Going for the snip

[Jon Miller]

I would definitely be disinclined to ban it from a religious prospective in relation to the Jews.

Also, it does not harm the vast majority of men (99+%) unlike female circumcision.

Jon Miller

[KrazyHorse]

Also, it does not harm the vast majority of men

Errrr....why would you say that? Is loss of sensation not harm? If not, then why is it harmful to perform clitorectomies on girls, so long as it is done in a hygienic manner? Hell, we could even give them anaesthetic...

[Jon Miller]

Umm, it does cause sexual disfunction in women, it does not (despite claims of loss of sensation) in men (in ~99% of cases).

Surely you see the difference?

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

What is done to women is much more similiar to removing the penis, not to removing the foreskin.

Jon Miller

[KrazyHorse]

What the hell does "sexual dysfunction" mean? Are you only defining as the complete loss of ability to orgasm? What a ridiculous criterion for evaluating harm. If removing the foreskin causes orgasms to be 50% less intense, then according to you this is not harm?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
What is done to women is much more similiar to removing the penis, not to removing the foreskin.

Jon Miller

No, because women with clitorectomies can still bear children in the normal way.

I have already said that I agree that the level of loss caused by a clitorectomy is higher than that caused by a circumcision. But why is it that you are drawing some sort of arbitrary line somewhere between a significant loss of sensation and enjoyment and a total loss of sensation?

Harm is done for no apparent medical reason.

[Jon Miller]

inability to orgasm is a starting point for sexual dysfunction

From Wiki:Sexual dysfunction or sexual malfunction is difficulty during any stage of the sexual act (which includes desire, arousal, orgasm, and resolution) that prevents the individual or couple from enjoying sexual activity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dysfunction

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


No, because women with clitorectomies can still bear children in the normal way.

guys still have testes..

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Now I agree that if it is something that 99% of men don't need medically, then it shouldn't be suggested by the medical community (to be done in general)... but that is different then make it illegal to be done...

Jon Miller

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


guys still have testes..

Jon Miller

Unless the "normal way" to bear children is, according to you, to rectally stimulate the prostate in order to induce an ejaculation then collect the ejaculate and inject it into a woman using some sort of prosthesis, then I don't see what you're getting at.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
inability to orgasm is a starting point for sexual dysfunction

From Wiki:Sexual dysfunction or sexual malfunction is difficulty during any stage of the sexual act (which includes desire, arousal, orgasm, and resolution) that prevents the individual or couple from enjoying sexual activity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dysfunction

Jon Miller

So only a complete loss of enjoyment counts for you? A significant loss of enjoyment is no harm?

[Jon Miller]

if it is significant enough that it prevents the enjoyment of sexual activity..

I know a leading member of NoCirc (who has gone to great lengths to recreate himself some foreskin...)

now he did not have a complete loss of enjoyment by any means, but he did have a significant enough loss to be made fairly unhappy about it (and have it negatively effect his romantic life)

he is not representative...

so any loss is significant?

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Unless the "normal way" to bear children is, according to you, to rectally stimulate the prostate in order to induce an ejaculation then collect the ejaculate and inject it into a woman using some sort of prosthesis, then I don't see what you're getting at.

Stop being silly, I think you understand me.

Jon Miller
("normal" means not done in a test tube)

[KrazyHorse]

No, but the fact is that the majority of people having been circumcised after their first sexual experience report what they call a significant loss of enjoyment according to every report presented so far in this thread.

So if a majority of the people who could know the difference do note a significant difference, then I think that blithely assuming that no harm has been caused is ridiculous.

You've managed to avoid the question for the last page, Jon. Please answer straight up:

Is there only harm when there is a total loss of enjoyment, or does a significant loss of enjoyment while still allowing some enjoyment also count as harm?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


Stop being silly, I think you understand me.

Jon Miller
("normal" means not done in a test tube)

?

"Normal" means not in a test tube? Everything else is normal? And I'm the one being silly here?

What the **** are you on about, Jon? Seriously.