The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
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?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Steve3007 wrote: ↑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?
I suppose one could say that when a forum is being updated its interface, or "skin", is no longer to the fore.
Steve3007 wrote:
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.
So I reckon a masturbation poll might have a shot at being reasonably accurate.
However, you must notice that you are asking others to make themselves vulnerable while you remain just a metaphorical inscrutable white lab coat and clipboard behind the glass.
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.
Steve3007 wrote:By the way, I'd be interested to hear how often the ladies do it too.
Steve wrote:I suppose one could say that when a forum is being updated its interface, or "skin", is no longer to the fore.
Oooh, that joke makes me wince.[/quote]
Mission accomplished
Steve wrote:
However, you must notice that you are asking others to make themselves vulnerable while you remain just a metaphorical inscrutable white lab coat and clipboard behind the glass.
Not at all! The thing that prompted me to think about the poll in the first place was when I said to Kathyd that I myself remember doing it very frequently - often more than once a day - in my youth. I can't remember exactly, but I'd say four times was probably the maximum in one day. But that would be relatively rare. Still, my own experience suggests that for young men some kind of sexual outlet - either masturbation or sex - is almost as essential as going to the toilet or eating. That's why if you don't do it manually (as it were) it happens involuntarily. And that's why I think it's so cruel for some sections of our societies to cover the whole thing with a veil of shame and embarrassment. For young men growing up in that culture it must be bewildering that they're made to feel that an entirely harmless, pleasant and health-promoting activity is labelled as "sinful", with all kinds of ridiculous myths attached to it. The most famous one being that it makes you go blind. (Who dreampt that one up?!?).
Gutsy effort, Mr Steve. My understanding is that your level of youthful enthusiasm is very common in males.
I personally preferred partners uncut but it's more important for infants to be spared needless pain. The poor little beasts have just been through enough drama and are surely more due comforting than a surgeon's painful aesthetic body sculpting.
Sex is a primal urge. If you deny yourself (voluntarily or involuntarily) the act of sex then you may not be able to cope (quite likely you cannot cope) and are likely to do things which you wouldn't otherwise. The reverse is also true, if you allow all urges then you may (likely) not be able to cope and likewise do things you wouldn't otherwise.
In short sex is complicated.
Masturbation is harmless (neutral) but not exactly praise worthy or life enriching. It may help you from going mad, especially when you are younger, but that is just recognition that you yourself are not fully in control (not a bad recognition). Not that everyone wants to know, but out of a spirit of brotherhood, my experiences of masturbation are similar to Steve's.
The Churches vilification of basic human nature is obviously harmful but a very common thread. It is a shame that some people believe they are born unwell and commanded to be fit.
I mean I told the truth out of a spirit of brotherhood, not I made something up in the spirit of brotherhood. Making stuff up seems to go against the spirit of brotherhood in my mind
Steve, I told you that your report is pretty typical :)
Eduk wrote: ↑December 8th, 2017, 4:33 amIn short sex is complicated.
Since I gave up sex and relationships about five years ago (based on a cost-benefit analysis) sex looks simple. When one decouples from meta-reality of sexual socialisation and politics the "compelled animal" part of us comes into clearer focus.
All animals have to deal with the demands of their physiology - breathing, food, drink, toileting, sex, scratching, along with other habits and addictions we may pick up. When denied for long enough, any of these can provide an orgiastic level of relief when sated, or reduce us to animalistic behaviour. Of course, indulging the animal is us feels great at the time but, and this is where sex becomes complicated, there are ramifications, after-effects - and, especially, after-affects). If someone is going to trust you enough to allow you to penetrate them, then the gaining of such a level of intimate trust has a cost - one that has driven many men to drink and left many women feeling betrayed and exploited by the men they trusted.
By contrast, a little solo rub-a-dub-dub can have all the import of a bowel movement (sometimes significant in each case :), allowing one to think much about philosophy, which I suppose is why most people think of the philosophically-inclined as wankers, yes? That's where the word comes from - being lost in one's own little world and progressing on a pointless path disconnected from "the tribe".
In context with all of this, how important is it to subject newborn baby boys to the pain and shock of having their body cut up without anaesthetic? Really, this is all about the social meta-reality - tradition, fashion and taste. Claims about healthfulness are rationalisations in many cases; one can find positives in WWII too, but that doesn't outweigh the negatives. I wonder what impact such an extreme trauma so early on, during what must be people's very most formative years, might have on the eventual adult.
The effects of circumcision certainly don't seem to have created significant dysfunction in men; no character differences between the cut and uncut have been observed to the best of my knowledge, so it would seem that subsequent development swamps the early trauma. Still, theoretically, it seems impossible to imagine how heavy surgical procedures performed without adequate pain relief - during the most formative time of life aside from gestation - would not add an element of fearfulness to the person's character.
Now consider this notion in context with the cultures with the highest rates of circumcision - the Middle East, the US and Africa. Then again, North Korea has a low circumcision rate, so fearful, warlike tendencies in men are no doubt involve factors outside of circumcision, though it's interesting to consider it :)
Greta wrote: ↑December 9th, 2017, 6:47 pm
Steve, I told you that your report is pretty typical
Eduk wrote: ↑December 8th, 2017, 4:33 amIn short sex is complicated.
Since I gave up sex and relationships about five years ago (based on a cost-benefit analysis) sex looks simple. When one decouples from meta-reality of sexual socialisation and politics the "compelled animal" part of us comes into clearer focus.
All animals have to deal with the demands of their physiology - breathing, food, drink, toileting, sex, scratching, along with other habits and addictions we may pick up. When denied for long enough, any of these can provide an orgiastic level of relief when sated, or reduce us to animalistic behaviour. Of course, indulging the animal is us feels great at the time but, and this is where sex becomes complicated, there are ramifications, after-effects - and, especially, after-affects). If someone is going to trust you enough to allow you to penetrate them, then the gaining of such a level of intimate trust has a cost - one that has driven many men to drink and left many women feeling betrayed and exploited by the men they trusted.
By contrast, a little solo rub-a-dub-dub can have all the import of a bowel movement (sometimes significant in each case , allowing one to think much about philosophy, which I suppose is why most people think of the philosophically-inclined as wankers, yes? That's where the word comes from - being lost in one's own little world and progressing on a pointless path disconnected from "the tribe".
In context with all of this, how important is it to subject newborn baby boys to the pain and shock of having their body cut up without anaesthetic? Really, this is all about the social meta-reality - tradition, fashion and taste. Claims about healthfulness are rationalisations in many cases; one can find positives in WWII too, but that doesn't outweigh the negatives. I wonder what impact such an extreme trauma so early on, during what must be people's very most formative years, might have on the eventual adult.
The effects of circumcision certainly don't seem to have created significant dysfunction in men; no character differences between the cut and uncut have been observed to the best of my knowledge, so it would seem that subsequent development swamps the early trauma. Still, theoretically, it seems impossible to imagine how heavy surgical procedures performed without adequate pain relief - during the most formative time of life aside from gestation - would not add an element of fearfulness to the person's character.
Now consider this notion in context with the cultures with the highest rates of circumcision - the Middle East, the US and Africa. Then again, North Korea has a low circumcision rate, so fearful, warlike tendencies in men are no doubt involve factors outside of circumcision, though it's interesting to consider it
// end Silly Sunday posting
In 2017, pretty much everyone is using local anesthesia, just sayin.
Eduk wrote: ↑December 8th, 2017, 4:33 am
Masturbation is harmless (neutral) but not exactly praise worthy or life enriching. It may help you from going mad, especially when you are younger, but that is just recognition that you yourself are not fully in control (not a bad recognition). Not that everyone wants to know, but out of a spirit of brotherhood, my experiences of masturbation are similar to Steve's.
lol, Eduk. I've always found it comical how guys joke around about their own sexuality, particularly when it comes to the topic of self-control. I mean, really?! If you and Steve couldn't masturbate several times a day you might go mad? I honestly would like to see a study done on this, just out of curiosity.
Eduk wrote: The Churches vilification of basic human nature is obviously harmful but a very common thread. It is a shame that some people believe they are born unwell and commanded to be fit.
I'd agree that some churches have been rather prudish when it comes to sex, particularly during certain times in history, such as during the Victorian era. But I'm not sure how this applies to masturbation. I mean, I wouldn't necessarily call masturbation "human nature". Sex, yes. But I'm not sure now "natural" it is to have sex with yourself! After all, according to the Scriptures it is a sin, and I think we'd all agree it's a rather self-indulgent behavior that ideally we would not do. I think what the Church has "vilified" over the years is simply any sex outside of marriage, and yes, that does include having sex with yourself.
Greta wrote: In context with all of this, how important is it to subject newborn baby boys to the pain and shock of having their body cut up without anaesthetic? Really, this is all about the social meta-reality - tradition, fashion and taste. Claims about healthfulness are rationalisations in many cases; one can find positives in WWII too, but that doesn't outweigh the negatives. I wonder what impact such an extreme trauma so early on, during what must be people's very most formative years, might have on the eventual adult.
LuckyR wrote: In 2017, pretty much everyone is using local anesthesia, just sayin.
Yes, I was also concerned about putting him through all that pain without any anesthesia, so I asked my sister about it. She said that anesthetics aren't really that effective for circumcisions, and that a local anesthetic is normally only used for show, to alleviate any concerns from the parents. She admitted that it's a dirty secret in the industry that the anesthesia is only for appearance purposes, and that if it wasn't a circumcision would take about an hour, because it takes at least 1/2 hour for any anethesia to really be effective. But she said it wasn't cost effective to wait, which is why it only usually takes about 10 minutes. She said the circumcision procedure begins right after the anesthetic is applied (as you can see in the video link below), which makes its application completely "cosmetic".
I then asked her how painful it would be, so she had me watch a video of her first circumcision which she posted on YouTube so she could explain the procedure to me step by step.
She told me that the first part, where the foreskin is separated from the rest of the penile skin, would not have to be done on my son, because by his age his foreskin has already done that naturally. She said that was a good thing because that part was very painful. However, she said everything else would apply to an older child, and she showed me the parts that were the most painful. She said the most painful part by far was the removal of residual tissue after the initial cut, the part where she is scraping it off with what looks like a sort of long needle-like pick (which really does look like it would be painful!). She told me that she's actually seen a lot of babies even pass out during this part from the shock, it's so painful. But she said some other parts of the procedure are also almost as painful, mainly the parts where she's cutting - both the initial cut done with the big scissors as well as the final cut done with a scalpel. She warned me that the pain he might feel during these parts of the procedure might be "excruciating", and that I probably would not want to be within earshot while it was going on (which I obviously agreed with wholeheartedly!). The other parts, however, she said were not nearly as painful.
After watching the video I must admit I had second thoughts, but ultimately as a mother I had to make my decision based on the long-term outlook, just as we do when we decide to give our babies vaccinations or other painful shots which, while painful in the moment, are ultimately justified by their obvious long-term health benefits.
I've always found it comical how guys joke around about their own sexuality, particularly when it comes to the topic of self-control. I mean, really?! If you and Steve couldn't masturbate several times a day you might go mad? I honestly would like to see a study done on this, just out of curiosity.
Sorry sexual desire applies equally to men and women (though it may express differently depending on circumstances). For example abstinence is well proven not to reduce teenage pregnancy nor STDs. Also you could argue celibacy increases sexual frustration and therefore increases inappropriate release. But such studies are obviously unethical to perform so evidence is thin on the ground. Personally I would also argue the opposite that too much sex is not healthy either.
Also there are levels of insanity. I am not suggesting I would immediately go completely insane. what I am suggesting is that my faculties would be compromised and I may do certain things which I would not have done otherwise. Similar to having a couple of drinks. Although again people are different and effected differently. For example some people should not drink, while others are not as effected.
After all, according to the Scriptures it is a sin, and I think we'd all agree it's a rather self-indulgent behavior that ideally we would not do.
Ah but you see that is the point, we would not all agree that. I for example could not care less what the scriptures say and prefer to take my own interpretation (which to be fair so does everyone else, even those who say they are following scripture).
As regards self indulgence. Then perhaps. As I said the act of masturbation is pretty much neutral in my mind. Much like eating a chocolate is pretty much neutral but eating six pounds of chocolate would be indulgent. If the act of sex is purely for procreation then I 'needed' to have sex once and my wife need never experience orgasm. But most would consider that an extreme viewpoint. So there is a threat of self indulgence involving sex between two loving individuals. Personally I would argue that a lot of sex is not between two loving individuals and is to all intents and purpose the exact same as masturbation (just a fancy form).
I had to make my decision based on the long-term outlook, just as we do when we decide to give our babies vaccinations or other painful shots which, while painful in the moment, are ultimately justified by their obvious long-term health benefits.
I'm sorry you keep vacillating between saying there are no proven health benefits and you are doing this for theist based beliefs and then the next sentence you say there are health benefits.
The health benefits of vaccines are extremely well evidenced. The health benefits of circumcision are not. The maximal benefit from vaccines is getting not to die. The maximal, possible, benefit from circumcision is moderate percentage increase of avoiding STDs in very special circumstances. Just to be clear there is no evidence to support that circumcision is harmful either. Medicine and science basically have nothing to say on the matter.
The choice comes down to one of belief. If you believe your God will be pleased then go for it. If, like me, you don't have theist beliefs then don't go for it.
I mean ideally you would have done this a long time ago when the child was born and in that case, in the absolute worst case scenario, you are doing a very tiny amount of harm to your child. Probably about the same amount they might get heading a ball in football. As in an amount not worth worrying about. Of course there is zero benefit but, like I said, that comes down to your personal belief.
Of course as the child is older things are slightly trickier. For example I would not have taken kindly to such an act being done to me. But again this comes down to belief. If your son is a theist then any harm is again no more than you being late to pick him up after football, as in no long term harm. If he is an atheist he may take a longer term dim view of your actions (who knows). People are complicated.