[wat0n]

What's more logic? That some people are assholes or that the nerves are not as sensitive as you allege? Furthermore, why would some people report that they have an increased sensibility instead of saying that there's no difference if they wanted to lie?

Your hypothesis is not exactly testable, and thus is essentially especulative.

[W01f]

or that the nerves are not as sensitive as you allege?

I don't allege anything. It's science.

Furthermore, why would some people report that they have an increased sensibility instead of saying that there's no difference if they wanted to lie?

Why do some people claim they speak directly to God instead of just saying they feel his presence?

I didn't say they're lying. I implied that they're delusional, which comes with the territory of denial.

Your hypothesis is not exactly testable, and thus is essentially especulative.

You don't believe science and you argue simple logic and common sense. Just like every other person I've ever talked to who was pro-circumcision. Hey, you know who else is like that? Religious zealots.

[CounterChaos]

The foreskin actually is a complex organ, an integral part of the penis, with many important functions.

The foreskin protects the glans and the urinary meatus (opening) and performs many other integrated functions.

http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/ ... -functions

Good site.

I can tell you from over 40 years of having sex that there "is" a loss of sensation due to the exposure of the penis head.

[wat0n]

I don't allege anything. It's science.

Scientific hypotheses are supposed to be tested empirically, something that is useless if you have a foregone conclusion and reject evidence that contradicts your hypotheses.

Your argument might be true or it might not, but please don't argue that it is scientific. It definitely is not.

[W01f]

Nice straw man.

I never claimed that my argument was scientific, or anything more than my own personal theory. What I called scientific was the fact that the foreskin has tens of thousands of sensitive nerve endings - I even provided a source (and there are studies on this if you care to look). That is the first part of the equation. The second part is my own very simple logic/common sense: If you remove tens of thousands of nerve endings from a small area of the body, there will be a loss of sensation.

Do you honestly disagree with any of that? Also, you still haven't answered my question about which group of men you believe.

[franfran]

#1. It helps prevent HIV/AIDS

Stallings et al. reported that, in Tanzanian women, the risk of HIV among women who had undergone Female Circumcision was half that of women who had not. The association remained significant after adjusting for region, household, wealth, age, lifetime partners, and sexuality.

How many other authorities agree? Here's quote from the African Journal of Reproductive Health, Vol. 11, No. 1, April, 2007:

HIV transmission from this FGM practice is enhanced through shared instruments and blood products during the practice of genital cutting as well as damage to the vaginal epithelium associated with the trauma, inflammation and complications. Other modes of HIV transmission, as well as other HIV risk factors may occur in association with this practice, making it difficult to ascertain whether FGM is the sole predisposing risk factor, as well as a contributing variable to the cumulative incidence of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa. Similarly, if approximately 6000 young girls undergo FGM daily and about 2 million young girls are at risk of being genitally mutilated in a year, the odds of FGM as a risk factor to HIV transmission remains to be assessed. A recent article revealed the transmission of HIV to girls who have non-perforated hymen (virgins) and that 97% of the time, the same instrument could be used on 15-20 girls. This data suggest the possibility of FGM procedure as a risk variable in HIV transmission. Female Genital Mutilation may predispose women to HIV in many other ways. For example, the increased need for blood transfusions due to hemorrhage either when the procedure is performed, at childbirth, or a result of vaginal tearing during defibulation and intercourse. These tears would tend to make the squamous vaginal epithelium similar in permeability to the columnar mucosa of the rectum, thus facilitating the possibility of HIV transmission. In addition, many women with type III (pharaonic) mutilation experience dyspareunia, as well as repeated tissue damage and bleeding. Difficult and painful vaginal intercourse in some of these women eventually lead to anal intercourse with heterosexual partners, further increasing the HIV risk in these women. Thus, it is plausible that HIV transmission may be enhanced by the widespread practice of FGM.

#2. It improves hygiene

After a female is circumcized, there are less places to hold moisture, less places for bacteria to cultivate, and less surfaces for STDs to be transmitted. There is less surface to wash, making it easier to maintain hygiene and saving time doing so.

#3. It improves smell, by reducing bacteria levels

By removing the clitoral hood and clitoris, along with the labia, vaginal bacterial levels decrease. Urinal tract infections and yeast infection levels lower significantly, or become almost non-existent, as there is less space for bacteria to culture. Men appreciate women who go through the effort to remove the smell from their crotch. Your daughter will thank you!

Do you have any evidence to support this?

#4. It looks better, by removing unsightly flaps of skin

As porn stars can attest too, men prefer the look of smooth vagina, without unsightly flaps of skin.

A small number of women might have enlarged or misshapen labia, but labioplasty is not the same thing as genital mutilation. And are you saying that we should modify our genitals so that men can like the look of them? I think you've been watching too much porn.

#5. To allow male circumcision, but not female circumcision is sexist.

Why should only boys be allowed to enjoy the many benefits circumcision offers both sexes?

Do we really need to circumcise males anyway? Doesn't it all just come down to personal cleanliness?

If you still think it's a good idea, watch some of these videos: http://wn.com/female_circumcision

[Fasces]

For example, the increased need for blood transfusions due to hemorrhage either when the procedure is performed, at childbirth, or a result of vaginal tearing during defibulation and intercourse. These tears would tend to make the squamous vaginal epithelium similar in permeability to the columnar mucosa of the rectum, thus facilitating the possibility of HIV transmission. In addition, many women with type III (pharaonic) mutilation experience dyspareunia, as well as repeated tissue damage and bleeding. Difficult and painful vaginal intercourse in some of these women eventually lead to anal intercourse with heterosexual partners, further increasing the HIV risk in these women. Thus, it is plausible that HIV transmission may be enhanced by the widespread practice of FGM.

With the exception of anal sex, these traits are all indicative of a poor health system. There is no risk in Western hospitals of HIV infection through transfusion, and the professionalism of our health services will mean that repeated tissue damage or scarring will be a negligible occurrence. The part of anal sex is only a supposition, and is not backed up by evidence.

Do you have any evidence to support this?

It is self-evident. Yeast infections are commonly rooted in the folds of the vaginal skin, because these form natural valleys where bacteria may accumulate. Removing those folds will make hygiene easier for women, and improve cleanliness, resulting in fewer yeast infections.

A small number of women might have enlarged or misshapen labia, but labioplasty is not the same thing as genital mutilation. And are you saying that we should modify our genitals so that men can like the look of them? I think you've been watching too much porn.

The simple fact is that most men prefer an idealized version of the labia, and that female genital circumcision provides that look to women. Why would you deliberately make your daughter unattractive?

Do we really need to circumcise males anyway? Doesn't it all just come down to personal cleanliness?

No. We don't. These are arguments used in favor of male circumcision, one of which you just cited - improved cleanliness. It as absurd when you apply it to the male organ as when I applied it to the female one.

[wat0n]

I never claimed that my argument was scientific, or anything more than my own personal theory. What I called scientific was the fact that the foreskin has tens of thousands of sensitive nerve endings - I even provided a source (and there are studies on this if you care to look). That is the first part of the equation. The second part is my own very simple logic/common sense: If you remove thousands of nerve endings from a small area of the body, there will be a loss of sensation.

Do you honestly disagree with any of that? Also, you still haven't answered my question about which group of men you believe.

And I have argued that reported sensitivity among men who can actually compare sex in both situations would suggest that this isn't the case.

Some links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_eff ... _sensation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_eff ... h_findings

As for who do I believe, I see no evidence for distrusting any of them.

[Fasces]

And again, opinion polls shouldn't have a bearing on medical facts.

Your links only confirm that objective studies indicate that circumcised men are less sensitive. They can withstand more pressure applied to the glans, and have fewer nerve receptors. Men who get circumcised likely get used to the sexual experience and then report that they feel no change in sensitivity because of a hindsight bias. The empirical results suggest this bias exists.

[wat0n]

And again, opinion polls shouldn't have a bearing on medical facts.

They should when you want to interpret these facts, especially when talking about whether the removal of skin is mutilation.

Your links only confirm that objective studies indicate that circumcised men are less sensitive. They can withstand more pressure applied to the glans, and have fewer nerve receptors.

In which way do any of these things can be used to argue that the penis is "impaired"?

Men who get circumcised likely get used to the sexual experience and then report that they feel no change in sensitivity because of a hindsight bias. The empirical results suggest this bias exists.

Which would further reinforce that circumcision can't be labeled as mutilation - they don't really seem to think they are worse off - if there is indeed hindsight bias.

[Fasces]

They should when you want to interpret these facts, especially when talking about whether the removal of skin is mutilation.

You seem to think the definition of mutilation varies on the basis of whether or not you want it. It doesn't. Please check a dictionary. Please check psychological journals for the term 'self-mutilation', a term that under your definition would be oxymoron.

In which way do any of these things can be used to argue that the penis is "impaired"?

They have lost sensitivity. This is no different from claims against female genital mutilation citing the loss of female sensitivity. Both sexes can still achieve orgasm and have normal sex lives after circumcision.

Which would further reinforce that circumcision can't be labeled as mutilation - they don't really seem to think they are worse off - if there is indeed hindsight bias.

Many women like being circumcised. Clearly it isn't mutilation.

[W01f]

Which would further reinforce that circumcision can't be labeled as mutilation - they don't really seem to think they are worse off - if there is indeed hindsight bias.

Seriously? Do you have no understanding of the word at all?

I once met a girl who was born with no arms and used her feet like hands. She didn't think she was worse off either. She said she couldn't imagine what it would be like to have arms and that she didn't feel disabled. Had her arms been cut off at birth, according to you this wouldn't be mutilation.

[wat0n]

You seem to think the definition of mutilation varies on the basis of whether or not you want it. It doesn't. Please check a dictionary. Please check psychological journals for the term 'self-mutilation', a term that under your definition would be oxymoron.

I never said that this was dependent on whether it is voluntary or not.

They have lost sensitivity. This is no different from claims against female genital mutilation citing the loss of female sensitivity. Both sexes can still achieve orgasm and have normal sex lives after circumcision.

Yet this loss of sensitivity allows them to avoid pain, seems like a gain to me. Furthermore there seems to be no difference in overall reported satisfaction - they don't seem to consider they were mutilated.

Many women like being circumcised. Clearly it isn't mutilation.

Many? How many? Do they represent a majority?

Seriously? Do you have no understanding of the word at all?

I once met a girl who was born with no arms and used her feet like hands. She didn't think she was worse off either. She said she couldn't imagine what it would be like to have arms and that she doesn't feel disabled.

Since I'm pointing to studies who report how men who can actually compare, your argument does not apply.

[Fasces]

Yet this loss of sensitivity allows them to avoid pain, seems like a gain to me. Furthermore there seems to be no difference in overall reported satisfaction - they don't seem to consider they were mutilated.

And the mutilation of female genitals is hygienic and allows them to avoid HIV - certainly beneficial. Most women, in the areas where this is popular, who are circumcised, do not consider themselves mutilated, and have positive views on the practice. How else would the practice continue to propagate, in excess of 90% in some regions? If women did not like it, they would not subject their daughters to it. The vast majority of female circumcisions are performed by women.

Since I'm pointing to studies who report how men who can actually compare, your argument does not apply.

They can't actually compare because they can't switch back and forth between each one at will. They are comparing to a subjective memory. If they can not conceive of having lost sensitivity, they will report that they have not, regardless if they have, however subtly.

[wat0n]

And the mutilation of female genitals is hygienic and allows them to avoid HIV - certainly beneficial.

That's not how it's done on reality (it is not done under "proper" conditions), however, and even you admitted so.

Most women, in the areas where this is popular, who are circumcised, do not consider themselves mutilated, and have positive views on the practice. How else would the practice continue to propagate, in excess of 90% in some regions? If women did not like it, they would not subject their daughters to it. The vast majority of female circumcisions are performed by women.

...Which is pretty interesting in fact and would seem to be in direct contradiction with those who claim it to be mutilation. However, the fact that it is not done in hygienic conditions and seems to have a significant net cost - while male circumcision seems to have no net benefit/cost or that these are small - gives them a good foundation to claim that it is.

They can't actually compare because they can't switch back and forth between each one at will. They are comparing to a subjective memory. If they can not conceive of having lost sensitivity, they will report that they have not, regardless if they have, however subtly.

If the loss is subtle then it can't be described as "crippling". Following your logic a person who losses an arm can't tell if he's worse off because he can't put it back and remove it again at will.

[Fasces]

That's not how it's done on reality (it is not done under "proper" conditions), however, and even you admitted so.

The lack of health care services in Africa, and the associated complications, should not serve as a barrier to the benefits female circumcision can offer to Western countries, where these complications won't be a problem. This is not an argument against its legalization.

...Which is pretty interesting in fact and would seem to be in direct contradiction with those who claim it to be mutilation. However, the fact that it is not done in hygienic conditions and seems to have a significant net cost - while male circumcision seems to have no net benefit/cost or that these are small - gives them a good foundation to claim that it is.

Again, your definition of mutilation is wholly separate from fact. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not people like it. Highlighing the bold, again, this is only true in Africa. I am arguing for legalizing it in the West, where proper health facilities make this less of an issue. Your logic is like using maternal mortality rates in Africa as European numbers.

If the loss is subtle then it can't be described as "crippling".

Neither can female genital mutilation.

[wat0n]

The lack of health care services in Africa, and the associated complications, should not serve as a barrier to the benefits female circumcision can offer to Western countries, where these complications won't be a problem. This is not an argument against its legalization.

Again, your definition of mutilation is wholly separate from fact. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not people like it. Highlighing the bold, again, this is only true in Africa. I am arguing for legalizing it in the West, where proper health facilities make this less of an issue. Your logic is like using maternal mortality rates in Africa as European numbers.

Neither can female genital mutilation.

No, you're not arguing for legalizing female circumcision in the West - given that you consider it to be mutilation -, you're arguing for banning male circumcision by drawing an equivalence between both because of Western rejection of female circumcision and thus portraying those who oppose a ban on male circumcision as supporters of female circumcision, which is why you made this thread.

[Fasces]

And you have yet to provide a logically valid reason for why one should be legal in the West while the other is banned. It is purely cultural.

[wat0n]

I don't really have a stand on female circumcision - while your arguments for an hypothetical legalization of female circumcision (which you obviously don't support and which I don't see why it should be tied to male circumcision) were presented with a dishonest intention, I think they are legitimate assuming that this "poverty bias" (i.e. the supposed benefits are bigger than shown in the data because female circumcision is done in unhygienic conditions) actually exists and is significant. I don't have a position because there are no studies comparing reported satisfaction, sensitivity and other things in a "before and after" fashion, unlike the case for male circumcision.

I also don't understand why it matters to you that the difference between their legal status is purely cultural. I could understand it from some other posters, but I don't get it when it's coming from you - someone who supports preserving cultural diversity and more generally keeping traditional culture.

[Fasces]

It is intended as a Take That to those who say culture is meaningless when compared to class, educations, etc.