[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 358 KB, 890x892, circanatomy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2197953 No.2197953 [Reply] [Original]

Hey /sci/ can you actually do something useful and channel all your scientific fervor into getting circumcision banned. Science and common sense has proved that it is a harmful and unnecessary procedure; make an issue out of it and make science look good.

http://www.norm.org/lost.html

http://www.intactamerica.org/

>> No.2197976

Didn't circumcision come around to discourage masturbation?

>> No.2197984

Who cares, let them mutilate their kids if they want to.

>> No.2197989
File: 37 KB, 432x288, Foreskin.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2197989

>>2197976
That was part of the reason. It definitely makes your dick feel less good.

>> No.2198251

>>2197984
In a democracy, your freedom is dependent on the government protecting the freedom of everyone.

If you don't like the idea of religious people trying to keep you from masturbating, then you should be against circumcision.

Also, if your attitude truly is "I don't care as long as it doesn't effect me", then why do you care if we want to ban circumcision?

>> No.2198315

>>2198251
Good luck counting on democracy and the government protecting your freedoms when the majority decides against it, whatever it may be.

Better to keep the government's influence and size as small as necessary to avoid just such a circumstance. And if that means some guys won't ever experience what it is to have a foreskin nor have any experience to compare it to, thus living in ignorance, so be it, no big loss.

>> No.2198325

>>2198315
>implying freedom is necessary, and that you have any in the first place despite the fact that free will doesn't exist.

>> No.2198338

>>2198325

>implying you hate our freedom and are a filthy commie pinko

>> No.2198341

>>2198315
>Better to keep the government's influence and size as small
>implying that having a government willing to do something is worse than having a government who just sits back and lets the masses of retards run the nation into the ground

>> No.2198348

>>2198341

>Implying a small number of inbred retards in control of everything is better than masses of retards in control of themselves

>> No.2198353

>>2198338
Haha! The poor sheep thinks he's fighting for something, rather than being herded by others' opinions, so he fights back while thinking it verifies his vague contruct of individuality and freedom.

>> No.2198360

>>2198353

>implying I suddenly have free will again

>> No.2198365
File: 53 KB, 729x650, 1290567289303.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2198365

>>2198360

>> No.2198369
File: 61 KB, 481x300, implying v.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2198369

>implying this is a /sci/ thread
>implying this has anything to do with math or science
>implying this isn't going to turn into another atheism vs christianity thread

>> No.2198379

Circumcision

Stated Reason: Medical, cosmetic, hygiene reasons. (highly dubious benefits at best, at least a wash)

Actual Reason: Wanting your sons dick to look like yours. (penis chauvinism)

Ultimate Reason: Sand people trying to eliminate sexual pleasure. (same exact reason as female circumcision)


Either way, you wouldn't be cool with giving a baby a clit piercing, so why would anyone be okay with slicing off part of a babies dick? When they get to the right age, it's up to them if they want to get circumcised.

>> No.2198384

Why do people these days need to turn everything into an either/or affair? Why can't we be a plural society that accepts that different people wish to live life i na different manner to others? Why can't we have happy cutfags and happy uncutfags and just say good for you to all of them?

>> No.2198397

>>2198384
>jelly circumcised fag detected

>> No.2198398

>>2198315
In general, I agree with you, but I think preventing people from being subjected to physical assault that leaves permanent damage falls in the category of things that are necessary.

Having your freedom taking away by the government is not any worse than having your freedom taking away by your fellow citizens because the government refused to act.

>> No.2198415

>Why can't we have happy cutfags and happy uncutfags and just say good for you to all of them?

for the same reason we can't just have happy rapists and happy rape victims and say good for you to all of them

>> No.2198416

>>2198384

Exactly. Any consenting adult who wants to make any body modification they like should be permitted. The more variety the better. But mutilating a baby is different.

>> No.2198431

Banned? People make their own decisions! Nothing can be achieved through law, scientists know laws are not created their descovered and the courts system is based on the ten commandments and thus belives in absolute authority.

>> No.2198432

Yeah, let's ban circumcision! All harmful and unnecessary things should be banned.
While we're at it, let's ban unhealthy food, bad television shows and black shirts on sunny days.
Because science! Somehow that makes sense!

>> No.2198438

>>2198431
>>2198432
non-consensual, medically unnecessary cicrcumcision performed on infants. sometimes, here in the US, it's done without the PARENT'S permission.

>> No.2198441

>>2198432
Dude, he's asking you to ban people from chopping off the tips of little boys dicks before they're even old enough to defend themselves. How can you possibly support that?

>> No.2198443

>>2198432

And let's ban child abuse! And assault! Let's ban every bad thing that one person can inflict on another!

oh wait...

>> No.2198445

>>2198432

>lives in a world of black and white.

>> No.2198454

>>2198441

>chopping off the tips of little boys dicks

Maybe you should figure out what circumcision is before you try to ban it retard.

>> No.2198459

>>2198454
>implying you like to chop off little boys' dicks
>implying you keep a stockade of them for a rainy day
>implying you don't sew them into a suit made of skin
>implying you don't wish to be the tip of a little boy's dick

>> No.2198460

I dunno, man, for me at least, if I were any more sensitive, I'd probably suffer from premature ejaculation all the time. I'm happy with being circumcized. Uncut dicks look funny to me. But I'm not gay, they're not going in my ass, so I don't really care.

>> No.2198462

>>2198454
implying that makes a difference. IT'S STILL REMOVING A PART OF A SENTIENT BEING'S BODY WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION, WHICH IS OBJECTIVELY WRONG.

>> No.2198467

>>2198454

Removal of the foreskin. Right? Slicing off the protective sheath of the penis?

It is impossible to reasonable argue that any grown man should not be permitted to do this if they want. But it's that it is inflicted on infants that is the problem.

>> No.2198482

>>2198460

>I'm happy with being circumcized.

Great, I'm glad you are, however it being ok isn't reason enough to force an unnecessary medical procedure on a young boy, they are still free to get it done in adult hood.

The loss of sexual sensitivity from circumcision is on par with type1 and type 2 female circumcision (90% of all female circumcisions done) and those are considered barbaric forms of medieval torture.t

>> No.2198486

>>2198459

What in the fuck are you talking about?

Would you fuck me? I'd fuck me.

>>2198462

If you're going to convince anyone you need to understand what the fuck you're saying and not just spout some nonsense bullshit.

Or you can continue to act like an ALL CAPS ASSHAT and turn people away from your argument.

>> No.2198545

>>2198438
>>2198441
Well, then OP should said that this is what he is trying to ban. OP's wording and picture seem to imply it should be banned simply because circumcision is bad by some absolute standard we should all follow.
Whether non-consensual unnecessary mutilation should be forbidden is another issue altogether, not specific to circumcision, and for reasons that have little to do with whether or not people with uncut penises feel more pleasure.

>> No.2198558

>>2198462
>implying morality can be objective

>> No.2198568

>>2198482
Have there been any studies done, blind studies, of course, that indicate circumcised men feel any less pleasure or satisfaction with their sex life? I don't think circumcision is a clear cut case of being "unnecessary." I know many people have more than sufficient hygiene, but I can imagine how bad an unwashed, uncircomcised dick must smell.

>> No.2198586

>>2198568
>Have there been any studies done, blind studies, of course, that indicate circumcised men feel any less pleasure or satisfaction with their sex life?

This is impossible to test because almost all circumcised men have been circumcised from birth. However, subjective pressure sensitivity tests show that circumcision removes the most sensitive areas on the penis.

>> No.2198587

>>2197953

Here you go OP.

"Benatar, David; Benatar, Michael (2003). "How not to argue about circumcision." American Journal of Bioethics 3 (2): W1–W9.

"Benatar and Benatar argue that circumcision can be beneficial to a male before he would be able to otherwise provide consent, that "it is far from obvious that circumcision reduces sexual pleasure," and that "it is far from clear that non-circumcision leaves open a future person’s options in every regard.""

http://bioethics.net/journal/pdf/3_2_LT_w01_Benetar.pdf

>> No.2198588

>>2198568

Even if the benefits perfectly evened out, which by all accounts they don't, it would still be wrong to inflict it on a newborn.


As far as I can tell, you trade sexual pleasure and sensitivity for the capacity to go without bathing yourself for slightly longer.

>> No.2198590

>>2198586
and by subjective I mean objective

uev splocky

>> No.2198594

I'm circumcised. What should I do?

>> No.2198603

I noticed that most of the arguments against circumcision seem to center on how much stuff is cut off of the penis and how this might effect pleasure.

Do you have any evidence that circumcision actually does effect pleasure?

I'm circumcised and I cum just fine.

I know there are some people who were circumcised as adults who said that they lost pleasure, but when you have a piece of your penis chopped off as an adult it's a bit different.

Orgasm occurs in your mind. It doesn't have so much to do with your physical penis. If you had grown up with no foreskin, you would be used to it, and not feel any less pleasure.

Do you honestly have any evidence that people who were circumcised as infants feel less pleasure?

When I take this into account, I just can't see inflicting the suffering on religious people that would be caused by being forced to abandon traditions that have served them for centuries.

I'm not religous myself, but I do believe in tolerance.

>> No.2198615

>>2198594
Sue your parents for bodily mutilation and use the money to buy lots of whores to satisfy your numb penis.

>> No.2198617

>>2198603

No, the argument is rarely about the relative merits of each. It is almost always, and only ever should be, about whether it's okay to inflict it on an infant.

And it isn't. We don't give babies piercings. We don't give babies tattoos. We don't give babies nose jobs, or breast implants. We don't perform such extreme body modification on babies at all, except for this one thing.

>> No.2198621

Nah, circumcised dicks look better.

Less pleasure? Pfft, men with them can still have orgasms.

>> No.2198624

>>2198617

>We don't give babies piercings.

People do this shit all the time.

>> No.2198627

>>2198624

Do you think this is okay? I don't.

>> No.2198634

>>2198617
>We don't give babies piercings. We don't give babies tattoos. We don't give babies nose jobs, or breast implants. We don't perform such extreme body modification on babies at all, except for this one thing


I can tell you have never been to America.

>> No.2198640

>>2198594
grow a beard

>> No.2198651

I'm cut. It still feels good. Not really mad about it.

>> No.2198661

>>2198617
But if circumcision causes no suffering to the baby, why should we do something extreme like limiting people's freedom of religion? (which _does_ cause suffering)

You may believe that it is bad for people to pierce their baby's ears, but would you really start a legal fight over it? Would you really throw someone in prison if they believed that piercing their baby's ears was part of their religion?

>> No.2198673

Every child should be treated equally until they are of legal age to ensure they do not suffer any damage (mental or physical) or lack any opportunity. Thus the only solution is to take away children from the parents when they are born and place them under the care of the state.

By extension abortions should also be illegal, you are removing a potential sentient being from existence who objectively has just as much a right to survive as its parents.

>> No.2198680

>>2198661
Yes, and any compassionate jury would take my side too

>> No.2198697

It is an important part of my personal body aesthetics to have gaping holes where the eyes used to be. Therefore I want to have the eyes of my child removed upon birth. Apart from being more pleasant to look at, it is also convenient, because my child will never need glasses and will never suffer from the various infections I have had in my eyes due to scratches on the lense, fx.

>> No.2198707

Child will also never know the difference, so will not suffer due to ability to compare before and after.

>> No.2198715

>>2198661

It does cause considerable stress on the infant. The 'nap' which follows a circumcision is better described as being knocked unconscious by intense neurological stress.

I have absolutely no problem with freedom of religion, or with an adults choice to be circumcised. I do have a problem with child abuse, and I consider infant genital mutilation to be child abuse.

It's probably not well known, but originally circumcision took place at the bar mitzvah. One can only imagine why the tradition was changed to take place at a time when the child could not argue over it.

>> No.2198719

>>2198680
But people do pierce their babies' ears with no legal problems, and people do remove their sons' foreskins with no legal problems.

Also, if you think "might makes right" is an acceptable counterargument, why are you even on a science board.

>>2198697
That is not a good comparison in the least. Removing a tiny hunk of skin is not the same as blinding someone, and you know it.

>> No.2198720

Every embryo should be carefully screened for genetic defects to prevent children growing up with any problems. Once we have the technology we should also seek to engineer every child to be the best it can be. If specific bloodlines prove problematic, they shall be removed from the genepool.

>> No.2198718

>>2198707
They'll still suffer the same fate, they just won't know what the other side is like

>> No.2198760

>>2198719
Explain the difference, please. "And you know it" isn't an argument.

>> No.2198768

It's ok. I'll restore my foreskin if I really get depressed. It's not a 100% fix for obvious reasons, but it has good reviews from those who did it the long and hard way (no pun intended).

Really though, cut vs. uncut on /sci/? Should I even be surprised? This board had potential too.

>> No.2198778

>>2198760
It's a difference of scale.

If you were comparing blinding someone to removing someone's entire penis, I would say it is a good comparison.

>> No.2198783

Something I never got is why male circumcision happens but not female circumcision. Jews?

>> No.2198809

>>2198768
My uncut penis is with you on this, cutbro.

Can't we dicks all just get along?

>> No.2198802

>>2198778

Is there a reason that male circumcision is different from female circumcision?