Atheist Nexus Logo
I think one of the things that we far too often overlook in this country is that fact that genital mutilation of newborn boys is common practice, if not standard. Why isn't there more of a cry against this? Do the benefits of circumcision (if any, and I don't see any valid argument that there are any) outweigh the cost and mutilation of a boy?

Of course circumcision isn't the only genital mutilation in the world, but it's the only type in practice in the United States. Female genital mutilation is just as barbaric, if not more so. Americans, and Europeans in general, ban female genital mutilation of babies, but why the hypocrisy in not doing the same for males?

Tags: Christianity, God, Judaism, circumcision, clitoral, covenant, genital, mutilation

Views: 2008

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I limited my critique or your reasoning of reversing the argument, now you shift the argument away to something I did not address, which was best addressed by other posters. The point is ... YOU simply DO NOT know what YOU are missing. No matter what body part is compared, no matter its importance, if you don't have it, you're less, and you have no ground to say that the intact person is on the same side of the logical argument. You are not on the same side.

My point is that YOU do not know what it is like MISSING that bit of flesh.  There are many assumptions made throughout this thread about the sexual dysfunction of those who've been circumcised.  And thus not experiencing what it is like is an assumption on the part of the people spouting such claims.  I never made the assumption of what it'd be like to still have my foreskin.  I can even buy that it'd be more pleasurable.  My stance however is one of apathy regarding my foreskin.  I just don't care enough about it to tug at the skin of my dick to regain some semblance of it. 

 

The reason I attacked the comparison is because eyes have been repeatedly brought up as being an apt comparison when it isn't.  If you recall my very first post in this thread had to do with the removal of eyelids not being in any way comparable to the removal of foreskin.  If you guys want to make comparisons then do so in regards to a circular bit of skin that isn't vital to the human body.  Like say a bit of flesh on the arm or leg. 

Whether or not the eye is the best comparison is not the point, the point is that you are missing an organ and that is not defensible by the same argument thrown back at me that the "other" who's intact doens't know either... It's a moot counter argument.

 

But you say you're apathetic about it... well, I suppose one would either need to be, or take action. It"s certainly no reason to be depressed. But there is a world of difference between being apathetic about having an organ removed without your approval, and ADVOCATING for it to be done to others and defending it. Apathetic seems like a tenable position.

 

As a women who's experienced plenty of both intact and cut men, I do KNOW it makes a tremendous difference during copulation. The foreskin plays a major role in copulation. As an bedside sexologist (as opposed to armchair) I'd even venture that the popular notion that most North American women do not experience vaginal orgasms could be linked to high rates of circumcision, in my experience, it makes THAT much of a difference.

It'd probably be best to consider it as missing a piece of an organ rather then a whole one.  But as you said that is neither here nor there. 


I should probably state once again that I'm not advocate for circumcision to children.  I consider it an aesthetic body modification.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Just the other day I read on Google News a blurb about circumcision protecting women from HPV.  My stance however remains unchanged.  I think we'd do better as a species to vaccinate against HPV rather then argue for circumcision as a logical argument to stop the spread of that disease.


You could very well be right.  I personally believe however that the vilification of sexuality due to religion has led to people not seeking as much pleasure as possible in sex.  Christianity has a sordid history of dismissing sexual pleasure as sinful, and given the state of religion in the US I do believe it plays a role.  I'm curious to know though if the pain can be mitigated by using lube, in your opinion.  Because I'm assuming the pain boils down to the circumcised penis being dryer then one that isn't.  Now being a male I've very little if any understanding of female pleasure in sex.  I don't know if it's just as much psychological as it is for me, or if it is more physical in the sense that certain stimulation needs to occur for an orgasm to happen. 


Anyway, in case I miss your response; take care, and have a good day. 

 

 

It's the basic mechanical difference between friction and simultaneous glide. No lube even comes close to simulating the synchronous movement of foreskin protecting the vagina's entrance, resulting in zero friction (akin to drawer action based on sliding vs bearings?). Myself I was never religious (third generation atheists) and I was always one to seek out maximum pleasure from sex. But ALL my sexual encounters in the first 10-15 years were with circumcised men, and I was like most women, no vaginal orgasms. Then I started living/working abroad and met a lot of intact men, and the degree of my enjoyment of sex changed instantly. It was like a revelation. And believe I don't use that word lightly. Yes religious mandated prudeness and monogamy have certainly played a large role in women's dissatisfaction in sex matters, no argument there, but since circumcision has long been a religious fact, they are highly entwined and I'm not sure they can truly be distinguished.
Thinking about it a bit more lube probably isn't the solution.  The solution would be communication during sex rather then relying on a sixth sense.  But that is an assumption on my part, I'm assuming that circumcised men tend to be rougher during sex then uncut men.

You're acting like you didn't see this, so here it is again:

^^ I'm not going to go pulling at the skin of my dick to give the the impression of faux-foreskin though. I just think that there's no point to it other then aesthetic reasons. ^^

The benefits of foreskin restoration are most definitely functional, not just aesthetic.

The glans and mocusal tissue adjacent to the glans revert to being supple and pleasure receptive (moist like the inside of the lips, instead of dry like the outside of the lips).

The shaft skin gives an indescribably awesome feeling as it slinks over the corona. There are simply no words with which one could over-state this effect.  It's the way the skin was seemingly designed to work.  Until I had the slack to experience this slinking of skin I just never knew sex could feel this good.  The tight 180 degree bend the skin makes as it rolls triggers a nerve response that I could only descibe as seeing in a new color.  I could roll my skin around before while flaccid, but during arousal the response is totally different.

The other huge benefit is the way my wife enjoys the frictionless gliding feeling during intercourse.  Before she would get rubbed raw by sex and need a few days off if I gave her multiple orgasms over the course of say an hour.  Now she's raring to go day after day.

Lastly, there are things I can experience now which are simply impossible without slack.  An example would be my wife pulling my skin forward over the glans and swirling her tongue around between the skin and glans, tickling both surfaces simultaneously.

Restoring is not just about cosmetics, vanity, or an obsession to be more natural.  It makes sex a LOT BETTER. 

The thing that people who've not experienced/witnessed squirting is that female ejaculate is, unlike male ejaculate, extremely inefficient at lubrification, because of the high water percentage. So like you say, with multiple orgasms, a woman can get extremely raw.

 

Attempting to compensate with KY only partially helps because sexual lubes are diluted by water and become less efficient.

As I've already made plain to you, there is no question that the foreskin is not "vital to survival", although, as I have previously remarked, many babies do indeed die from circumcisions. The point is that much of the body can be considered as not being vital to survival but that doesn't mean we chop those parts off of or cut them out of newborn babies. Obviously we don't cut the female prepuce off at birth.

Even eyes themselves are not absolutely necessary for survival, and nor is a penis for that matter. I do understand however that it is a matter of degree and how much more difficult one's life becomes as a result of losing a certain body-part or function.

The real issue here, however, is not survival. It is pleasure. If the foreskin were vital to survival then circumcision would have died out as a practice long ago. It is precisely because most circumcisions are able to preserve sufficient sensation and function for sexual activity and procreation that anti-sexual minds have advocated the procedure, for it limits pleasure and function to the bare necessities and so, it was thought, discourages "excessive" indulgences.

I have not compared the foreskin to the eyes but to the eyelids. And I have explained that they are similar in certain ways. The foreskin, however, is a unique organ.

"I haven't lost anything but extra nerve-endings". There are a number of problems with that statement. First of all, those nerve-endings are not "extra", but standard biological equipment. Second of all, there are upwards of 20000 of them, and they are specialised touch-sensitive cells called Meisner's Corpuscles. The glans penis, by comparison, has about 4000 nerve-endings, which are not touch-sensitive but pressure-sensitive. In effect this means that you have lost the most densely enervated and thus, arguably, the most sensitive and erogenous part of your penis.

Thirdly, you have not just lost those nerve-endings but also the tissue that covers the glans and thusly maintains its moistness and sensitivity. As a result of the permanent exposure of your glans, a biologically internal organ, layers of keratin have developed on its surface over time to protect its delicate mucosa. This toughens the glans, making its surface more rough and dulling its purple colour and sensitivity.

Fourthly, depending on how tightly you were circumcised, you have lost the majority of mobility of your penile shaft skin. And lastly you have lost your ability to decide for yourself whether you want to be circumcised.

I am not saying any of this to be mean, but to put the situation in perspective. The foreskin is not the be-all-and-end-all of existence. It is possible to have a very happy and healthy life without one, of course. But neither is it "just a flap of skin". This minimisation and trivialisation of natural genital anatomy is based in ignorance and leads to the perpetuation of this unnecessary and undesirable practice.

I have to wonder (and I hate to say this, as a woman and a mother) if the decision to circumcise isn't due to a mother's aversion at handling her infant son's penis in order to properly clean it.  All of my little brothers were circumcised, and I had to change many a diaper growing up, as I had five brothers.  Cleaning a circumcised boy is not so different from changing a girl's diaper.  However, I used to babysit a little boy who was not circumcised.  His mother had to teach me how to pull back the foreskin and clean inside it to prevent infection.  This task is particularly gross when the child has loose stools.  As a 14-year-old girl, I was more than a little uncomfortable handling a little boys penis so extensively.  I do think it more than a bit selfish if this concern is the cause for circumcision being so prevalent, but I wouldn't count it out.

I can imagine that playing a role in some circumstances, in the popular subconscious. I've mentally erased any diaper changing episodes I had in my life. I was an elder sister by 5 and 7 years, I never could handle diaper changing. I babysat plenty, but usually not infants with diaper duty. Was it because I myself was diaper free by 9 months? probably. My brother was circumcised, and I have sincerely no memories of the other babies... how odd.

 

I think diapers til age 5 is a disgusting N.American fashion trend and I hope our society moves away from it. I can not begin to imagine the humiliation a child has to live thru to be in diapers so long. It is not good for the human psyche.

I think diapers til age 5 is a disgusting N.American fashion trend

 

You've got to be kidding me, how common is this?

 

RSS

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service