are saying. I'm not making an argument from experience. I've never said that I know what it's like NOT to be circumcised, just as you do not know what it is like to be circumcised. For all you know, you would be just as painfully sensitive even after the circumcision. What I'm pointing to is data. See the links.

Just because your individual experience, you believe, seems one way to you does not change the data. It doesn't relative to any other area of discussion, and it doesn't here either.

I'll try to make it simple enough for even him.

It's you that are having a hard time understanding basic concepts, mistermack.

My uncircumcised dick is super-sensitive UNDER the forskin. It's not painful to wear clothes, unless you pulled your foreskin back and left the glans exposed.

I understood that. What does that have to do with anything? As far as you know, your penis is overly sensitive. This "painful if the foreskin is pulled back and grazed against a piece of cloth" thing you keep on about is odd - it does not appear to be the norm for uncircumcised people.

So uncircumcised people have TWO grades of sensitivity. One for sex, (when the foreskin automatically gets pushed back) and one for the rest of the time, when it's protected by the LESS SENSITIVE foreskin.

Apparently, the data disagrees with your individual experience. That's not uncommon.

So circumcised people have one level of sensitivity. LOW.

That is not in accord with the data I cited.

Uncircumcised people have two. High and low.
That's how I know that the claim from the so-called study is bollocks. Because it's obviously comparing low with low, and ignoring the high sensitivity of an uncircumcised glans.

That isn't what happened in the study. Read it before commenting. I provided a link.

In any case, it's obscene that parents are allowed to make such a decision that will be with the child for life.

Really? Obscene? We live in a generation where decisions are made for and by little kids to delay puberty, and transition into another sex. And, snipping foreskin is over the line into obscenity? Parents make medical decisions for children because they are the caretakers, and they take advice from their physicians.

you have this hyperbolic view of circumcision, which is way outside the mainstream of medical thought - We've had several pediatricians, and their advice is more or less in line with the AAP. Not a single doctor I've ever talked to agrees with you.

They are assuming that the child will prefer it, AND assuming that the child will want to remain in whichever ludicrous religion preaches this kind of mutilation.

Mutilation. Come on.

And you have to include the Christian religion in that. Even though it's not required, it's approved of and there is even the "feast" of the circumcision of Jesus.

Who cares? The religious aspects do not change the medical evidence.

Do you have any? Or, is the world supposed to follow your individual experience and everybody do what you think works for you?

Nobody is saying you have to be circumcised. Nobody is saying you don't have debilitating pain from having your glans incidentally touch a thread of soft cotton. Maybe you are so sensitive you double over and vomit on your shoes. If so, then good thing you aren't circumcised, because then your hyper-sensitive glans might have to be wrapped in moist towelettes all day just to help you get through the day without passing out.

Regardless, the data is the data. Do you have any medical evidence, other than your personal experience, to go on here?

[Forty Two]

The "data" argument is skewered and stupid. It talks about the benefit of doing it vs the negative of doing it. It says not much about the negative of doing it vs not doing it at all. Reducing penile cancer, which it says is already rare, is not an argument. Cutting off the penis altogether completely eliminates the risk of penile cancer. But who would do or even argue that?

Reducing penile cancer is not an argument? Of course not. It's one piece of evidentiary support for the argument that doing it is better than not doing it. Sure, cutting off the penis completely would eliminate penile cancer, but that's a tad bit different than snipping a bit of skin that ultimate does not significantly modify the functionality of the penis and has several demonstrated benefits.

I think it's fine to be against it. You can argue that the benefits of having the foreskin outweigh, in your view, the benefits claimed of circumcision. I'm not suggesting reasonable minds can't differ. What I've been objecting to is the over-the-top statements that this is mutilation and stabbing and assault -- child abuse, apparently - and an "obscenity." You guys sound like a Christian fundamentalist going on and on about a religious principle or someone else engaged in blasphemy, or gay or adulterous sex. They call those things serious obscenities, crimes against nature, abominations, and all sorts of over-the-top lingo.

Take a breath. It's not mutilation. It's not abuse. It's not sawing or stabbing. It's not mayhem. It's some obscene crime.

[pErvinalia]

Mistermack, for example.

Yes, that's one. You mentioned "people". That's a plural, boss.

Nineberry mentioned something similar. He said that it is "VERY intense" if the penis head touches fabric, and he says "you can get used to it, but do you want to?" That didn't sound like he was referring to it feeling good, but intense. It sounds like it's something unpleasant. In context, he seemed to be agreeing with mistermack, although I don't think he used the word "pain."

He also used the word "tolerate" in relation to what uncut people feel when their penis head grazes fabric -- apparently it's not pleasant, and it's something cut people have learned to "tolerate."

Again, so far, no evidence from anyone, except peoples' personal experience. What's the evidence based argument for banning it?

Please show me where Nineberry said it was "almost debilitating". Thanks.

[JimC]

This has become an utter prick of a thread...

[mistermack]

What I suspect is happening in this thread, is that people who have had their own kids mutilated in this way, would rather not face it as a fact.

After all, it's a bit embarrassing to admit to yourself that you were so weak against peer pressure, that you didn't even stop to think it out for yourself, but just went with the flow.

That's to underestimate the power of peer pressure. We are all subject to it, whether it's chopping off bits of your children, or hating jews.

It's how you end up in the silly position of criticising female genital mutilation, and supporting the same thing in males. You haven't been subject to the same peer pressure about girls, and hey-presto, it's bad bad bad.

[Hermit]

What I suspect is happening in this thread, is that people who have had their own kids mutilated in this way, would rather not face it as a fact.

After all, it's a bit embarrassing to admit to yourself that you were so weak against peer pressure, that you didn't even stop to think it out for yourself, but just went with the flow.

That's to underestimate the power of peer pressure. We are all subject to it, whether it's chopping off bits of your children, or hating jews.

It's how you end up in the silly position of criticising female genital mutilation, and supporting the same thing in males. You haven't been subject to the same peer pressure about girls, and hey-presto, it's bad bad bad.

[Animavore]

The "data" argument is skewered and stupid. It talks about the benefit of doing it vs the negative of doing it. It says not much about the negative of doing it vs not doing it at all. Reducing penile cancer, which it says is already rare, is not an argument. Cutting off the penis altogether completely eliminates the risk of penile cancer. But who would do or even argue that?

Reducing penile cancer is not an argument? Of course not. It's one piece of evidentiary support for the argument that doing it is better than not doing it. Sure, cutting off the penis completely would eliminate penile cancer, but that's a tad bit different than snipping a bit of skin that ultimate does not significantly modify the functionality of the penis and has several demonstrated benefits.

I think it's fine to be against it. You can argue that the benefits of having the foreskin outweigh, in your view, the benefits claimed of circumcision. I'm not suggesting reasonable minds can't differ. What I've been objecting to is the over-the-top statements that this is mutilation and stabbing and assault -- child abuse, apparently - and an "obscenity." You guys sound like a Christian fundamentalist going on and on about a religious principle or someone else engaged in blasphemy, or gay or adulterous sex. They call those things serious obscenities, crimes against nature, abominations, and all sorts of over-the-top lingo.

Take a breath. It's not mutilation. It's not abuse. It's not sawing or stabbing. It's not mayhem. It's some obscene crime.

It is literally mutilation by definition. It is abuse whether you like it or not. The only thing you're right about is that it isn't, for fucked up religious reasons, a crime.

There's no winning argument for you here. There's no devastating blow. You're not going to convince me inflicting deliberate, potentially fatal, injury on an innocent and defenceless child is ok. Why would you even think that is a possibility?