Sex and Circumcised POLL

[D_Miranda_Wrights]

^^

Ah, I agree. darkbond, I want to take an opportunity to thank you for not being a disingenuous opponent (and hope you think the same of me.) I disagree with your methodology, and think it has some subtly undesirable repercussions (as you may of mine too.) However, I think you genuinely believe that your personal preferences doesn't have to be objectively superior, which is refreshingly un-defensive for a debate about dicks . You obviously care about this issue, and not for your own self-justification, and I admire that.

I apologize about any impatience on my part, because it's all been about communication stuff. This is the most civil, respectable debate on this issue I've had with someone with such an ethically different argument. Issues of communication are a luxury when the typical issue is male-defensive asshattery.

So, sincerely, thank you.

 

[Snozzle]

While it can be seen as nice that the child didn't have to have a circumcision that he didn't want, I fail to see this as being anywhere near fortunate. A full 1/3 of his life in a family fiight and with appeals the parents can drag this off to another judge that'll side with them. A childhood lost. Kept the skin, hates the parents.

There was going to be that kind of tension, regardless of circumcision. The father is an attorney and very litigatious (and a control freak). The mother is a Russian immigrant (mail-order? not sure). They separated with the boy was young, and the father gained custody through his legal, rather than parenting, skills. The father converted to Judaism, and wanted to "convert" the son with him, with all that that entails. (But there's a strong suggestion that his real reason was to spite the mother.) The Orthodox mother, who still had access, objected. The Anti-Defamation League got in on the act. When a judge finally got to ask the child in private what he wanted, he vehemently wanted not only to stay intact, but to live with the mother. That was eventually granted.

I prefer darkbond007's statement that if the boy says no thats the end of iit, it won't be done.

And shouldn't be done until he is old enough to ask for it - say 18.

 

[mandoman]

"Anti-Circ supporters cant stand that circumcised men are happy with their penises."

We both know that that statement was painted with too broad a brush.
I am genuinely glad, when anyone, circumcised or uncircumcised, is happy with their penis.
I think to myself, "that is as it should be".

 

[darkbond007]

Apologies for the late reply. Work was brutal this week. And to think I thought 2011 would be easy...

To start off, I agree with Hoss. I actually don't have a problem with offering your kid circumcision as an informed choice. However, unless you're going to have a detailed discussion of sexual physiology with a 10-year-old or even 2-year-old, which is ridiculous/creepy/ridiculously creepy, that can't be a meaningfully informed consent -- putting aside that our decision-making abilities don't really develop until preadolescence.

If you're willing to wait until 10, I see no reason not to wait until 15, when the choice can actually be informed, and even experienced, considering he's used the damn thing by then.

Sorry, you don't get to tell me what age a child can be informed and yes I do intend to have a detailed discussion with my son. I would rather do creepy than do nothing and whether he is cut or uncut I am more than capable of talking about either since I have had both. See rant later in the post, I'm hoping you would agree with me on this.

Dude, I was asking you which one of the three you supported (or another if you think it is a false choice.) Hence "the question I was asking is whether a parent has a moral obligation to..."



Yes, which does not contradict the argument I was making at all. I don't know why you think that re-asserting your argument and then going on about how we have "different opinions" somehow rebuts assertions that your opinion has negative secondary consequences and/or is logically flawed.

(I understand now that you believe that doctors just have higher ethical burdens than parents in this respect, and that's "just how it is," which isn't a formal logical violation, even if I think it's odd that your entire ethical system seems to conform to which parts of your circumcision experience you did and didn't like. But that isn't going to be my argument.)


So, do you, or do you not, have trouble holding moral views that contradict under formal logic? I'm not saying you can't account for situational variables (although I think you tend to do so in a way that seems arbitrary to me.) I'm talking about formal inconsistencies between your espoused beliefs. I'm talking about situations where you are saying something logically akin to "x is both true and not true regardless of y, z, and any other variable." Got it?

For me there is a rather large difference between beating to a bloody pulp and circumcision. Intent. A parents intention and the spawning of that intention from a beating is NEVER one that comes from trying to do the best thing. It spawns from anger. I dont see them as the same or heck even the same ballpark. I do not believe that when a parent decides to circumcise their son they are doing it out of anger. They truly believe they are doing the best for their son.

Therefore I do not agree with your opinion that I am not logically consistent.

Right...so you do have a point where you intervene/question parental license (I'm thinking "objective harm" at this point.) Whatever criteria you use apparently means that, in this situation, you intervene in parental license even if the parent thinks they're doing the right thing because of "objective harm." I personally think cost-benefits (including costs of intervening) is a much better standard for anyone who wants to minimize harm in the world, and I'll explain why once you answer my ^^^ question at top and confirm your standard.

I dont measure by objective harm. Every situation can call for a completely different look at things. Cost Benefit works for you. I get it. That doesnt mean it works for everyone. I think my point of objective harm and my point of intervention was answered earlier but in case you missed it.

When a parent beats a kid that act comes from anger. Circumcision, whether you think it is informed or not NEVER comes from the anger of a parent.

My point was that I'm responding to your complaints about my criticizing RIC exactly how you'd probably respond to someone complaining about you criticizing their license to beat their child bloody: Sorry, but whatever. No reason to waste your energy restating this opinion ("you have no RIGHT!") unless you're going to rebut my rationale. You've engaged in plenty of position-staking already.

My only comment to you about circumcision is that my belief is that I am not getting in the way of a parent making that decision with their child. You can criticize RIC all you like. Youre not the only one. It just seems like you take it a little personal which I dont rather get seeing as you are not cut. It almost comes off like when you become a doctor you will virtually be running into operating rooms to stop the doctor from snipping. Which kind of reminds me of my own doctor.

It shouldn't be shocking. I have spent this entire debate talking about an ethically utilitarian argument predicated on two ideas, one about consent ethics and one about liberty. The liberty argument, the one relevant here and the source of the latter argument, is: People should be free to pursue their own happiness whenever that isn't a burden/harm on others (which is essentially the argument underlying Western civilization's idea of liberty.)

Why you think that would lead me to morally object to harmless religious beliefs, especially those who make people happy, is beyond me.

Well you know we wont agree on the ethical argument. The reason I think you would morally object is because you seem very myopic in the way you feel about life. There is just one way and if it isnt that way then your living wrong. Maybe this is just me overanalyzing your argument in this regard.

No I'm not, but Darkbond has more common ground than many others I argue against on the subject. He'd prefer to have people consent, even if he doesn't see it as a necessity. More to the point though, he doesn't assume we know everything there is to know about the foreskin and would actually like for us to find out more. This is a huge step up from people who try every logical bend to try to justify circumcision being better than or equal than intact. Arguing with Darkbond on the subject is about like a Democrat vs. Republican debate, both have ideas, have the same stuff available and come to different conclusion. Arguing with most people on the subject is like the US Senate in the past two year. Democrats argue, plead, whine, provide evidence, compromise, and the Republicans still do nothing but say "No" and filibuster.

It's refreshing to see someone who hasn't hopped on board the completely illogical HIV prevention train. If more studies emerged tomorrow giving more facts about foreskin and the effects of circumcision, I think Darkbond would be more likely to consider them than other people. He may not switch sides and could continue debating procirc to "offset the heavy anticirc opinion" as he has put it, but posting the study wouldn't be like beating your head aginst a brick wall.

This sums me up rather well.

I prefer darkbond007's statement that if the boy says no thats the end of iit, it won't be done. My parting of ways with darkbond is when he says between the ages of "2 and 10" Does a 2 yr. old or even a 5 yr. old really have an understanding what's happening? At 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 maybe even 10, they may be making the decision more in either making Daddy happy or wanting to look like Daddy. The 10 yr. old that fights it, may be doing it becase he's angry at Daddy, if it hadn't been medically necessary at 11 and my Dad had said I had a choice I'd have said no. Not because I understood it but because we had a very strained relationship at the time. The truth is at 11, I really didn't have any actual comprehension of what a foreskin was. It was in my view just a piece of extra skin.

Did anyone actually sit down and speak to you about a foreskin. See, what you guys want to break is the cut versus uncut debate. What I want to break is the whole, I grow up with this thing and have no idea about it whatsoever.

When a child is young you teach that it has ten fingers and ten toes right? You play the very innocent game so that it knows what it comprises of. You use proper terminology and by the time the kid is probably 3 they know just about everything about their body. But when it comes to the penis you shy away from it. Women dont know anything about it so they refrain from speaking to their sons about it. Men are either ashamed or too dumb to speak about it so they never talk to their sons. When you have the birds and bees talk you only talk about sex, you dont even talk about what the boy has or doesnt have.

Ultimately this is where I felt my situation could have helped. My birds and the bees talk came from my mother, she basically told me to use a condom and I should wait until marriage. My dad didnt say jack shit. I was uncut at the time and he was cut and he never explained to me anything. The mold I want to break is this.

So whether my son is 2, 4, 6, 8 or 10 he will know more about his penis than the average kid.

 

[darkbond007]

^^

Ah, I agree. darkbond, I want to take an opportunity to thank you for not being a disingenuous opponent (and hope you think the same of me.) I disagree with your methodology, and think it has some subtly undesirable repercussions (as you may of mine too.) However, I think you genuinely believe that your personal preferences doesn't have to be objectively superior, which is refreshingly un-defensive for a debate about dicks . You obviously care about this issue, and not for your own self-justification, and I admire that.

I apologize about any impatience on my part, because it's all been about communication stuff. This is the most civil, respectable debate on this issue I've had with someone with such an ethically different argument. Issues of communication are a luxury when the typical issue is male-defensive asshattery.

So, sincerely, thank you.

Trust me, you have nothing to apologize for. I would much rather have this argument than the beating against the head arguments that one would have with DXJNORTO. I would much rather you challenge based on logic than just go around being a boo-hoo anti circ supporter.

I must say you guys make it lively. Thank you.

 

[D_Miranda_Wrights]

Sorry, you don't get to tell me what age a child can be informed and yes I do intend to have a detailed discussion with my son. I would rather do creepy than do nothing and whether he is cut or uncut I am more than capable of talking about either since I have had both. See rant later in the post, I'm hoping you would agree with me on this.

I can't tell you that a two-year-old can't give informed consent?

I also don't understand why you'd describe the theoretical concept of sex with a cut vs. uncut penis at 10, instead of waiting until he knows and has figured out his own preference at 15-20. I'm not necessarily making an ethical argument here (although there is one), just a "wtf why?" argument.

For me there is a rather large difference between beating to a bloody pulp and circumcision. Intent. A parents intention and the spawning of that intention from a beating is NEVER one that comes from trying to do the best thing. It spawns from anger. I dont see them as the same or heck even the same ballpark. I do not believe that when a parent decides to circumcise their son they are doing it out of anger. They truly believe they are doing the best for their son.

Therefore I do not agree with your opinion that I am not logically consistent.

...

When a parent beats a kid that act comes from anger. Circumcision, whether you think it is informed or not NEVER comes from the anger of a parent.

...

I dont measure by objective harm. Every situation can call for a completely different look at things. Cost Benefit works for you. I get it. That doesnt mean it works for everyone. I think my point of objective harm and my point of intervention was answered earlier but in case you missed it.

Really, you don't think anyone's ever beaten a kid bloody because they thought that's what the kid needed to learn? That's what my dad's parents claimed on the multiple times they calmly beat my dad to get him to submit. I mean, they were horrible people, but I'm sure on one level they believed it was right...or at least they said so, which might be enough for you.

Anyway: Parents can do anything so long as they claim that, in their heart of hearts, they are doing what's right for their child? And you don't apply any cost-benefits analysis to it (even for "objective harm")?

Let me know if this is accurate before I present my ultimate argument of why this is philosophically dangerous.

My only comment to you about circumcision is that my belief is that I am not getting in the way of a parent making that decision with their child. You can criticize RIC all you like. Youre not the only one. It just seems like you take it a little personal which I dont rather get seeing as you are not cut. It almost comes off like when you become a doctor you will virtually be running into operating rooms to stop the doctor from snipping. Which kind of reminds me of my own doctor.

I criticize RIC because it is wrong. What do I have to do with anything? My dad was circumcised, but he let me have the choice. Knowing myself, I probably would have been irritated if he hadn't. You're right, I got mine, so to speak. But I don't deserve treatment any better or worse than anyone else. Ethics don't apply to me any more or less than anyone else. Ethically, it doesn't matter if I got mine any more than if some stranger from Ohio gets his.

Your doctor's problem was that she gave crap advice to your proxy, and provided no treatment when she should have provided a treatment. I don't dislike circumcision and wouldn't oppose circumcision if it were the correct therapy. I'm also not incompetent. Your doctor's problem was that she was a bad doctor, to the point where you basically had to have a circumcision that wouldn't have been necessary had she given you good medical care. I'd hope nothing I'm saying would remind you of that kind of bad medicine.

If I take this so "personally," doesn't it seem odd that I have barely spent any time talking about myself? I mean, I don't think I've even expressed how I feel about being uncircumcised. I feel strongly and confidently on the issue, but I take it the opposite of personally.

Well you know we wont agree on the ethical argument. The reason I think you would morally object is because you seem very myopic in the way you feel about life. There is just one way and if it isnt that way then your living wrong. Maybe this is just me overanalyzing your argument in this regard.

Eh, what? Do you mean hyperopic not myopic, since you're complaining that I'm unwilling to look at individual choices as distinct from my larger ethical beliefs? I also don't understand why that would lead me to oppose harmless religion. I don't think you're overanalyzing so much as misanalyzing.

 

[darkbond007]

I can't tell you that a two-year-old can't give informed consent?

I also don't understand why you'd describe the theoretical concept of sex with a cut vs. uncut penis at 10, instead of waiting until he knows and has figured out his own preference at 15-20. I'm not necessarily making an ethical argument here (although there is one), just a "wtf why?" argument.

The cut vs uncut argument is barely about sex for me. If that is the basis of your only argument against circumcision then we may have a larger argument here.

Really, you don't think anyone's ever beaten a kid bloody because they thought that's what the kid needed to learn? That's what my dad's parents claimed on the multiple times they calmly beat my dad to get him to submit. I mean, they were horrible people, but I'm sure on one level they believed it was right...or at least they said so, which might be enough for you.

You misunderstood me. The act of beating comes from anger. That is why I would never beat my kids. I would not intervene on another person's until it gets to that "abuse" stage. Saying you believe its right is not enough for me. Additionally I believe you are grasping at straws here trying to convince me that a child is beatin to a bloody pulp and the parent thinks they did the right thing.

Anyway: Parents can do anything so long as they claim that, in their heart of hearts, they are doing what's right for their child? And you don't apply any cost-benefits analysis to it (even for "objective harm")?

Did I say that? Why do you take what I say out of context and generalize it to everything?

Clearly you are looking for one underlying theme to my actions but there really isnt one. I am not wired like you.

Let me know if this is accurate before I present my ultimate argument of why this is philosophically dangerous.

So now you went from wrong to dangerous? I'm willing to hear you out but the underlying argument here is that I believe in circumcision. There is little to nothing you can do or say that would change this. I have spoken with nearly 2 dozen men on this first hand and 3 of them were cut when they could actually remember.

I'm really not that interested in you providing my argument for me. I've stated before, just say what you want to say so we can all move on with our lives.

In the end it goes right back to what I believe. I really dont care about anyone else's kid's penis. Does this make me a supporter of RIC, in your eyes it does probably because I'm not going to kick down the door with a doctor and a scalpel in hand. I really just dont have that time. You see it took me almost a week to even reply to this thread.

Say what you will, whether you find me dangerous, wrong, what have you changes nothing. . We'll be right back here a couple weeks from now and you'll be asking me about cost/analysis on something I find no one in the world can give an accurate account on.

My biggest problem is the misleading tactics that are used in both sides: ie Circumcision can prevent AIDS OR Being uncut gives you unparalleled sexual pleasure. I would walk up to any cut man and dare them to stick their penis in a woman that has AIDS just as I would walk up to an uncut man and dare them to say they get more pleasure from sex than every cut man. I think our anatomy is WAY more complex than that.

What youre trying to do is box in my argument and I dont want it boxed. I want to be able to argue for both. Heck in a PM exchange I had I actually recommended a device to a guy for his father so that he could stretch his foreskin instead of getting circumcised. I gave him all the information I could, he asked my advice on things to stretch and I gave it to him. He thanked me for just flat out being honest.

Eh, what? Do you mean hyperopic not myopic, since you're complaining that I'm unwilling to look at individual choices as distinct from my larger ethical beliefs? I also don't understand why that would lead me to oppose harmless religion. I don't think you're overanalyzing so much as misanalyzing.

Yes I think your myopic (ie not seeing the whole picture; only seeing your own) because you believe everyone should think about the world like you do. It doesnt work that way.

Harmless religion is an oxymoron. I don't believe in any way shape or form it to be harmless but its as I suspected. I wonder if you also do a cost-analysis on that for everyone. But then again you think it is harmless.

 

[Hoss]

Did anyone actually sit down and speak to you about a foreskin. See, what you guys want to break is the cut versus uncut debate. What I want to break is the whole, I grow up with this thing and have no idea about it whatsoever.

When a child is young you teach that it has ten fingers and ten toes right? You play the very innocent game so that it knows what it comprises of. You use proper terminology and by the time the kid is probably 3 they know just about everything about their body. But when it comes to the penis you shy away from it. Women dont know anything about it so they refrain from speaking to their sons about it. Men are either ashamed or too dumb to speak about it so they never talk to their sons. When you have the birds and bees talk you only talk about sex, you dont even talk about what the boy has or doesnt have.

Ultimately this is where I felt my situation could have helped. My birds and the bees talk came from my mother, she basically told me to use a condom and I should wait until marriage. My dad didnt say jack shit. I was uncut at the time and he was cut and he never explained to me anything. The mold I want to break is this.

So whether my son is 2, 4, 6, 8 or 10 he will know more about his penis than the average kid.

Yes, the penis and foreskin were discussed as was the basics about sex. This isn't about that. This is where you are believing that a 2 year old can really understand this subject. Go ahead and have the talks, but why are you then pushing them to decide by the age of 10? s there a cultral/reliigious thing here with a timetable? If the skin has been left on at birth and there haven't been any health concerns then why can't they wait until they're an adult? What's the rush?

 

[darkbond007]

Yes, the penis and foreskin were discussed as was the basics about sex. This isn't about that. This is where you are believing that a 2 year old can really understand this subject. Go ahead and have the talks, but why are you then pushing them to decide by the age of 10? s there a cultral/reliigious thing here with a timetable? If the skin has been left on at birth and there haven't been any health concerns then why can't they wait until they're an adult? What's the rush?

Because I know some 10 year olds who are smarter than some adults. You guys don't give kids half the credit they deserve. Did I say I was pushing the decision to decide by the age of 10? I said that I would venture to this decision with my son between ages 2-10.

 

[Hoss]

Because I know some 10 year olds who are smarter than some adults. You guys don't give kids half the credit they deserve. Did I say I was pushing the decision to decide by the age of 10? I said that I would venture to this decision with my son between ages 2-10.

I never said a child didn't have intelligence. This isn't about intelligence! There are very bright boys and girls that know what sex is and know about pregnancy and still the girl ends up pregnant, even smart girls that are at the top of their class.

As I said, if there wasn't a circumcision done when they were born and if there's no medical need then they can wait. Discuss until you're blue in the face, but at that age 2-10 they aren't usually sexually active and therefore can't say if they'd be having or not having a level of pleasure from the skin and its glide.

a 2-10 yr. old is stiill emotionally a child and reacts accordingly even the exceedingly smart child may be trying to make daddy happy or may want to piss him off.


Discuss, talk about sex and the purpose that a foreskin has and that sex can still be exquisite even if the foreskin is removed, then let them know that at as an adult they can decide

When my daughter was and younger she wanted a nose piercing and several ear piercings, she was denied. She begged& pestered for several yrs. A few yrs. ago she expressed her thanks that her mom and me told her she'd have to wait, she has just 1 pierce in each ear which was when she was 19 and made the choice as a legal adult. A piercing at least can heal over, a foreskin is forever even a restoration can't brng it all back. Let the children wait.

 

[D_Miranda_Wrights]

The cut vs uncut argument is barely about sex for me. If that is the basis of your only argument against circumcision then we may have a larger argument here.

What? We have been debating for how long now? You know that isn't my only basis, and the portion you quoted had me saying so explicitly. Beyond that, I'm with Hoss. This 2-to-10-year-old thing is just inexplicable to me. I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish with it.

You misunderstood me. The act of beating comes from anger. That is why I would never beat my kids. I would not intervene on another person's until it gets to that "abuse" stage. Saying you believe its right is not enough for me. Additionally I believe you are grasping at straws here trying to convince me that a child is beatin to a bloody pulp and the parent thinks they did the right thing.

...

Did I say that? Why do you take what I say out of context and generalize it to everything?

Clearly you are looking for one underlying theme to my actions but there really isnt one. I am not wired like you.

...

I'm really not that interested in you providing my argument for me. I've stated before, just say what you want to say so we can all move on with our lives.

Ergh, man. Read back to the start of this chain. This was originally about when it is proper to limit parental license. I understand that there are situational variables that might make it OK in one situation, but not another. I am not trying to get you to generalize one universal answer to "is it OK?". I am trying to clarify what makes limitation of parental license wrong and what conditions (i.e., variables) make it acceptable in one situation but not another.

Holding that x is y in one situation, but is not y in another, is only logically possible if there is some variable that explains the difference. If the situations are not distinct (i.e., lack a meaningful variation), such a construct is logically fallacious because it posits that two contradicting realities exist simultaneously.

I am trying to prove that your argument doesn't make sense. That involves nailing down what your formal argument is. Otherwise it is a battle not rhetoric not logic. So far you are avoiding formalizing your argument by pointing out that variables exist. Unless you have a disagreement over my explanation of logical discourse above, maybe you could finally answer what's a completely reasonable request that happens in essentially every formal logical debate ever.

(I'm low on sleep, that's not intended to sound as pissy as it does. I'm not irritated, but I do want to progress.)

So now you went from wrong to dangerous? I'm willing to hear you out but the underlying argument here is that I believe in circumcision. There is little to nothing you can do or say that would change this. I have spoken with nearly 2 dozen men on this first hand and 3 of them were cut when they could actually remember

My argument is utilitarian. "Wrong" and "dangerous" are the same thing: Something is wrong if it causes the unnecessary potential for harm, which is what "dangerous" is.

I don't think I need to point out how ridiculous it is that you're touting a non-random sample of 3 dudes in the same breath that you're claiming nothing could change your mind ever.

Yes I think your myopic (ie not seeing the whole picture; only seeing your own) because you believe ev

...

In the end it goes right back to what I believe. I really dont care about anyone else's kid's penis. Does this make me a supporter of RIC, in your eyes it does probably because I'm not going to kick down the door with a doctor and a scalpel in hand. I really just dont have that time. You see it took me almost a week to even reply to this thread.

Say what you will, whether you find me dangerous, wrong, what have you changes nothing. . We'll be right back here a couple weeks from now and you'll be asking me about cost/analysis on something I find no one in the world can give an accurate account on.

What youre trying to do is box in my argument and I dont want it boxed. I want to be able to argue for both. Heck in a PM exchange I had I actually recommended a device to a guy for his father so that he could stretch his foreskin instead of getting circumcised. I gave him all the information I could, he asked my advice on things to stretch and I gave it to him. He thanked me for just flat out being honest.

Right. You care, but not too much!; RIC* isn't important to you, but you just really wanna make the choice for your son when he's between 2 and 10 for some reason; you hate that I'm inflicting my preferences on you by debating you, but it's totally responsible for you to inflict your own on your son as long as you aren't angry at him. All of this (and the inverses I could be throwing back) at you are rhetoric and not logic, and isn't that the pitfall we both want to avoid?

Look, let's resolve this: I don't think you're a circumcision zealot, and if you think I'm an anti-circumcision zealot, that's ridiculous. I'm a college student on winter break whose girlfriend is in Europe. I have free time, I feel strongly and think I can change minds, so I'm debating. I have a strong ethical opinion, but I'm no more going to grab a scalpel away from some dude than I'm going to take over City Hall because I have a strong political opinion. Beyond that, it really shouldn't matter a damn who I am, because my argument is sovereign of that. Just rest assured I'm not kicking down any doors or whatever, and let's get back to the substance.

* - Using RIC here to mean ritual childhood circumcision in general (not just infant), just for sentence flow.

Harmless religion is an oxymoron. I don't believe in any way shape or form it to be harmless but its as I suspected. I wonder if you also do a cost-analysis on that for everyone. But then again you think it is harmless.

This is a bizarre segue, but I disagree that harmless religion is oxymoronic. What harm are liberal deists inflicting upon the world? I don't think all religion is harmless, and certainly religiously-motivated actions and polices should be subject to the same scrutiny that anything else is.

"But then again," I think what is harmless? Let me rehash this chain of discussion for you. First, you said "I am sure you have a problem with people who are not Atheist." I said no, not really, I'm OK with harmless religious belief. Now, you shoot back that all religion is harmful (but apparently you have no problem with harmful religion per se.) Now, you're saying "I could do a cost-analysis on that [religion's harm] for everyone...but then again you think it is harmless." Eh? Unless you're claiming that I said all religion is harmless, this statement doesn't make much sense to me, and if you are claiming I said that, it's patently untrue. Either way this paragraph bewilders me.

I also have no idea what it is "you suspected," unless that was some kind of internal monologue going on we're not meant to be privy to. Sometimes it's like you're replying message-by-message without even trying to remember what's being discussed or logically connected.

 

[darkbond007]

This is why I didn't want to get into a RIC argument. Let's state a fact:
My opinion and experience differs from one of an anticirc person.

I could very well just go along and have my child cut soon after the birth however
I would like to involve them and their thoughts. Additionally based on
What I know about the the type of circumcision that I got it is generally recommended
Once the child is two or older.

I don't expect you guys to understand because truthfully you only see
This through one lense. I'm responding on my mobile so I won't make this long winded

This entire argument spawned from me simply not caring that parents would or would not
Circumcise their kids. It went from that to what I would do where there is
A difference. Its been brewing for weeks and no side has budged. I have had a great
Experience with being circumcised, so has everyone I have in my personal life.
My life experience has changed my opinion on this matter and my knowledge of
What a good circumcision is backs that. If you have an uncut penis or a bad experience
I'm sure your intentions are good but honestly I don't even believe its something
I need to discuss with anyone but my childs mother whenever or if ever he is born.

In fact I think I may have just been convinced to go ahead with a typical RIC

 

[D_Miranda_Wrights]

darkbond,

That didn't respond to any of my points, any of Hoss's points, any of anyone's points. All you did was reassert that you're the decision-maker, and that it doesn't matter what we argue, because we can never understand what your experience (and presumably the three guys you know) apparently says conclusively, regardless of any evidence we could ever present you.

Why are you doing this instead of engaging our points? You want us to avoid wasting our time? Then answer our questions instead of evading. If you're so certain, if you're so sure your philosophy and empiricism are sound, there's no reason to keep reiterating that they are. You can prove it by engaging in logical debate. At this point, you've been stalling on formalizing your argument for so long I'm beginning to think you're bluffing. Can you please answer, instead of just re-iterating your certainty, so we can stop "brewing" and address substance?

P.S. Your newfound support of RIC is totally confusing. You say you "want to involve" your kid and his thoughts. Hoss points out there's no reason not to wait for truly informed consent if you're willing to wait until 10 to involve him. Your response to Hoss's post (and mine) is apparently "screw including his opinion at all then, you've convinced me to support RIC." Unless I'm missing something, that's either completely nonsensical or completely passive-aggressive.

 

[maxcok]

I don't expect you guys to understand because truthfully you only see
This through one lense.

You should look in a mirror. Take your lens out of the way first.

I'm sure your intentions are good but honestly I don't even believe its something
I need to discuss with anyone but my childs mother whenever or if ever he is born.

Which begs the question, why do you have literally hundreds of posts on the subject
from the very beginning of your arrival here?

Who exactly are you trying to convince of the wonders of circumcision?

darkbond,

That didn't respond to any of my points, any of Hoss's points, any of anyone's points. All you did was reassert that you're the decision-maker, and that it doesn't matter what we argue, because we can never understand what your experience (and presumably the three guys you know) apparently says conclusively, regardless of any evidence we could ever present you.

Why are you doing this instead of engaging our points? You want us to avoid wasting our time? Then answer our questions instead of evading. If you're so certain, if you're so sure your philosophy and empiricism are sound, there's no reason to keep reiterating that they are. You can prove it by engaging in logical debate.

That presumes he's capable and willing to approach the subject logically, objectively and honestly.

 

[mandoman]

It's not three people Darkbond007 has stumped with his "offer my son circumcision at age 2 to 10" feelings. I questioned it a long time ago, in another thread, and got the same lack of response. Should a 2 year old or a 10 year old be considered mature enough to make an irreversible decision, no matter what it is?

 

[Snozzle]

In fact I think I may have just been convinced to go ahead with a typical RIC

What, to spite us - "Nyah, nyah, nyah :nana: !"? Poor kid (not just for that, but everything else, if that's how you operate).

 

[darkbond007]

darkbond,

That didn't respond to any of my points, any of Hoss's points, any of anyone's points. All you did was reassert that you're the decision-maker, and that it doesn't matter what we argue, because we can never understand what your experience (and presumably the three guys you know) apparently says conclusively, regardless of any evidence we could ever present you.

Why are you doing this instead of engaging our points? You want us to avoid wasting our time? Then answer our questions instead of evading. If you're so certain, if you're so sure your philosophy and empiricism are sound, there's no reason to keep reiterating that they are. You can prove it by engaging in logical debate. At this point, you've been stalling on formalizing your argument for so long I'm beginning to think you're bluffing. Can you please answer, instead of just re-iterating your certainty, so we can stop "brewing" and address substance?

I was on my mobile. I did not mean to respond to your points. I have not stalled on anything. I am not going to allow you to box in my argument on this.

P.S. Your newfound support of RIC is totally confusing. You say you "want to involve" your kid and his thoughts. Hoss points out there's no reason not to wait for truly informed consent if you're willing to wait until 10 to involve him. Your response to Hoss's post (and mine) is apparently "screw including his opinion at all then, you've convinced me to support RIC." Unless I'm missing something, that's either completely nonsensical or completely passive-aggressive.

Look. From the VERY inception of this argument the first thing I said is that I didnt want to discuss this because You guys would then question the age of when a kid can be informed. I give a range because I think somewhere in that range my kid would be intelligent enough to give consent.

--------

This will be my very last response to this thread. This was a thread that was to bring circumcised men together to feel good about their circumcision. This is what you guys ALWAYS do. ALWAYS. You turn these threads into ANTI-CIRC BS and you focus on RIC or restorers or every negative BS about circumcision instead of the good. If you get what you need then so be it. If not TOUGH...

---------

@Hoss

As I said, if there wasn't a circumcision done when they were born and if there's no medical need then they can wait. Discuss until you're blue in the face, but at that age 2-10 they aren't usually sexually active and therefore can't say if they'd be having or not having a level of pleasure from the skin and its glide.

Circumcision and the decision therein of is not just a sexual decision. My son if I ever have one will NATURALLY question why his penis may look different than mine. I did it with my dad. My dad never told me anything of the sort. He treated me like a kid and brushed my question away with a, "Yours will look like this when you are older". That did not answer the question. I intend to answer it for my son. I will inform him of the glide, which is a feature but don't make it seem like sex is better with that. I do not and never will hold an uncircumcised penis as superior to a cut penis.

a 2-10 yr. old is stiill emotionally a child and reacts accordingly even the exceedingly smart child may be trying to make daddy happy or may want to piss him off.

And an exceedingly smart parent will recognize and understand this and will not placate the issue. Again I said BEFORE that if my son does not want it I will not force it on him. Again I dont have a son and I'm not planning for one right now. Heck I may have all daughters for all I know. If and when I do have a son and when he is born with 10 fingers and 10 toes I will make the decision that I feel is best for my child. If that means having a RIC, then so be it. If that means me bringing it up when he is more mature because I feel a better time to have a circumcision is later in life, then so be it.

There is no written rule anywhere that says that a child can not make rational decisions along with their parents at ANY age.

Discuss, talk about sex and the purpose that a foreskin has and that sex can still be exquisite even if the foreskin is removed, then let them know that at as an adult they can decide

That's what you would do with your child. More power to you. I and my child are doing absolutely nothing wrong by him having a circumcision at a young age. You know EVERY family member and friend who knows about my circumcision and was circumcise every last single one of them had the same comment: I am glad mine was done as a baby.

When my daughter was and younger she wanted a nose piercing and several ear piercings, she was denied. She begged& pestered for several yrs. A few yrs. ago she expressed her thanks that her mom and me told her she'd have to wait, she has just 1 pierce in each ear which was when she was 19 and made the choice as a legal adult. A piercing at least can heal over, a foreskin is forever even a restoration can't brng it all back. Let the children wait.

Your one example is not representative of every situation. I could easily say that I asked to be circumcised (I didnt even know the word back then) when I was young and my mom said no and yet later I still got circumcised. But you know what I told my mom: You should have done it when I was younger. Each situation has to be taken in the context of when it occurs. You made a decision with your daughter and I will make with my children.
--------

@Young Native

What? We have been debating for how long now? You know that isn't my only basis, and the portion you quoted had me saying so explicitly. Beyond that, I'm with Hoss. This 2-to-10-year-old thing is just inexplicable to me. I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish with it.

Fact one. Your argument is based off the notion that the child has no idea how sex feels with a cut or uncut penis ergo they have do not have enough information to make an informed decision. Your entire argument hinges on the sexual nature. You can go back and forth over human rights and ethics but the opinions therein of are mutually exclusive to each individual with respect to circumcision because as of this moment circumcision is a freely practiced operation where parents have the right to exercise. You may see it as an ethics issue but you simply cannot will that argument on everyone.

Ergh, man. Read back to the start of this chain. This was originally about when it is proper to limit parental license. I understand that there are situational variables that might make it OK in one situation, but not another. I am not trying to get you to generalize one universal answer to "is it OK?". I am trying to clarify what makes limitation of parental license wrong and what conditions (i.e., variables) make it acceptable in one situation but not another.

I will only respond with respect to circumcision seeing as that is what this argument is about. I'm tired of beating around the bush with you. Whether you believe the parental license of the current stipulations around circumcision is right or wrong is certainly your opinion. As of right now it is legal and there is not a single parent in the WORLD who does not think they are making the right decision for their child.

The ONLY thing I would change is that the medical community do their VERY best to completely inform the parent of what they are choosing to do. This is what I intend to do. I want to list the pros and cons. I would like for their to be an abundance of research where I can holistically outline the differences. Not just some pet shop research that is agenda driven. I'm talking true science. True studies of the male genitalia. We currently do not have that right now. There is not a single study out there that someone can point to and say this IS definitively and unequivocally THE PENIS. We have anecdotes and theories on both sides.

I want the level of honesty where every person who has an adult circumcision has one like mine. Where you get to chose and outline based on the foreskin anatomy so that you do not lose any sensation. Yes it is possible. Sure you will pay more. Sure it may be a little embarrassing but in the end you will be happier with your choice.

Holding that x is y in one situation, but is not y in another, is only logically possible if there is some variable that explains the difference. If the situations are not distinct (i.e., lack a meaningful variation), such a construct is logically fallacious because it posits that two contradicting realities exist simultaneously.

Not every situation is the same. We have been through this. I have used the example of the range between slapping a child and killing a child versus circumcision. I have shown you the differences between the two of us and it comes down to ethical tolerance. YOU ethically could not standby and see a parent hit a child. I can. Neither of us would standby and watch a parent punch a child in the face. For me I see that as abuse. I do not see circumcision as abuse.

I have explained to you why...if a parent punches a child that action comes from malicious anger and that action could escalate into something worse. The choice a parent does to have their child circumcised is far less egregious when you it is a fact that no parent is maliciously attacking their child with the circumcision.

I am trying to prove that your argument doesn't make sense. That involves nailing down what your formal argument is. Otherwise it is a battle not rhetoric not logic. So far you are avoiding formalizing your argument by pointing out that variables exist. Unless you have a disagreement over my explanation of logical discourse above, maybe you could finally answer what's a completely reasonable request that happens in essentially every formal logical debate ever.

If I havent answered you by now (especially in this post) then I have no idea what you want. And you basically want me to say something that you already feel I should be saying. So why dont you say it and allow me to correct you if it is wrong. In any logical debate that would be the best discourse at this point.

Right. You care, but not too much!; RIC* isn't important to you, but you just really wanna make the choice for your son when he's between 2 and 10 for some reason; you hate that I'm inflicting my preferences on you by debating you, but it's totally responsible for you to inflict your own on your son as long as you aren't angry at him. All of this (and the inverses I could be throwing back) at you are rhetoric and not logic, and isn't that the pitfall we both want to avoid?

I've said it quite a number of times. If I go through everything and my son says he does not want to be circumcised. I will not have him circumcised. I will naturally inflict my preferences on my child because he/she is my child. If I have a boy, I like watching football. I will expose him to watching football. If he doesnt like watching football then he's missing out.

Lets address the 2-10 statement. When I was circumcised I had mine done via sleeve resection. It offers the advantages of retaining the inner foreskin so that sexual pleasure changes are zero from a nervous system perspective. The only problem is due to me having to use sutures my scar was thicker than that of someone who is RIC. Therefore you can easily tell that I was cut as an adult. It's not a big issue but if knowing what I know I would have preferred what my research points me to with respect to retaining this advantage as well as resolving what I felt could be resolved. With respect to circumcision the age when a kid can actually undergo sleeve resection is right before puberty. I started puberty at 11 and seeing as these things are genetic I am making the assumption that my son will start around the same time. As a hypothetical, if my son decides he wants to be circumcised then the surgery itself would be right before puberty. This allows for two things: 1) Sleeve resection 2) Going through puberty will actually smooth out his scar. Therefore, this would handle the functional side as well as the aesthetic side.

This is a bizarre segue, but I disagree that harmless religion is oxymoronic. What harm are liberal deists inflicting upon the world? I don't think all religion is harmless, and certainly religiously-motivated actions and polices should be subject to the same scrutiny that anything else is.

I present you: YouTube - Jacobs: Birds Dying Because of DADT Repeal

You may find this harmless or not. Some people do. Actually many people do. Actually the millions of people that watched this same exact show actually support it and believe it. Religion is not harmless in any way shape or form to me. However it is a harmful element of life that I know has the capacity for good and actually helps individuals to be good people. But by no means do I see it as harmless.
--------

 

[darkbond007]

@Maxcok

Which begs the question, why do you have literally hundreds of posts on the subject
from the very beginning of your arrival here?

Who exactly are you trying to convince of the wonders of circumcision?

You know I'm not trying to convince anyone of the wonders of circumcision. Since I got here I have held to one ideal and it carries through all of my posts. This is actually the very first time I have actively discussed RIC with anyone on these boards. I normally steer the conversation to adult circumcision.

I happen to have had a good experience with my adult circumcision and I know what it is like to have problems with your penis when you are uncut. My posts have always been supportive and truthful to the men who are either circumcised as adult, want to be circumcised as adults or are happy as circumcised adults even if they are RIC.

I have a fundamental problem with anyone trying to take that away from me, them, us...

If you look at every thread I have posted in regarding circumcision it had to do with the adult depiction/variation. "Am I the only the only one who likes being circumcised" What does that thread say to you? To me it says men who like being circumcised come in here.

I have never ventured into the San Francisco Ballot thread or the "I am circumcising my baby thread" or the number of threads that do not interest or involve my sentiments. There is a hypocritical theme that goes on here where a guy will post saying he thinks he needs to have a circumcision...go look at my post and tell me what you see. I always mention circumcision as a last resort. I always offer alternatives. Sites where they can get things to stretch and steroid creams (in PMs for the most part). I give them all the facts and the fact that I hold true is that circumcision while a last resort should be thought of as something when all else fails they can give a try.

I only want people to tell the truth around circumcision.

That presumes he's capable and willing to approach the subject logically, objectively and honestly.

If I have not by now then I never will.
--------

@mandoman

t's not three people Darkbond007 has stumped with his "offer my son circumcision at age 2 to 10" feelings. I questioned it a long time ago, in another thread, and got the same lack of response. Should a 2 year old or a 10 year old be considered mature enough to make an irreversible decision, no matter what it is?

If explained logically and properly and the parent feels that their child is aware of the situation why not? Why would I automatically assume that my child will not know what they are doing?

Despite that I have stipulated why this is my course of action earlier in this post. It is the medically proven best form of a circumcision.

With regards to my saying that I have been convinced to do a normal RIC: Honestly, at this point it feels like it is easier to defend cutting my child at birth than it is to defend involving them in the choice.

 

[darkbond007]

What, to spite us - "Nyah, nyah, nyah :nana: !"? Poor kid (not just for that, but everything else, if that's how you operate).

Yes I am sure this is how you feel about every circumcised man/boy.

 

[darkbond007]

Additionally,

If you would like to continue this debate...Feel free to send me PMs. Despite what many may think I actually involve myself in other threads on this board and I actually like the other aspects of LPSG outside of the continuous circumcision debate. I have no problems talking it through but I would prefer it being discussed individually. I am sure I will have 8 different people breaking down my post however I dont feel the need to continually ruin a perfectly good thread and the mindset of this board with our own internal ranting.

I am sure you all will agree with me.