Routine infant male circumcision - Page 2

Go Back   Raptors Forum | Toronto Raptors Forums & Message Boards > NBA Discussion > The Podium

View Poll Results: Should routine infant male circumcision be legal?
Yes 11 44.00%
No 14 56.00%
Voters: 25. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-05-2010, 11:33 AM   #21 (permalink)
I believe in Masai!

giant steps

 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 16,569
Representing:
Default

i don't think it should be illegal because at the moment it is a common cultural practice and people of all stripes would fly off the hook if the government started legislating this type of thing.

female circumcision is about power, dominance and sexual repression, so we see it on a different level socially. that is not to suggest that this opinion is right, but it is the norm. male circumcision is more about that host of historical, social and cultural issues that acgm pointed to. to me, at this stage, that is not grounds for legislation to block it. i'm not a small government guy, but i tend to be when it comes to spirituality and religion. this is still firmly on the the side of "ridiculous but not oppressive" in my mind.

so yes, i find any mutilation of body parts done on the unwilling barbaric, but i, like xw, also find any religious indoctrination of children cruel. to me these issues are similar and interwined, and since the long-term effects of this procedure are not hugely significant i don't think legislation is appropriate at this stage, especially when the long term effects of religion are a lot worse and we're not about to legislate against that.

if the cultural norm moves away from that the situation will change and perhaps it will be time for the government to step in. currently i don't think this is the case.

Last edited by 'trane; 02-05-2010 at 11:37 AM.
'trane is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 11:41 AM   #22 (permalink)
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the liquor

The Mara sisters are hot!
 
Bill Haverchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,895
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'trane View Post
i don't think it should be illegal because at the moment it is a common cultural practice and people of all stripes would fly off the hook if the government started legislating this type of thing.

female circumcision is about power, dominance and sexual repression, so we see it on a different level socially. that is not to suggest that this opinion is right, but it is the norm. male circumcision is more about that host of historical, social and cultural issues that acgm pointed to. to me, at this stage, that is not grounds for legislation to block it. i'm not a small government guy, but i tend to be when it comes to spirituality and religion. this is still firmly on the the side of "ridiculous but not oppressive" in my mind.

so yes, i find any mutilation of body parts done on the unwilling barbaric, but i, like xw, also find any religious indoctrination of children cruel. to me these issues are similar and interwined, and since the long-term effects of this procedure are not hugely significant i don't think legislation is appropriate at this stage, especially when the long term effects of religion are a lot worse.

if the cultural norm moves away from that the situation will change and perhaps it will be time for the government to step in. currently i don't think this is the case.
I'm going to pose the same question to you that I recently asked myself. It's interesting, because you're addressing this in a similar way to the manner in which this played out in my head when I was thinking about it.

Okay, 'trane, here's the question(s): what do you consider "hugely significant" long term effects? How do you decide if the effects are hugely significant? Is losing substantial sexual pleasure not significant?
Bill Haverchuck is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 11:45 AM   #23 (permalink)
landry fields forever

Administrator

 
Acie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Living in a van down by the river
Posts: 21,602
Representing:
Default

Personally, I think it's pointless.

I would imagine most guys of my generation and my dad's were circumsized and so therefore they think there sons should look like them and don't think twice about it having it done.

Make it illegal? I don't know...I think the choice should still be there, but also that people need to be properly educated so they can make the decision that's right for their child and not just base it on their own personal history.

Actually, I really don't know what they do now since we have a girl, but I think if we had a boy I would've not had it done.
Acie is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 11:54 AM   #24 (permalink)
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the liquor

The Mara sisters are hot!
 
Bill Haverchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,895
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acie View Post
Personally, I think it's pointless.

I would imagine most guys of my generation and my dad's were circumsized and so therefore they think there sons should look like them and don't think twice about it having it done.

Make it illegal? I don't know...I think the choice should still be there, but also that people need to be properly educated so they can make the decision that's right for their child and not just base it on their own personal history.

Actually, I really don't know what they do now since we have a girl, but I think if we had a boy I would've not had it done.
In my opinion, the choice should be there for adults who want to circumcise themselves. Infants can't get educated about the procedure, so they can't make an informed decision. If it's legal, whether you get to keep your foreskin comes down to what family you're born into. That....sucks.

And yeah, you make good points about our parents' generation. The only reason I was circumcised was because my older brother was done. And the only reason he got cut was because my Dad had it done. That, and because it was more common in the 70s when my older brother was born.
Bill Haverchuck is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 11:56 AM   #25 (permalink)
I believe in Masai!

giant steps

 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 16,569
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmChairGM View Post
I'm going to pose the same question to you that I recently asked myself. It's interesting, because you're addressing this in a similar way to the manner in which this played out in my head when I was thinking about it.

Okay, 'trane, here's the question(s): what do you consider "hugely significant" long term effects? How do you decide if the effects are hugely significant? Is losing substantial sexual pleasure not significant?
there's no way i can answer that question with specificity. i can't quantify it.

i don't like that it has an impact on sexual pleasure, but i could pose the same question to you about what constitutes 'substantial' loss of pleasure in the question of long term significance. let's compare it to the female situation. female circumcision, i think we can agree, is the loss of substantial sexual pleasure. male circumcision, although it does make an impact, doesn't even come close to that kind of repression. there is clearly a sliding scale involved, and i'm not sure where the line gets drawn.

this is why i linked it to cultural norms. if it wasn't commonly accepted but caused a loss of sexual pleasure in any quantity, we could probably make the case that it is wrong in some sense. but given that it is culturally accepted and so are other forms of genital mutilation like piercing, we are not coming in to say all genital mutilation is wrong ansd all repression of sexuality is wrong.

this, of course, brings in the issue of consent, which is apparent with adults and genital mutilation but not with infants. but the fact is that some interventions by parents are commonly accepted, and this is one of them. frankly, the religious prohibition of sexual urges and masturbation is probably more destructive to sexual pleasure than circumcision and we're not on the brink of legislating that either.

out of this group of intersecting issues, i find myself thinking, in a basic sense, that it is bad, but not really bad, and it is socially accepted. in the end i can say that i don't like the idea of the government intruding in these types of situations. had the mix of issues come out slightly different i might make a different choice (if, indeed, i am capable of choice, but that takes us back to another thread ).

so when you ask about significance in terms of long term effects or substantial in terms of sexual pleasure loss, all i can say is that, for me, it is unquantifiable and thus becomes a comparative issue and the weighing of the socio-political factors i mentioned above.

does this make sense?
'trane is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 12:02 PM   #26 (permalink)
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the liquor

The Mara sisters are hot!
 
Bill Haverchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,895
Representing:
Default

'trane, this will somewhat address the question of significance. Anyone else who is interested might want to check it out, especially if you're on the fence.

Here is part of the findings of a study published in the British Journal of Urology International:

Quote:
In conclusion, circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the penis and decreases the fine-touch pressure sensitivity of glans penis. The most sensitive regions in the uncircumcised penis are those parts ablated by circumcision. When compared to the most sensitive area of the circumcised penis, several locations on the uncircumcised penis (the rim of the preputial orifice, dorsal and ventral, the frenulum near the ridged band, and the frenulum at the muco-cutaneous junction) that are missing from the circumcised penis were significantly more sensitive.
LINK

Last edited by Bill Haverchuck; 02-05-2010 at 12:06 PM.
Bill Haverchuck is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 12:04 PM   #27 (permalink)
I believe in Masai!

giant steps

 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 16,569
Representing:
Default

i am happy to still have my hood.
'trane is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 12:18 PM   #28 (permalink)
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the liquor

The Mara sisters are hot!
 
Bill Haverchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,895
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'trane View Post
i am happy to still have my hood.
Some of us who don't have a toque might be wishing we had ours, so you don't have to be a dickhead about it.

Edit - relax, people, I obviously said that just so I could use the joke.
Bill Haverchuck is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 12:29 PM   #29 (permalink)
landry fields forever

Administrator

 
Acie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Living in a van down by the river
Posts: 21,602
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmChairGM View Post
In my opinion, the choice should be there for adults who want to circumcise themselves. Infants can't get educated about the procedure, so they can't make an informed decision. If it's legal, whether you get to keep your foreskin comes down to what family you're born into. That....sucks.

And yeah, you make good points about our parents' generation. The only reason I was circumcised was because my older brother was done. And the only reason he got cut was because my Dad had it done. That, and because it was more common in the 70s when my older brother was born.
Perhaps we should make vaccination only available to adults too?
Acie is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 12:48 PM   #30 (permalink)
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the liquor

The Mara sisters are hot!
 
Bill Haverchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,895
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'trane View Post

there's no way i can answer that question with specificity. i can't quantify it.
You can't quantify it exactly, but you can ascertain that something significant has been lost via a comparison between the fine-touch sensitivity of circumcised and uncircumcised penises.

Quote:
i don't like that it has an impact on sexual pleasure, but i could pose the same question to you about what constitutes 'substantial' loss of pleasure in the question of long term significance. let's compare it to the female situation. female circumcision, i think we can agree, is the loss of substantial sexual pleasure. male circumcision, although it does make an impact, doesn't even come close to that kind of repression. there is clearly a sliding scale involved, and i'm not sure where the line gets drawn.
you're using the term female circumcision quite broadly. The fact of the matter is, there are different types of female circumcision. Not all types female circumcision effect female sexuality in the same way. Some do not remove all sensitivity from the clitoris. Thus, some forms are very similar to male circumcision. However, and this is the big however, INFANT female circumcision (I prefer the term genital mutilation) is ILLEGAL in Canada. Our country, like many others, has very sexist legislation. And I'm not one of those men's rights nutters. But, on this particular issue, boys ARE being discriminated against.

Quote:
this is why i linked it to cultural norms. if it wasn't commonly accepted but caused a loss of sexual pleasure in any quantity, we could probably make the case that it is wrong in some sense. but given that it is culturally accepted and so are other forms of genital mutilation like piercing, we are not coming in to say all genital mutilation is wrong ansd all repression of sexuality is wrong. this, of course, brings in the issue of consent, which is apparent with adults and genital mutilation but not with infants. but the fact is that some interventions by parents are commonly accepted, and this is one of them. frankly, the religious prohibition of sexual urges and masturbation is probably more destructive to sexual pleasure than circumcision and we're not on the brink of legislating that either.
1 - All kinds of horseshit human rights violations against children were viewed as "commonly accepted" in the past. Just because society commonly accepts it, doesn't mean you have to think it should be legal. If some people don't call bullshit, change never happens. And the majority should not be allowed to legislate a human rights violation. In my opinion, this is possibly a human rights violation. Furthermore, countries like Canada have absolutely NO credibility when suggesting to undeveloped nations that they need to stop cutting their women. Our country is very hypocritical.



2 - Your comment about legislating religious views on masturbation is not a sound analogy. Think about it. Tens of thousands of Atheists abandon religious views each year. Those people have the opportunity to go back to a sexual lifestyle of their choice. A circumcised person can't get their foreskin back after they leave a religion that they may never have wanted to belong to in the first place. And, for the record, most circumcisions in North America are not done for religious reasons. That is, religion is not the primary factor motivating it. Christians are not told to get circumcised, yet they are the majority of people who get it done in North America.

Quote:
out of this group of intersecting issues, i find myself thinking, in a basic sense, that it is bad, but not really bad, and it is socially accepted. in the end i can say that i don't like the idea of the government intruding in these types of situations. had the mix of issues come out slightly different i might make a different choice (if, indeed, i am capable of choice, but that takes us back to another thread ).
Okay, good zing on the choice comment. That reminds me, actually, I have some cool videos I should dump into that old thread. Anyways, the government intrudes in female circumcision. See my paragraph above in which I discuss how not all types of female genital mutilation are the same, yet they are illegal in regards to children.

Quote:
so when you ask about significance in terms of long term effects or substantial in terms of sexual pleasure loss, all i can say is that, for me, it is unquantifiable and thus becomes a comparative issue and the weighing of the socio-political factors i mentioned above.

does this make sense?
I understand that the logic makes sense to you; I just don't agree with it. And that's because I think we view this differently in terms of it being a human rights violation. This is part of the reason I wanted to know people's general thoughts without spewing a bunch statistics on rates and all that. If really intelligent people like you don't view this as a human rights violation, that worries me, because it probably means that politicians won't be prompted to do anything about this anytime soon. They'll probably just say "ah, let it sort itself out. Why get ourselves in a political mess over this."

You know, it would be interesting if you could temporarily circumcise somebody. I really wonder if you'd feel the same way if you lost your toque. Similarly, I really wonder if Jeff would feel the same way if he could have his toque back. If urologists are right about how many nerve endings are lost, I doubt many men would give up their foreskin once they had it back.
Bill Haverchuck is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 12:56 PM   #31 (permalink)
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the liquor

The Mara sisters are hot!
 
Bill Haverchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,895
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acie View Post
Perhaps we should make vaccination only available to adults too?
Okay, you have no idea how bad an analogy that is. I'm going to go and find some accurate statistics on the perceived and supposed medical benefits of circumcision. I'll try and get something official that was sent to me when i participated in a previous discussion. I'll try and find it ASAP.

In fact, the cost benefit analysis goes the other way, once you factor in complications resulting from circumcision. See, most people think "oh, it's cleaner", yet they don't factor in the health problems that result from it. But I will get actual stats and return with a new post. Plus, a urinary tract infection, which USED to be commonly cited as the reason to get circumcised, is treatable with anti-biotics.

Also, Acie, when you talk about vaccinations, you're talking about something that eradicates desease....circumcision does not do that on any level even comparable, as I will demonstrate. Also, vaccinations do NOT guarantee the loss of sexual pleasure. Circumcision DOES guarantee SOME loss of sexual pleasure. You can't just throw out random analogies like that when the variables are not consistent across the two things being discussed.

Last edited by Bill Haverchuck; 02-05-2010 at 01:04 PM.
Bill Haverchuck is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 01:09 PM   #32 (permalink)
BOOBS

never too old.


 
INSIDER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: richmond hill
Posts: 11,483
Representing:
Default

in my opinion, babies have no rights.
if the parents want to circumsize their child, its their decision... if the parents want to put 2 holes in their babies ear lobes, its their decision... if the parents want to give their children a flu shot, you got it - their decision.
if the mother wants to abort the kid thats in her stomach... same thing.
INSIDER is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 01:12 PM   #33 (permalink)
the fighter of the Nightman

Ch-Ch-Ch-Ch-Cherry Bomb
 
Barracuda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 7,962
Representing:
Default

I'd comment.

But as a chick, I don't think I have the right to.

I've heard guys argue about which is better - circumsized or un-circumsized. But never really whether it should be done or not.
Barracuda is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 01:14 PM   #34 (permalink)
------------------------

Senior Member
 
XiaominWu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,402
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barracuda View Post
I'd comment.

But as a chick, I don't think I have the right to.
I think that is silly.
XiaominWu is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 01:16 PM   #35 (permalink)
landry fields forever

Administrator

 
Acie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Living in a van down by the river
Posts: 21,602
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmChairGM View Post
Okay, you have no idea how bad an analogy that is. I'm going to go and find some accurate statistics on the perceived and supposed medical benefits of circumcision. I'll try and get something official that was sent to me when i participated in a previous discussion. I'll try and find it ASAP.

In fact, the cost benefit analysis goes the other way, once you factor in complications resulting from circumcision. See, most people think "oh, it's cleaner", yet they don't factor in the health problems that result from it. But I will get actual stats and return with a new post. Plus, a urinary tract infection, which USED to be commonly cited as the reason to get circumcised, is treatable with anti-biotics.

Also, Acie, when you talk about vaccinations, you're talking about something that eradicates desease....circumcision does not do that on any level even comparable, as I will demonstrate. Also, vaccinations do NOT guarantee the loss of sexual pleasure. Circumcision DOES guarantee SOME loss of sexual pleasure. You can't just throw out random analogies like that when the variables are not consistent across the two things being discussed.
Please don't waste your time.

I was just sort of half-jokingly throwing that out there.


Acie is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 01:18 PM   #36 (permalink)
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the liquor

The Mara sisters are hot!
 
Bill Haverchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,895
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by INSIDER View Post
in my opinion, babies have no rights.
if the parents want to circumsize their child, its their decision... if the parents want to put 2 holes in their babies ear lobes, its their decision... if the parents want to give their children a flu shot, you got it - their decision.
if the mother wants to abort the kid thats in her stomach... same thing.
Ugh. A flu shot is not the same thing. I'm going to respectfully request that people stop making that analogy. SERIOUSLY!

Also, earings...really?....really?....it's different than chopping the pee pee. Come on, man. I know you love to use your wang, INSIDER. Your wang is more important than that.

Abortion? Dude, a fetus is different than living, breathing baby. If you kill a living baby you go to jail.....because it's a living human....living humans have rights.
Bill Haverchuck is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 01:22 PM   #37 (permalink)
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the liquor

The Mara sisters are hot!
 
Bill Haverchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,895
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barracuda View Post
I'd comment.

But as a chick, I don't think I have the right to.

I've heard guys argue about which is better - circumsized or un-circumsized. But never really whether it should be done or not.
If you're a future mother of a boy, then this IS an issue you should consider, at least a bit. You may be the one who makes the best decision for the baby. Lots of guys who were circumcised during the past generation, have a psychological investment in thinking there is nothing wrong with this procedure. They tell themselves it's fine and then repeat the cycle of nonsense. It's usually women who break the cycle. In fact, it was a couple of women who brought the poor logic backing this procedure to my attention. If I have a son, I am leaving the choice up to him. It's not my right to cut my son's pee pee.
Bill Haverchuck is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 01:24 PM   #38 (permalink)
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the liquor

The Mara sisters are hot!
 
Bill Haverchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,895
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acie View Post
Please don't waste your time.

I was just sort of half-jokingly throwing that out there.


Seriously, I already started looking, so I'm going to dump them in a post. If you were joking, then fine. I'm glad to hear you don't necessarily think those two things should be compared. You scared me, Acie.
Bill Haverchuck is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 02:00 PM   #39 (permalink)
the fighter of the Nightman

Ch-Ch-Ch-Ch-Cherry Bomb
 
Barracuda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 7,962
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by XiaominWu View Post
I think that is silly.
I mean because I can't quite relate in the same ways you guys can.

I can give a girl's opinion as far as aesthetics go, sure. And put in my two cents about the moral dilemma. But you guys would know better about this... well, because you're guys.
Barracuda is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 02:49 PM   #40 (permalink)
"Fake All-Star"

Senior Member
 
TORaptor4Ever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 16,360
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffb View Post
I've always found uncircumcised looked disgusting, And every woman i've talked to has said they find an uncircumcised penis looks odd.

Plus, like Elaine said on Seinfeld: "it has no face, no personality" heehe
Lol.... apparently you haven't talked to many women then?

There are some who care... but there are more that don't.... and at the end of the day as long as you know how to use it she ain't complaining.
TORaptor4Ever is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright RaptorsForum.com 2005-2011

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24