4 ms·

You know what, i could say a lot of words, but really, i tire of it. You sound like the former marines i know who defend newbie hazing as noble and necessary. M

You know what, i could say a lot of words, but really, i tire of it. You sound like the former marines i know who defend newbie hazing as noble and necessary. Much the same back and forth applies in both cases, and i really do not want to repeat discussions i've had multiple times already. I'd be happy to read that study i asked for at the start though.

jquery 9y ago
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3881635/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3881635/ No statistically significant difference in: * Ejaculation time * Erectile dysfunction * Sexual desire * Orgasm difficulties * Pain during or after sex This is important, because circ'd individuals are often targeted online as having inferior sexual organs (count how many times the word "mutilated" is used in this thread). I'm willing to bet the mental health impact of this rhetoric is greater than the impact of circumcision itself. If circumcision should be banned, it shouldn't be banned on exaggerated pretenses that intact men have superior penises and circ'd men are inferior or incomplete (which seems to be underlying a lot of the arguments).
- Mithaldu 9y ago
  They threw together a bunch of contradicting studies, assigned weights without discussion of the assigning methods and parameters, then decided on an average and declared it a fact, instead of being honest and saying "we don't know either way". Based on this overall pattern i don't think i have much trust that their decision making process wasn't biased. As for incomplete. I'm sorry, but there are no two ways about it. Incomplete means to be missing a part. It is. How important this is in the big picture is a different question.
  - jquery 9y ago
    For something that's so obviously damaging and mutilation and horrible and obscene, you'd think the science wouldn't at least be equivocating. The science should make you happy. You can still oppose circumcision, and you don't have to feel so much sympathy for circumcised people like me. Win/win.
  - EGreg 9y ago
    Which organization's decision making progress did you find unbiased, that you based your conclusions on?

jquery 9y ago

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3881635/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3881635/ No statistically significant difference in: * Ejaculation time * Erectile dysfunction * Sexual desire * Orgasm difficulties * Pain during or after sex This is important, because circ'd individuals are often targeted online as having inferior sexual organs (count how many times the word "mutilated" is used in this thread). I'm willing to bet the mental health impact of this rhetoric is greater than the impact of circumcision itself. If circumcision should be banned, it shouldn't be banned on exaggerated pretenses that intact men have superior penises and circ'd men are inferior or incomplete (which seems to be underlying a lot of the arguments).

Mithaldu 9y ago
They threw together a bunch of contradicting studies, assigned weights without discussion of the assigning methods and parameters, then decided on an average and declared it a fact, instead of being honest and saying "we don't know either way". Based on this overall pattern i don't think i have much trust that their decision making process wasn't biased. As for incomplete. I'm sorry, but there are no two ways about it. Incomplete means to be missing a part. It is. How important this is in the big picture is a different question.
- jquery 9y ago
  For something that's so obviously damaging and mutilation and horrible and obscene, you'd think the science wouldn't at least be equivocating. The science should make you happy. You can still oppose circumcision, and you don't have to feel so much sympathy for circumcised people like me. Win/win.
- EGreg 9y ago
  Which organization's decision making progress did you find unbiased, that you based your conclusions on?