Circumcision. Seeking opinions based on personal experiences

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
Burning ghost
Posts: 1659
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Circumcision. Seeking opinions based on personal experie

Post by Burning ghost » November 28th, 2017, 1:21 am

Rab -

Sorry, I did not say that and I am really not into playing games like this. If you don't understand how to read what is written I simply suggest you study harder and try not to attach your opposition to every statement you find to be ambiguous. It is like me saying "I am not poor," and then being told I am rich by everyone because they decide to conclude the opposite of what I say without any understanding of how antonyms differ. Then there is how you choose to understand statements made. Often people speak in general terms and, more often than not, there are exceptions/contexts by which the statement may be amended (see below.)

I attacked the OP, but I praised that the person was willing to bring up the topic and open themselves up to what they must've obviously felt was a deeply contentious issue. Religious indoctrination worries me more than removal of a bit of flesh. And again, there is also degrees of exception I would make regarding religious indoctrination. I would class some forms of religious indoctrination imposed on children as outright child abuse, but many religious people are aware and careful of imposing their will on their children rather than letting them be themselves (and to willfully impose your ideology on your children is not something only within the religious community. Many parents, atheists or not, often unwittingly expect their children to do "as they think best" to become "what they want them to become" to do "doctors or lawyers".)

Just for the sake of it I may as well say one more thing. That is if it were to be introduced into modern western society as a means of passage by some group I would not be completely opposed to the idea, cautious and skeptical, but not obstinately opposed. Things that would most certainly factor in would be the age of consent and physical/psychological complications. It may well be that for some it would be a helpful ceremony and for others it would be damaging. Given the complexity of the human condition it would be very hard not to make mistakes and to find a happy medium.

There is not really anything else I wish to add.
AKA badgerjelly

User avatar
LuckyR
Posts: 2309
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Circumcision. Seeking opinions based on personal experiences

Post by LuckyR » December 4th, 2017, 3:48 am

Before lay folk get too far down the wrong road on this subject: remember we are talking 11 year old circumcision, not newborn circs here. The OP has decided to have a pediatrician do the procedure. Pediatricians are not surgeons, in fact they are sort of anti-surgeons, personality-wise. Basically if you aren't a urologist you probably shouldn't be doing them on adolescents, and the opinions of a specialty (like psychology) that doesn't even know which end of a knife to hold, is bordering on laughable.
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
Kathyd
Posts: 23
Joined: June 21st, 2017, 3:43 pm

Re: Circumcision. Seeking opinions based on personal experiences

Post by Kathyd » December 6th, 2017, 2:42 pm

Sorry, I was going to respond sooner, but the website has appeared down for the last week or so. The latest is we've decided to have him done right before Christmas break. The idea is that this will give him the most time to recover before school starts again after new years.

Again, thx for everyone's comments and opinions, although I think most of it was "advice", and I did make it clear in my OP that I wasn't really looking for that. I had already done exhaustive research before I posted here, and was already aware of all the arguments on both sides, even if I didn't mention them. All I really wanted to know was others' personal experiences surrounding the issue, as I have heard both male and female express both views on this - some say they are happy with the decision their parents or spouse's parents made, while others seem to be very bitter about it - and so I was concerned and wanted to get some "statistics" on it. In the final analysis I decided that no matter how mad he or my future daughter-in-law might be because I circumcised him against his will as a child, they will be even more mad if he develops a serious complication later because I did not circumcise him. So having him done really seems like the safest bet.

I will now try to respond to at least some of the more relevant questions and comments, since my post generated so much discussion.
Steve3007 wrote: I don't know about the age specifically. And I suppose it's difficult to precisely define what is "normal". We're all different. But I really do think that it absolutely is a perfectly healthy sexual outlet. The subject of the sexual fantasies is a different matter. But masturbation, in itself, is essential. Aside from your understandable concerns about the subject matter, what do you think is not perfectly healthy about it?

My experience of being a teenage boy (admitedly a long time ago!) is that it is essential. It's unhealthy not to do it. And, to be absolutely honest with you, only once a day seems quite infrequent! When we're teenagers, and being flooded with testosterone, several times a day is not unusual. :shock:

.... Abstaining from sex is one thing, with obvious practical reasons, particularly in an age before contraception. Mutilation in order to permanently curtail any form of sexual pleasure is, I think, entirely different.
Well, I think we'll have to just agree with what you said - we're all different and it's hard to define "normal". Maybe the difference is my religious upbringing, or perhaps it's because I'm a woman. All I know is that I also had urges growing up, but I never felt the need to masturbate nearly that much. I mean, really!? several times a day?! :shock:

That just doesn't sound normal or natural to me, or at the very least I'd have a problem calling it "perfectly healthy". It seems really self-indulgent and lustful, and, according to how I understand the Bible it is definitely a "sin".

Consider this: Matthew 5:28 "But I say unto you, That whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart".

I think that both the "looking" and "lusting" are implied in the act of masturbation. Don't you?

But, of course, I can appreciate that religion is very personal, and I can understand that an atheist or someone with an entirely different religion might have a completely different view on this. Like you said, we're all different! :)
Eduk wrote: The key bit that may be of interest to you is that sexual gratification is unchanged. Of course you have personal experience which contradicts that, but try to remember that that is anecdotal evidence and with a small sample size. Try not to read too much in to your experience alone.
I'm sorry, but that study doesn't jibe at all with my own experience, nor with the experience of every single one of my friends who have had both. All of us agree that the sex is much better uncut, and most of my friends also have never been able to 'O' with a cut guy. Cut is simply too abrasive and dry, and like I said, for me the difference was literally multiple toe-curling orgasms versus absolutely none at all. So while I know that a few women do say they prefer cut, I simply can't fathom how it could be so different for them, and can only surmise that their uncut partners must not have been very "skilled" in this area, lol.
LuckyR wrote: Your conclusion makes a not uncommon statistical error in two separate areas. First, you don't need to be personally responsible for his lifetime penile/foreskin infection risk (probably north of 70 years), you are only responsible for the next seven years, after which time he is responsible and almost certainly will have a more correct opinion than you can have, by definition. The chance, statistically of him having a penile infection REQUIRING an urgent or emergent circumcision in the next seven years is not zero but it is close to zero.
Well, remember, this was only a minor reason to have him circed. This reason was not a primary one for me, but my reasoning was that if there are already other good reasons for having him circed, then why not just play it safe? "Close to zero" is not "zero", and the odds of him having a really serious complication from the circumcision itself are only around 6%. So why take a chance that a really serious problem could develop down the road, when there are already so many other good reasons to just do it now?
Steve3007 wrote: In my ignorance and naivety, before reading this topic I'd assumed that circumcision was simply a religious ceremony whose only practical justification was the reducing the risk of infection one. I honestly hadn't realized that it supposedly reduces sensitivity and therefore is partly motivated by a desire to deter masturbation. So it has more in common with Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) than I had originally thought. I guess we learn something new every day.
Well, to be honest I think that comparing male circumcision to FGM is really disingenuous. In FGM, there is no good reason, at all, to do it other than curtailing sexual pleasure. That is barbaric. It's simply done so that men can control their wives and subjugate them.

With males, as you said earlier, there are plenty of good reasons besides curtailing sexual pleasure - health reasons, cleanliness, appearance, etc. So while the two do have this in common, no one has the right to judge someone for choosing to have their male child circumcised, since there are so many other alleged benefits. I mean, sure, you could argue that it is "mutilation" in both cases, but with males the other benefits might make it overall the best choice.

This is never true with female circumcision and that is why it is illegal in every civilized nation.
Razblo wrote: curcumcision is child abuse.
Really? You're going to go there? We all have different opinions on this, but I would think we'd all agree that it's not "child abuse". I've seen real child abuse (both physical and sexual) and calling circumcision "child abuse" is really an insult to all survivors of this horrible crime.

If circumcision were really "child abuse" then naturally it would be a crime and would be illegal. But it isn't, and this shows how out of tune the people are who audaciously call circumcision "abuse".
Razblo wrote: Myth 1: They just cut off a flap of skin.

Reality check: Not true. The foreskin is half of the penis's skin, not just a flap. In an adult man, the foreskin is 15 square inches of skin. In babies and children, the foreskin is adhered to the head of the penis with the same type of tissue that adheres fingernails to their nail beds. Removing it requires shoving a blunt probe between the foreskin and the head of the penis and then cutting down and around the whole penis. Check out these photos: http://www.drmomma.org/2011/08/intact-o ... icant.html

Myth 2: It doesn't hurt the baby.

Reality check: Wrong. In 1997, doctors in Canada did a study to see what type of anesthesia was most effective in relieving the pain of circumcision. As with any study, they needed a control group that received no anesthesia. The doctors quickly realized that the babies who were not anesthetized were in so much pain that it would be unethical to continue with the study. Even the best commonly available method of pain relief studied, the dorsal penile nerve block, did not block all the babies' pain. Some of the babies in the study were in such pain that they began choking and one even had a seizure (Lander 1997).

Myth 3: My doctor uses anesthesia.

Reality check: Not necessarily. Most newborns do not receive adequate anesthesia. Only 45% of doctors who do circumcisions use any anesthesia at all. Obstetricians perform 70% of circumcisions and are least likely to use anesthesia - only 25% do. The most common reasons why they don't? They didn't think the procedure warranted it, and it takes too long (Stang 1998). A circumcision with adequate anesthesia takes a half-hour - if they brought your baby back sooner, he was in severe pain during the surgery.

Myth 4: Even if it is painful, the baby won't remember it.

Reality check: The body is a historical repository and remembers everything. The pain of circumcision causes a rewiring of the baby's brain so that he is more sensitive to pain later (Taddio 1997, Anand 2000). Circumcision also can cause post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anger, low self-esteem and problems with intimacy (Boyle 2002, Hammond 1999, Goldman 1999). Even with a lack of explicit memory and the inability to protest - does that make it right to inflict pain? Ethical guidelines for animal research whenever possible* - do babies deserve any less?

Myth 5: My baby slept right through it.

Reality check: Not possible without total anesthesia, which is not available. Even the dorsal penile nerve block leaves the underside of the penis receptive to pain. Babies go into shock, which though it looks like a quiet state, is actually the body's reaction to profound pain and distress. Nurses often tell the parents "He slept right through it" so as not to upset them. Who would want to hear that his or her baby was screaming in agony?
Razblo, your first 5 myths all revolve around the painful nature of circumcision and the allegedly possible (but far from proven) long-term implications.

First, I could cite many studies that refute any long-term psychological effects, and I find all the claims that a baby could be "scarred for life" rather dubious at first glance. I know lots of circumcised boys, and I can honestly say I don't see anything wrong with any of them psychologically, nor does it appear that there is any difference between the two groups. I honestly think they forget it and that it does not harm them long-term in any way. And in the case of an older boy, like my son, I just can't believe that a 1/2 hour or so of pain, even if it is excruciating, is going to mess him up psychologically for life. Pain is a part of life and we learn to deal with it as human beings.

Plus, any temporary pain involved hardly outweighs all the benefits. As parents, we have to sometimes agree to have things done to our children which may cause a little pain in the present moment, but which will have a lifetime of health benefits, such as immunization, shots, etc. This is a part of parenting and I think you do your children a great disservice if you fail to do something which you think will have a long-term benefit just because you are afraid of them feeling a bit of pain, psychological or physical, in the very short-term. That's 'coddling' them.

But at any rate, I think the benefits here outweigh any temporary pain he might experience.
Razblo" wrote: Kathyd wrote:2. As a Christian, I like the concept of dedication to God. The idea of sacrificing something for God, of dedicating my child to God, seems very appealing to me, barbaric or not.

Barbarity is appealing? Sacrificing somebody else for YOUR deluded benefits?
I never said I think it is barbaric. It's others who say that. When I said "barbaric or not", I meant that I don't care what others think, I find it appealing to dedicate my child to the Lord. And I'm not sacrificing some of his sexual pleasure to God for MY benefit, it is a symbolic act which many Christians do as an remembrance of that covenant God made with his people. It is an acknowledgement that his walk with God will come first in his life, even over his desire to be with women.
Razblo wrote: Female and male genital cutting, especially in the manner that prepuce amputation is carried out in U.S. style male circumcision surgery (most often via Gomco or Plastibell amputations), is not only immediately damaging to a newborn baby; it is also permanently altering and forever changing the adult male body, and impacts all future sexual partner(s) as well.
Again, I think it's very disingenuous to try and compare male circumcision with FGM. In spite of the fact that both reduce sexual pleasure, the two are not really comparable in the least. And again, that is why one is illegal and a serious felony, while the other is practiced by a majority of people in our society.
Razblo wrote: Once this mother comes of age she may then realize circumcision is child abuse.
lol. I can assure you that no matter how old I get, I will never consider circumcision "child abuse".
Eduk wrote: I can easily go to a pro circumcision website and cope paste it and just as easily go to an anti circumcision website and copy and paste it. Now it is possible that one of those sites is more right than the other, it could be that one of those sites is largely right, it could be that one of those sites represents accurately the scientific consensus. But how would you know?
If you think it is sane to take at face value random websites while ignoring (with no justification) other websites then you aren't relatively sane. Which perhaps explains your difficulty over on the climate change post. Where you do the exact same thing and can't understand why no one else believes your personal non expert account of reality you learned from a single unpublished, unverified source.

Oh and just a nod to the OP who carefully explained exactly what would happen.

I hope you got at least something out of the more sensible posts before it descended into farce.
lol, Eduk. Yes, I did learn something before this thread got off topic.

And you are absolutely right about Razblo. She is like most of the people I found on most discussion groups when I was researching this subject. Most people just believe one side or the other, even tho it is quite obvious that both sides have numerous "studies" and "statistics" supporting their respective arguments. Like I said, science is pretty much in limbo on this issue, and there is no solid evidence that either choice is more or less healthy. That is why in the final analysis I ended up basing my decision on other factors than "health", focusing instead on what would be most practical given my situation and what fit in best with my core values, particularly in relation to my religious and "spiritual" leanings.
Eduk wrote: The NHS don't believe the foreskin imposes a health hazard or is an abnormality. They also don't think it is child abuse to circumcise. You seem to be missing the distinction between not agreeing with everything you say and not agreeing with anything you say and agreeing with the exact opposite of what you say. It is a bit like you are either with us or against us, as a lot of people thought to themselves that there were other options.
Exactly, Eduk. No sane person or medical organization would call male circumcision "child abuse".

And yes, Razblo does seem rather, ummm, "combative"? on this issue, doesn't she? I agree that she comes off very one-sided on this issue even tho like you, I also think it's obvious that in reality there is a lot of "gray" surrounding all arguments on this issue and people should be able to always find more points of agreement, even if they mostly disagree.
LuckyR wrote: Before lay folk get too far down the wrong road on this subject: remember we are talking 11 year old circumcision, not newborn circs here. The OP has decided to have a pediatrician do the procedure. Pediatricians are not surgeons, in fact they are sort of anti-surgeons, personality-wise. Basically if you aren't a urologist you probably shouldn't be doing them on adolescents, and the opinions of a specialty (like psychology) that doesn't even know which end of a knife to hold, is bordering on laughable.
Actually, my sister has lots of experience doing circumcisions and is well qualified. She used to do them a lot while in residency in order to help pay off her student loans. Many sub-specialities in pediatrics perform surgical procedures, as not all pediatrics is "primary care". It is actually quite common for pediatricians to do circumcisions.

Whew!!! That was a lot of posts to reply to!!!

Again, thx for all the opinions. I will be sure to post an update afterwards to let you all know how it went.
:)

User avatar
Albert Tatlock
Posts: 120
Joined: October 15th, 2017, 3:23 pm

Re: Circumcision. Seeking opinions based on personal experiences

Post by Albert Tatlock » December 6th, 2017, 2:58 pm

Kathyd wrote:
December 6th, 2017, 2:42 pm
The latest is we've decided to have him done right before Christmas break. The idea is that this will give him the most time to recover before school starts again after new years.
What a Christmas present. That will take some topping, maybe you could have him castrated for his birthday.

User avatar
Kathyd
Posts: 23
Joined: June 21st, 2017, 3:43 pm

Re: Circumcision. Seeking opinions based on personal experie

Post by Kathyd » December 6th, 2017, 4:02 pm

Razblo wrote:
November 26th, 2017, 4:13 pm
Myth 6: It doesn't cause the baby long-term harm.

The penis and clitoris are analogous and homologous organs: they perform similar functions, share a common design, and biologically develop from the same tissues inutero. The glans (head) of the penis or clitoris is an internal organ. It is meant to remain covered for the majority of its livelihood, in similar nature to the way that the eyeballs are covered for a good portion of our lives (when we blink or sleep), and the way the ends of our fingers and toes are protected by our nails.

If we surgically amputate the eyelids or fingernails, we will face the repercussions of making an organ that was designed to be internal, external. In order to survive this damage, the organ must adapt. To do so, a variety of features will change (both immediately, and progressively over the years): pH will be altered, temperature will no longer remain stable in that organ, moisture and lubrication levels will not be maintained, leading to dryness and potential chapping, antibodies and healthy microflora that previously served to protect will cease to exist, and callusing (the build-up of multiple hardened layers of skin) will take place. Our body may attempt to heal itself by forming skin bridges or re-adhesions over the amputation site. Our eyeballs and fingertips would become thick, dry, discolored, and no longer function in the manner they were designed to.

So it is the same with the glans of the penis or clitoris. If we remove the very organ, the prepuce, which serves to cover, protect and regulate the health, pH, temperature, lubrication, antibodies, movement and functioning of the genitals, we've altered form so dramatically that the purposes it was created to fulfill can no longer be realized.

Not only is this evident in research: human development and sexuality especially, but the dramatic difference is also readily apparent to any lay onlooker observing the intact human genitals versus those that no longer remain in their original whole state.

Female and male genital cutting, especially in the manner that prepuce amputation is carried out in U.S. style male circumcision surgery (most often via Gomco or Plastibell amputations), is not only immediately damaging to a newborn baby; it is also permanently altering and forever changing the adult male body, and impacts all future sexual partner(s) as well.
Razblo, I was just re-reading some of your responses and felt compelled to respond to this one. Mainly because I've seen arguments like this one on many anti-circ websites and find it to be very exaggerated and misleading. You are appealing to a lost of functionality, which often then leads to charges of "mutilation" and "being barbaric", as if we were chopping off a leg, a finger, a tongue, or some other body part which would lead to a real and pragmatic loss of functionality. Obviously there is no such loss of important function in circumcision like not being able to walk, pick things up, or talk, as there would be with other body parts.

Let's remember that the only "function" of the foreskin is the pleasure and facilitation of sex. That's it! The foreskin serves no other meaningful purpose. The circumcised penis can urinate, get erect, and engage in ordinary sex. The only loss in function is reduction in pleasure and a lack of lubrication, the latter of which is easily remedied by a bottle of K-Y. Otherwise, the circumcised penis is quite functional and can do what it needs to.

So honestly, I'm not sure how relevant this loss of function is. Particularly when neither the boy nor his future partner will ever know anything different. I mean, what does it matter if the difference isn't known? I'm inclined to take the position that "what they don't know will not hurt them". If neither my son nor his future wife know anything different, then what difference does the loss of function of the foreskin make? Now, if my son was already married and having sex, then yes, the removal of the foreskin might make a functional difference, because both parties would have something to compare and would be aware of the difference. But that's not the case, so I'm not concerned about it. My son will only be aware of the loss of sensation as far as masturbation is concerned, which imho is a good thing. Facilitating masturbation and making it more pleasurable is a function that I think is worth diminishing, particularly if there is already a problem in that area. In this case, I feel like masturbation is like the foreskin. It's only function is pleasure and it serves no other useful purpose. It cannot lead to reproduction and imho can lead to problems if it becomes to excessive, so it's a function which ideally should be curtailed.

Plus, as a mother, I feel there are a lot of other more important things to consider surrounding this decision other than my son's future sexual gratification! I think that as a parent, you should be infinitely more concerned with his general health and well being, and his general lifestyle and happiness, than with quality of his sex life. That comes up a lot lower on my priority list than his general physical, and especially his spiritual, well-being.

User avatar
Albert Tatlock
Posts: 120
Joined: October 15th, 2017, 3:23 pm

Re: Circumcision. Seeking opinions based on personal experie

Post by Albert Tatlock » December 6th, 2017, 4:42 pm

Kathyd wrote:
December 6th, 2017, 4:02 pm
That comes up a lot lower on my priority list than his general physical, and especially his spiritual, well-being.
I can't help wondering what's spiritual about having the end of your knob cut off.

Steve3007
Posts: 4223
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Circumcision. Seeking opinions based on personal experiences

Post by Steve3007 » December 6th, 2017, 5:27 pm

Kathyd:
Well, I think we'll have to just agree with what you said - we're all different and it's hard to define "normal". Maybe the difference is my religious upbringing, or perhaps it's because I'm a woman. All I know is that I also had urges growing up, but I never felt the need to masturbate nearly that much. I mean, really!? several times a day?!
Yes, I think more than once a day, and sometimes several, is not abnormal for a teenage boy. Maybe different for girls. Since we're doing straw polls here, I'd be interested to hear from any of the other male posters on here if they can remember back to how often they did it during their teenage years.
That just doesn't sound normal or natural to me, or at the very least I'd have a problem calling it "perfectly healthy". It seems really self-indulgent and lustful, and, according to how I understand the Bible it is definitely a "sin".
Is it possible to imagine yourself considering the morality of it without reference to the Bible? If you do so, can you think of anything that is harmful about it? Who does it hurt? It provides exercise of vital parts of the body, gives pleasure and causes no harm whatsoever to anyone. Being "self indulgent" is wrong if it causes harm, such as over-eating or taking pleasure at the expense of somebody else's happiness. But masturbation during the teenage years does none of those things, and one could say that it is a healthy outlet for urges that might otherwise be directed in other ways.

I strongly believe that the attitudes you are expressing are deeply harmful to society. I think that, as a rule, people would have a much more healthy attitude towards sex if they weren't brought up to think that a genuinely innocent and harmless activity it somehow shameful or sinful. To put it bluntly: if priests were allowed to masturbate without shame maybe they wouldn't apparently so often turn into such deeply sexually troubled adults.
Consider this: Matthew 5:28 "But I say unto you, That whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart".
And do you believe that to be true because it's written in a book of the Bible?
I think that both the "looking" and "lusting" are implied in the act of masturbation. Don't you?
Yes, masturbation most certainly does involve lusting and frequently involves looking. Again, leaving aside what the Bible is telling you, explain to me how it is harmful.
Well, to be honest I think that comparing male circumcision to FGM is really disingenuous. In FGM, there is no good reason, at all, to do it other than curtailing sexual pleasure. That is barbaric. It's simply done so that men can control their wives and subjugate them.
But you have said yourself that one of the main motives for performing male circumcision is curtailing sexual pleasure, haven't you? If you think it's wrong to do it for that reason, why mention that that is one of the reasons for doing it? Why not argue for it entirely on the alleged cleanliness grounds?
"Even men with steel hearts love to see a dog on the pitch."

User avatar
Albert Tatlock
Posts: 120
Joined: October 15th, 2017, 3:23 pm

Re: Circumcision. Seeking opinions based on personal experiences

Post by Albert Tatlock » December 6th, 2017, 5:39 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
December 6th, 2017, 5:27 pm
I'd be interested to hear from any of the other male posters on here if they can remember back to how often they did it during their teenage years.
I was at it all the time, even in school, but they soon put a stop to that once they figured out why all the pages in the text books were stuck together.

Steve3007
Posts: 4223
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Circumcision. Seeking opinions based on personal experiences

Post by Steve3007 » December 6th, 2017, 5:41 pm

Re: my straw poll on the incidence of Onanism.

Albert:

You seem like a blunt, call-a-spade-a-spade, open minded northern kind of a chap. Think way back to when you were a teenager, when Coronation Street was just a glint in Tony Warren's eye. Roughly how many times a day/week did you think about Dame Vera Lynn or Betty Grable and knock one out?
"Even men with steel hearts love to see a dog on the pitch."

Steve3007
Posts: 4223
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Circumcision. Seeking opinions based on personal experiences

Post by Steve3007 » December 6th, 2017, 5:44 pm

Hah! you beat me to it.

I tried to post this remark earlier, but in the new improved philosophy website it seems that we're not allowed to write two posts in quick succession. It told me this:

"You cannot make another post so soon after your last."

in red bold type. Political correctness gone mad.
"Even men with steel hearts love to see a dog on the pitch."

User avatar
Albert Tatlock
Posts: 120
Joined: October 15th, 2017, 3:23 pm

Re: Circumcision. Seeking opinions based on personal experiences

Post by Albert Tatlock » December 6th, 2017, 6:02 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
December 6th, 2017, 5:41 pm
Roughly how many times a day/week did you think about Dame Vera Lynn or Betty Grable and knock one out?
I was born a bit too late for wanking over the white cliffs of Dover but there were one or two memorable occasions peeping through the gap in Elsie Tanner's curtains.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 5528
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Circumcision. Seeking opinions based on personal experiences

Post by Greta » December 6th, 2017, 7:02 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
December 6th, 2017, 5:44 pm
Hah! you beat me to it.

I tried to post this remark earlier, but in the new improved philosophy website it seems that we're not allowed to write two posts in quick succession. It told me this:

"You cannot make another post so soon after your last."

in red bold type. Political correctness gone mad.
:lol: It's tyranny! Note that the type was in red ... Communists? Republicans? The Labor Party? Still, no matter the conspirators, free (or any) speech is stifled during forum upgrades. A philosophical metaphor, perhaps?

Re: your poll. Like the fifth movie in any trilogy, your poll seems to be designed to fail. You might as well ask the lads when they last failed to stand to attention when opportunity knocked ... the guilty, dirty, dirty, guilty little secrets that everyone has but no one admits.

There's going to much relief and reduction in paranoia when the telepathy chip is installed and people realise that "they are not the only one". Re: the thread, you'll notice that telepaths in sci fi (eg. babylon 5, Star Trek) tend to have inconsistent powers and they frequently miss the chance to gain essential intel at crucial moments. But they will always notice when a crew member is upset :)

User avatar
LuckyR
Posts: 2309
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Circumcision. Seeking opinions based on personal experiences

Post by LuckyR » December 7th, 2017, 2:30 am

The issue of circumcision has been pretty well beaten to death on this thread at this point.

How about a conversation on the amount of autonomy for an eleven year old in participating in the decision on the future of his foreskin? Legally the answer is simple and unimportant. Whst about ethically and philosophicslly?
"As usual... it depends."

Steve3007
Posts: 4223
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Circumcision. Seeking opinions based on personal experiences

Post by Steve3007 » December 7th, 2017, 8:32 am

Greta:
:lol: It's tyranny! Note that the type was in red ... Communists? Republicans? The Labor Party? Still, no matter the conspirators, free (or any) speech is stifled during forum upgrades. A philosophical metaphor, perhaps?
Tyranny of the philosopher rulers? Plato's dream?

If a philosophy website in in the process of being updated and is therefore invisible and untouchable by all contributing philosophers, can it meaningfully be said to exist?
Re: your poll. Like the fifth movie in any trilogy, your poll seems to be designed to fail. You might as well ask the lads when they last failed to stand to attention when opportunity knocked ... the guilty, dirty, dirty, guilty little secrets that everyone has but no one admits.
Yes, I realise that social embarrassment and taboos mean that polls about the intimate details of people's sex lives are probably among the most inaccurate polls of all. But this website is anonymous and, partly as a result of that, often deals with subjects and views that people would probably be reluctant to discuss face-to-face. So I reckon a masturbation poll might have a shot at being reasonably accurate. The only snag is that I suspect most of us on here are of advancing years so might genuinely not be able to remember how often we enjoyed the simple pleasures of self gratification in the first flush of youth.

By the way, I'd be interested to hear how often the ladies do it too. Judging by the number of mechanical aids that have been on the market for centuries, it must be a popular passtime.
"Even men with steel hearts love to see a dog on the pitch."

Steve3007
Posts: 4223
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Circumcision. Seeking opinions based on personal experiences

Post by Steve3007 » December 7th, 2017, 8:39 am

There's going to much relief and reduction in paranoia when the telepathy chip is installed and people realise that "they are not the only one". Re: the thread, you'll notice that telepaths in sci fi (eg. babylon 5, Star Trek) tend to have inconsistent powers and they frequently miss the chance to gain essential intel at crucial moments. But they will always notice when a crew member is upset :)
Yes, they're really just space versions of Frasier Crane.

Interesting to speculate as to what might happen if we did all become telepaths, after the dust has settled. I presume there's a topic about it somewhere on this site.
"Even men with steel hearts love to see a dog on the pitch."

Post Reply