[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
…a study among Chinese comparing finger and glans vibratory threshholds
[/quote]
Say what?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
…a study among Chinese comparing finger and glans vibratory threshholds
[/quote]
Say what?[/quote]
Yeah…the trouble with chinese vibratory thresholds is that half an hour later, you need to be shaken up again.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
…a study among Chinese comparing finger and glans vibratory threshholds
[/quote]
Say what?[/quote]
Yeah…the trouble with chinese vibratory thresholds is that half an hour later, you need to be shaken up again.
[/quote]
That made me laugh.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
…a study among Chinese comparing finger and glans vibratory threshholds
[/quote]
Say what?[/quote]
I wouldn’t trust a study about penis sensitivity conducted by the Chinese. EVERYONE knows they have small penises and subsequently have less nerve endings. It skews the data. A little dick having a little less pleasure is less noticeable. A bigger dick losing half it’s nerve endings would be VERY noticeable.
Big dick = more nerves
Little dick = less nerves
Big dick getting circumcised = more sexual pleasure lost
Little dick getting circumcised = no difference in finger and glans vibratory thresholds
So I guess the lesson here is circumcise all the Chinese babies that you want but leave the rest of our dick’s alone?
/sarcasm LOL
(I’m blatantly drunk posting right now and totally kidding) Just trying to bring some comic relief to the topic. For the record I know some Chinese guys who have HUGE wangs (no pun intended), but I digress…
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
…a study among Chinese comparing finger and glans vibratory threshholds
[/quote]
Say what?[/quote]
I wouldn’t trust a study about penis sensitivity conducted by the Chinese. EVERYONE knows they have small penises and subsequently have less nerve endings. It skews the data. A little dick having a little less pleasure is less noticeable. A bigger dick losing half it’s nerve endings would be VERY noticeable.
Big dick = more nerves
Little dick = less nerves
Big dick getting circumcised = more sexual pleasure lost
Little dick getting circumcised = no difference in finger and glans vibratory thresholds
So I guess the lesson here is circumcise all the Chinese babies that you want but leave the rest of our dick’s alone?
/sarcasm LOL
(I’m blatantly drunk posting right now and totally kidding) Just trying to bring some comic relief to the topic. For the record I know some Chinese guys who have HUGE wangs (no pun intended), but I digress…[/quote]
Were it the case, that with a mere fleeting glance,
A man could be sure of his sensitive glans.
Then no hapless prick who faces indecision
Would hesitate to choose circumcision.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
The health costs of NOT circumcising:
Decline In Circumcisions Could Prove Costly : Shots - Health News : NPR [/quote]
… What about non-financial costs such as permanent loss in sexual pleasure?
[/quote]
An assertion based on what data?
Here are all the comparative studies of penile sensitivity and sexual satisfaction before and after circumcision:
Please read each one.
Only #3, a study among Chinese comparing finger and glans vibratory threshholds, suggested a statistically significant (and not clinically significant) difference after circumcision.
All the other studies show no difference in sexual satisfaction and measures of sensitivity after circumcision or among circumcised men compared to uncircumcised men.
And those are the hard facts.
1: CortÃ?©s-GonzÃ?¡lez JR, Arratia-Maqueo JA, MartÃ?Ânez-Montelongo R, GÃ?³mez-Guerra LS.
[Does circumcision affect male’s perception of sexual satisfaction?]. Arch Esp
Urol. 2009 Nov;62(9):733-6. Spanish. PubMed PMID: 19955598.
2: Krieger JN, Mehta SD, Bailey RC, Agot K, Ndinya-Achola JO, Parker C, Moses S.
Adult male circumcision: effects on sexual function and sexual satisfaction in
Kisumu, Kenya. J Sex Med. 2008 Nov;5(11):2610-22. Epub 2008 Aug 28. PubMed PMID:
18761593; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3042320.
3: Yang DM, Lin H, Zhang B, Guo W. [Circumcision affects glans penis vibration
perception threshold]. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue. 2008 Apr;14(4):328-30. Chinese.
PubMed PMID: 18481425.
4: Payne K, Thaler L, Kukkonen T, Carrier S, Binik Y. Sensation and sexual
arousal in circumcised and uncircumcised men. J Sex Med. 2007 May;4(3):667-74.
Epub 2007 Apr 6. PubMed PMID: 17419812.
5: Richters J, Smith AM, de Visser RO, Grulich AE, Rissel CE. Circumcision in
Australia: prevalence and effects on sexual health. Int J STD AIDS. 2006
Aug;17(8):547-54. PubMed PMID: 16925903.
6: Masood S, Patel HR, Himpson RC, Palmer JH, Mufti GR, Sheriff MK. Penile
sensitivity and sexual satisfaction after circumcision: are we informing men
correctly? Urol Int. 2005;75(1):62-6. PubMed PMID: 16037710.
7: Fink KS, Carson CC, DeVellis RF. Adult circumcision outcomes study: effect on
erectile function, penile sensitivity, sexual activity and satisfaction. J Urol.
2002 May;167(5):2113-6. PubMed PMID: 11956453.
[/quote]
Please read the thread, I’ve posted several.
This thread was bumped.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
So I take it you’re not going to answer? You’re the one seeking to demand families change a widespread practice that has existed for 4,000 +/- years. [/quote]
You’re just perpetuating the same fallacy you did in the green lantern thread. Because something is around a long time or “time tested” does not speak to it’s credibility.
Google Appeal to tradition fallacy
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
You have the burden of proof for your radical intervention into the private lives of others.
[/quote]
I’m not demanding it, just hoping to educate people.
Well for one, uncircumcised men have more feeling in their penises.
the foreskin “is rich in specialized sensory nerve endings and erogenous tissue.”
https://www.cpsbc.ca/files/u6/Circumcision-Infant-Male.pdf
[/quote]
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Circumcision was mainly done for hygienic purposes. It’s not relevant today.[/quote]
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
funny how people’s views and desires aren’t relevant now.[/quote]
Please tell me more about your medical qualifications.
The majority of doctors say there is no justification for routine non-theraputic circumcision. So no, it serves no relevant purpose today.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I suppose my freedom to spend my disposable income as I see fit is “not relevant” anymore. [/quote]
Wait, are you comparing the right to spend your disposable income to the right to mutilate an infant’s genitalia? Setting that aside, I already said one should be allowed to have their child circumcised. Heck, I think you should also be allowed to name your child Ronald McDonald if you so wish. But that’s separate from my opinion on whether I think either of those things are stupid.
Personally, I wouldn’t want to undercut my son’s sexual pleasure.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Blows my mind. You are totally okay with a fetus’ life being ended, but god forbid someone have the son cut, which in the vast, vast, vast majority of cases has no significant affect on the man’s life.
[/quote]
Yes, I do think it’s morally justifiable to have an abortion in certain circumstances. You’d have to be an unconscionable monster to think abortion is wrong in every circumstance.
Secondly, I don’t understand your reasoning. You could do a whole host of things to an infant that would pass the “no significant effect” test .
I’m sure you could put a cigarette out on an infant’s arm and it would most likely have no significant effect on their life. Or why not scrape your name into it’s back so everyone knows it’s yours! The sky’s the limit.
[/quote]
Even if we agree the findings on sensitivity are inconclusive, you still have other costs of circumcision. Furthermore, no medical organization recommends routine non-theraputic circumcision.
'Jews, and later Muslims, knew what they were doing when requiring all boys to undergo circumcision, as a meta-analysis of research carried out in 21 countries and just published in the online journal BioMed Central Urology confirms…
As the surgical procedure - minor for male infants - has been shown to reduce the risk of HIV infection by 60 percent, the World Health Organization and the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS have recommended neonatal and adult circumcision.
The British journal also found that complications are even more rare when the circumcision is performed by non-medical experts in the ritual under suitable conditions, due to their usually greater experience than surgeons…the accumulation of studies showing that it indeed protects health (and even reduces papillomavirus infection in women who have sexual relations with circumcised males) have made the latter argument irrelevant.
The systematic review of 52 relevant papers written in a variety of languages and countries, including in Israel and Arab states, found that circumcision of newborn and older male babies by trained staff rarely results in complications.’
When they can’t be outright killed in the womb we’ll talk about the fate of foreskin. For now, any secular outrage is a lie.
SexMachine strong with the good Propaganda, as usual.
PWI has a tradition.
Some dudes parrot a “study” or “scandal”, usually from questionable sites.
If you bother to actually check their sources, they crash spectacurlarly-
the highlight reel includes, among others:
Obama’s secret muslofaciomarxist agenda, Kerry was a cowardly soldier, global cooling was just as angsty and bogus as global warming, the acorn stuff, there’s only 1/2% of gay guys…
Last time we had this discussion, I checked two “studies” concerning AIDS prevention.
I could have wiped my ass with those.
Thank you for wasting my time.
The gist is:
In a modern society, a child shouldn’t be harmed; their genitals, as an especially sensitive and psychologically important region, should be a no-go area (of all people you prudes should get that!).
With small girls and labia mutilation, everyone is in the same boat anyway.
Historically, the roots are clear in that order:
ancient times I - the mark of a slave
ancient times II - a religious or cultural mark
modern times - a surgical answer to a hysterical crowd of puritans
postmodern times - stupid tradition
You’re a jew/muslim? Let him decide for himself. Aren’t you usually a right-to-choose guy anyway?
You’re not a jew/muslim? Don’t fall for a stupid tradition. Check out the studies and counterstudies for yourself and realize their is no pro argument save “because we always dunit”.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
The health costs of NOT circumcising:
Decline In Circumcisions Could Prove Costly : Shots - Health News : NPR [/quote]
… What about non-financial costs such as permanent loss in sexual pleasure?
[/quote]
An assertion based on what data?
Here are all the comparative studies of penile sensitivity and sexual satisfaction before and after circumcision:
Please read each one.
Only #3, a study among Chinese comparing finger and glans vibratory threshholds, suggested a statistically significant (and not clinically significant) difference after circumcision.
All the other studies show no difference in sexual satisfaction and measures of sensitivity after circumcision or among circumcised men compared to uncircumcised men.
And those are the hard facts.
1: CortÃ??Ã?©s-GonzÃ??Ã?¡lez JR, Arratia-Maqueo JA, MartÃ??Ã?Ânez-Montelongo R, GÃ??Ã?³mez-Guerra LS.
[Does circumcision affect male’s perception of sexual satisfaction?]. Arch Esp
Urol. 2009 Nov;62(9):733-6. Spanish. PubMed PMID: 19955598.
2: Krieger JN, Mehta SD, Bailey RC, Agot K, Ndinya-Achola JO, Parker C, Moses S.
Adult male circumcision: effects on sexual function and sexual satisfaction in
Kisumu, Kenya. J Sex Med. 2008 Nov;5(11):2610-22. Epub 2008 Aug 28. PubMed PMID:
18761593; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3042320.
3: Yang DM, Lin H, Zhang B, Guo W. [Circumcision affects glans penis vibration
perception threshold]. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue. 2008 Apr;14(4):328-30. Chinese.
PubMed PMID: 18481425.
4: Payne K, Thaler L, Kukkonen T, Carrier S, Binik Y. Sensation and sexual
arousal in circumcised and uncircumcised men. J Sex Med. 2007 May;4(3):667-74.
Epub 2007 Apr 6. PubMed PMID: 17419812.
5: Richters J, Smith AM, de Visser RO, Grulich AE, Rissel CE. Circumcision in
Australia: prevalence and effects on sexual health. Int J STD AIDS. 2006
Aug;17(8):547-54. PubMed PMID: 16925903.
6: Masood S, Patel HR, Himpson RC, Palmer JH, Mufti GR, Sheriff MK. Penile
sensitivity and sexual satisfaction after circumcision: are we informing men
correctly? Urol Int. 2005;75(1):62-6. PubMed PMID: 16037710.
7: Fink KS, Carson CC, DeVellis RF. Adult circumcision outcomes study: effect on
erectile function, penile sensitivity, sexual activity and satisfaction. J Urol.
2002 May;167(5):2113-6. PubMed PMID: 11956453.
[/quote]
Please read the thread, I’ve posted several.
This thread was bumped.
[/quote]
Sorry, no, you have not posted a single citation of a comparative controlled study of sensation and sexual satisfaction before and after circumcision.
I call your bluff. Produce your evidence.
Hothot news!
Eli Jischai, Minister of Internal Affairs in Israel has now dircetly addressed Angie Merkel in an open letter.
What is that sound?
Oh, it’s Merkel crumbling and cowering in preemptive submission.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Aren’t you usually a right-to-choose guy anyway?
[/quote]
Me? Well sure. In a Milton Friedman kind of way. Not in a let’s get rid of that inconvenient baby kind of way. People should be able to choose to circumcise or not circumcise their boys without state intervention.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
SexMachine strong with the good Propaganda, as usual.
PWI has a tradition.
Some dudes parrot a “study” or “scandal”, usually from questionable sites.
If you bother to actually check their sources, they crash spectacurlarly-
the highlight reel includes, among others:
Obama’s secret muslofaciomarxist agenda, Kerry was a cowardly soldier, global cooling was just as angsty and bogus as global warming, the acorn stuff, there’s only 1/2% of gay guys…
Last time we had this discussion, I checked two “studies” concerning AIDS prevention.
I could have wiped my ass with those.
Thank you for wasting my time.
The gist is:
In a modern society, a child shouldn’t be harmed; their genitals, as an especially sensitive and psychologically important region, should be a no-go area (of all people you prudes should get that!).
With small girls and labia mutilation, everyone is in the same boat anyway.
Historically, the roots are clear in that order:
ancient times I - the mark of a slave
ancient times II - a religious or cultural mark
modern times - a surgical answer to a hysterical crowd of puritans
postmodern times - stupid tradition
You’re a jew/muslim? Let him decide for himself. Aren’t you usually a right-to-choose guy anyway?
You’re not a jew/muslim? Don’t fall for a stupid tradition. Check out the studies and counterstudies for yourself and realize their is no pro argument save “because we always dunit”.
[/quote]
Reductionism and avoidance.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Aren’t you usually a right-to-choose guy anyway?
[/quote]
Me? Well sure. In a Milton Friedman kind of way. Not in a let’s get rid of that inconvenient baby kind of way. People should be able to choose to circumcise or not circumcise their boys without state intervention.[/quote]
Sure you mean “a Milton Friedman kind of way” and not retard way?
Since, you know, Friedman implies you choose for yourself, not let others choose for you.
What’s wrong with right to choose and religious freedom?
Can’t we try a little more conservatism?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Reductionism and avoidance.[/quote]
Avoidance of what, you christian sphinx?
Btw would you cut the labia of your newborn girl because some doctor’s say (others would naturally object) you’d reduce herpes risk?
You can just answer y or n if it please your holyness.
It honestly makes me lose hope for us as a species when I reflect on how humans can be so conditioned by society and religion to believe that female genital mutilation is wrong and horrific, but that male circumcision is perfectly fine. It simply makes NO sense at all to be able to LOGICALLY hold those two positions at the same time.
It boggles my little brain.
If in 2012 we can be conditioned to hold THIS diametrically opposite opinion, how can ANYONE believe we are a rational species?
Can someone LOGICALLY please explain to me why it is wrong, barbaric, misogynistic and cruel to practice female genital mutilation but to then turn around and not bat an eye at circumcision? “just leave it up to the parents”.
I mean, HOW can you POSSIBLY reconcile those two opinions?! It makes no fucking sense…
Cutting girls = BAD - they’ve been doing it for thousands of years, but it needs to STOP, it’s wrong! We’re more evolved than that!
Cutting boys = sure - they’ve been doing it for thousands of years, who are YOU to tell me not to cut my son’s dick?
What. The. Fuck?
@ Brother Chris
How can you, as a Catholic, with your position of holding all life as sacred, believe that abortion is HORRIBLE because EVERY life deserves a chance to be born and thrive (a position that I happen to share with you, by the way - and not because GOD told me to) but then turn around and have the attitude that it’s perfectly OK to mutilate a child with out it’s consent?
If a child has the RIGHT to live, then certainly it has the RIGHT to control the sanctity of it’s body. To hold any other opinion is completely hypocritical!
Now I’m sure you’re gonna come back with, “well in Genesis verse blah blah blah it CLEARLY says that GOD want’s to cut the tips of all Jewish dicks.” The operative word being JEWISH. Last time I checked you’re not Jewish. I’m not Jewish. Out of the SEVEN BILLION people in the world, only 13 million of them are Jewish. So WHY ALL THIS DICK CUTTING?