Infant Circumcision

[Tomo]

Where the hell do you draw the divide?

Are you really asking why morality isn't as simple as black vs white?

Beyond "'cause it isn't" I'm not sure how you expect us to have a fruitful discussion with you on that.

Um well yes - forcing an unconsensual, permanent decision on an individual is where I call the divide (Oh unless you can post a sold reason for abusing them!). I make exceptions in the case of imminent death, and that's about it. Your move.

[Azrael]

But yes, I refuse to accept any post which forces a permanent action on an unconsentual individual.

How about individuals who cannot consent? You know, like inoculating a baby. Or making medical decisions for an unconscious person?

I think you've taken your absolute a step or two too far.

[Izawwlgood]

Are you implying that there haven't been cultures in which raping a child was == fecundity of a child?

Are you really so dense as to not recognize how in many cultures, the rite of passage that individuals go through may improve their social standing, but have demonstrable negative physical impact on them? This is why we already discussed, and dismissed as an analogy, things like foot binding, or lip/neck stretching. So no, I'm not implying that all actions which raise social standing (even just in the parents eyes) are acceptable, because I've clearly and patiently laid out the limits for what is acceptable.

If a sociaty rapes kids, is that morally correct?

Nope.

If a society allows a kid free choice but it can only play with it's friends if it has been fucked, is that morally correct?

Nope.

If a society eats kids earlobes, is that morally correct?

While I personally find it icky, if the procedure was conducted in a manner to minimize pain and long term damage, I think it's up to society.

If a society tells a kid he has to stand on a mountain for 6 nights a week withough moving is that correct?

Sounds pretty risky, but we make our kids go through a number of pretty 'unhealthy' rites of passage. Personally, I think that sounds pretty badass, and assuming the kids are prepared for such a rite of passage, I'd say it's up to society.

Do you think we live in a perfect bubble where none of our actions do/should affect our children? I'm starting to see the absurdity of your position as being somewhat trollish, to be honest.

[Tomo]

*condensed*Do you think we live in a perfect bubble where none of our actions do/should affect our children? I'm starting to see the absurdity of your position as being somewhat trollish, to be honest.

Not really, It's quite a simple position. I believe that we have a moral obligation to not inflict any permanent condition on an unconsenting individual. Wether that be blindness, loss of virginity, or circumcision. Again, I say if you have a particular desire to inflict a permanent physical condition on another human being, without their consent, you better have a REALLY good reason for it. But so far you haven't, so if anyone is a troll, it's the one happy to hurt babies for no reason, not the one standing up for their rights - oh, but what's that you said earlier? Infants have no right to bodily autonomy?

Whatever.

[Azrael]

... I believe that we have a moral obligation to not inflict any permanent condition on an unconsenting individual...

Infants have no right to bodily autonomy?

Whatever.

Who makes their medical decisions for them? Who feeds them?

And are you honestly against infant inoculation? How about surgeries that correct birth defects (i.e. cleft palate)?

[Tomo]

Infants have no right to bodily autonomy?

Whatever.

Who makes their medical decisions for them? Who feeds them?

Not sure how it works where you're from, but allowing an infant a range of foods to choose what it likes is generally viewed as a good thing. If you forced something down it's throat that would have a lasting effect and change it irreversibly for the rest of it's life - that would be viewed as a bad thing.

[Azrael]

This just in: You can only feed your kids the foods they like?

I suppose that would help explain rising obesity rates. But seriously, you don't seem to actually be thinking through the results of your black/white delineation here.

[Tomo]

This just in: You can only feed your kids the foods they like?

I suppose that would help explain rising obesity rates. But seriously, you don't seem to actually be thinking through the results of your black/white delineation here.

No, you just can't feed a kid anything that will have A LASTING EFFECT ON IT'S PHYSIOLOGY WITHOUT IT'S CONSENT. Jesus fuck.

[Izawwlgood]

If you forced something down it's throat that would have a lasting effect and change it irreversibly for the rest of it's life - that would be viewed as a bad thing.

I take it you've never fed an infant/toddler before? Your choice of wording is basically spot on; it's basically shoveling food down their throats until they're content. Also, this just in; everything you do to your kid will change it irreversibly for the rest of it's life. That's the point we've been trying to make you realize, and a few people have overtly said; parenting is about doing the best you can for your kid. If you think circumcising your kid will induct them into a social/cultural sphere that will be beneficial to them, then it has value. If you think waving a bull horn wrapped in oak leaves over their head at night will bring them luck, that's your prerogative too. So long as you do no harm to your child, you can do whatever you want to your child, mostly.

[Azrael]

No, you just can't feed a kid anything that will have A LASTING EFFECT ON IT'S PHYSIOLOGY WITHOUT IT'S CONSENT. Jesus fuck.

Ah, so it's the definition of bodily autonomy that you're confused about. And perhaps the long term effects of infant nutrition.

So: Answer me about infant inoculations and clef palate corrections. Acceptable or not?

[Tomo]

No, you just can't feed a kid anything that will have A LASTING EFFECT ON IT'S PHYSIOLOGY WITHOUT IT'S CONSENT. Jesus fuck.

Ah, so it's the definition of bodily autonomy that you're confused about.

So: Answer me about infant inoculations and clef palate corrections. Acceptable or not?

Innoculation is accepible - huge volumes of scientific data suggesting so an increase in life expectancy and nothing to the contrary. Regardless, I'd still not force it on an unwanting child. Clef palate operations without the childs consent I would not agree to. I appreciate that people are making the assumption that I have never cared for a child but that is just not true. Regardless, I do not see advice upon which I based a childs diet as equal to an invasion of their physical privacy."Eat greens, they're good for you, or don't, but no dessert" is a huge fucking step from "Gonna chop off your cocktip now, like it or not." Again, one is a permanent change without consent, one isn't.

[Cathy]

So: Answer me about infant inoculations and clef palate corrections. Acceptable or not?

Innoculation is accepible - huge volumes of scientific data suggesting so an increase in life expectancy and nothing to the contrary. Regardless, I'd still not force it on an unwanting child. Clef palate operations without the childs consent I would not agree to.

When I was a child, all the way up to age 11 or 12 I yowled and wailed and cried and screamed and had to be literally carried into the doctor's office to get my tetanus-diphtheria-mumps-measles -rubella-pertussis-flu-hepatitis-meningitis shots. Are you seriously saying that I shouldn't have been inoculated because I was afraid of shots?

[lutzj]

Regardless, I do not see advice upon which I based a childs diet as equal to an invasion of their physical privacy."Eat greens, they're good for you, or don't, but no dessert" is a huge fucking step from "Gonna chop off your cocktip now, like it or not." Again, one is a permanent change without consent, one isn't.

What you're fed as a child definitely has long-term physiological implications. Should we prohibit parents from imposing, say, a vegan diet on their children because milk is objectively good for you?

[Izawwlgood]

Actually I'm the only one claiming you've never cared for a child. Don't victimize yourself.
Cleft palates are an interesting mention because they are a facial issue; children who cannot speak as well, or look like their peers, are probably at a disadvantage, but, that disadvantage is mostly socially imparted. If you think there's something amoral about forcing a kid to undergo cleft palate correction, I think you're somewhat of a monster, but hey, I can appreciate that position.

Again, one is a permanent change without consent, one isn't.

Again, this word. You seem to think that children have consent. They don't.

[Tomo]

So: Answer me about infant inoculations and clef palate corrections. Acceptable or not?

Innoculation is accepible - huge volumes of scientific data suggesting so an increase in life expectancy and nothing to the contrary. Regardless, I'd still not force it on an unwanting child. Clef palate operations without the childs consent I would not agree to.

When I was a child, all the way up to age 11 or 12 I yowled and wailed and cried and screamed and had to be literally carried into the doctor's office to get my tetanus-diphtheria-mumps-measles -rubella-pertussis-flu-hepatitis-meningitis shots. Are you seriously saying that I shouldn't have been inoculated because I was afraid of shots?

Seriously? My mum just said to me "This is a diptheria shot, it makes you resistant to diptheria, would you like it?" I said yes.

Bad parenting aside, these are not ireversible physical attributes. If my parents had innoculated me against something I didn't want, I wouldn't care so much. If they ha cut off an incredibly sensetive part of my anatomy, I'd feel pretty violated.

[Tomo]

They don't.

They should.

[lutzj]

Tomo,
You also keep asking for positive reasons for circumcision. You probably won't like many of these but reasons have come up multiple times in this thread:

1) God says so.
2) Makes it easier to keep the glans clean.
3) Reduces transmission rate of certain diseases, probably because of 2).
4) Makes your penis look "better."
5) Don't have to worry about getting that foreskin caught in a zipper.

etc. etc.

Why do you care why parents want to do it? They obviously think it has benefits or they wouldn't pay for the operation.

[Cathy]

Seriously? My mum just said to me "This is a diptheria shot, it makes you resistant to diptheria, would you like it?" I said yes.

Bad parenting aside, these are not ireversible physical attributes. If my parents had innoculated me against something I didn't want, I wouldn't care so much. If they ha cut off an incredibly sensetive part of my anatomy, I'd feel pretty violated.

My parents absolutely sucked at parenting, but I will absolutely drag my children into shots. I don't think making them get shots is bad parenting. I really feel like you haven't spent a lot of time around children. A lot of children yowl about shots, in fact I don't think I've ever met a child under 10 who's reasonable about getting shots.

And seriously, they circumcise children within a week after birth. They anesthetize them. There is no pain, there is no memory, how can you loose something you never really had in any meaningful way?

[Izawwlgood]

Seriously? My mum just said to me "This is a diptheria shot, it makes you resistant to diptheria, would you like it?" I said yes.

Bad parenting aside, these are not ireversible physical attributes. If my parents had innoculated me against something I didn't want, I wouldn't care so much. If they ha cut off an incredibly sensetive part of my anatomy, I'd feel pretty violated.

I'm curious if you're aware of how similar this point is to your 'I know people who regret being circumcised' claim is. So you, as a child, weren't afraid of needles, ergo, all children are not afraid of needles and any parent who forces shots on their kid is a bad parent?

And yes, getting inoculated is irreversible. Maybe that kid will grow up to be someone who REALLY doesn't want immunity to diptheria. Did you ever think about their feelings? Maybe they REALLY want to get sick.

This line of reasoning is not only absurd, but it represents a minority of individuals. Certainly someone, somewhere, wishes they could experience illness, maybe develops a thing for it. According to your line of reasoning, to respect that potential, we shouldn't inoculate kids against disease, in case someone, somewhere, feels violated that they couldn't experience that disease. But the analogy is pretty weak, because circumcised dicks work just as well as uncircumcised dicks, a point we've made numerous times to you in this very thread.

[Tomo]

Why do you care why parents want to do it? They obviously think it has benefits or they wouldn't pay for the operation.

BECAUSE IT SHOULDN'T BE UP TO THE PARENTS TO IRREVERSIBLY CHANGE THE LIFE OF THEIR CHILD WITHOUGHT THE CHILDS CONSENT.

1) God says so. - should depend on what child believes
2) Makes it easier to keep the glans clean. - bullshit, learn to wash.
3) Reduces transmission rate of certain diseases, probably because of - possible, evidence is about as scare as that showing that it hugely reduces enjoyment of intercourse.
4) Makes your penis look "better." - bullshit, and completely region dependant. where I'm from being cut makes you a loser.
5) Don't have to worry about getting that foreskin caught in a zipper. - Well to be fair that's hapened to me once and it wasn't pleasant ;D I'd still want to let my kids make the choice at 16 though.

[Izawwlgood]

You keep saying that, but have yet to indicate why this is true.

[Tomo]

This line of reasoning is not only absurd, but it represents a minority of individuals. Certainly someone, somewhere, wishes they could experience illness, maybe develops a thing for it. According to your line of reasoning, to respect that potential, we shouldn't inoculate kids against disease, in case someone, somewhere, feels violated that they couldn't experience that disease. But the analogy is pretty weak, because circumcised dicks work just as well as uncircumcised dicks, a point we've made numerous times to you in this very thread.

If you really think that the number of people who wish they had diptheria approaches the number of people who wish they could appreciate the feel of sex with an uncircumcsed cock, I don't know what to say. You're being an idiot.

[Tomo]

You keep saying that, but have yet to indicate why this is true.

You keep saying that, but have yet to indicate why it isn't true.

EDIT - Unless you're talking about my comments RE who has consent over a child - in which case as before - if you disagree on my views as a right to child bodily autonomy, post reasons I can't wank over a sleeping child. Personally it would be because the child might feel bad about it once it grew up, but since that applies to circumcision I assume that's off the table. You monster.

[lutzj]

You keep saying that, but have yet to indicate why this is true.

You keep saying that, but have yet to indicate why it isn't true.

People keep presenting examples of irreversably-life-changing behavior that are acceptable (and you agree with some of these examples) and analgous to circumcision.

See: ear-piercing, veganism, inoculation.

[Izawwlgood]

This line of reasoning is not only absurd, but it represents a minority of individuals. Certainly someone, somewhere, wishes they could experience illness, maybe develops a thing for it. According to your line of reasoning, to respect that potential, we shouldn't inoculate kids against disease, in case someone, somewhere, feels violated that they couldn't experience that disease. But the analogy is pretty weak, because circumcised dicks work just as well as uncircumcised dicks, a point we've made numerous times to you in this very thread.

If you really think that the number of people who wish they had diptheria approaches the number of people who wish they could appreciate the feel of sex with an uncircumcsed cock, I don't know what to say. You're being an idiot.

Which is why I asked you, a couple times now, to get data on how many people regret their circumcision. You have yet to provide this data, so I am going to continue to understand this number as being vanishingly small.

You keep saying that, but have yet to indicate why this is true.

You keep saying that, but have yet to indicate why it isn't true.

Because we keep pointing out that parents often, repeatedly, make life altering decisions for their children, without their childs consent. This is a good thing. Children are in no position to be making life long decisions. We have provided a handful of examples for other life altering, cosmetic procedures we put our kids through, and you keep ignoring them.

[Tomo]

You keep saying that, but have yet to indicate why this is true.

You keep saying that, but have yet to indicate why it isn't true.

People keep presenting examples of irreversably-life-changing behavior that are acceptable (and you agree with some of these examples) and analgous to circumcision.

See: ear-piercing, veganism, inoculation.

I disagree with all of them bar life threatening circumstances. Read my fucking posts.

[Tomo]

Because we keep pointing out that parents often, repeatedly, make life altering decisions for their children, without their childs consent. This is a good thing. Children are in no position to be making life long decisions. We have provided a handful of examples for other life altering, cosmetic procedures we put our kids through, and you keep ignoring them.

I disagree and see any life changing decision taken on part of a child as a bad thing.

[lutzj]

I disagree with all of them bar life threatening circumstances. Read my fucking posts.

veganism

I do not see advice upon which I based a childs diet as equal to an invasion of their physical privacy.

inoculation

Innoculation is accepible

I will concede that you disagree with the example of ear-piercing, which you found equivalent to sodomy.

[Izawwlgood]

Cool man, as stated repeatedly, that's your call. I happen to strongly disagree with it and have provided reasons why, including justification within our current moral and social frameworks, and think you've provided little evidence for why your position stands, but by all means, hang onto it.

I disagree with all of them bar life threatening circumstances. Read my fucking posts.

So just to be clear here, if your child was born with a cleft palate, you would wait until your child was old enough to conscientiously decide on the procedure themselves? How old is 'old enough' to be able to make a decision like that? I think that's pretty monstrous, to recognize the need for a decision to be made about your child's future, and stepping back, AS A PARENT, and letting the child make it 'later'.

[Tomo]

I will concede that you disagree with the example of ear-piercing, which you found equivalent to sodomy.

Correct. I also morally disagree with forcing veganism, vegitarianism, or any other dietary requirement on a child. But as they suffer no longterm permanent effects, I do not consider them as equal to rape, piercing or circumcision.

[lutzj]

If it is not the place of parents to select a child's diet, then whose is it?

[Tomo]

If it is not the place of parents to select a child's diet, then whose is it?

It is the parents responsibility to expose their child to as wide a variety of foods as possible, including vegan, veggie, meat, etc.
Anything less is bad parenting.

Furthermore - anything which doesn't just limit the childs options as a child - but permanently changes the child for life, is beyond bad parenting and flying free into the realms of serious abuse.

[Izawwlgood]

You do realize we're talking about infants here, right? But even that aside, the notion that not exposing your kids to vegetarianism constitutes abuse is about where I congratulate you for such a hilarious break to my studies. I needed my daily dose of utterly disconnected from reality babblings.

But THAT aside, how do you respond to the fact that circumcising a child may OPEN opportunities for them?

[TLCTugger]

circumcision does not cause significant or lasting harm because:
-The operation has a reasonably low level of risk to the infant, and recovery is not overly onerous;
-Social effects are not a factor (unlike say FGM)
-Sensitivity has not been proven to be significantly reduced, and men who have the procedure as infants go on to have healthy, productive sex lives
-Any emotional trauma is undocumented/unproven

Basically the harm argument is much less convincing than the rights argument.

This is going to look familiar because I posted much of it before. But I think nobody saw it because it was in a new-guy moderation queue until the thread had moved a couple pages beyond.
- - - - -
Hundreds of thousands of men are enduring a tedious multi-year process of non-surgical foreskin restoration to undo just some of the sexual damage of circumcision.

The reason to advocate against forced genital cutting is NOT because it is barbaric. Many things we need to do for kids could be described as barbarically painful; they need to get over it if we deem it necessary (like cleaning broken glass out of a wound or drilling holes in their teeth for example). The reason to oppose forced genital cutting is the permanent harm it causes.

The foreskin includes thousands of specialized pleasure-receptive nerve endings and about 15 square inches (in the adult) of sexual interface. Removing that healthy normal body part dramatically alters sexual sensation. You simply can't take away a large sensitive surface (even if done magically with no risk or scar) without changing sensation. The penis owner has natural human right to keep his whole body and make decisions about which parts to keep. Denying this right is a HARM to him.

The foreskin protects the glans from the drying and abrasion associated with rubbing against dry clothing and bedding and being exposed to the open air. Any doctor will instruct an adult circumcision patient that it could take a few months before his glans has caloused enough for him to comfortably wear briefs. The frenulum - which is normally very ticklish (perhaps the neurological homologue to the clitoris) - is also (if it survives the circumcision) left unprotected so it can dry and numb. Eliminating the protective foreskin dramatically diminishes pleasure-receptive capacity.

The normal slack foreskin slinks and glides over the erect shaft and the corona of the glans during intimacy, massaging the penis in a way that can't be matched when the slack is absent. This gliding action reduces abrasion for a man's partner and reduces the need for sexual lubricants. The skin tube as it enrobes the glans during a withdrawal motion literally makes the perceived girth of the glans greater - by FOUR skin thickness (inner and outer on each side) - and that might partly explain why the percentage of intact men making an informed choice for penis reduction surgery is much less than 1%.

Circumcision changes the mechanics of sex. The specialized nerve endings in the skin respond to the tight bending and re-straightening associated with the travelling roll-over point as the skin slinks - in a way a cut man will simply never understand. With the slack present a man's partner can manipulate that nerve-rich skin forward of the glans and nibble on it, or slip a tongue between the skin tube and glans ans swirl around against two surfaces simultaneously, or use the rolling bearing of the skin tube as a tool to frictionlessly flush the engorgement from the glans and then gnaw on the tips of the corpus cavernosa before the glans re-engorges. I mean there are just lots of things you can do when the normal slack skin is present that are taken out of the sexual repertoire after circumcision. Reducing a healthy normal person's sexual repertoire is a harm to him. Parents have a duty to keep a child's future doors open.

You might hear people say cut men still reach a climax so they haven't lost anything, but intact men often say the whole ride feels so good they are in no hurry to get to a big finish.

Assuming there were no accidents and unintended consequences (only the predictable losses I describe above), exactly how many men would have to regret having been cut at birth for it to warrant not closing that door for all men, but instead leaving the option so he can get cut (or stay intact) later at a rational informed age?

Exactly how many healthy normal babies would have to die each year to cause the government to ban something? Three deaths per year was enough to cause banning of drop-side cribs. I can produce media accounts of four infant circumcision deaths from this year, and I assert that studies showing deaths of 100-200 per year are more likely reflecting the true number.

Most of the world is not cutting infant genitals or conducting studies to justify it. The fact the you think studies are mixed reflects the efforts of circumcisors to justify the practice. Non-circumcisors have no profit or cultural motive to do anything. It is in my mind inappropriate to give all studies equal weight. One study finds no difference between cut and intact sensitivity. They poked a few dozen men with a pin in two spots on the penis. Another study finds a huge difference after measuring more than 100 men on 17 spots on the penis (INCLUDING on the foreskin) and found that the 5 most sensitive were all not present on the circumcised men. This isn't just inconclusively "1 in the yes column and 1 on the no column." I find it conclusive. No study has repeated the 17-point methodology and gotten a different result.

I am very curious what you mean by "Social effects are not a factor (unlike say FGM)."

I strongly disagree with the assertion "a reasonably low level of risk to the infant" but my comments above reflect only "successful" not botched circumcisions.

[Izawwlgood]

'Hundreds of thousands of men' is something I want to see in data form. But, that aside, lets assume you mean even 500,000 men, you're still talking about .1% of people, given there are approximately 300million circumcised men in the world. I do not consider this to be a significant majority. The rest of your physical claims about what a foreskin does is not factual, and sounds lifted from an anti-circumcision pamphlet. Show me links that support these claims, or respond to the link I provided that disputes them.

[TLCTugger]

there are approximately 300 million circumcised men in the world. I do not consider {restorers} to be a significant majority.

Of course it's not a majority. Most men don't know it's possible and probably don't know even that they're missing something (because they have nothing to compare their circumcised sex to). That doesn't making taking something from them right.

your physical claims about what a foreskin does {are} not factual, and sound lifted from an anti-circumcision pamphlet.

I do write anti-circumcision pamphlets. Maybe you've seen my work. In what sense is a general description of how something works not factual? What whould make it factual? Cite a fact and call it false, please. Then I will show how it is true.

Show me links that support these claims

Please choose any one or two.

respond to the link I provided that disputes them.

I'll look for that link.

[Izawwlgood]

I do write anti-circumcision pamphlets.

Are you serious? You get 14 pages into a discussion and think NOW is a good time to mention that you disseminate materials with a clear agenda? I'm going to go ahead and disregard every single claim you've made that lacked the words 'in my opinion' in front of it as being false then, until you provide me peer reviewed scientific data backing it up. Lets start with the notion that the infant foreskin is 15 inches of tissue. That's one I see tossed around a lot, and never backed up anywhere but from other anti-circumcision sources.

I'll look for that link.

It's a handful of pages back. I'm curious to hear you responding to a doctors statements that negate the claims you've made.

[TLCTugger]

Find me stats on how many people regret their circumcisions, proportionally, and report back. Approximately 300 MILLION people in the world are circumcised.

I'll see what I can find.

The cut male number is much closer to 800 million by the way, but about 2/3 of them were cut to comply with Islam, so maybe you were referencing non-religious circumcision?

So where would we find these stats on the proportion of people disappointed with being forcibly cut? We would NEED that to know it's bad, right?

So I ask you to produce that stat for cut women.

I ask you to produce that stat for people with their front teeth knocked out to accomodate lip-stretching plates.

Or produce the stat for males castrated before puberty to keep them singing soprano.

Do we actually need a stat to judge that foot binding of girls is bad?

Maybe we base our judgements about these things on the views of the people who are glad they weren't subject to them.

[Izawwlgood]

The link I provided about arguing circumcision can be found here.

The cut male number is much closer to 800 million by the way, but about 2/3 of them were cut to comply with Islam, so maybe you were referencing non-religious circumcision?

No, I was just grabbing the figure given by Wikipedia.

So where would we find these stats on the proportion of people disappointed with being forcibly cut? We would NEED that to know it's bad, right?

No, you'd need to find approximately how many individuals seek medical care for foreskin addition, or whatever the procedure is called. Or, at the very least, you'd need to show how many people report dissatisfaction with being circumcised.

So I ask you to produce that stat for cut women.

About what? And why? We aren't talking about FGM, we're talking about male circumcision. Comparing the two is ignorant at best, deceptive at worst. Furthermore, we've already addressed FGM; there are multiple types of FGM, so, specifically, which type are you talking about?

Or produce the stat for males castrated before puberty to keep them singing soprano.

Again, why? this is like me asking you to provide water contaminate data to back your claim that the foreskin is 15 sq. inches of tissue.

Do we actually need a stat to judge that foot binding of girls is bad?

No, because, as we discussed previously, foot binding A ) produces a clear and obvious detriment to an individuals life, and B ) is based on a clear and obvious cultural trend of subjugating and reducing an aspect of a individuals life. Circumcision does not do either of those things, ergo, if we are comparing it to foot binding, you need to provide evidence that circumcision is bad. Perhaps with statistics.

Maybe we base our judgements about these things on the views of the people who are glad they weren't subject to them.

Sure, but that doesn't tell us much about the thing. I can be really glad I don't have to go to law school, that doesn't make law school a bad thing. If you are using an outsiders perspective to judge something they've no way of evaluating or quantifying, one way to do so would be to ask 'insiders'. Since the vast majority of circumcised men don't report problems with their penises, and no one has done a study comparing cut from birth men to uncut men penile sensitivity, it seems like the claim that a cut penis is less sensitive is a bunk claim.

[Copper Bezel]

So where would we find these stats on the proportion of people disappointed with being forcibly cut? We would NEED that to know it's bad, right?

Well, really, yeah. All of the other possibilities you've listed are quite rare in Western culture. Are those actually things that happen, like, real problems? Like, such that there are actual groups of people, and people to speak for them, under those conditions? I think the reason we don't hear from those people is because they don't exist.

Anyway, I do see now that you've used some of those snippets elsewhere. Just so you know, that kind of autoplagiarism is a bit of a faux pas - it's very jarring to see your tone switch between the things you're actually saying in response to people in the thread and your copy-pasted snippets, and for me at least, it's distractingly like reading a plagiarized student essay. In any case, they're exactly the sort of shock-jock factoids I'd expect to see in one of these little tracts, and I don't have any more reason to trust them here than in context.

I reacted the same way Izawwlgood did to the fifteen-square-inches bit. I tip my hat to you, sir, that in a decade and a half of arguing on the internet, this is the first time such an altercation has actually led me to measure any part of my dick. I find your figure to be non-representative, but I suppose that I am after all of mostly German descent.

Another factoid of questionable provenance is the "17-point" study that you note has never been repeated with a different result. Indeed, I'd find it passing strange if the same methodology was precisely repeated by another group. But you don't say that it wasn't repeated, which would make it less convincing - you say that it wasn't repeated with a different result, implying (but not stating) that it was confirmed. That's tricksy wordplay meant to beguile the gullible. It might be your own implication, or it might be that of a source of yours, but in the latter case, it only means you've been tricked yourself, and neither scenario says much for your credibility on the matter.

When your reader knows that you're really willing to convince him or her by any means necessary and that the facts don't matter even to you, you've lost the argument. I'm thinking you're probably done here, but maybe in the future, with your tracts, try to keep this in mind, and be less like that.