Alternative to circumcision. 100% effective.

Post Reply New Topic

if you actually read the study in other thread, you would know having a mutilated dick takes a tun of pleasure away. the power of science and facts!

Jews are not crazy, but there religion is f*****g ret*d. same with Muslims. and this is coming from a full blood jew ;p

No, I'm not. I'm saying, if the practise suddenly occurred to a parent and had never been done before, people would be repulsed - rightly so. Because it's ritualised, a tradition, it can go on unquestioned.

That's something of a non-sequiter for me.

First, insane people can do good things.

Second, Jews and Muslims (and all other peoples) have done many good and bad things in the world. Those things were done by Jewish and Muslim (and others) individuals, or sometimes teams or groups. There wouldn't have been a gathering of all Jewish or Muslim (or other) peoples to take a vote on what to do. It makes no sense to attribute the work of one or a few peoples of one group to the group entire.

If what you are claiming instead is that having some superior inventions is mutually exclusive with being insane. Then I'd like you to think about how nazis invented their rockets.

If instead you are trying to imply that those inventions are related to believing in circumcision... then I would guess that you are a good counter-example against the claim that your culture makes people better at science.



Oral obsession may as well be the easiest to spot symptom of having issues to enjoy sex.

People do not act atomically. They are woven together in a system of shared values and culture.

It is not quite collectivism, but it is interaction between individuals guided by a system of language, shared values and a shared vision. Humans are social beings (not herd animals or hive animals, but not hermits or atomic entities acting in a purely independent manner either).

ruveyn

Only a liar would draw that conclusion from the medical literature. Indeed, there is no conclusive medical literature on the subject. Almost every study that I have read is predicated on the paucity on information.

This study: http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/masood1/ found that more than twice as many men (38%) reported improved sensation than those (18%) who reported a loss of sensitivity.

Another study: http://www.circs.org/index.php/Library/Fink found 50% reporting improvement and 38% reporting harm.

Now, both of these studies involve med circumcised as adults, the vast majority of whom were circumcised for medical reasons. It must be acknowledged, then, that some of the satisfaction results will arise from the surgical correction of a dysfunction, such as phimosis, and some of the dissatisfaction results will arise from the failure of surgery to correct a preexisting dysfunction.

So what of comparisons of men circumcised neonatally and uncircumcised men. How does their sensitivity compare?

Well this study: http://www.circs.org/index.php/Library/Bleustein found that the only reportable difference in glans sensitivity was in warm thermal response--which difference disappeared when the results were normalized for other conditions (hypertension, diabetes, etc.) This study: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 6C4.d02t04 demonstrated similar results.

Are these conclusive? Of course not. They are no more dispositive of the question than the study you have cited elsewhere. But any truthful researcher will tell you that there is no significant evidence one way or another about the effect of neonatal circumcision on the sensitivity and sexual satisfaction as an adult.

And that's what the science and facts tell us. But I doubt that this will change your prejudices.

that is if one focuses on the subjective experience, something that is inherently faulty in this regard (when talking neonatal vs not), one from one group lacks the reference of the other, what one deems more sensation could just as easily be less but with more emotional engagement, resulting in a net gain in sensation.

we have no way of even attempting to correlate this objectively.

Oodain is right. 'Pleasure' is a very subjective thing, and it is very hard to account for the psychological factors that would colour one's answer to such an experiment.

What we do know is that the foreskin contains nerve endings which, when agreeably stimulated, will bring pleasure, as does the glide of the foreskin over the glans. Further, as an intact male, if I were to pull my foreskin back to expose the glans and walk around clothed, it would be incredibly painful. What happens to a circumcised penis that that (I presume) doesn't stay the case? I can only imagine it's a loss of sensitivity.

The thing is, deciding whether or not to mutilate your infant son's penis is not a matter of reflecting on the facts. It is not a 'neutral' decision. To weigh up the evidence, aside from in cases of very necessary or emergency surgery, is to already consider it might be ok to attack the bodily integrity of your unconsenting child. Thing is, it isn't ok.

A little extreme, but let's illustrate with a comedy sketch:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owI7DOeO_yg[/youtube]

I'm not sure that I would go that far Oodain. There are things that we can measure. Sensitivity responses to touch, pressure and temperature are all measurable. Mean and median times from onset of stimulation to orgasm are measurable. Strength, number and duration of muscular contractions during the expulsive stage of ejaculation is measurable.

But even with these objective measures, we are still, however, left with a bunch of, "what ifs." We can effectively study two control-test groups: males circumcised as adults self-reporting change, or males circumcised as children with males who were not circumcised. But neither of these study groups gets to the basic question--what differences would present if this man had not been circumcised as a child?

Enormous change takes place during puberty--and those changes take place in the context of a boy's individual physiology, behaviour and even dress. Each individual discovers his own sexual response within that individual framework. We each discover the things that work, and the things that don't. Some men (whether circumcised or not) experience painful hypersensitivity with some kinds of stimulation--others do not. To suggest to circumcised men that, "your sex life would be even better if you still had your foreskin" is, however, a baseless claim.

Internal subjective experiences cannot be measured objectively or compared. For example, you and I see a red apple. I say it is red and so do you. But there is no way either of us can compare ehx -experience of redness- side by side. My experience is strictly private to me as your experience is strictly private to you.

This is known in academia as the problem of qualia. Look it up and do some reading on it. So far it is insoluble.

ruveyn

Which would be relevant and interesting if I was talking about subjective experiences. But I was not. I was talking about emprical, measurable responses.

If you are going to be patronizing, do try to be accurate in so doing. [/patronizing]

The objective measurement and the subjective experience cannot be objectively correlated. The problem of qualia is insoluble. Sometimes the smallest stimulus can produce a grand pleasure response. Once cannot make a proportionate correlation between the measurable action of the nerves and the way the brain constructs the neural inputs.

ruveyn

I never suggested that they could. All I stated was that there are measurable data, and from those measurable data we can only draw limited conclusions.

I think I have been unambiguous about this.

yes but without tying that data causatively to the subjective experience you are esentially ending up where you started, with another purely self referential system.

you would have no way of knowing excactly how person a versus b responds to nerve action with intensity x.

since you are in the medical profession do you have access to the percentage of botched circumcision ?
i have had a hard time finding raw data, what i did find varied by too much to be relaible (from 0.005% to 0.5%),

there is also a huge disparity between the prevalance of foreskin cancer between uncircumcised males in the us and denmark, 1 in 1400 in the us, 1 in 1700 in denmark, it suggests that there is far more going on, in fact a quick search states that personal hygiene and underlying conditions have more to say than the mean background incidence rate.

It is not possible duh.


You could CNP this about EVERY study regarding circumcision, including the ones about the supposed health benefits.

Of course, we need some context into why is this being researched at all. There were groups of crazy people so desperate of feeling special to other groups that they would incur into this bizare practice of chopping penises away. And then in the 1800s, in America some clerics wanted to make it popular again in an attempt to save the world from masturbation. This is the very stupid reason we have so much scientific literature about whether or not chopping the tip of your penis makes you feel more satisfaction or not. How proud of mankind does this make me!

Just a bit of clarification, I am in no way saying that the guys who invented circumcision are not any better than the guys who invented this:

Oh wait, I am actually saying that: The guys who invented circumcision are not any better than the Mursi guys up there. In such desperate attempts to feel like the center of the universe. That you have been chosen by this deity. It is no wonder so many tribes did so many stupid things. But just because our favorite tries used to do stupid things, it does not mean we should keep on doing them. We have grown out of most of those ridiculous practices. Whilst the solution of ancient Jews to people randomly and mysteriously dying would be to pick a goat male and expel him from town (The literal origin of the word escape goat) Our solution to that sort of thing is a little more sophisticated and effective.

On the medical benefits. Maybe they are true, maybe not, I am not qualified to assess the studies (But I think that for people too lazy and irresponsible to care about personal hygiene it is a huge health benefit that they would not have to remember to clean one thing themselves ) but to me that's an irrelevant question. There are tons and tons of things we could do to certainly reduce disease rates, that does not mean we should do them nor that they are good ideas. This thread's castration is a great straw man precisely because that (100% STD reduction is not that great, is it?). We can always take the civilized path and ask adults to opt-in for circumcision themselves if they really can't help it and are too lazy. But not oblige children into it and instead teach them to clean their cursed penises and use condoms. Although maybe ruveyn is right and our culture is too full of stupidity that makes us unable to teach children to use contraception and clean up our penises.

And of course, there is the little problem that if we were to admit that circumcision has benefits in reducing STD rates. That even the most optimistic studies say 60%. I am sorry, but if I used a condom I would get 97% effectiveness. Regardless of whatever theoretical loss of sexual pleasure there might be, what is true is that circumcision - Like any other surgical procedure - has risks. The way our more modern solution is actually more effective, makes me think that health is not really a good reason to do it. So in regards to my own body, I am not going to get myself circumcised any time soon. (Regardless, the culture down here is that non-cut is the norm, so ...)

--------
Edit : It occurs to me that if the Mursi guys won the cultural lottery and became the dominant trend. We would have so many studies and controversy about the health pros and cons of putting dishes in your mouth to stretch your lips. It would have been far more entertaining.

^
|
|

What do those guys do if they get chapped lips?

ruveyn