Circumcision, woman's opinion

[vashti]

I think having emotional difficulty over something you can't even remember would warrant psychological counseling.

[Junket]

Please don't make fun of their pain.

Who's cryin'?

Exactly.

[Tiay]

Tiay, please tell me your boyfriend isn't one of those guys running around crying that he was circumcised...

hah, no, not at all vash. He's obliviously happy the way he is and I see no reason to spoil it for him.

umm... why would you want your bf to be uncut? I don't get it; it's really not THAT big of a difference is it?

'course it isn't, hence it doesn't really matter. But i'm saying if I could choose, i'd choose uncut. Having a foreskin would be great to play with during oral- and it'd decrease friction during sex, and it'd possibly make him sensitive so as to get off from slow sex rather than just the pounding away sex, plus, y'know, I've touted this around enough already, but the foreskin has like 50% to 80% of a guys erogenous nerves, and there's no medical reason to cut it off (UNLESS, you in poverty and have no clean water to wash with, in a country where the church forbids the use of condoms to protect yourself from HIV)

[Tiay]

I think having emotional difficulty over something you can't even remember would warrant psychological counseling.

That's not true. Pick something else. Say an arm. (no i'm not comparing loosing an arm to being cut, i'm just picking an extreme example). Just because you can't actually remember it happening, that doesn't make the evidence that it happened disappear or have no effect on you.

say someone looses a leg in an accident. say that later they suffer total amnesia due to another accident. Does their leg-less status thus suddenly not bother them at all anymore simply because they can't remember the first accident? No. People can and are affected by things even if they cannot remember it.

furthermore, I know you're going to dismiss this as babble, but research shows that cut guys appear to have an abnormally low pain-threshold, plus there are some very rare cases of post traumatic stress disorder-- those are probably disputable, but anyways, i'm saying the possibility of being affected by something you can't actually remember, whether it be circumcision or something else, is very likely and in some cases pretty much proven. (for people who read too quick and jump to conclusions: no, I didn't say the chances or being affected are likely, I said the *possibility* is likely. Ie, it's possible, not that it happens a lot, at least in a noticeable statistical way)

sorry.. I went on total rant mode. I actually missed a briefing at college for this so don't laugh, ok? plz?

[Tiay]

BTW - I am ticking down the time to when Tiay finds this thread and goes ballistic.

heh, how long did it take me? Hey, I don't go ballistic... I just write a lot.

[Junket]

I want to have pounding sex.

[Tiay]

I want to have pounding sex.

well I don't. And I think you'll find most women would prefer to have more slow sex than fast sex than they are having.. which is a shame, because if circumcision tends to makes guys need the hard pounding to get off, because they're not getting the double sensation of sliding *inside* their foreskin and the foreskin sliding inside the vagina. Oh, and plus, the skin of the glans hardens when it doesn't have-- oh screw it, you guys are never going to be convinced.

[Junket]

oh screw it, you guys are never going to be convinced.

Nope.

What would it matter? It's not like I could go to the local foreskin dealer for a test drive.

[Tiay]

exactly. and because its such a subjective thing, there is no way to really prove or show the difference beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[gartlas]

The bludy NHS wanted to circumsize me when I was a baby ,when I was having an operation.when my parents asked them why,they had no reason at all.Frankly I'm glad they didnt .see ,doctors have a little streak of malice in them,trying to mess up innocent babies lives

[vashti]

That's not true. Pick something else. Say an arm. (no i'm not comparing loosing an arm to being cut, i'm just picking an extreme example). Just because you can't actually remember it happening, that doesn't make the evidence that it happened disappear or have no effect on you.

say someone looses a leg in an accident. say that later they suffer total amnesia due to another accident. Does their leg-less status thus suddenly not bother them at all anymore simply because they can't remember the first accident? No. People can and are affected by things even if they cannot remember it.

Nah, bad argument. If you lose an arm or leg, they are obviously no longer functional. Circumcision doesn't leave men non-functional. Maybe you can compare circumcision to having your appendix taken out.

furthermore, I know you're going to dismiss this as babble, but research shows that cut guys appear to have an abnormally low pain-threshold, plus there are some very rare cases of post traumatic stress disorder-- those are probably disputable,

Yes, definitely disputable. I think we've discussed before that the sources you use to support this kind of argument are biased in favor of not circumcising. If you want me to believe this, I would need to see something OBJECTIVE. Seriously, if men are suffering PTSD over a circumcision they received at birth, I am pretty sure they are having ALL KINDS of emotional problems and are simply looking for something to blame them on. They USED to blame their issues on their mother, and now they are blaming circumcision.

[Tiay]

Nah, bad argument. If you lose an arm or leg, they are obviously no longer functional. Circumcision doesn't leave men non-functional. Maybe you can compare circumcision to having your appendix taken out.

good point. four counter points:

ONE. say the parents had picked something non functional, but cosmetic. Like, uh, head hair. Let's just pretend you can cut hair in such a way that it doesn't grow back. So if someone had their hair permanently cut as a baby by their parents command, do they ALSO have no right or reason to be hurt by that decision, even though hair has no actual function? (let's ignore any slight head-warming effect hair might have)

TWO. yes, you perceive the foreskin to have no function. How one can perceive such a nerve-loaded piece of skin that has many firmly documented and NOT disputable functions as having "no function" is just plain wrong. You comparing the foreskin to the appendix is just as outrageous, stupid and offensive as if I had claimed the arm to be equal to the foreskin in importance.
But the person being upset about it perceives it as having lost function. Which, if I can talk in a loop for the moment, it clearly does have functions.

THREE. You're saying the foreskins function is to get guys off. Therefore, it follows logically that if guys can get off without it as they obviously can and do quite easily, the foreskin must've had no impact on them and also no function.

huh, sounds like it makes a lot of sense... BUT, I can apply the same thing to something else. Saaayy.. noses are for breathing. Cut off a nose, and theoretically the person can still breathe, he's just got a flat face. Ta-da, therefore it follows that the nose must've had no function.
But of course that'd be wrong; the nose had no function that was *essential* to breathing, but it did have other functions, and did affect the *way* the person breathed, even if it didn't directly affect their ability to do so.

So what i'm saying is "the foreskin has no function that is *essential* to getting off, but it does have other functions, and it does affect the *way* the person comes off, even if it doesn't directly affect their ability to do so."

FOUR. Also, look at your wording:

you're saying, "if you lose an arm, then it [the arm] is no longer functioning. [ergo, function clearly was lost] But if a man loses his foreskin, then the man is still functioning [ergo, no function was lost]"

huh heywatchit! You switched around the subject! Lose an arm, and the arm stops functioning. Right. AND, if you lose foreskin it is also the foreskin that stops functioning [hence, function WAS lost]. Right. But what you said instead of that is; "If you lose foreskin, the man doesn't stop functioning. [hence, leading to the false conclusion that no function was lost, by bypassing the non-disputable functions of the foreskin and equating the foreskins "function" to the mans overall "function"]"

overall, a car still drives without seatbelts- how does that lead you to the conclusion that the seatbelts were functionless? (no reason I just love car analogies.)

I can turn the whole thing around and say "when you lose an arm, the man is still functional [ergo, no function was lost!], in fact he can still pick things up with his other arm and lead a fulfilling life, BUT if you loose foreskin, woah, then the foreskin stops functioning! [ergo, function was clearly lost]"

Again, I'd like to say again that I don't think the foreskin and arm are of equal importance, but I use the example to show that the original sentence has no actual substance.

Yes, definitely disputable. I think we've discussed before that the sources you use to support this kind of argument are biased in favor of not circumcising. If you want me to believe this, I would need to see something OBJECTIVE.

that's such a handy argument.. works against anything I say when citing studies about circumcision that conclude against the practice.

there is no effective way for me to get rid of all bias here. Who does a study on circumcision in relation to pain thresholds? People who are already inclined to think that there might be a connection there. Who publishes and links to the study? Most likely people who also have the same opinion.
Does that make the study wrong? No.


it is as much my duty to provide good studies/facts for my argument as it is for you to do so for yours. I very much dislike you getting on your high horse and declaring a need for objective sources, when you yourself have cited none yourself, besides the HIV one who's irrelevance to the debate of circumcision in *developed* countries I have explained exhaustively already.
I had a link (from CIRP I think it was..), but it wouldn't let me post it for some reason. I've been talking to LA about that. can't even post a simple youtube link, dunno why, something about the server.

You make an excellent point though.
The often quoted study that falsely concluded that a little alcohol is good for you was, I've been told, done in France, presumably by French people, who presumably were already biased to think that a little wine every day is good for you. They did not *intentionally* influence the study. They were simply too eager for the desired result that they did not question it enough.

But with these things I think it makes sense to take a step back and just think logically, with common, lay-man sense..

does it make sense that a little of a toxin that has horrible effects when heavily used, is better than no toxin at all?
no, not really.

does it make sense that forcibly separating skin that is fused together at birth and cutting it off even though it is full of erogenous nerves would have no effect on sexual function, especially considering that the practice originally started out with that very intention, and there is only one country that claims to do the practice for non-religious, medical reasons, even though their own paediatrics association itself admits there are no medical reasons?
no.. not really.

and the importance of some study documenting four disputable cases of circumcision PTSD... well it kinda pales in comparison to the above paragraph.

but you know what vash, even I am sick of debating this at this point. flogging a dead horse. we're never going to agree.

[vashti]

Whoa, Tiay - you know I don't read anything that long... I read the first half, though, and only wish to point out that I never said foreskin has NO function - only that the penis still functions without it, and so the rest of your argment is kind of moot.

I don't know how my comparing the appendix is outrageous. The appendix is believed to play a role in immune function, although clearly, the body can still resist pathogenic invasion without it - just as the penis can still function without the foreskin (ironic, though, that the cells of the foreskin are actually working AGAINST a man's health rather than in favor).

Anyway, I think we should let it go; we've had this argument before, and no one wins. It is merely a matter of opinion.

PS - and yes - I think if a person hasn't been able to come to terms with a bad (permanent) haircut he got as a child, he would also need some therapy. Normal people are generally pretty adaptive. It is a sign of good emotional health.

[Tiay]

Whoa, Tiay - you know I don't read anything that long...

heh, yeah I do. But there's just some sort of irreversible insanely long rant switch in my head somewhere. Maybe I need counselling

Anyway, I think we should let it go; we've had this argument before, and no one wins. It is merely a matter of opinion.

yeah. sorry I didn't reply to this till now, I totally missed it and thought you hadn't replied, and I was kinda glad 'cos you're right, we never get anywhere with this. gg, though.

[Charlie Boy II]

I just think it's great to see two women so passionate about cock