Torchship, are you even reading the links you're providing? In every single one of those statements, I say something to the effect of 'value to the parents' or 'social constructs are entirely arbitrary, so, can you envision a scenario in which this is beneficial'. The former is explitely not stating what you are claiming, the latter, is merely acknowledging the hypothetical. A hypothetical I have not stood on, because it lacks data to support. Just like Bharrata's anecdote is a hypothetical that one should not stand on.
Torchship wrote:of what major benefit are the aesthetics of circumcision except to appear more attractive to society at large?
You should read things WAY more closely if you're asking this question; value to the parents.
Torchship wrote:Basically, you're lying through your teeth. You have been well aware of the existence of social advantage for circumcised people since the very beginning of this thread and have used it extensively in support of your arguments. Yet, as soon as the existence of such advantage is to the detriment of your argument it's suddenly an unjustified assumption that demands immediate citation. Unsurprisingly, I see this as an extremely poor faith attempt at discussion.
In short, I think you're being unbelievably obtuse here. You have linked a couple random posts of mine in this thread, wherein I use the words 'social' 'appearance' or 'society', and decided that that means I've been arguing this whole time that we should circumcise everyone to fit societies expectations. At best, it underlines your complete inability to comprehend the discussion that's been going on for the last 20 pages. At worst, it suggests you're incapable of having an honest discussion without fixating on singular words and fabricating your own arguments.
By all means, pull quotes and describe the context. I'm not denying that I stated there is a possibility of a social benefit, but it has always been in the context of explaining one possible benefit, directly in response to people claiming there is no circumstance in which a social benefit could exist (Such as in my first two 'damning' posts, wherein I respond to Tomo claiming just that)
But lets just, in good faith, assume it's the former. I'll spell out my position for you: circumcision, being an entirely neutral procedure, has value to the parents. Yes, the parents are part of a community, and thus, the procedure has a social value that is probably arbitrarily 'in vogue' or 'out of vogue' as time goes on, as I believe Az pointed out due to the change in circumcision rates. Therefor, I would suggest allowing parents to choose whether or not they circumcise, and would never either tell parents that they MUST, or CANNOT circumcise.
Now, you ask about the syndactyly or cleft palate analogies, and point out that those two may confer social disadvantages. I don't really disagree; all this suggests is that social mores EXIST, and that catering to them is something people do. Whether or not they should is aside the point, and whether or not circumcision is within that sphere of 'cosmetic changes we DEMAND of our sons' is something I think you're standing on shaky grounds if you're claiming. Which is why...
This is getting rather sidetracked: Your claim was that circumcised penises are at a social advantage to noncircumcised penises, and I called for a Citation Needed. Pointing out that I've acknowledged the possibility of social benefits as a hole in the fact that you have not substantiated your claim is rather dodging the question.
How many are the enemy, but where are they? Within, without, never ceases the fight.