Octopus Overlords

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 8:17 pm That doesn't make it ok.

But there is a huge difference between "unnecessary" and "evil."

Holman wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 6:22 pm

Toe wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 6:11 pm

Holman wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 11:46 am

Paingod wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 11:08 am Something I like to apply to all segments of my life is a concept of "don't just keep doing something because you've always done it that way" - mostly I do this at work because stagnation in IT is death, but have found it applies everywhere. I always need a good reason to keep a tradition, not just the fact that it's a tradition.

I suppose I think the same way about circumcision.

But it's not as simple as "just a tradition." It's a core marker of identity for Jews and Muslims and some other groups.

More to the point, to make a law about it is a case of the majority saying "You minority types must stop doing this thing you consider important because we don't like it."

There needs to be a pretty compelling reason for that other than "Hey, stagnation is bad." The IT metaphor just doesn't apply here.

A core marker? A shame that this mutilation is done to a child that has not decided if he wants to identify as a jew or muslim isn't it then? It smacks of "Hey kid, you might not want to be a jew when you are mature, but you are damn well gonna look like one for the rest of your life." One of my father's only regrets in life was getting me and my brothers circumcised.

That's... really something your father powerfully regrets?

My parents had me circumcised simply because it was what everybody did. They were white Christians in Atlanta in 1968. It was the 100% normal procedure. I'm pretty sure they haven't thought twice about it since.

Regardless of what your father or my father thinks about what they did to our newborn dicks, the fact is that male circumcision has been culturally central to Jewish and Muslim identity for millennia, and it was the same for Christian (or even just Christian-adjacent) identity throughout the 20th century. Remember that before getting on a high horse about it.

Yes, it is an emotional issue for him and he sometimes still brings it up when we start talking about all the success he had raising us. He did it for the same reasons you are saying here, and, as time went on he came to see it as a mistake, one that can never be taken back. It says something when the father regrets this mutilation and the son never would have chosen it for himself.

I have zero regrets about it being done to me. And it’s something my father has never even mentioned, let alone telling anyone he regrets it. I find that whole concept so alien in light of so many other things a parent could regret.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 8:17 pm That doesn't make it ok.

That's pretty much the definition of ok. It might not be "right" or "good" or "necessary" but it absolutely is ok.

As someone who would get circumcised if I had to make that choice as an adult, I don't find other peoples' regrets particularly compelling. I don't give a crap what other people decide to do. That's their choice and I support them making it, even if they don't feel the same way about me making a different choice.

I do find campaigning against circumcision a strange thing to try to convince others about. What a strange, personal, ultimately meaningless thing to worry about what other people are deciding to do.

It's essentially a tiny bit of cosmetic surgery that may or may not have health benefits, depending on where and how you live.

The only thing it says when a father frets about a decision made decades ago that has no material impact whatsoever is that the father has an unusual set of priorities.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 10:32 pm It's essentially a tiny bit of cosmetic surgery

the amount of skin removed is equivalent on an adult male to the surface area of a credit card.

GreenGoo wrote: that may or may not have health benefits

we should also probably remove one's appendix at birth to prevent appendicitis later on. that may or may not have health benefits as well. oh, and the tonsils - they could get infected at some point, best to prevent that possibility right away.

I was thinking hygiene, but if it might kill you like an appendix, I'm even more pro-circumcision.

Which brings us to the fact that if tonsils and appendix were the equivalent of skin tags, we absolutely would remove them at birth.

If the foreskin is as big as a credit card on an adult, imagine the horror and size of it on an elephant! Or whale! My god, the humanity.

I am not moved by your scare tactics. Do what you want. Let others do what they want. Find something that matters to crusade against.

Those are a bit more invasive than simply clippin off some foreskin. Which in turn is a bit more dangerous for an infant.

Toe wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 10:13 pm

Holman wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 6:22 pm Remember that before getting on a high horse about it.

In retrospect, I think my line above was unnecessarily aggressive. I apologize for the tone there.

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 10:23 pm I have zero regrets about it being done to me. And it’s something my father has never even mentioned, let alone telling anyone he regrets it. I find that whole concept so alien in light of so many other things a parent could regret.

Same here and I quite prefer it. I am thankful it was done when I wouldn't need to go through the extra effort, cost, and suffering of having it done later in life.

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 10:23 pm I have zero regrets about it being done to me. And it’s something my father has never even mentioned, let alone telling anyone he regrets it. I find that whole concept so alien in light of so many other things a parent could regret.

Ok, how do you feel about african mothers who have the exact same mindset about female genital mutilations performed on them when they were young and then their female children?

It's essentially a tiny bit of cosmetic surgery that may or may not have health benefits, depending on where and how you live.

Not sure how you can say it is just cosmetic if you have even a basic understanding of the human body. The skin removed is not some type of "unfeeling" skin like an earlobe, it is full of numerous specialized nerve endings that respond to stimulation. There is just no way around the fact that removing this skin reduces the pleasure a male gets during stimulation simply because there are considerably less nerve endings present. So, when parents elect to remove this skin they are directly and unequivocally choosing to reduce the amount pleasure their son will get during penile stimulation. Even it is small amount of pleasure that is being taken away, comparatively speaking, is that really something parents should get to decide for their child? I don't believe it is, especially when every argument to the contrary sounds just like parents supporting female genital mutilations, which we all agree is a horrible, archaic, "culturally central" practice.

We opted to not have our son circumcised, breaking family tradition for who knows how long. It was one of those situations where there was so much controversy around it that we decided to err on the side of caution. We don't have any religious values around it so if we did it we would have been doing it just because "that's how it's always been." And that's rarely ever a good reason to do anything.

Toe wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 9:37 am Ok, how do you feel about african mothers who have the exact same mindset about female genital mutilations performed on them when they were young and then their female children?

You seriously think they're analogous?

This quote from an Atlantic health article on the two sums it up:

Male circumcision does no harm. FGM does. Male circumcision cuts the foreskin, FGM cuts the clitoris—the two things cut are not even remotely the same. For male circumcision to be equivalent to FGM, the entire tip of the male’s penis would need to be cut off.

FWIW, we opted not to have our boys circumcised, not out of strong conviction but because we didn't see a compelling need for it.

(To add complication, my wife is Jewish and the kids now identify as secular Jews...)

This is not a big issue for me as there's little to suggest its harmful.

But in this day and age of consent, I see no reason why we shouldn't extend that protection to males. We decided the same thing on piercing my daughters ears. It's not my choice. It's his/hers.

Any comparison between male circumcision and female "circumcision" is a non-starter.

Female "circumcision" often involves slicing off the tip of the clitoris with a sharp piece of rock.

We've been over this topic before, covering the same ground.

ND's reasoning is compelling. YK's is disappointing only in that anti-circumcision campaigning seems to have worked in his case, causing enough doubt to influence his choice.

Shrug. Do what you want. It's a strange thing to be telling others what to do, in my opinion.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 5:20 am
If the foreskin is as big as a credit card on an adult, imagine the horror and size of it on an elephant! Or whale! My god, the humanity.

i feel you're being obtuse or disingenuous with this statement.

in the bigger view, i firmly believe the 'pro' side here is on the wrong side of history. you don't have to take my word for it, though. Denmark is hearing a case to ban the practice (doctor's statement: "ethically unacceptable"). ND mentions 'age of consent' which is certainly a strong actor, if nothing else.

hitbyambulance wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 5:57 pm

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 5:20 am
If the foreskin is as big as a credit card on an adult, imagine the horror and size of it on an elephant! Or whale! My god, the humanity.

i feel you're being obtuse or disingenuous with this statement.

in the bigger view, i firmly believe the 'pro' side here is on the wrong side of history. you don't have to take my word for it, though. Denmark is hearing a case to ban the practice (doctor's statement: "ethically unacceptable"). ND mentions 'age of consent' which is certainly a strong actor, if nothing else.

Concurred. I certainly wish my parents had chosen not to circumcise me and we chose not to do it to my son.

Shrug.

What's so hard about mind your own business?

gbasden wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 6:11 pm

Concurred. I certainly wish my parents had chosen not to circumcise me...

Why?

I have never even thought about my missing foreskin before this moment, let alone regretted its absence.

I'm slightly in awe that someone has lamented their own lack thereof.

Science vs. Just the tip

Their conclusion: personal choice, minor rare drawbacks, minor rare benefits. No proven loss of sexual satisfaction.

On a weird side note, circumcised penis is less likely to contract aids from butt sex.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:17 pm

gbasden wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 6:11 pm

Concurred. I certainly wish my parents had chosen not to circumcise me...

Why?

I have never even thought about my missing foreskin before this moment, let alone regretted its absence.

I'm slightly in awe that someone has lamented their own lack thereof.

Well, to get way too TMI, I don't have a lot of sensitivity in my penis and it can take a long time to get to the point of orgasm. The doctor believes this is probably a side effect of circumcision as it's always affected me.

Does your doctor have an opinion on why hundred of thousands of other circumcised people do not experience that issue?

Better yet, do you?

Combustible Lemur wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:38 pm On a weird side note, circumcised penis is less likely to contract aids from butt sex.

...and HIV from vaginal/penile sex as well. And herpes and HPV. None of which is necessarily a strong enough motivation to circumcise your children in North America. In other countries? Perhaps.

hitbyambulance wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 5:57 pm
in the bigger view, i firmly believe the 'pro' side here is on the wrong side of history.

I think history doesn't give a crap about this, and that for whatever reason a very small percentage of people have decided to obsess over something who's importance only exists in their minds, with little to no evidence to back up their concerns.

Which is actually fine, until they start telling others that what they are doing is wrong.

Combustible Lemur wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:38 pm Science vs. Just the tip

Their conclusion: personal choice, minor rare drawbacks, minor rare benefits. No proven loss of sexual satisfaction.

On a weird side note, circumcised penis is less likely to contract aids from butt sex.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Gotta say, this religion topic has certainly taken a rather unexpected turn.

Skinypupy wrote:

Combustible Lemur wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:38 pm Science vs. Just the tip

Their conclusion: personal choice, minor rare drawbacks, minor rare benefits. No proven loss of sexual satisfaction.

On a weird side note, circumcised penis is less likely to contract aids from butt sex.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Gotta say, this religion topic has certainly taken a rather unexpected turn.

Get to the point, all this extra talk is useless flapping. Some of us are trying to fill in the holes of our knowledge. I'd like my future boys to start with a few inches ahead. And if they happen to be gay maybe, I should plug the gap in risk that their preferenceses erect.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

YellowKing wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 9:46 am We opted to not have our son circumcised, breaking family tradition for who knows how long. It was one of those situations where there was so much controversy around it that we decided to err on the side of caution. We don't have any religious values around it so if we did it we would have been doing it just because "that's how it's always been." And that's rarely ever a good reason to do anything.

Same. If he wants it done later, I won't stop him.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 2:11 am Does your doctor have an opinion on why hundred of thousands of other circumcised people do not experience that issue?

Better yet, do you?

Ooh, ooh, I do! I do! Pick me!

Poor technique.
I can safely say I have more circumcisions under my belt (lol) than anyone in a 25 mile radius from my hospital. I can think of three ways off the top of my head (again, lol) that the guy doing the job could cause some sort of injury affecting sensation. All preventable.

Freyland wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:45 am

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 2:11 am Does your doctor have an opinion on why hundred of thousands of other circumcised people do not experience that issue?

Better yet, do you?

Ooh, ooh, I do! I do! Pick me!

Poor technique.

Surgical technique, just to be clear.

Freyland wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:45 am I can safely say I have more circumcisions under my belt (lol) than anyone in a 25 mile radius from my hospital. I can think of three ways off the top of my head (again, lol) that the guy doing the job could cause some sort of injury affecting sensation. All preventable.

Preventable, but still a risk for the patient.

I say like baptism it should be the kid's choice not the parent. It's something that will affect him for the rest of his life so he should have a say in the matter (when he's mature enough, obviously).

Freyland wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:45 am

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 2:11 am Does your doctor have an opinion on why hundred of thousands of other circumcised people do not experience that issue?

Better yet, do you?

Ooh, ooh, I do! I do! Pick me!

Poor technique.
I can safely say I have more circumcisions under my belt (lol) than anyone in a 25 mile radius from my hospital. I can think of three ways off the top of my head (again, lol) that the guy doing the job could cause some sort of injury affecting sensation. All preventable.

Would this be identifiable in some way?

The idea that circumcision causes a loss of sensation has been refuted in a number of studies, yet you are of the opinion that it can and therefore does, at least on occasion.

How many cases have you or your hospital experienced over the years? At what point does this injury become identifiable?

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 12:19 pm

Freyland wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:45 am

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 2:11 am Does your doctor have an opinion on why hundred of thousands of other circumcised people do not experience that issue?

Better yet, do you?

Ooh, ooh, I do! I do! Pick me!

Poor technique.
I can safely say I have more circumcisions under my belt (lol) than anyone in a 25 mile radius from my hospital. I can think of three ways off the top of my head (again, lol) that the guy doing the job could cause some sort of injury affecting sensation. All preventable.

Would this be identifiable in some way?

The idea that circumcision causes a loss of sensation has been refuted in a number of studies, yet you are of the opinion that it can and therefore does, at least on occasion.

How many cases have you or your hospital experienced over the years? At what point does this injury become identifiable?

To be clear, I am of the opinion that surgery is trauma, and that trauma suggests possibility of injury. While I am firmly in the "whatever the evidence-based research says" camp regarding sensation loss from a properly performed circumcision, there is always the possibility of injury when it is not.
Of the three ways I referred to, only one of them is obvious at the time of injury. That is, clipping the tip of the penis off. In my two decades here, I have heard of one such alleged incident. The other two means, severing a penile nerve at the base of the penis during lidocaine injection and defacing the glans (head) when separating the foreskin, wouldn't be apparent until the child is old enough to know there is an issue. The former is very hard to do, so the latter is the likely culprit of most complaints suggesting decreased sensation.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 3:00 am
Which is actually fine, until they start telling others that what they are doing is wrong.

you lose an extra slidey layer of skin, and the head of the penis dries out, toughens and scars from the lack of the protective foreskin. how does that not affect loss of sensation?

long term effects of an unnecessary elective surgery without consent overrides the 'let people do what they want to to their babies' mindset you cling to. i believe it's appropriate to inform people that just because something has long been done a way doesn't mean it's a good way. i didn't get to have consent, so i'm doing what i can to minimize future harm by advocating to end this surgery.

What about disgust from potential sexual partners when you pull your pants down? And blow jobs would be right out.

hitbyambulance wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 1:53 pm

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 3:00 am
Which is actually fine, until they start telling others that what they are doing is wrong.

you lose an extra slidey layer of skin, and the head of the penis dries out, toughens and scars from the lack of the protective foreskin. how does that not affect loss of sensation?

I need to take umbrage with part of this. By definition, scarring is the product of fibrous tissue formation, and nothing less. Fibrous tissue has no nerves to speak of, so you would have a lot more sensory issues that anyone has yet implied. Also fibrous scar tissue contracts with time, so if your entire glans is covered by it, you are going to have a hell of a time getting that thing to swell like it's supposed to.

Jaymann wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 2:10 pm What about disgust from potential sexual partners when you pull your pants down? And blow jobs would be right out.

I can only assume this is satire.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 2:11 am Does your doctor have an opinion on why hundred of thousands of other circumcised people do not experience that issue?

Better yet, do you?

I'm moderately weirded out about the amount of interest you have in my penis.

Anyway, Freyland covered it well and I've already gone way, way past what most people here want to know about my junk.

gbasden wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 3:49 pm

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 2:11 am Does your doctor have an opinion on why hundred of thousands of other circumcised people do not experience that issue?

Better yet, do you?

I'm moderately weirded out about the amount of interest you have in my penis.

Anyway, Freyland covered it well and I've already gone way, way past what most people here want to know about my junk.

Wait! Come back!
We still haven't covered the details of the 3 different types of procedures!

Freyland wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 2:39 pm I need to take umbrage with part of this. By definition, scarring is the product of fibrous tissue formation, and nothing less. Fibrous tissue has no nerves to speak of, so you would have a lot more sensory issues that anyone has yet implied. Also fibrous scar tissue contracts with time, so if your entire glans is covered by it, you are going to have a hell of a time getting that thing to swell like it's supposed to.

good info to know.

Freyland wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 3:56 pm We still haven't covered the details of the 3 different types of procedures!

do tell, along with how exactly the traditional 'Moyel method' is performed

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 5:20 am If the foreskin is as big as a credit card on an adult, imagine the horror and size of it on an elephant! Or whale! My god, the humanity.

Barstool on the Christina O (Aristotle Onassis' yacht) famously upholstered in you-know-what.