Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    guys
    http://www.livescience.com/1624-stud...ive-parts.html

    "for circumcised penises, the most sensitive region was the circumcision scar on the underside of the penis, the researchers found. For uncircumcised penises, the areas most receptive to pressure were five regions normally removed during circumcision—all of which were more sensitive than the most sensitive part of the circumcised penis"

    loled a bit at that bolded bit idk why anyway

    the main thing I wanted to share was this: it's a comment on the article idk how legitimate it is it's just a comment: "Studies have found that uncircumcised men are far more prone to wear condoms than circumcised men because they naturally feel more pleasure than a circumcised man is capable of."

    what do you think?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    No. If there is no good reason to subject your child to a painful, irreversible surgical procedure, you don't do it. You don't shrug and say "whatever".
    this is your opinion, I don't understand why I am not allowed to exercise my own. Nobody is telling you to circumcise your kid, and quite frankly, I could care less.

    then you are in denial of the reality of the procedure.
    Injury is defined as "damage to the body"
    Suffering is defined as "undergoing pain or distress".
    I don't see it as damage to the body..I'm in denial because you do? Lol

    It is clear that, despite your protestations, you have an agenda to defend unnecessary circumcision. One would surmise that this is due to religious, cultural or family reasons.
    Well yeah, circumcision has been occurring in my family for many years. I was actually present at my nephews circumcision, and he was absolutely fine. This is probably why I see it as no biggie. Of course this subjective and based on my personal views and experience but whose opinions aren't?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    The risks are nowhere near substantial either! Some people may not see it as unnecessary since there are potential benefits, particularly if there's an increased chance of their child developing a condition or illness that circumcision will eliminate.

    My point is that there are risks associated with everything that we do, so I wouldn't use this argument as a deciding factor.
    Do you support breast flattening? It is a method used by some mothers to prevent sexual harrassment/rape. It also prevents forced marriages allowing the young girl to continue with her education.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    no. undeserved pain towards another individual = objectively bad. even if there are benefits, the pain itself is bad.
    You keep saying that pain is bad. I have never disputed this. What I have said is that I believe it should be the decision of the parent to deduce whether they see the cost of pain to outweigh the benefit of circumcision seeing as both are rare.
    no, the one test for this supposed benefit was in africa.
    That's all you had to say. It was completely unnecessary and rather insulting to say that there are no condoms or showers in Africa. You previously said that my comment was stupid, so if you can't see that yours was also stupid and ignorant then I guess there's no help for either of us.
    lol you think little boys are going to get penile cancer
    It's weird that you find this funny. Anyone can get cancer. Some little boys may have a family history of penile cancer.
    um. because it's not their body. if we're talking about ANOTHER person, only that person can choose. unless there is a risk so linked to scientific evidence and community consensus that it would be unreasonable to not do it (e.g. immunity injections)
    are you really going to give parents absolute rights over the body of their child? because this really does enter "absolutist" territory when it's their ****ing **** skin.
    Again, entirely your opinion which you can have without forcing it onto someone else.
    You're accepting of childhood vaccinations because you view it as unreasonable to not have your kid vaccinated. Well, some parents refuse to consent to it, because they see the cost of the pain experienced from vaccinations and complications that can arise as a result as outweighing the benefit. That is their right.


    I don't care. circumcision is permanent. beliefs are not. even baptisms are meaningless in this sense in comparison.
    Endless subjective commentary.

    are you joking. the penile skin (glands) hardens when it is circumcised.
    Ok and what does this conclude?
    but circumcisions pretty much have no scientific benefits -_- they have benefits in outdated contexts, like african contexts.
    We have gone through the benefits so I'm not even going to entertain this comment.
    basically nobody is circumcised in europe
    Is this an assumption or do you have a source?
    yet how come we have less STDs here than the USA? also, the justifications for circumcisions contemporarily are not medical, as you've suggested - it's cultural and it's a massive exception when it isn't.
    Lowered incidence of STDs are not the only potential benefits as I have clearly demonstrated.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Legendary Quest)
    Do you support breast flattening? It is a method used by some mothers to prevent sexual harrassment/rape. It also prevents forced marriages allowing the young girl to continue with her education.
    No. Not only are there no real health benefits to this procedure, there would be an increased risk of breast abscesses/cysts/breast cancer and issues with breastfeeding. It doesn't matter how carefully this procedure is carried out, those risks are still very prominent whereas male circumcision conducted in a clean and sterile environment by a health care professional will hugely minimise the risk of any complication - any kind of complication is extremely rare.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    You keep saying that pain is bad. I have never disputed this. What I have said is that I believe it should be the decision of the parent to deduce whether they see the cost of pain to outweigh the benefit of circumcision seeing as both are rare.
    why should they have the right to decide something like this concerning another human individual's body when they shouldn't have the right to circumcise a girl? will you please just admit that you have no objectivity to back up your very arbitrary argument here? you are purely saying "male circumcision is fine because there is not as much pain involved and there are (****in' mindboggling and bafflingly small) health benefits to it when I can't seem to see any benefits vis-a-vis FGM"? how do you know if there aren't health benefits to FGM? if we're going to use your absolutist parental dictatorship argument, it's up to the parents to deduce whether there are health benefits to justify it, right? :|

    That's all you had to say. It was completely unnecessary and rather insulting to say that there are no condoms or showers in Africa. You previously said that my comment was stupid, so if you can't see that yours was also stupid and ignorant then I guess there's no help for either of us.
    you think there is good access to condoms in the poorest nations in africa? uganda I think was the subject for that research concerning uncircumcised and circumcised penises and STDs - condoms ****ing block STDs so how would we be able to assume that this country has many condoms at all when there are AIDs going around everywhere?

    It's weird that you find this funny. Anyone can get cancer. Some little boys may have a family history of penile cancer.
    oh give me a break. this is hopelessly ignorant.

    Again, entirely your opinion which you can have without forcing it onto someone else.
    You're accepting of childhood vaccinations because you view it as unreasonable to not have your kid vaccinated. Well, some parents refuse to consent to it, because they see the cost of the pain experienced from vaccinations and complications that can arise as a result as outweighing the benefit. That is their right.
    vaccinations provably prevent death and the pain is trivial. there is no mutilation involved. you think that the pain of circumcision is "trivial"? you think there is no mutilation involved?
    yeah, and when they refuse consent to it, sometimes the kid will die if they catch that disease. it's the same with the jehovah's witnesses - they aren't allowed blood transfusions so sometimes parents, vis "religious freedom", allow their children to die.

    Endless subjective commentary.
    no. the concept of permanence is objective :| there is no "subjective permanence".

    Ok and what does this conclude?
    ...a loss of nerves/sensitivity. if your eyeballs harden and thicken, do you think they'll become more sensitive or less sensitive?

    We have gone through the benefits so I'm not even going to entertain this comment.
    the benefits are laughably irrelevant to the 21st century western world! I'm sorry but that's simply not something controversial! there are no STD problems in the uncircumcised world compared to the circumcised world!

    Is this an assumption or do you have a source?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preval...f_circumcision

    Lowered incidence of STDs are not the only potential benefits as I have clearly demonstrated.
    lol + "prevention of penile cancer in children"

    come on, I don't even know why you're bothering to try and convince me with this lack of objectivity - again, all I am detecting here is "male circumcision should be allowed because I don't the pain is bad enough and I don't care about the permanent loss of the boy's genital integrity without his consent" - that is a ****ing appalling argument and you'd get an F in a moral philosophy course at uni for it. if that. you have no underlying ethical principles - you merely have emotive preference. you have merely an appeal to your own sense of self-interested order and not the rights of another person.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    why should they have the right to decide something like this concerning another human individual's body when they shouldn't have the right to circumcise a girl? will you please just admit that you have no objectivity to back up your very arbitrary argument here? you are purely saying "male circumcision is fine because there is not as much pain involved and there are (****in' mindboggling and bafflingly small) health benefits to it when I can't seem to see any benefits vis-a-vis FGM"? how do you know if there aren't health benefits to FGM? if we're going to use your absolutist parental dictatorship argument, it's up to the parents to deduce whether there are health benefits to justify it, right? :|
    There aren't any known benefits to FGM. The benefits to male circumcision are not made up, so yeah the parents should decide if they support it or not.
    I didn't say this was objective, I know that my opinion is subjective, as is yours.


    you think there is good access to condoms in the poorest nations in africa? uganda I think was the subject for that research concerning uncircumcised and circumcised penises and STDs - condoms ****ing block STDs so how would we be able to assume that this country has many condoms at all when there are AIDs going around everywhere?
    The way you worded it was incredibly ignorant and stupidly stereotypical.

    oh give me a break. this is hopelessly ignorant.
    Lol, I'm the ignorant one?
    vaccinations provably prevent death and the pain is trivial. there is no mutilation involved. you think that the pain of circumcision is "trivial"? you think there is no mutilation involved?
    yeah, and when they refuse consent to it, sometimes the kid will die if they catch that disease. it's the same with the jehovah's witnesses - they aren't allowed blood transfusions so sometimes parents, vis "religious freedom", allow their children to die.
    The pain is trivial in your opinion* how can you tell someone else that their pain is trivial? I can only assume that the pain involved in circumcision is minor, but I don't have a penis so I'll never know. I'm just speaking from my own observations and statistically, complications and death are extremely rare that some people may regard it as a non issue.
    If the parents refuse to consent to circumcision, their kid can seriously suffer with foreskin related conditions.

    ...a loss of nerves/sensitivity. if your eyeballs harden and thicken, do you think they'll become more sensitive or less sensitive?
    The point is that you can never be certain. You've assumed that because the skin hardens (idk if it does or doesn't) then it must definitely mean that sensitivity is reduced. If this is the case, why hasn't it been proven?
    the benefits are laughably irrelevant to the 21st century western world! I'm sorry but that's simply not something controversial! there are no STD problems in the uncircumcised world compared to the circumcised world!
    The benefits are irrelevant to you! You can't speak for anyone else. I really can't be bothered to argue with you any longer, we are not getting anywhere and I'm bored


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preval...f_circumcision



    lol + "prevention of penile cancer in children"

    come on, I don't even know why you're bothering to try and convince me with this lack of objectivity - again, all I am detecting here is "male circumcision should be allowed because I don't the pain is bad enough and I don't care about the permanent loss of the boy's genital integrity without his consent" - that is a ****ing appalling argument and you'd get an F in a moral philosophy course at uni for it. if that. you have no underlying ethical principles - you merely have emotive preference. you have merely an appeal to your own sense of self-interested order and not the rights of another person.
    This is the thing. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I don't care if you circumcise your son or not. I don't care if I'd get an F..I don't need your approval.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    There aren't any known benefits to FGM. The benefits to male circumcision are not made up, so yeah the parents should decide if they support it or not.
    I didn't say this was objective, I know that my opinion is subjective, as is yours.
    "known" isn't the argument you advanced. you said "if any health benefits can be deduced by the parents" - therefore, you are saying that it's not a matter of scientific consensus but the mere opinion of the parents. so if the parents, say, deduced benefits to cutting off a baby's penis entirely, why not? you're arguing from parental authority alone. that's why there is this blatant comparison to be made. your foundations, again, are 100% subjective. the matter of objectivity here is whether there ARE scientific benefits to something (via the scientific method as a rational basis for universal authorisation), not whether one parent thinks there are or not, because they aren't going to be asked to substantiate these beliefs. for example, the belief that a kid might develop something as remote as penile cancer would be rejected by the scientific community because there is no scientific evidence to suggest that this is a reasonable problem for parents to consider, seeing as it is basically as remote as it gets whereas penile sensitivity/pleasure shouldn't be sacrificed for a lack of reasonableness on the part of the parents, suffered by the child.

    The way you worded it was incredibly ignorant and stupidly stereotypical.
    what was stereotypical? and how is that an argument against my argument?

    Lol, I'm the ignorant one?
    yes

    The pain is trivial in your opinion* how can you tell someone else that their pain is trivial? I can only assume that the pain involved in circumcision is minor, but I don't have a penis so I'll never know. I'm just speaking from my own observations and statistically, complications and death are extremely rare that some people may regard it as a non issue.
    If the parents refuse to consent to circumcision, their kid can seriously suffer with foreskin related conditions.
    there are babies that blow their lungs out because they scream so much -_-
    and we can say "the pain for FGM" is only trivial in your opinion too. <oops.

    The point is that you can never be certain. You've assumed that because the skin hardens (idk if it does or doesn't) then it must definitely mean that sensitivity is reduced. If this is the case, why hasn't it been proven?
    you can be reasonably certain. for example, I can't technically be certain that not cutting off my ears will stop dragons from appearing in my house when I'm 30 to come and eat me. you can't literally prove that this won't happen. but we can prove that penile cancer and the spread of STDs to infants (not adults, whom can make such decisions later via consent and adult responsibility) is non-existent (essentially).

    The benefits are irrelevant to you! You can't speak for anyone else. I really can't be bothered to argue with you any longer, we are not getting anywhere and I'm bored
    the benefits or detriments are only the consideration of the child themselves, so why are you arguing for the parents to be relevant here?!


    This is the thing. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I don't care if you circumcise your son or not. I don't care if I'd get an F..I don't need your approval.
    of course you wouldn't care about your lack of logic, you've proven that so much already and I can only conclude that you're probably a lot younger than me. like, 14/15 years old.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    "known" isn't the argument you advanced. you said "if any health benefits can be deduced by the parents" - therefore, you are saying that it's not a matter of scientific consensus but the mere opinion of the parents. so if the parents, say, deduced benefits to cutting off a baby's penis entirely, why not? you're arguing from parental authority alone. that's why there is this blatant comparison to be made. your foundations, again, are 100% subjective. the matter of objectivity here is whether there ARE scientific benefits to something (via the scientific method as a rational basis for universal authorisation), not whether one parent thinks there are or not, because they aren't going to be asked to substantiate these beliefs. for example, the belief that a kid might develop something as remote as penile cancer would be rejected by the scientific community because there is no scientific evidence to suggest that this is a reasonable problem for parents to consider, seeing as it is basically as remote as it gets whereas penile sensitivity/pleasure shouldn't be sacrificed for a lack of reasonableness on the part of the parents, suffered by the child.



    what was stereotypical? and how is that an argument against my argument?



    yes



    there are babies that blow their lungs out because they scream so much -_-
    and we can say "the pain for FGM" is only trivial in your opinion too. <oops.



    you can be reasonably certain. for example, I can't technically be certain that not cutting off my ears will stop dragons from appearing in my house when I'm 30 to come and eat me. you can't literally prove that this won't happen. but we can prove that penile cancer and the spread of STDs to infants (not adults, whom can make such decisions later via consent and adult responsibility) is non-existent (essentially).



    the benefits or detriments are only the consideration of the child themselves, so why are you arguing for the parents to be relevant here?!




    of course you wouldn't care about your lack of logic, you've proven that so much already and I can only conclude that you're probably a lot younger than me. like, 14/15 years old.
    Nope, not doing this anymore. I'm immature yet you're the one wanting to continue a pointless argument, lol.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Nope, not doing this anymore. I'm immature yet you're the one wanting to continue a pointless argument, lol.
    you would say that wouldn't you, after *losing* that "pointless argument" that you invested so much time in
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    Kind of have to agree this is a step in the right direction. If as an adult somebody decides they feel there are health benefits or for whatever cultural reason wants to get some of their bits chopped off, then they can do so, however I don't think anybody should be amputating anything from little kids who can't give proper consent.

    That's just how the world should be. No child should have something done to them for religious/cultural reasons until they have embraced that religion/culture as their own and then of course they can have whatever they wish done to them.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    you would say that wouldn't you, after *losing* that "pointless argument" that you invested so much time in
    It's not working :laugh:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    It's not working :laugh:
    oh so if it's not working why are you still responding?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    So you don't think that having parts of the genitals needlessly cut off is "mulilation"?

    Mutilate: to inflict a violent and disfiguring injury. (OED)
    Yup, looks like it is mutilation, by definition.
    mutilate: to damage something severely, especially by violently removing a part.(CED)
    Nope, medical removal of foreskin is not mutilation.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by admonit)
    mutilate: to damage something severely, especially by violently removing a part.(CED)
    Nope, medical removal of foreskin is not mutilation.
    Out of curiosity, why not?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by seaholme)
    Out of curiosity, why not?
    Because it does not inflict severe damage.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by admonit)
    Because it does not inflict severe damage.
    On a list of inconsequential to severe, I'd put amputation of any part of the body high up the list, wouldn't you?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by seaholme)
    On a list of inconsequential to severe, I'd put amputation of any part of the body high up the list, wouldn't you?
    Removal of a tooth also is amputation. You can call it amputation if you want, but you cannot provide any solid medical conclusion that this concrete "amputation" inflicts severe damage.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Well yeah, circumcision has been occurring in my family for many years. I was actually present at my nephews circumcision, and he was absolutely fine. This is probably why I see it as no biggie. Of course this subjective and based on my personal views and experience but whose opinions aren't?
    Ah so that's the reason for the confirmation bias, it wasn't about health benefits at all, understandable but a little dishonest. :naughty:

    If we can show you some health benefits of FGM no matter how small and insignificant and outweighed by the negatives would you be happy to have a daughter circumcised if your partner wanted it?

    Cos

    It prevents unpleasant odours which result from foulsecretions beneath the prepuce.

    It reduces the incidence of urinary tract infections

    It reduces the incidence of infections of the reproductive system.

    In the book on Traditions that affect the health of women and children, which was published by the World Health Organization in 1979 it says:

    With regard to the type of female circumcision which involves removal of the prepuce of the clitoris, which is similar to male circumcision, no harmful health effects have been noted.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by admonit)
    Removal of a tooth also is amputation. You can call it amputation if you want, but you cannot provide any solid medical conclusion that this concrete "amputation" inflicts severe damage.
    Well I guess if you're happy to go around with gaps where your teeth used to be, and consider that perfectly fine, all power to you. I rather think that in any case, the decision to have your teeth removed or a bit of your penis chopped off lies with the person. Not all people are as bold as yourself!
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.