4 ms·

Are we talking male anatomy? Circumcision? If so, why dodge around those words? If that’s what we’re talking about, count me in except for the outrage. It does

Are we talking male anatomy? Circumcision? If so, why dodge around those words? If that’s what we’re talking about, count me in except for the outrage. It doesn’t seem to have impacted my sex life in any way. What negative repurcussions are you suffering from it? Was the surgery botched, is that why?

thatguy0900 5y ago
The part cut off as standard circumcision is full of nerve endings. You are much less sensitive after having it cut off regardless of whether it was botched.
- glitchc 5y ago
  Not sure I follow. A person will not know the difference between before and after unless the circumcision happened as an adult. And if after is pleasurable, what is missing? Is anything missing? I can certainly take you at face value that your experience is more pleasurable than mine. I won't know otherwise. But I'm quite happy with my experience, so I don't really miss it. If anything, I might be trading off pleasure for endurance, which could be a net positive if that enhances the overall pleasure for both parties. Reduced sensitivity is not necessarily bad is what I'm trying to get at. Complete lack of sensitivity is a real problem, a botched circumcision will do that. But a botched circumcision is just like any other botched surgery: a cock-up. Surgeons make mistakes and cut nerves they weren't supposed to in other kinds of surgeries too. To put more stringent labels on an accident, such as a crime on humanity, feels a little extreme.
  - magikaram 5y ago
    Circumcision is a form of genital mutilation. Societies have done it in the past and present. Many societies have outlawed or otherwise restricted female gential mutilation, why can the same not be done for males in the same Developed world?
  - thatguy0900 5y ago
    That is a very practical viewpoint, thats its not worth worrying about, and I agree. I was circumsiced and I dont really think about it and I dont care. But its not really a great justification, its like telling someone born with bad knees that theyve never ran before so dont know what theyre missing out on so theres no point being upset. I dont reallt see the logic in saying no sensation is a awful mistake but reduced sensation is not a mistake at all, its a scale, if no sensation is bad reduced sensation is at least half bad.
  - everybodyknows 5y ago
    > I might be trading off pleasure for endurance ... An intriguing speculation. Might possibly be tested by a survey for correlation between circumcision status and premature ejaculation, though screening out confounders could pose a challenge.
  - Mountain_Skies 5y ago
    Those are decisions for you to make for yourself when you're an adult instead of having it forced upon you as an infant.
  - klyrs 5y ago
    If a child is blinded as an infant, they won't know the difference as an adult -- until they learn that their eyes were once full of sensitive nerves. How does this inform the ethics of blinding infants?
BitwiseFool 5y ago
>"If so, why dodge around those words?" The first reason is merely personal, I don't like saying it. While I did not mention this in my other comment, I prefer to use the term "genital cutting" instead. This is because the term imparts more meaning and understanding about the practice when people use it. "Circumcision" isn't a common word, it is derived from Latin, and doesn't have an immediate etymological obviousness the same way "genital cutting" does. >"It doesn’t seem to have impacted my sex life in any way." Understandable. For the majority of us who had this procedure done routinely, our modified anatomy is all we've ever known. There's no way for us to experientially compare. If it weren't for the internet, I'm certain I would have lived my life without ever knowing I was actually missing something. To be clear, though, this would be a result of near complete ignorance rather than evidence that the procedure has no downside or effect whatsoever, something which many do assert and cite lack of widespread complaint among men as evidence. >"Was the surgery botched, is that why?" To be upfront, I am so deeply against what was done to me as a newborn that even if the doctor performed the most clean and by-the-book cut in all of human history, I would still be just as resentful as I am today. That being said, I do have complications that I sense are a result of the pediatrician cutting too tightly. Not only does the remaining skin have uneven stretch marks, I have a really bad "turkey neck" problem. This isn't a medical term, I don't think there is one, but my urologist has confirmed that much of the skin on my penis is actually scrotal skin. Despite this, my urologist does not believe the procedure was "botched" and according to him what I have is fairly typical. This last bit is perhaps macabre, but he could also tell my pediatrician was left-handed, based on where the scar begins and ends! I'm sure that if the pediatrician was much less aggressive that day I would be better off, but that is not the root of my lament. I am still missing the nerve endings and protection that would have been provided by the missing tissue. To use an absurd analogy (that you should not take as an argument): If I had my part of right arm amputated, I would probably be better off if the doctor didn't remove as much of my forearm but I would still be missing my entire hand.
nyolfen 5y ago
if we poked out one eye of 80% of infants you would probably feel the same about that

thatguy0900 5y ago

The part cut off as standard circumcision is full of nerve endings. You are much less sensitive after having it cut off regardless of whether it was botched.

glitchc 5y ago
Not sure I follow. A person will not know the difference between before and after unless the circumcision happened as an adult. And if after is pleasurable, what is missing? Is anything missing? I can certainly take you at face value that your experience is more pleasurable than mine. I won't know otherwise. But I'm quite happy with my experience, so I don't really miss it. If anything, I might be trading off pleasure for endurance, which could be a net positive if that enhances the overall pleasure for both parties. Reduced sensitivity is not necessarily bad is what I'm trying to get at. Complete lack of sensitivity is a real problem, a botched circumcision will do that. But a botched circumcision is just like any other botched surgery: a cock-up. Surgeons make mistakes and cut nerves they weren't supposed to in other kinds of surgeries too. To put more stringent labels on an accident, such as a crime on humanity, feels a little extreme.
- magikaram 5y ago
  Circumcision is a form of genital mutilation. Societies have done it in the past and present. Many societies have outlawed or otherwise restricted female gential mutilation, why can the same not be done for males in the same Developed world?
- thatguy0900 5y ago
  That is a very practical viewpoint, thats its not worth worrying about, and I agree. I was circumsiced and I dont really think about it and I dont care. But its not really a great justification, its like telling someone born with bad knees that theyve never ran before so dont know what theyre missing out on so theres no point being upset. I dont reallt see the logic in saying no sensation is a awful mistake but reduced sensation is not a mistake at all, its a scale, if no sensation is bad reduced sensation is at least half bad.
- everybodyknows 5y ago
  > I might be trading off pleasure for endurance ... An intriguing speculation. Might possibly be tested by a survey for correlation between circumcision status and premature ejaculation, though screening out confounders could pose a challenge.
- Mountain_Skies 5y ago
  Those are decisions for you to make for yourself when you're an adult instead of having it forced upon you as an infant.
- klyrs 5y ago
  If a child is blinded as an infant, they won't know the difference as an adult -- until they learn that their eyes were once full of sensitive nerves. How does this inform the ethics of blinding infants?

BitwiseFool 5y ago

>"If so, why dodge around those words?" The first reason is merely personal, I don't like saying it. While I did not mention this in my other comment, I prefer to use the term "genital cutting" instead. This is because the term imparts more meaning and understanding about the practice when people use it. "Circumcision" isn't a common word, it is derived from Latin, and doesn't have an immediate etymological obviousness the same way "genital cutting" does. >"It doesn’t seem to have impacted my sex life in any way." Understandable. For the majority of us who had this procedure done routinely, our modified anatomy is all we've ever known. There's no way for us to experientially compare. If it weren't for the internet, I'm certain I would have lived my life without ever knowing I was actually missing something. To be clear, though, this would be a result of near complete ignorance rather than evidence that the procedure has no downside or effect whatsoever, something which many do assert and cite lack of widespread complaint among men as evidence. >"Was the surgery botched, is that why?" To be upfront, I am so deeply against what was done to me as a newborn that even if the doctor performed the most clean and by-the-book cut in all of human history, I would still be just as resentful as I am today. That being said, I do have complications that I sense are a result of the pediatrician cutting too tightly. Not only does the remaining skin have uneven stretch marks, I have a really bad "turkey neck" problem. This isn't a medical term, I don't think there is one, but my urologist has confirmed that much of the skin on my penis is actually scrotal skin. Despite this, my urologist does not believe the procedure was "botched" and according to him what I have is fairly typical. This last bit is perhaps macabre, but he could also tell my pediatrician was left-handed, based on where the scar begins and ends! I'm sure that if the pediatrician was much less aggressive that day I would be better off, but that is not the root of my lament. I am still missing the nerve endings and protection that would have been provided by the missing tissue. To use an absurd analogy (that you should not take as an argument): If I had my part of right arm amputated, I would probably be better off if the doctor didn't remove as much of my forearm but I would still be missing my entire hand.

nyolfen 5y ago

if we poked out one eye of 80% of infants you would probably feel the same about that