Quickies: What Men Think About Circumcision & The Bra In Pop Culture

_jsw_
wrote on September 9 2009 @ 04:56 pm: [report]

Oh, dear God. Not another circumcision article. I wonder how this one will go.

Cue the Circumcision Discussion Group - you all know your lines by now, I’m sure!

ThatWeirdGamerChick
wrote on September 9 2009 @ 05:06 pm: [report]

I have itty bitty titties and haven’t worn a bra in months. It’s FANTASTIC! You’re all welcome for that gem of a TMI.

ml66uk
wrote on September 9 2009 @ 05:32 pm: [report]

In some countries, men are repulsed by intact female genitalia.  Doesn’t mean it’s right for them to start cutting parts off though.

_jsw_
wrote on September 9 2009 @ 05:38 pm: [report]

Oooo! The party has started. I’ll bring the drinks and some snacks. Anyone bringing nuts?

lea322
wrote on September 9 2009 @ 05:40 pm: [report]

@_jsw_: People don’t seem to have issues with nuts. What we’re deciding here is whether or not we bring plain lil’ smokies or pigs in a blanket.

AlisonNoelle
wrote on September 9 2009 @ 05:58 pm: [report]

@lea ROFLMAO @WeirdGamer I’m so jealous of you for that!

Oh Kathryn!
wrote on September 9 2009 @ 06:07 pm: [report]

I love how we still have the circumcision morals debate when it’s widely accepted in medicine that circumcision is one of the most helpful things you can do for your (male) genitalia.

_jsw_
wrote on September 9 2009 @ 06:19 pm: [report]

I’m happy to see that people are showing up. Did anyone bring the “circumcision hasn’t been proven to be medically helpful” links?  Please set them on the table next to the circumcision has been proven to be medically helpful” links. Then we can all see them.

Also, those on the aesthetics and tactical subcommittees (“it looks gross”, “it’s natural”, “it feels better”, “it feels the same”) want to put their posters over there? Thanks.

To our new members: I know it all seems pretty simple:

Uncircumcised men who are happy being uncircumcised are fine.

Circumcised men who are happy being circumcised are fine.

Uncircumcised men who are unhappy being uncircumcised can get circumcised.

Circumcised men who are unhappy being circumcised can have the procedure surgically reversed, apparently.

Women who like circumcised men can easily find them.

Women who like uncircumcised men can easily find them, especially not in the U.S..

Women who don’t care can find all the men they want.

Gay men are free to also pick and choose.

However, you’d be naive to think that’s all there is!!

First, we must all state if we’re circumcised and/or prefer circumcised or uncircumcised penises. Second, we must, for the most part, assert that the other “side” is grossly wrong. Third, we must debate ad infinitum about the mutilation vs. medically proven good idea vs. religious issue vs. better/worse feeling vs. aesthetics vs nature vs. whatever sides.

Find a comfy chair. It might be a long evening.

PinkRanger
wrote on September 9 2009 @ 06:40 pm: [report]

@_jsw_: You forgot to put the “female genital mutilation is just as bad as male circumcision” and the “female genital mutilation is sexist, and male circumcision is neccessary” on every table.

_jsw_
wrote on September 9 2009 @ 06:47 pm: [report]

@PinkRanger: Thank you. Were I able to edit my comment, I’d do so. I’ll try to gather all the different positions into one giant comment, and paste it into every blog column that mentions circumcision.

ml66uk
wrote on September 9 2009 @ 07:04 pm: [report]

“I love how we still have the circumcision morals debate when it’s widely accepted in medicine that circumcision is one of the most helpful things you can do for your (male) genitalia.”

You’re trolling right?

Canadian Paediatric Society
http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/fn/fn96-01.htm
“Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed.”

http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/pregnancy&babies;/circumcision.htm
“Circumcision is a ‘non-therapeutic’ procedure, which means it is not medically necessary.”
“After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions.”

Royal Australasian College of Physicians
http://www.racp.edu.au/download.cfm?DownloadFile=A453CFA1-2A57-5487-DF36DF59A1BAF527
“After extensive review of the literature the Royal Australasian College of Physicians reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision.”
(those last nine words are in bold on their website, and almost all the men responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%.  “Routine” circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in Australia in all states except one.)

British Medical Association
http://www.bma.org.uk/ethics/consent_and_capacity/malecircumcision2006.jsp#Circumcisionformedicalpurposes
“to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate.”

impoddity
wrote on September 9 2009 @ 07:09 pm: [report]

@_jsw_: This is my first time.  What can I bring?

_jsw_
wrote on September 9 2009 @ 07:12 pm: [report]

@ml66uk: I agree with you - the preponderance of studies shows no compelling medical reason for circumcision. For every “this could have been prevented with circumcision” story there’s a “this would never have happened if circumcision hadn’t been attempted” story.

Fundamentally, though, almost every man - not every man, but almost every man - is happy with how he is because he’s typically had virtually all of his life to get used to it. Aside from the very small percentage of men who are maimed during circumcision and those who have medical issues without it, it’s pretty much a decision made by parents that the kids are stuck with - but then grow up defending as the “right” way.

Yes, there are those who wish their parents had decided differently. But they’re in the minority.

So this really comes down to being, sometimes literally and often figuratively, a religious issue. No one is going to change anyone’s mind, so it’s a fool’s errand to try.

effing hickster
wrote on September 9 2009 @ 07:18 pm: [report]

I’m going to skip the circumcision topic and head straight for bras, please.

I’m one of those guilty men who likes to accompany my female friends to Victoria’s Secret. It’s my guilty pleasure. All that silk, lace, and sometimes perfume makes me giddy. However, as nice as they may be when they’re on, they’re even better when they’re off!

‘Nuff said.

_jsw_
wrote on September 9 2009 @ 07:23 pm: [report]

@impoddity: You should probably pick a table. Pro, anti, or neutral. Unless they’ve been ritually mutilated, most women can just be pro/anti/neutral. Men can be pro/uncirc, pro/circ, anti/uncirc, anti/circ, neutral/uncirc, or neutral/circ. So, there are a lot of tables.

_jsw_
wrote on September 9 2009 @ 07:24 pm: [report]

@effing hickster: Hmmm. I don’t know if they’re better when they’re off. I never notice them once that happens because my attention is drawn elsewhere.

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on September 9 2009 @ 07:46 pm: [report]

IBTC Chairperson here. I ‘support’ your IBTs. Carry on.

ml66uk
wrote on September 9 2009 @ 07:49 pm: [report]

@_jsw_
Anyone who’s unhappy about not been circumcised can still have it done though.  It doesn’t work like that for men who are unhappy about having been circumcised.  They can restore, but they’ll never get all those nerve endings back.  It just seems like something that people should be able to decide for themselves.  Most countries that circumcise don’t do it to newborns, and if you wait, it hurts less, it’s safer, and the results are cosmetically better.  If my son wants to be circumcised when he’s 18 (16 if he knows what he’s doing), I’ll pay for it and help him find a good surgeon.  Until then though, no-one cutting parts off his genitals.  His body - his decision.

That said, I’m starting to feel jealous that only one girlfriend of mine ever took me with her lingerie-shopping.  Maybe they didn’t want to spoil the surprise??

@impoddity: You should come to the anti table where all the cool people hang out.

I Go To 11
wrote on September 9 2009 @ 08:00 pm: [report]

@ impoddity: You can join me in the spectator stands, and watch the fight from afar. I have booze and snacks!

@ gamerchick: JEALOUS. I couldn’t go braless for a whole day if I tried. :( (Well, I could try, but it’d wind up being disastrous, I’m sure.) Unfortunately, it’s a necessary evil for the well-endowed like me.

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on September 9 2009 @ 08:08 pm: [report]

I am circumcised and I don’t mind. It looks good to me and I’ve still got loads of feeling in the damn thing. I can’t see your arguments as negative. I don’t remember it [pain], I’m perfectly happy with how it works and looks, and I respect my parent’s decision (just as I respect their decision to conceive me).

I really don’t give a crap about that little flap of membrane. In fact I’m gonna go jerk it now in spite of you now, ttyl. *waves*

Shriekback68
wrote on September 9 2009 @ 09:54 pm: [report]

Hahaaha!! @ Cheese. Circumcised here, too. It’s never really bothered me and I’ve done just fine without that piece of skin.

*sam*
wrote on September 10 2009 @ 05:37 am: [report]

awww dammit! I missed the party! *sigh* guess I’ll just have to wait for the next one…

Oh Kathryn!
wrote on September 10 2009 @ 07:01 am: [report]

@ml66uk I’m not trolling, and for every article you posted I could post you one that says the converse. I’m actually in med school and it’s been brought up more than once that circumcision can help curb the accumulation of smegma and subsequently the infectious bacteria that may accumulate there.

Riley
wrote on September 10 2009 @ 07:15 am: [report]

@Kathryn - You don’t have to be in med school to understand the importance of proper hygiene.  So if the only reason it is encouraged, medically, is so that you don’t have to wash the member daily; I’d say that is a pretty weak argument.

ml66uk
wrote on September 10 2009 @ 07:16 am: [report]

Umm, those links I posted weren’t just any old papers or studies, but the official position statements on circumcision of national medical organizations.  The doctors responsible for those statements will be mostly either circumcised themselves, or married to circumcised men.

Drops in male circumcision:
USA: from 90% to 57%
Canada: from 47% to 9.2%
UK: from 35% to about 5% (less than 1% among non-Muslims)
Australia: 90% to 12.6% (“routine” circumcision has recently been *banned* in public hospitals in all states except one, so the rate will now be a lot lower)
New Zealand: 95% to below 3% (mostly Samoans and Tongans)
South America and Europe: never above 5%

Females produce more smegma than males btw, and have more places to hide infectious bacteria, but we don’t cut parts of baby girls off.

*sam*
wrote on September 10 2009 @ 07:17 am: [report]

@Kathryn: just out of curiosity, is that the only medical benefit? Bc it seems pretty obvious that that same problem could be just as easily tackled with proper hygiene.

but seriously, I agree with _jsw_, it’s really the parent’s choice and beings how a good majority of men aren’t traumatized by the event (whether it be through the rare cases of a botched procedure or by feeling “mutilated” later) I don’t see what all the fuss is about.

JackNO
wrote on September 10 2009 @ 08:04 am: [report]

I am a man and I am so happy I have all of my parts.  And no it is not dirty and it can look the same (one can retract it and look cut)

The foreskin is not just skin and does not just protect the glans(head).    The real news is that circumcision is now known to ablate the most sensitive parts of the male genitals. This surgery takes away the main male pleasure zones with over 20000 fine touch and stretch nerve endings amputated. The foreskin has several parts including the ridgid band that is great for ones pleasure (that is why nutters like Kellogg wanted to chop em off, to curtail masturbastion), and the ridged band directly contacts the vagina for very great pleasure all around.

Circumcision causes ED (and creates the need for viagra) and makes men sexually dysfunctional (higher PE at young age problem to orgasm at old age) and reduces the joy of sex. Now that people know this or are finnaly hearing this via the internet, it is not an optioon to mutilate a baby. Taking away male pleasure zones without consent is ABUSE.

Also the ALLEGED HIV risk change is minimal (3.2% to 1.8% risk) and not observed outside Africa. It may be linked to how often one showers or be non-existant as the cut men did not have sex during a large part of the study and were told to use condoms. A condom is still needed for unsafe sex and circumcision raises the risk of women catching HIV (in the same Africa study). However female circumcision lowers a women’s risk of HIV. Any women want to be circumcised to reduce the HIV problem?

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on September 10 2009 @ 08:08 am: [report]

Gonna need some citations unless you want to look like a moron.

*sam*
wrote on September 10 2009 @ 08:09 am: [report]

@JackNO: “Circumcision causes ED (and creates the need for viagra) and makes men sexually dysfunctional (higher PE at young age problem to orgasm at old age) and reduces the joy of sex.”

WHAT? I think that’s a little misguided.

JackNO
wrote on September 10 2009 @ 08:22 am: [report]

Premature ejaculation at a young age is more of a cut thing.  A study thought the problem may be linkled to the circ scar (the most sensitive part of a cut penis)sending wrong signals to the brain. There are studies that shows that ED kicks in at a much younger age for cut. 

The ED thing is such common sense and needs no study if you understand that these are parts that provide so much pleasure.  Just a touch to these parts or the stretch sensation, can lead to an errection.  Take that away, and you are missing a main errection mechanism. 

No big deal to me if somone wants this loss of pleasure, but I think it is a crime to take it from babies. 

I think your doubt is misguided and based on a misconception.

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on September 10 2009 @ 08:27 am: [report]

Never had a wet dream. Still no documentation.

*sam*
wrote on September 10 2009 @ 08:29 am: [report]

Actually, you do need a study to back your claims. ED is caused by a number of things including high blood pressure, mental illness, hormone levels, bicycling, et etc. I have never once read or heard anything regarding the connection between circumcision and ED

Rose
wrote on September 10 2009 @ 08:31 am: [report]

All I want to say is that I HATE that frickin’ banana photo.  I’d rather look at the real thing, but then wouldn’t most of us?

_jsw_
wrote on September 10 2009 @ 08:38 am: [report]

@JackNO: I have to agree… no documentation means no credibility. I think you’re pulling things out of your butt unless you’ve got some credible links to throw down.

I’m opposed, personally, to circumcision, but it’s not a major warpath sort of topic for me. It’s like tail bobbing for dogs. Only less so.

I don’t think there’s any credible evidence that circumcision provides any sort of medical benefit for the overwhelming majority of men and that the arguments in favor of doing it are similar to saying that we should perform mastectomies on all women to prevent breast cancer… except that breast cancer rates are a lot higher than medically insurmountable penis issues due to foreskin.

I also think a lot of people find it to be aesthetically more pleasing and/or have religious reasons for doing it, and I see no problem with that. I’ve seen no credible evidence that circumcision leads to issues the overwhelming majority of the time. It’s like ear piercing. You can die from the resulting infection from a piercing. You can lose parts of your ear. But you know what? Almost no one has that happen. I don’t consider little girls with pierced ears to have been dangerously mutilated. I wouldn’t have my daughters’ ears pierced at birth, but some cultures do, and I don’t care.

This is a personal choice of parents which almost never has any profound effect on the child and which is usually completely overwhelmed by any number of other decisions the parents make.

JackNO
wrote on September 10 2009 @ 08:45 am: [report]

Sam I agree that H BP and other things contribute to ED.  But loss of your natural mechanisims to have an errection does and will contribute.  How is this not apparent?  One can get into this deeper, but it just leads to a yank out the study and argue.  So if you don’t want to consider the obvious, I am not into arguing.  How about looking at this rationally, you take away errection mechanisms, it will have its effect?  Good for you if it all works to your standard.

Impotence and sexual dysfunction. The nerves in the foreskin apparently provide an impulse to aid erection. Circumcision has long been associated with an increased incidence of impotence. Glover (1929) reported a case.2 Winkelmann (1959) suggested impotence as a possibility,6 as did Foley (1966).10 Stinson (1973) reported five cases.13 Palmer & Link (1979) reported two cases.14 More recently, additional evidence of sexual dysfunction after circumcision has emerged. Coursey et al. reported that the degradation in sexual function after circumcision is equivalent to the degradation experienced after anterior urethroplasty.47 Fink et al. reported statistically significant degradation in sexual function.49 A survey carried out in South Korea found that circumcised men reported painful erections, and diminished sexual pleasure, and a few reported curvature of the penis upon erection.48 Shen et al. (2004), in a study carried out in China, reported erectile dysfunction in 28.4 percent of the men in the study after circumcision, and ‘weakened erectile confidence’ in 34.7 percent.59

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on September 10 2009 @ 08:52 am: [report]

The definition of a citation is lost on you. Also, I tend to not put much stake in studies done in China, their medical standards and practices aren’t anywhere near the western world (I’ve been there and seen it).

snap
wrote on September 10 2009 @ 10:03 am: [report]

LOVE uncut guys.  no way i’m cutting my (future) sons!

workerbee
wrote on September 10 2009 @ 10:08 am: [report]

I’m tired of talking about penises.  Let’s go back to boobies!  Everyone likes boobies, even lots of gay men.  Like GamerChick, I can go all day without a bra if I choose.  I still like pretty, lacy bras though.

canadiancutie
wrote on September 10 2009 @ 10:20 am: [report]

Well, an uncircumsized penis is slightly easier to jerk off than a circumsized one.

Other than that I have no preference.

pragmatryst
wrote on September 10 2009 @ 10:48 am: [report]

@JackNO: “This surgery takes away the main male pleasure zones with over 20000 fine touch and stretch nerve endings amputated.”

That explains so much.  Despite a lack of credible science on the subject I believe I can now say authoritatively and unequivocally that the loss of thousands of nerve endings resulting from my involuntary infant foreskin removal must be directly responsible for certain control issues I have experienced in the bedroom.  So let me take this opportunity to address all those women who had to suffer the degrading indignity of an announced face shot,  I’m so, so sorry but it wasn’t my fault.  What you may have thought was a callous disregard for your personal dignity was actually the tragic side effect of the abhorrent genital mutilation I had to endure as a defenseless infant.  I blame my parents’ ignorance and the cold heartless medical community that preyed upon their insecurities.  Of course, any pleasure I may have received from these events was entirely unintentional and the flash you thought you saw while temporarily blinded was in no way due to the camera phone I happened to be holding when you regained your sight.

Richard_T
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 12:34 am: [report]

I am totally against infant circumcision.  It is a violation of somebody’s bodily rights. A circumcised child is no better off health wise than an intact child. That is why no medical association recommends male genital mutilation.

Here is a good video produced by nocirc:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHVvB1oHAgg

There are other reasons why it is best to keep your son intact:

Care is a lot easier with intact boys as there is nothing to do. The foreskin is unretractable in infancy so it should be left alone. No cleaning under it or pulling it back is required. In fact, it is advised by doctors to just leave it alone:
http://www.kidshealth.org.nz/index.php/ps_pagename/contentpage/pi_id/266

Circumcised boys require a lot more care. Circumcised boys are in discomfort because there is an open wound. This wound can easily become infected. It can also become irritated by ammonia in the urine. The severed skin can re-attach to form a skin bridge. Basically it is a whole lot of extra hassle (that usually nobody tells you about).
http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html

There is also likely to be negative psychological effects to circumcision:
http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/goldman1/

Circumcision removes a functioning part of the penis:

The foreskin contains many specialized nerves on it’s underside. When the foreskin is moved up and down it is very pleasurable. Circumcised men have lost this ability to masturbate easily as there is no gliding effect. Circumcised men often have to resort to artificial lubrication in masturbation and sex. See here for the function of the foreskin:
http://www.circumstitions.com/completeman/

Without the foreskin protecting the glans, circumcised men lose further sensitivity. The glans (head of the penis) dries out. It also brushes on underwear causing the skin to toughen. See here for the full damage done:
http://www.noharmm.org/IDcirc.htm

There are good reasons to believe that sex is better for the woman as well, if the man has his foreskin intact:
http://xrl.us/foreskinfunctions

Men in Britain, Ireland, France, Germany and Italy, along with the rest of Europe don’t get circumcised and they all do as good if not better than countries where circumcision is more common. So all in all it is best to be as nature intended. No medical association actually recommends non-therapeutic infant circumcision:
http://www.circinfo.org/parents.html

History: Non-religious circumcision only started in English-speaking countries in the late 1800’s. The main reason was to prevent masturbation. More info can be found at this at this site:
http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/

Rates of circumcision:
Circumcision rates have dropped in the USA to 60%.
http://www.circumstitions.com/USA.html
In Canada and Australia the rate has dropped to less than 10%. In Britain the rate is less than 1%. Only 20-25% of the world are circumcised, 2/3 of these are Muslim. Anyone that does it is stupid.

Hugh7
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 02:39 am: [report]

@_jsw_: “Fundamentally, though, almost every man - not every man, but almost every man - is happy with how he is”

Actually, non-scientific surveys suggest that a much higher proportion of men are happy to have all they were born with than are happy to have had part cut off. Which is hardly surprising.

“because he’s typically had virtually all of his life to get used to it.”

Not only that but there’s good neurological reason to believe that his Central Nervous System rewired itself to suit what he was left with. Circumcised men have eroticised the glans in a way that intact men have not had to, in the same way that paraplegics have highly sensitive upper bodies.

“Aside from the very small percentage of men who are maimed during circumcision and those who have medical issues without it, it’s pretty much a decision made by parents that the kids are stuck with - but then grow up defending as the “right” way.”

It’s only a decision made by parents where such a decision is pushed on parents. In most of the English-speaking world it is no longer offered, and not considered.

“Yes, there are those who wish their parents had decided differently. But they’re in the minority.”

But in this case, where the choice was between cutting part off and leaving them alone, the minority - if it IS a minority - who wish they had been left alone, are on the moral high ground.

“So this really comes down to being, sometimes literally and often figuratively, a religious issue. No one is going to change anyone’s mind, so it’s a fool’s errand to try.”

Yet minds get changed. I’m guessing it’s not by magic or coin-toss but by good arguments, and if you’re following these blogs, it’s happening quite widely.

*sam*
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 04:31 am: [report]

@hugh7: “there’s good neurological reason to believe that his Central Nervous System rewired itself to suit what he was left with. Circumcised men have eroticised the glans in a way that intact men have not had to, in the same way that paraplegics have highly sensitive upper bodies.”

that is truly fascinating and makes so much sense. thank you for that

@Richard T:
regarding your article about psychological trauma—I think that particular article is a stretch (to say the least). There’s no doubt that forcing an older child to have a circumcision could be easily taken as a traumatic experience, however, it’s very much a gray area to do the same for an infant. The article basis their justification on the fact that the DSM states that trauma can occur “at any age” and that children are more “prone” to it, however, I think this is either a gross misinterpretation of the DSM, or it is basing its logic on a technicality. In order to assess trauma, the individual in question needs the cognitive abilities to label it as such. I suppose an analogous situation would be a woman who has been raped. If the woman does not see the event as traumatic, who is anyone else to decide that matter for her?

Moreover, the article cites two studies done in Turkey assessing older children’s psychological response. The article states that these two studies are useful, because the children can communicate their feelings and have the cognitive capacity for explicit memories. However, those two particular studies involved older children being circumcised, and at least in the first, without anesthesia and in both, it was not their decision. Furthermore, these children were between the ages of 4 and 7, which begs the question of whether or not they were old enough to understand what the procedure was, especially considering after the operation they all “looked to see if it had been cut off.” The article then goes on to state that the “traumatic impact of surgery on children is well documented.” Again, children not infants. These two studies are completely irrelevant in the debate about infant circumcision.

The final piece of this particular article cites possible long-term traumatic effects of infant circumcision. The first sentence goes on to say that there are no published studies regarding this matter and that all respondents used for this section had contacted the institute of their own accord—not a very representative sample if I may point out. Not only that, but the article failed to give their sample size, which while normally such claims could possibly be looked around, in this particular case, it only goes to show how statistically unsound this last section is.

Basically, I find the entire article shady. I don’t know of the institution cited, however, my feeling is that it is of an anti-circumcision affiliation, and therefore, hardly objective on the matter. If you wish to make a claim that infant circumcision is a traumatic life event, I would suggest bringing forth a more legitimate article, or at the very least provide subsequent articles which use statistical findings as opposed to anecdotal evidence and speculation.

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 09:57 am: [report]

I just think that you’re just angry that “It’s not what you wanted” and you’re just here to bitch. Suck it up and go cry to your mothers.

Riley
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 10:01 am: [report]

@Canadiancutie - Haha.  Nice.

Richard_T
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 02:21 pm: [report]

Sam, it would be helpful if you clarified what it is you are trying to say.  In other words, where you stand on the issue of infant circumcision without consent, or circumcision in general.  Picking out specific aspects of the circumcision debate to argue over, as a way of trying to win the overall argument, is a red herring from my point of view. 

I listed a number of reasons in my post why I oppose infant circumcision.  Adding them all together I feel that I am right and those in favour of it are wrong.  I don’t know whether you are in favour of it or are arguing over a seperate issue, namely, how wrong it is, or how much fuss is justified.  We can have that debate if you want.  To me this approach another red herring/straw man argument.  It is quite common, and incorporates a number of logical fallacies. 

In a previous post , you say:

“it’s really the parent’s choice and beings how a good majority of men aren’t traumatized by the event (whether it be through the rare cases of a botched procedure or by feeling “mutilated” later) I don’t see what all the fuss is about.”

To me, given that it does not have to be done (in fact, in my view it is healthier not to be done) then the question of the amount of boys and men walking around with botched penises is less important than the fact that there are people walking round with botched penises when they needn’t be walking round with botched penises.  Here is a helpful page listing the apparatus used and some of the botched results:
http://www.coloradonocirc.org/files/handouts/Circumcision_Techniques_and_Complications.pdf

In other posts it is made clear you have not investigated the sexual ramifications of circumcision.  So I suggest you do that as it could change your view on the debate.

I presume you are one of those circumcised men who feels that “my sex life is fine (thankyou very much)” and asks, “what is the fuss?”

So again I don’t know what argument you are taking up with me.  Do you specifically want to argue over the psychological effects of the operation or other aspects of the debate?  Because to me, the psychological impact is only a minor part of why I am opposed to it. 

Regarding the psychological impact specifically , I will go over why I don’t think it is as black and white as you have made out.  Firstly we have not defined pyschological impact.  Are you talking about a remembering of the event? If so, we should note the subject of memory is quite complicated - and even experts do not fully understand the workings of the brain. Subconsciously, who knows what is going on in our minds?
What is also complicated is the knock-on effect of certain events.  A traumatic event way back in someone’s life could have caused a string of knock-on events leading to a present unhappiness - so many “knock-on’s” in fact, that the person wouldn’t be able to link the current unhappiness to the original cause that started the chain of events.  Hence why people often find themselves stuck in a rut for a long period of time.
It is quite possible that having part of your genitalia cut off could have had an effect on your personality - even if it is a small effect, that will inevitably have knock on effects which could lead to a knock on effect and into unhappiness.
Why would it have a negative knock on effect?  Well there are probably many reasons why the effect could be a negative as opposed to an effect that is neutral.  Knowledge of what the foreskin actually does, to take but one example, may cause some psychological impact.  There are many more.  The nature of the psychological impact and its size would depend on the individual. 

I doubt a study to get to the bottom of this complicated matter would be feasible or practical so we have to go on reasoning.  Reasoning dictates that every event must have a cause - so you have to ask what has been the impact of circumcision?  As I say, seen as though studies would not be able to get to the bottom of this because the participants would not be able to tell the researchers of its impact on them, then we are left with using common sense.
When circumcision doesn’t need to be performed then that is good enough reason to be against it.

_jsw_
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 02:32 pm: [report]

@Richard_T: You’re treating this like a debate. It isn’t one. Those who agree with you don’t need to be convinced, and those who don’t won’t be convinced by a wall of text. I often compose the Great Wall of Text even when writing flippant replies, so I’m a fan of verbosity. But it won’t convince anyone, and those you’re trying to sway to your side will read your posts and see this:

blah gurgle meh meh

Once you exceed a few sentences on a “religious” topic, no one will listen to you (or anyone else who disagrees with them). Small bites, my friend. Small bites.

They still won’t sway anyone, but they’ll take less time to compose.

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 02:38 pm: [report]

Damn, all this arguing gives me a hankering to go cut off the tips of penises!

*sam*
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 02:47 pm: [report]

@Richard_T: my stance on the matter is irrelevant. Regardless, as _jsw_ has so poignantly noted, you’re not going to change my perspectives on the matter. and FWIW, my whole point in my last post was to simply discuss the legitimacy of the article you provided. I’m a psych dork and miss my research classes, and found it to be the most fun I’ve had since graduating. HOWEVER, if you’re so hell-bent on knowing, my SO and I actually had this discussion last night and we’re both OK with infant circumcision. Please don’t bother trying to convince me(us) otherwise, as again, _jsw_ has already pointed out, it would be a waste of breath. You obviously feel otherwise, and good for you, more power to you, etc etc, keep your babies uncut, whatever, I don’t care. Your sons’ penises are none of my concern, just as mine shouldn’t be any of yours.

Hugh7
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 05:22 pm: [report]

@*sam*: in effect you are saying “Don’t bother me with facts, my mind is made up.” This is usually called “closed-minded”. You also say you’re a “psych dork”. I wonder what happens when a psych dork studies the closed mind. Doesn’t something snap?

“Your sons’ penises are none of my concern, just as mine shouldn’t be any of yours.” This begs the question that because they are “your” sons, you have a right to cut parts of *their* genitals off. Do you feel the same about “your” daughters? If not, why not? (And I’m not talking about what they do in Africa, but what Medicaid paid for until 1977 in the US.)

_jsw_
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 05:31 pm: [report]

@Hugh7: You’re not going to change her mind because, contrary to what extremists on both sides argue, it’s a minimally invasive surgery that is not medically necessary but is desirable to many, and only a small percentage of men are bothered with the fact that it was done to them as infants. It is entirely different than the equivalent procedure on women, so stop using that as an example.

Almost no one has a medical need to have it done or suffers in any way from not having it done.

Conversely, almost no one is adversely affected by having it done to the extent that it bothers them even remotely as much as it bothers them to wade through these posts.

If you want to convince people, you need to become convincing. Not argumentative and accusatory. If your goal is to help people to become aware that the arguments over health advantages are inaccurate, that’s an admirable goal, but commenting in a fashion equivalent to frothing at the mouth isn’t the way to accomplish it.

bumbler
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 05:51 pm: [report]

This thread needs more self-righteous hysteria.  Call me when slavery or the holocaust are mentioned.

_jsw_
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 05:55 pm: [report]

@bumbler: No reason to mention those minor subjects when a far more serious subject is being discussed.

bumbler
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 06:04 pm: [report]

Too true.  If I were but a poet I could properly eulogize the tragedy with an Ode to the Lost Foreskin.

_jsw_
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 06:13 pm: [report]

It was not just lost. With a knife someone did it accost, then it was tossed.

It was such a sin to destroy that foreskin,
an act which filled the poor tot with hate when he tried to learn to masturbate.

What would have been an easy pleasurable motion became a dreary task enabled only with lotion.

But though when young he once bled, he became quite skilled in bed, and learned his girlfriends would more willingly give head.

bumbler
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 06:15 pm: [report]

Bravo, Sir, bravo.  *wipes tear*

PotteryGirl
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 06:16 pm: [report]

OH NOOO.  Not another article about this. I do have to say that _jsw_ has become one of my favorite posters on these forums.  You are a hoot and right on target with your comments on “to skin or not to skin”.

_jsw_
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 06:38 pm: [report]

@bumbler and PotteryGirl: Thank you. The cadence was off a bit, but, because I’m uncircumcised, I tend to masturbate like a crazed monkey. As a result, it’s sometimes difficult to concentrate as I type with my left hand.

writergirl
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 07:09 pm: [report]

@jsw—that was freaking hysterical…left handed or not.

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 07:09 pm: [report]

Here is the s*hit I don’t get, jsw, I masturbate without lotion 90% of the time and I don’t get chaffed or damaged. I seriously don’t see how this has anything to do with a foreskin.

I’d also like to mention that every time *ahem* the Frisky brings circumcision up all we get is these schmucks who go crazy over how it’s ‘wrong’ or some s*it. As an circumcised man I really do not want to hear about their either, bitchiness that they got circumcised and want to prevent other from doing so, or they they aren’t and don’t want anyone else from doing so. In essence I’d really appreciate it if you didn’t post the asinine topics that make me want to follow up and beat the ever loving s*it out of these dumbass motherf*ckers who think this means anything. So please shut the f*ck up Frisky.

I’m done.

PotteryGirl
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 07:14 pm: [report]

Hmm…who doesn’t masterbate like a crazed monkey?

bumbler
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 07:22 pm: [report]

I agree Cheese, we need a new controversial topic to beat to death.  I have a list of suggestions: Megan Fox, bimbo or savvy?; Hawley Smoot Tariff, was Hoover a pinko?; Charlize Theron, African American?; is Sarah Palin William Seward’s fault?

PotteryGirl
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 07:25 pm: [report]

Oooh, I’ve got one Bumbler - what are your thoughts on saying “shut up” during a presidential speech?    That should keep people busy for a bit and not talk about Peen Skin.

On a bra note - I have a Victoria Secret complaint.  ALL of their bras have padding.  Padding is the last thing I need and therefore can’t buy a pretty bra at VC.  I find this annoying.  Vicky’s discriminates against the big boobie girls.  Damn them!

_jsw_
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 07:26 pm: [report]

I think “tastes great” is more important than “less filling”.

PotteryGirl
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 07:27 pm: [report]

@_jsw_ - I think width is more important than length. 

roastchicken
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 07:29 pm: [report]

@ cheese: Your rant was so hot.

I heart you..

and I completely agree.

_jsw_
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 07:30 pm: [report]

@PotteryGirl: Oh, I thought we were discussing controversial topics.

bumbler
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 07:35 pm: [report]

I hate the same thing even though I’m on the other side of the size spectrum.  Their bras are huge and the padding is in a strange globular shape that makes your boobs look bizarre.  All I need is a cute demi bra which they never have.

retro chic
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 08:17 pm: [report]

Skipping to bras…

Hm, I think there was another post about bras (gee, there are a lot of reruns lately) which I can’t remember, but anyway.

I always thought “hey, wouldn’t it be a great idea to have bra options that came in the shape of real and sexy breasts.” Not molded into the standardized round shoved-up mounds or globes (agree with ya there, @bumbler), but natural contours. To me, it’s not just how good you look above the neckline, but below – the silhouette under the shirt.

What about the look of retro bullet bras… they looked fun. I’d also like to see a line developed (yeah) to simulate the best of anything provocatively real. Dare to dream…

—-

@jsw: you’re too much! At least I’ll know by the switch in tone of future posts when you’re in your right mind.

_jsw_
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 08:27 pm: [report]

@retro chic: “@jsw: you’re too much!” Sadly, we’ll probably never know.

Anyway, I agree about the bra issues. For an article of clothing which at least, oh, 40% of the teenage to adult population wears (i.e., >80% of women), it seems woefully uncustomized. One size does not fit all, and a very few common styles do not fit all. I’m surprised (well, not really, more like disappointed) that the situation hasn’t improved more for you women. *

The situation’s so bad that we men would rather see you in nothing at all than most bras out there. **

* Serious comment.
** Joking comment.

effing hickster
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 08:28 pm: [report]

@PotteryGirl, bumbler, retro chic: Yes, as nice as they are, Victoria’s Secret does include way too much padding sometimes, turning their bras into gelatin molds or literal boob shields.

Nothing I hate more than to see a nice young pair of breasts beneath a light, airy top, with what looks like a Kevlar bullet-proof vest in between.

retro chic
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 09:01 pm: [report]

@jsw: hehe, smooth mover you are – thanks for lopping the rest of it, Mr Lefty Loosy… or is it Righty Tighty?

_jsw_
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 09:05 pm: [report]

@retro chic: It depends on whether I want it rough or am feeling romantic.

AChanceAtHeaven
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 09:08 pm: [report]

“Uncircumcised penises repulse and scare me, so my sons are getting cut whether it’s PC or not. Sorry.”

Uwe Boll movies scare me, but they don’t get cut. Oh, wait…

*sam*
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 09:23 pm: [report]

@bumbler: “is Sarah Palin William Seward’s fault?”

seriously the funniest thing I’ve read all day.

bumbler
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 09:41 pm: [report]

*blushes*

develange
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 10:09 pm: [report]

can the few people please NOT compare male circumcision and female circumcision? I’m not an expert on either topic, but from what I know about female circumcision….#&@$% horrendous, disgusting, abusive, dangerous. No exceptions.

On a lighter note, BRAS:

I’ve grown to dislike how the natural shape of my breasts look under clothes, so I do wear the molded cup bras. However, I do enjoy how my breasts look naked. Sadly, I cannot share them in public.

retro chic
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 10:44 pm: [report]

@jsw and @develange: I think I’d prefer styles whose molded cups optimize our natural shapes – not cling to them unflatteringly, OR forged them into one-shape-fits-all globes. Btw, I think that’s the biggest problem I have with implants, for that matter. Would it be so hard for mfgrs to adapt that better too?

@jsw: Everything’s always better romantic, no?

_jsw_
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 10:55 pm: [report]

@retro chic: I think I’ll start a business making custom brassieres. First, women will have breast molds made, then I’ll make clothing to fit them. I think it could pretty much be a dream job for me.

And no, it’s not always better when it’s romantic. Sometimes you just need to unleash the animal in you.

retro chic
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 11:17 pm: [report]

@jsw: ... yeah, I can just see it: jealous mates of wives and girlfriends on the hot seat explaining outrages bills for hording bras that just *had* to be custom fitted by you and only you.

... and – there *IS* romance even in the raw jungle of pure “animal love.” You’ve had it… *you* know you have.

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 11:26 pm: [report]

Pfft, horn dog.

_jsw_
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 11:37 pm: [report]

@retro chic: I’d allow the mates to have copies of the molds - if the woman consented, of course. That should help. Plus I’d try to pass myself off as gay.

And yes, you’re right about the romance. I can’t enjoy it without at least some of that.

retro chic
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 11:45 pm: [report]

@jsw: ah, the old gay cover gag… well, then I guess you’re set for life. Most every woman has a BFFF/stylist in their “sewing” circle…

The “romance”... an elicit substance to me, in all its forms.

*sam*
wrote on September 12 2009 @ 07:16 am: [report]

@_jsw_: with your custom brassieres, do you think you can manage to make them so my boobs are the same size? like, maybe you could make the left one have more padding and a little more push, so at least under my clothes they’ll look even (and my cleavage won’t look so obviously disproportionate)? b/c that would be GREAT.

effing hickster
wrote on September 12 2009 @ 07:46 am: [report]

@devalange: Actually, you can share them in public if you live in New York! No lie!

_jsw_
wrote on September 12 2009 @ 09:24 am: [report]

@retro chic: I look forward to being a part of your sewing circle. Having lived for a while with a gay couple who are good friends of mine, I think I picked up enough to pass.

@*sam*: Of course. I’ll make a mold using the two to create the delta, then you’ll place that over your smaller one, fitting it perfectly and making it identically shaped to the larger one. The key will be finding the right material for that part - I’m thinking aerated silicone, but I’m not sure.

@effing hickster: No one does. It’s sad, really.

Ginacakes
wrote on September 14 2009 @ 02:19 pm: [report]

Personally, uncircumcised penises (penisi?) just scare me…and to all the apparent medical professionals that seem to frequent this post, I have no medical evidence to back it up. It probably has to do with the fact I was a 15 yr old virgin when I saw one the first time. But as I recall…I think I gagged a little…WAY before it got anywhere near my mouth.

ml66uk
wrote on September 14 2009 @ 05:00 pm: [report]

In some countries, men are scared by intact female genitalia, but that doesn’t make it right to cut parts off baby girls.

If they’re hard, you often can’t tell the difference between an intact one and a circumcised one anyway btw.

LauraRB
wrote on September 14 2009 @ 11:02 pm: [report]

Most men find large breasts more attractive on women, so why don’t we just start breast augmentation of girls nice and early?  It’s not medically necessary, but it is more aesthetically pleasing, and it’s almost as common these days as circumcision. It can just be one more decision parents can make for their children.  Let’s push boob jobs on our young girls, since it looks better and all…

LauraRB
wrote on September 14 2009 @ 11:04 pm: [report]

And one could argue that a tweenster’s self esteem will soar from having a huge rack, so, gosh, there’s a medical reason to push the boob jobs!  Yay!

bumbler
wrote on September 15 2009 @ 07:06 am: [report]

Really reaching.