It's your typical scenario: poster uses thread to grind personal axe about male circumcision, poster is asked to pipe down, this thread is about the vag not about his penis. General decrying of male circumcision as barbaric is made, followed by the outburst "Can we please stop making every post about FGM about male circumcision?!"
Seriously, can we? Please? I get that male circumcision is a pretty, er, sensitive issue, but it's not the issue that the post is about and it really does NOT need to be up for debate. For the love of all things holy, the post was about a gynecologist who "realigned" his patients vaginas without their consent. I fail to see the connection between that scenario and anything even vaguely penile.
I also fail to see the reason for dragging that debate out even further in an otherwise interesting thread. posted by grapefruitmoon at 9:13 PM on January 8, 2007
I'm trying really hard not to make a terribly hateful response to this comment. I'll just leave it at "delete that whole fucking mess please". posted by bob sarabia at 9:20 PM on January 8, 2007
I'm with grapefruitmoon, five fresh fish FunkyHelix and others from that thread who valiantly tried to hold forth against the knuckleheads. posted by flapjax at midnite at 9:30 PM on January 8, 2007
grapefruitmoon: "It's your typical scenario: poster uses thread to grind personal axe..."
Post seems to have been trimmed; the only comment mentioning male circumcision that I can find is mr. strange's. (That's a good thing, although I don't know why his wouldn't make the cut.) So I'm just wondering: did kyrademon (the poster) really grind that axe? Or did you mean commenter? posted by koeselitz at 9:32 PM on January 8, 2007
koselitz: I guess I did mean "commenter" though my brain had spaced out on the word. I used "poster" instead of OP to try and distinguish that kyrademon was not the one with the axe. Sorry for any confusion. posted by grapefruitmoon at 9:33 PM on January 8, 2007
"Poster" should mean "original FPP poster" and everyone else in a thread should be referred to as a "commenter". That's my opinion, anyway. posted by flapjax at midnite at 9:34 PM on January 8, 2007
I'm out of the pissing match. I made my point and wish I hadn't responded to the dipshit's trolling.
I apologise to everyone on behalf of those of us with penises who don't give a good goddamn about circumcision issues outside circumcision-related threads. It grates me to no end that some men can't pull their heads out of their dicks long enough to talk about someone else's genitalia. posted by five fresh fish at 9:39 PM on January 8, 2007
koeselitz:
The comments are still there. Look for pretty much every comment made by spacediver. posted by chundo at 9:47 PM on January 8, 2007
I left that post early, but it seemed that Spacediver was doing most of the male focus...or were there more commentators that joined in? posted by Holy foxy moxie batman! at 9:49 PM on January 8, 2007
spacediver needs a fucking timeout. What an ass. posted by dobbs at 9:50 PM on January 8, 2007
Metafilter: Can't we all just relax and talk about someone else's genitals for a change? posted by blue_beetle at 9:50 PM on January 8, 2007
Maybe we should have special designated female-only threads so those mean nasty boys won't barge in and talk about topics the girls don't like. posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 9:51 PM on January 8, 2007 [2 favorites]
I thought it was guys making a fuss about it too? Or are they just "queer" in your books? posted by liquorice at 9:54 PM on January 8, 2007
Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese: Why don't we have special threads about the subject at hand so those mean nasty derailers won't barge in and talk about topics that are completely irrelevant. posted by grapefruitmoon at 9:55 PM on January 8, 2007 [3 favorites]
It's funny how people latch onto certain hobbyhorses that they make their own. Like people who are obsessed with circumcision. It's funny that people care so damn much. I honestly don't think there's any topic I care that much about. Watching spacediver go to work on genital mutilation makes me feel like I ought to get passionate about something! posted by jayder at 9:55 PM on January 8, 2007
Holy foxy moxie batman!: anotherpanacea was not nearly as obnoxious, but did his part to further the male-circumcision parallel, and requested that any "FGM only requesters" take it to MetaTalk. And lo, here we are. posted by grapefruitmoon at 9:57 PM on January 8, 2007
I hadn't, um, trimmed anything until just now. I removed the last two of spacediver's comments because they were pretty much just shouting at a wall and not really responding to or interacting with anyone. What an odd hobbyhorse topic. posted by jessamyn at 9:58 PM on January 8, 2007 [1 favorite]
Be circumspect with circumcision, eh? posted by five fresh fish at 10:05 PM on January 8, 2007
Before I joined metafilter I had no idea so many people had a bug up their ass about male circumcision. So that's something. posted by bob sarabia at 10:05 PM on January 8, 2007
Suddenly, dame's whole "hey cortex I want a hoodie" takes on a profoundly weird subtext. posted by cortex at 10:08 PM on January 8, 2007
There's a joke about a bucket of cocks just waiting to be made here. posted by FunkyHelix at 10:14 PM on January 8, 2007 [1 favorite]
Perhaps men who lament their circumcisions act like utter cock-ends as some form of compensation? posted by Abiezer at 10:17 PM on January 8, 2007
Interesting that people are calling out the male circumcision talk but no one the rampant sexism of surprise that some husband/brother/father hadn't put the smack down on the bad doctor. posted by Mitheral at 11:00 PM on January 8, 2007
Goddamnit, right now on AskMe we have a perfectly good place for jackasses to get their asinine comments about circumcision deleted. What's with trying to stealth-inject them into a totally unrelated thread? posted by ikkyu2 at 11:12 PM on January 8, 2007
I'm sorry, how is my cock not relevant to this discussion?
"Post seems to have been trimmed"
(You made me snicker).
"Suddenly, dame's whole "hey cortex I want a hoodie" takes on a profoundly weird subtext."
Dude, get hoodie up on UrbanDictionare stat. I love the idea of some kind of foreskin frotterage or something called a hoodie (perhaps a cortex hoodie?) posted by klangklangston at 11:13 PM on January 8, 2007
Interesting that people are calling out the male circumcision talk but no one the rampant sexism of surprise...
Considering that the thread was derailed in the second comment, no it's not that interesting. posted by bob sarabia at 11:16 PM on January 8, 2007
Interesting that people are calling out the male circumcision talk but no one the rampant sexism of surprise...
Also, not EVERY thread on FGM gets turned into a clusterfuck on the subject of sexism, whereas anytime I've seen anything about anyone's genitals on MeFi, sense gets thrown out the window somewhere around comment #100 at which point it becomes all about somebody's poor penis and could they just get their foreskin back already.
But hey, if you want to call out the sexism, be my guest. posted by grapefruitmoon at 11:25 PM on January 8, 2007
I'm with you guys. I'm glad someone called it out.
That having been said, I'm guessing that most dudes who have bugs up their asses about male circumcision are uncircumcised.
Seems like overcompensation for the (somewhat shitty) childhood trauma of being pointed at in gym class and made fun of for looking different.
It really is kind of rough when people tell you your junk looks different.
Still, agreed, the female genital mutilation threads always turn into a cluster fuck cause of these soap-boxers. posted by nathancaswell at 11:34 PM on January 8, 2007
I was thinking that, actually. How people were all "the men need to give 'em a good beating", whereas I was wondering why weren't the women doing that.
Ah well, I have bigger issues to deal with. Like eating carrot or chocolate cake for dinner. posted by liquorice at 1:34 AM on January 9, 2007
Liquorice, chocolate cake, obviously. Carrot cake is an unnatural procedure to both carrot and cake, and several culinary professionals agree that eating carrot cake reduces sensation in the tongue and decreases the oral pleasure derived from eating.
The whole concept of eating carrot cake is barbaric. All my eating partners have preferred chocolate cake as well. posted by slimepuppy at 2:13 AM on January 9, 2007 [1 favorite]
To me, part of the whole appeal of metafilter to begin with is the interesting tangents that conversations take within the threads. Maintaining a tight focus on the topic that the OP intended is really not a priority for me at all, and I don't see why it's a priority for anyone else. posted by bingo at 2:18 AM on January 9, 2007
Looks like genitals are highly sensitive at Meatfilter.
Oops, I mean, genitals are a highly sensitive TOPIC, at Metafilter.
Problem here, when discussing female genitals, it will always end up involving a penis, due to the simple fact that everyone isn't perfect, and most MeFites are therefore straight.
Only a properly homosexual male can consider the subject of female genitals with sceintific detachmentneutrality unbiased. Equally, only lesbians can be completely trusted to stay on-topic without a penis entering the discussion.
So, please, unless you're prepared to accept your obvious inferiority as heterosexuals, just accept that any thread involving vaginas must, by necessity, involve a penis or two.
As for the thread: I see more comments complaining about mention of male circumcision than there is mention of male circumcision. That is often the case, and it seems really stupid that all the complainers don't realize how they contribute to the problem.
I live in a province of South Africa where, last winter, 23 males died as a result of botched circumcision. Youths, dead as a result of their participation in traditional culture (these were all 'initiates' into manhood). posted by Goofyy at 2:20 AM on January 9, 2007
speaking of circumcision, I was surprised to see in the anastasiav baby foreskin thread that a lot of users here didn't circumcise their kids, i was under the impression that in the US/Canada/UK circumcision was still an almost universal choice posted by matteo at 3:15 AM on January 9, 2007
matteo: I don't believe that circumcision is the norm in the UK (I'm British), Jews and Muslims aside. That circumcision is the norm in the USA is something I realised only in the last year or two (when suddenly lots of humor about the use of lubricants during masturbation clicked into place!) posted by alasdair at 3:27 AM on January 9, 2007
To me, part of the whole appeal of metafilter to begin with is the interesting tangents that conversations take within the threads.
Sure, but the key word here is "interesting". The male circumcision debate here on MeFi is a dead horse. It died many years ago. Now all you get is people yelling back and forth at each other, with the common knowledge that nobody is going to convince anybody of anything, but trying their damnedest any way. It's boring. You've been here much longer than me, how have you not seen this yet? There's lots of subjects that result in similar threads. posted by antifuse at 3:35 AM on January 9, 2007
That circumcision is the norm in the USA is something I realised only in the last year or two (when suddenly lots of humor about the use of lubricants during masturbation clicked into place!)
As a teenager, I remember wondering why all porn actors were Jewish. posted by jack_mo at 3:43 AM on January 9, 2007
So, please, unless you're prepared to accept your obvious inferiority as heterosexuals,
(Snarky, pointless response to this troll has been deleted.)
(Everyone else, please ignore the counter troll, I'm drunk) (again)
i was under the impression that in the US/Canada/UK circumcision was still an almost universal choice
It's difficult for uneducated parents to resist the prodding of their doctors, whatever their (the docs) particular opinion may be. IANC by pure luck. My two sons aren't either. If they feel this should be done, they can choose it themselves when they're old enough. posted by IronLizard at 3:46 AM on January 9, 2007
Hmmm, please ignore the directive to ignore the counter troll that no longer exists. Ahem. Thank you. (Editing skills suffering terribly at this point) posted by IronLizard at 3:47 AM on January 9, 2007
I'm 50, I don't know if it's still the norm in the States. But I was clipped at age 8, and it was weird to have a foreskin when no one else I knew had one. In the southern states, this is not the case. posted by Goofyy at 3:48 AM on January 9, 2007
Spacediver's remaining comment is pertinent, informative and not a throwaway line. He shows a knowledge of the subject and the ability to address the issues which most of the posters do not. Most people do not RTFA and therefore blurt out repetitive, uninformed noise.
There is a place for comparison of FGM with MGM within any discussion of GM, mostly due to the lack of information on it in the public realm. It is revealing to see the abhorent reaction to discussion of the facts of MGM from people who come from a society where it is seen as normal, while the same people express amazement that FGM could be seen as anything other than a destructive practice in societies where it is the norm1.
People who find the subject of MGM completely irrelevant to a discussion of FGM could either bring it to Metatalk or attempt to steer the original thread back on topic instead of repeating the 'don't mention the war penis' line, ironically resulting in a cavalcade of comedic repitition.
I come from the UK, which along with the rest of Europe does not practice male circumsision by default. Only around 6%2 of male infants are circumcised, so if there were to be any '(somewhat shitty) childhood trauma of being pointed at in gym class and made fun of for looking different' it would be the circumcised who experienced this. When I was at school, pointing out that someone's penis had been circumcised would most likely result in the 'pointer' being dissed for being an ignorant fool. This could have been because the practice was not limited to a certain religious or economic group, as both Jews and Muslims would be likely to be circumcised as would some immigrants.
FGM (along with religion, politics, the paucity of American geographical knowledge, hip-hop, suicide etc.) is a subject which 'we don't do well'. To me this means we should practice it more until we can 'do it well'.
1 Speaking in general, not relating specifically to this particular thread.
2 The rates of circumcision vary from country to country, being about 60% in the USA (with recent data suggesting falling rates, particularly amongst the growing Hispanic population), 30% in Ontario, Canada, 6% in the UK (rates fell when circumcision became unavailable on the NHS), and less than 2% in Scandinavia. Estimates for Australia range between 10%-20% and for New Zealand somewhat less than that. posted by asok at 5:11 AM on January 9, 2007
Hey, someone came along to defend the idiot! I guess it was just a matter of time.
grapefruitmoon: Thanks for the callout. I bailed out of the thread when the male circumcision derail started, figuring I'd just waste time and energy getting involved. posted by languagehat at 5:44 AM on January 9, 2007
Can't we just agree that mutilating people without their consent (male or female) is bad? posted by IronLizard at 5:51 AM on January 9, 2007 [1 favorite]
Good callout, crappy posts (as usual) from spacediver. posted by OmieWise at 6:02 AM on January 9, 2007
I apologize if there was a risk of my comments derailing the thread. Every single one of my posts was in direct response to someone who had made a claim which, based on my study into this issue, I deemed to be wrong.
I guess when I see ignorance, I feel compelled to do something about it, and as you well know, I'm quite passionate about this particular issue.
As for circumcision rates, I think the global circumcision rate is 15%. That means that 85 percent of males on this planet are intact (though I haven't checked this from primary sources).
I see people getting frustrated about circumcision being a dead horse, and that it's not worthwhile discussing it anymore.
I have not once, in my commentings here on metafilter, ever received an argument in response to the fundamental point that I keep making. There have been at least two times where the person who I'm engaging with literally drops off into silence.
the fundamental point is this:
If we reflect upon the features of FGM which are minimally sufficient to cause moral outrage in many of us, we see that those features map onto male circumcision.
In other words, most of us would not condone the removal of any genital tissue off a female, unless it was absolutely medically necessary.
If, for example, it were found that removing parts of the vulva would reduce incidence of cancer of the vulva, then we would certainly not begin to think that removal of the vulva may be a healthy option.
In fact, it would be considered absurd to even investigate the possible benefits of such a procedure. Such research would never be funded here.
One area where Western culture shines is its respect for female sexual anatomy. There is something sacred about a female's genitals. It is common wisdom that the labia minora, clitoris, and some inner parts of the vagina are involved in sexual sensation. We respect them as erogenous structures.
The same knowledge does not exist, nowadays in North America, for the male genitalia (though it certainly has in recent and ancient history, as I have painstaikingly pointed out on multiple occasions).
Quite simply, we do not accord even close to the same respect to male sexual anatomy, as we do to female sexual anatomy.
If you really believe that circumcision doesn't remove sexual tissue, just examine your own circumcised penis. Notice the scarline. Likely, you'll have a tiny bit of sensitive tissue on the ventral portion, just below the scarline. If you're lucky, you'll have remnants of your frenulum which extend from this point up to the meatus (tip of glans). If not, you'll probably notice that this sensitive tissue stops abruptly at the scarline.
In the intact penis, this tissue is the base of the frenular delta, which forms a triangle whos tapering tip is the frenulum. This whole structure is highly erogenous - if you have the courage, ask an intact male about his frenulum.
There is absolutely no question that circumcision destroys significant amount of high quality sexual hardware. Whether this reduces pleasure in the male has not been answered scientifically, since it has not been properly studied (though I hope to conduct a study which addresses this rigorously, using objective physiological measures rather than self report).
Many people don't understand that the attitudes we have about the intact male genitalia are almost identical to the attitudes proponents of FGM have towards the intact female genitalia.
This alone should raise flags.
I sympathize tremendously with victims of female genital mutilation. Often, these procedures are done in extremely unsafe and painful conditions, and in many cases involve much more damage than most males suffer.
Furthermore, it is unclear whether females can restore significant portions of their function, as males are able to through foreskin restoration. In fact, one area I'm interested in is non-surgical restoration for victims of FGM, using what we have learned from non-surgical foreskin restoration. posted by spacediver at 6:08 AM on January 9, 2007 [2 favorites]
Spacediver spends an awful lot of time thinking about penis. posted by MegoSteve at 6:11 AM on January 9, 2007
The at-birth circumcision rate in Canada is just under 10%. This excludes those done for religious reasons later in childhood. The US has by far the highest circumcision rate, apart from Israel I suppose.
I just think it's a bummer that people can see a thread about a horrific act of mutilation of women and think, "This is about my dick!" posted by loiseau at 6:15 AM on January 9, 2007 [2 favorites]
Can we talk about the father's rights movement now? posted by OmieWise at 6:15 AM on January 9, 2007
Is the circumcision derail more offensive than the current tonsillectomy derail? posted by anotherpanacea at 6:21 AM on January 9, 2007
my tonsils, my choice posted by cortex at 6:25 AM on January 9, 2007
I just think it's a bummer that people can see a thread about a horrific act of mutilation of women and think, "This is about my dick!".
Loiseau, when I hear about the mutilation of women, I think of mutilation in general. You may not agree that the genital cutting of penises is bad, but at least I've given coherent reasons why I think it is.
Please also note that I did not spontaneosly chime into the thread. Someone actually made a comment (zinger) to which I responded to. posted by spacediver at 6:26 AM on January 9, 2007
I think it's time someone brought up NAMBLA. posted by Astro Zombie at 6:26 AM on January 9, 2007
To me this means we should practice it more until we can 'do it well'.
No, please god no. If it's been proven that nobody intends to change their opinion on a subject (as it very clearly has in the case of the circumcision debate), to the point where every discussion of the subject just turns into yelling back and forth, it should enter into the realm of "We don't need to talk about this anymore" subjects.
The at-birth circumcision rate in Canada is just under 10%
Really? I'm shocked to hear this, as just about everybody I knew grewing up was cut. It would be somewhat of an oddity to encounter a non-circumsized male among folks in my age and social class (middle-class suburban folks, mid to late 20's) - the only people I know who are uncircumsized are hardcore catholics. That's in suburban Toronto, perhaps mileage varies across the country. posted by antifuse at 6:32 AM on January 9, 2007
Omiewise, remember our last discussion? You claimed that the conversation could not proceed since we had differing intuitions about the costs and benefits of male circumcision.
You never actually responded to my central argument (which I've reiterated in this thread), and your last post deftly avoided responded to this comment I made.
If you really believe my posts are crappy, then you should point out exactly what it is about them that are crappy.
I dare you to dissect my arguments, as I've presented them. posted by spacediver at 6:33 AM on January 9, 2007
Umm, also most of my brown friends born outside of Canada were uncut... but they were born outside of Canada, so I obviously wouldn't include them in the Canadian circumcision rate :) posted by antifuse at 6:33 AM on January 9, 2007
No, please god no. If it's been proven that nobody intends to change their opinion on a subject (as it very clearly has in the case of the circumcision debate), to the point where every discussion of the subject just turns into yelling back and forth, it should enter into the realm of "We don't need to talk about this anymore" subjects.
I've changed many people's minds, including muslim doctors in my own family, jewish friends, male friends who are circumcised. (this isn't counting people who i've engaged in through the internet). It just requires patience, and a willingness to actually engage with the arguments.
p.s. I'm in Toronto also - same age group as you, and many of my peers are intact. posted by spacediver at 6:36 AM on January 9, 2007
If this were just about genital mutilation, then a discussion of circumcision or indeed even of the earlier contraceptive practice of the South Australia aborigine with the whistestop (or perhaps this link is bettter).
But this is not just about genital mutilation. It's about a recent time when a group of people in one of the most advanced nations on earth were unfamiliar with their biology. It's about an unethical behaviour of medical practitioners, where the patients were women and the doctors men. It makes me ask how things have changed, and if this is what they have developed from, what have they changed to, and what gender imbalances are we not aware of now, because they seem normal, that will be horrific in 50 years time.
I think this is the issue. Wiith sticking to the topic of male circumcision which is often performed by men, with the consent of fathers on boys, it was about as relevant as the tonsils I mentioned, and in this place, didn't not require perhaps as indepth discussion.
And if the tonsilectomy derail is offensive, I'd be interested to hear why. posted by b33j at 6:37 AM on January 9, 2007
This is all well and good, but when do we get to talk about the wonders of my penis? posted by IronLizard at 6:41 AM on January 9, 2007 [1 favorite]
spacediver: No offense, but you are obsessed about this issue, as obsessed as bevets is about his. I'm not going to tell you you're wrong (partly because you clearly wouldn't listen), but surely you can see that MeFi is not the venue for you to proselytize. Nobody appreciates it, you're not changing any minds (here, as opposed to your wonderful consciousness-raising sessions with your Muslim and Jewish friends), all you're accomplishing is getting everybody mad at you. Is that really what you want? If you're incapable of participating except to rant about mutilation, maybe MetaFilter isn't the site for you. posted by languagehat at 6:41 AM on January 9, 2007 [1 favorite]
It's about a recent time when a group of people in one of the most advanced nations on earth were unfamiliar with their biology. It's about an unethical behaviour of medical practitioners, where the patients were women and the doctors men.
Don't you see that an extraordinarily simliar analysis can be made about genital mutilation in general, including male circumcision?
Most medical practitioners are unfamiliar with the anatomy of the intact male. It is not part of their medical curriculum.
Granted, the particular conditions of the discussion case are different from those involved in standard genital cutting (of females and males), but there indeed relevant similarities.
In fact, i'd say that male genital cutting is more relevant to this case than is female genital cutting, since the medical establishment plays a much bigger role in the former. posted by spacediver at 6:45 AM on January 9, 2007
I'm not going to tell you you're wrong (partly because you clearly wouldn't listen)
Languagehat, try me. Actually address the arguments I made in this post.
Yes I am obsessed about this issue, since it is something that is deeply personal, and something which the society I live in is largely ignorant about.
If this renders me biased, then the burden is upon you to demonstrate this, by showing the flaws in my reasoning.
And not everyone is getting mad at me. For all I know, there may be many lurkers who are reading here and interacting with the information in a more mature manner. posted by spacediver at 6:50 AM on January 9, 2007
We don't want to address your arguments because we're sick of the topic. How are you missing that point? posted by Astro Zombie at 6:52 AM on January 9, 2007
Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese: Maybe we should have special designated female-only threads so those mean nasty boys won't barge in and talk about topics the girls don't like.
Wow, that was uncalled for. I don't think it's a question of it being a topic the "girls" don't like, it's deliberately derailing what had the promise of being a very interesting discussion by bringing up something completely unrelated repeatedly.
A doctor deliberately mutilating patients without their consent is the topic. Not clitori (except as the object of said mutilation), not penises. The jerk got away with all these unauthorized procedures -- even bragged about them in public -- and no one did a thing to stop him, not even his fellow physicians.
That women are rather vocal in this thread is not surprising -- we get an awful lot of head patting and "that's very nice, dear" from doctors, even today. But if the "mean nasty boys" want to go discuss penises elsewhere, I promise we won't barge in and discuss vibrators, fisting, oral sex and other no-penis-required methods. posted by bitter-girl.com at 6:55 AM on January 9, 2007
I'm lurking and being mildly annoyed at you, spacediver. What languagehat said is pretty on target: you are obsessing in a public space. posted by cortex at 6:56 AM on January 9, 2007
1. A lot of readers thought it was profoundly interesting and insightful and launched a number of closely related but non-repetitive avenues of discussion.
2. One or two enthusiasts thought it was profoundly interesting and insightful and carried on an intense discussion regarding the topic.
3. The post was complete and utter nonsense, and many people stopped by to correct its inadequacies.
4. The post sucked, but an early commenter saved it with a subsidiary contribution. Some might call it a derail, but most are thankful.
5. Though the post itself was fine, few read it, and those that did ran out of steam fast. Since there was nothing more to say except "Yeah, what she said," the rest of the conversation was derails, trolling, and in-jokes. posted by anotherpanacea at 6:58 AM on January 9, 2007
As I've said many times, I didn't spontaneously derail the thread. Someone else brought up male circumcision, and zinger replied to that person.
Zinger's reply contained information which I deemed to be false, hence my response.
Perhaps I should have refrained from this, as it only added fuel to the fire.
If anyone wants to actually engage me in the topic of male circumcision in this thread, however, I promise an intellectually honest and noble discussion from my end. posted by spacediver at 7:01 AM on January 9, 2007
I promise an intellectually honest and noble discussion from my end
For all I know, there may be many lurkers who are reading here and interacting with the information in a more mature manner.
This is the best. Everyone who is commenting is tired of my axe grinding! But surely many of the folks who aren't commenting stand with me!
What would it take to get you to shut up, spacediver? Every single MeFite telling you that they are sick of you? Well, I've been lurking here and in the Metafilter thread, and I am. So that's one datapoint for you. posted by Kwine at 7:05 AM on January 9, 2007
Cortex, your laundry room is a continual disappointment. It needs more sensation. posted by dame at 7:06 AM on January 9, 2007
*Runs into thread*
PENIS!
*Jazzhands**Big Fake Smile**Pants for breath* posted by Divine_Wino at 7:07 AM on January 9, 2007 [1 favorite]
What would it take to get you to shut up, spacediver? Every single MeFite telling you that they are sick of you? Well, I've been lurking here and in the Metafilter thread, and I am. So that's one datapoint for you.
I've already ceased discussing this in the main thread. posted by spacediver at 7:08 AM on January 9, 2007
Yes, I'm sure you look quite dignified with your fingers in your ears.
Does this imply that I ignore people's cries to tell me to stop bringing this issue up?
Or does it imply that I am not addressing people's arguments about circumcision? posted by spacediver at 7:09 AM on January 9, 2007
Also lurking and annoyed. You've said everything you have to say, at least once. Give it a rest. posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:11 AM on January 9, 2007
spacediver,
I think you're comments are shitty because they are inappropriately obsessive and moralizing. When we have discussed things in the past I've found that your hyperbole is matched only by your obfuscation of your lack of evidence through extensive quotation. As far as I can tell you have no argument that rests on anything much more substantial than your opinion, which includes disregarding recent scientific evidence that male circumcision is actually limits the transmission of life-threatening illnesses. As I said in that linked thread, however, I'm prepared to not discuss this with you because I don't think you or I can ever fundamentally reach agreement: our frames of reference appear to be so different as to be incommensurable.
However, my comments about your crappy posts do not have to do with the content of your rants, they have to do with the inappropriate nature of your insistence that we discuss male circumcision as a human rights abuse even in threads about other topics. Further, I think your attempt to link nefarious and forced genital mutilation of female patients expecting a different medical procedure with the choice some parents make to circumcise their male babies is abhorrent. With it you fail the most basic test of whether or not your pet issue exceeds the bounds of rationality and humanity, and prove that you cannot be trusted to fairly think about issues of human rights and justice. That's why I think your comments are shitty, because they are misplaced and offensive on their face. posted by OmieWise at 7:12 AM on January 9, 2007 [4 favorites]
The tonsillectomy comments are neither a derail nor offensive, because they are about the ways in which doctor's and parents make choices about surgery for other people. Male circumcision is related in the same way tonsillectomies and hysterectomies are related. (my original comments to this effect here and here)
As kyradeamon points out, at least one husband allegedly conspired with the doctor to have this done to his wife. Which means that the doctor was willing to take the husband's consent to stand in for the wife's. This means that the wife is being treated as a ward of the husband... much in the same way that the child is treated as a ward of the parent in cases of male circumcision and intersex sex assignment surgery. There is something worth comparing here, although it is not the degree of damage that the surgeries cause.
The absolute refusal to accept any possibility of any discussion of circumcision is just as disruptive and pointless as the kinds of comments that insist on comparing the "degree" of pain and suffering between the botched surgeries of the post and male circumcision. posted by carmen at 7:15 AM on January 9, 2007
Cut him off.
Nip it in the bud.
Off with his head. posted by yhbc at 7:16 AM on January 9, 2007
I engage in this issue once every few months here. I have yet to receive a proper engagement with the arguments I present.
I've given it a rest in the main thread on the front page, but I will continue to engage in this issue when it comes up again.
i.e., when the topic is the mutilation of genitals, I will continue to remind people that they live in a society which practices it as a matter of course.
Granted, in this particular thread, genital mutilation wasn't the core issue here. But I remind you once again, that every single comment in the thread was in response to another's comment. posted by spacediver at 7:17 AM on January 9, 2007
Everyone needs a hobby I guess. Keeps you sane. posted by Divine_Wino at 7:19 AM on January 9, 2007
Omiewise:
As far as I can tell you have no argument that rests on anything much more substantial than your opinion, which includes disregarding recent scientific evidence that male circumcision is actually limits the transmission of life-threatening illnesses. As I said in that linked thread, however, I'm prepared to not discuss this with you because I don't think you or I can ever fundamentally reach agreement: our frames of reference appear to be so different as to be incommensurable.
This is a cop-out, and a misconstrual of my argument. My argument does not depend on there being no health benefits of circumcision. Read my post carefully, particularly this bit:
If we reflect upon the features of FGM which are minimally sufficient to cause moral outrage in many of us, we see that those features map onto male circumcision.
In other words, most of us would not condone the removal of any genital tissue off a female, unless it was absolutely medically necessary. posted by spacediver at 7:20 AM on January 9, 2007
Perhaps I should have refrained from this, as it only added fuel to the fire.
Keep repeating this to yourself until you understand it.
I will continue to engage in this issue when it comes up again.
You know you're likely to end up banned if you do that, right? But that will just prove how INTOLERANT people are—they REFUSE TO LISTEN to the TRUTH!! posted by languagehat at 7:23 AM on January 9, 2007
Does this imply...?
It implies that you still don't get (or, more likely, refuse to get) that circumcision isn't really all that relevant to that discussion and that what little relevance it has can be left off in a sentence or two and that other people starting a derail isn't a reason for you nuke the train right off the map and that you should just shut the fuck up already. posted by and hosted from Uranus at 7:25 AM on January 9, 2007
I engage in this issue once every few months here. I have yet to receive a proper engagement with the arguments I present.
Well, perhaps one day a someone worthy of your genius shall arise. Until then, I am sure there are plenty of Jewish and Muslim friends you can annoy with your brilliance. posted by Astro Zombie at 7:26 AM on January 9, 2007 [1 favorite]
Languagehat, I said I will continue to engage in this issue when it comes up.
i.e. when it is relevant.
If engaging in an issue when it is relevant gets me banned, what does that say about those who would have me banned?
You can't accuse me of flaming or being disrespectful or insulting.
At the very most, I bring this up when it isn't appropriate, as perhaps in this last thread. However, if I bring it up when it is relevant, then this is perfectly reasonable.
Or don't you agree? posted by spacediver at 7:28 AM on January 9, 2007
sorry bout the all-italics - shoulda previewed posted by spacediver at 7:28 AM on January 9, 2007
Or does it imply that I am not addressing people's arguments about circumcision?
There's still more you haven't told us? Are you holding out on us, man??
At this point it would clearly be best for you to email all users who have addresses in their profiles and initiate one-on-one debates. posted by hermitosis at 7:29 AM on January 9, 2007
I engage in this issue once every few months here. I have yet to receive a proper engagement with the arguments I present.
i expose myself to people on the street every few months here ... i have yet to receive a proper engagement with the penis i present
i hit myself on the head with a hammer once every few months ... i have yet to receive proper enlightenment whenever i do so
i try to pound a square peg into a round hole every few months ... i have yet to get the damn thing to fit
every few months, i am presented with the opportunity to learn something important ... oddly enough, i never do posted by pyramid termite at 7:30 AM on January 9, 2007 [1 favorite]
As a side note, if your going to go around calling it FGM--which the OP didn't--you're going to bring in cross-cultural comparison, since FGM is rarely applied to American operations. In which case, I've never understood the "cutting is fine on men evil on women" total dichotomy. While the results are often different in severity, the operations are very similar. Surely being held down, awake, no anaesthetic, as a young man and having your penis cut as you watch--probably with the same types of instruments used on the girls--is not so innocuous that comparisons between that and the female operation deserve nothing but scorn and derision? As Goofyy points out, it's not risk-free, either. posted by carmen at 7:30 AM on January 9, 2007
It implies that you still don't get (or, more likely, refuse to get) that circumcision isn't really all that relevant to that discussion and that what little relevance it has can be left off in a sentence or two and that other people starting a derail isn't a reason for you nuke the train right off the map and that you should just shut the fuck up already.
Fair enough. I'm willing to concede this point. posted by spacediver at 7:30 AM on January 9, 2007
The funny thing is I agree with him, in the sense that I would not circumcise my own (hypothetical) children. But the fact is he was obsessively (and verbosely) derailing the thread. It doesn't matter if people agree with you -- that just isn't the right place for the discussion to begin with. posted by loiseau at 7:31 AM on January 9, 2007
What is with the circumcision fixation of some guys around here? I was clipped when I was born and fwiw, I've never missed my foreskin, and the unclipped dicks I've seen look like they're covered with dirty sausage casings. posted by jonmc at 7:34 AM on January 9, 2007
jonmc, many women who are circumcised feel exactly the same way about their bodies. They don't think they're missing anything, and consider the intact female genitalia an object of scorn.
If you're serious in your query about the fixation that some people have, watch this video, which, drawing on peer reviewed literature, outlines the anatomy and sexual function of the male foreskin. (direct link here). posted by spacediver at 7:40 AM on January 9, 2007
You can't accuse me of flaming or being disrespectful or insulting.
I'm comfortable accusing you of being disrespectful to any conversation other than the one you decide to have. And your insistance that you are essentially compelled to do by the recurring lack of proper engagement is insulting to everyone on this site. posted by cortex at 7:41 AM on January 9, 2007
spacediver: pretty much everything I've heard on the subject of female circumsision has been negative, but I'd never heard anybody get so passionate about male circumsision until I started hanging out here. posted by jonmc at 7:43 AM on January 9, 2007
jonmc, please don't encourage him. Unless you're trying to get him to flame out, of course, in which case: rock on! posted by languagehat at 7:45 AM on January 9, 2007
I'm not trying to encourage anybody. I didn't even notice this till this morning. At this point, I'm kinda sad that I didn't keep my foreskin in a pickling jar, so I could give it somebody pining for theirs. posted by jonmc at 7:48 AM on January 9, 2007
Fair enough. I'm willing to concede this point.
Which point are you conceding?
1. you still don't get (or, more likely, refuse to get) that circumcision isn't really all that relevant to that discussion
2. what little relevance it has can be left off in a sentence or two
3. other people starting a derail isn't a reason for you nuke the train right off the map
4. you should just shut the fuck up already
Jonmc: there are millions of female and male humans in other parts of the world who consider female circumcision to be a great thing. They don't get much press here, but they do exist, in very large numbers.
To them, the intact female genitalia are ugly, disease prone, spiritually impure, and a sign of low status.
And there are many people who are passionate about male circumcision, but again, they don't get much press.
I also urge you to watch the video I posted above. It's quite detailed and dense, and the language may be a bit scientific, but there is a lot to learn by watching it. posted by spacediver at 7:49 AM on January 9, 2007
Kirth, I did stop talking about this in the other thread. I see no reason to stop engaging people in this particular thread. If you don't like what I have to say, switch channels. posted by spacediver at 7:50 AM on January 9, 2007
sorry, languagehat. spacediver is right that many women from cultures in which cutting is the norm have positive feelings about their genitals, and prefer them to non-altered ones. posted by carmen at 7:51 AM on January 9, 2007
*calls doctor, has him mail me preserved foreskin, which I then stretch and offer to anyone who wants it as a jaunty chapeau*
I'll pass on the video, dude. I'm quite happy with flap free rig, and I've never met a woman who seemed to miss the peckersweater.
I do have a friend who was circumsised as an adult (general anaestesia). He used to get UTI's a lot. he said after the procedure, he never got them again. FWIW. posted by jonmc at 7:53 AM on January 9, 2007
(jonmc, you just brought back weird memories about going to a boyfriend's house and having his mother proudly show me the tiny dried foreskin she kept in his baby book) posted by carmen at 7:53 AM on January 9, 2007
maybe she was hoping to clone him. posted by jonmc at 7:54 AM on January 9, 2007
I see no reason to stop engaging people in this particular thread.
Well this thread is about the derail in that thread. Again circumcision yay or nay is not particularly relevant.
The great thing about spacediver's obsession is that if you rub it a little it turns into a suitcase. posted by Divine_Wino at 7:58 AM on January 9, 2007
I'll pass on the video, dude.
Right, but it will shed some light on why some people are passionate about it, and you do seem to be curious about why that is.
But yea, I have found that getting circumcised males to actually sit down and watch this video (or read critical information) is the biggest challenge. Most of them would simply rather not.
Perfectly understandable, but I imagine the same difficulty is experienced by those who are active against FGM in the communities which consider it normal.
Again, it's perfectly understandable why a woman who's been circumcised would rather not confront any of this information, but it's also tragic. posted by spacediver at 7:59 AM on January 9, 2007
Well this thread is about the derail in that thread. Again circumcision yay or nay is not particularly relevant.
I think the derailing issue has been dealt with sufficiently. I've already conceded at least twice that I should have refrained from bringing it up in the original thread.
So, I'm not sure what the problem is in discussing male circumcision in this thread is.
If you'd rather not discuss it, then switch channels. posted by spacediver at 8:02 AM on January 9, 2007
At this point, I'm kinda sad that I didn't keep my foreskin in a pickling jar, so I could give it somebody pining for theirs.
Is...is there a market? What's the going price?
*digs through pantry*
maybe she was hoping to clone him
That was how the original opening sequence of Starman worked, until those Hollywood fatcats made 'em reshoot. posted by cortex at 8:03 AM on January 9, 2007
and you do seem to be curious about why that is.
No, not really. I'm just a little puzzled by all those flyin' the foreskin flag. But if that's what gets you excited more power to you. Idealize the foreskin, praise it, erect monuments to it.
Like I said, I'm happy with the German soldier helmet, myself, so I'll keep out of Battle Smegma, thanks. posted by jonmc at 8:04 AM on January 9, 2007
If you'd rather not discuss it, then switch channels.
13448 on the dial is apparently SPACEDIVER TEEVEE. posted by cortex at 8:05 AM on January 9, 2007 [2 favorites]
I think the derailing issue has been dealt with sufficiently.
I will continue to engage in this issue when it comes up again.
Wow, announcing your intention to derail and axe grind, considerate of you.
Granted, in this particular thread, genital mutilation wasn't the core issue here.
Then shut the fuck up and don't contribute to derails.
But I remind you once again, that every single comment in the thread was in response
Take some responsibility for yourself, christ.
On preview, cortex and languagehat have pretty much pwned your lame ass with their trademark intelligence and wit, but I'm feeling my oats today.
Oh yes: I'm uncircumcised! 100% uncut & pure! Nyah! Nyah! posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:11 AM on January 9, 2007
spacediver, altering our bodies has been a part of being human pretty much as long as we have records for. These alterations accomplish different things, and trying to convince people that what their doing is bad for them based on something that is completely irrelevant to both *why* they do that thing and *how* they experience it is not effective. This is why anti "FGM" materials and your circumcision video are ineffective. People don't want to see it not because they are afraid to confront it but because it does not address anything that is important or of concern to them.
For instance, materials that say "FGM" kills girls in societies where parents, midwives, and doctors have never heard of a death due to the genital alterations they practice is going to be dismissed as flawed, for obvious reasons.
Similarly, trying to convince circumcised men that something terrible has been done to them when they have never experienced any problems and they have never known anyone that experienced any problems is also going to be seen as flawed. If you want to make changes, you need to find another approach. posted by carmen at 8:11 AM on January 9, 2007
No, not really. I'm just a little puzzled by all those flyin' the foreskin flag.
Well the information I've provided should serve to "de-puzzle" you. The excerpt from Margaret Somervile is entirely readable, and the video presentation is very detailed. It will certainly allow you to see the logic of those who fly the foreskin flag.
Like I said, I'm happy with the German soldier helmet, myself, so I'll keep out of Battle Smegma, thanks.
Does this mean that confronting the information will make you unhappy with your helmet?
Females also produce smegma, btw. posted by spacediver at 8:12 AM on January 9, 2007
spacediver, that you see a percieved lack of a sufficiently robust and kicking purpose in this thread as reason enough to declare it a Circumcision Awareness Conference ("don't like it? switch channels!") suggests you maybe aren't getting the spirit of the derailment discussion. posted by cortex at 8:13 AM on January 9, 2007
This thread was set up to discuss the derailing issue of the original thread.
No, this thread was started to discuss the derailing of the other thread. Not the derailing issue - the derailing. So you proceed to derail the discussion about derailing with the same hobbyhorse you used to derail the original one.
You should have gone with #4. posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:15 AM on January 9, 2007
Alvy, I suggest you continue reading my posts which I made after that one. They directly address all of your points.
1) I've already taken responsibility for derailing in the other thread (even though it was in response)
2) As I clarified , I have not announced my intention to continue to derail. I announced my intention to continue to engage in the issue, when it comes up
3) I'm not continuing to derail. posted by spacediver at 8:16 AM on January 9, 2007
You've derailed this MeTa with the same issue, you stunted knob! posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:17 AM on January 9, 2007
Well the information I've provided should serve to "de-puzzle" you.
No. Now I find the whole obsession weirder than ever. posted by jonmc at 8:18 AM on January 9, 2007
Does this mean that confronting the information will make you unhappy with your helmet?
no, it means that whatever happened to us happened decades ago, it's not going to be changed, we've all found other things to worry about and it's called living in the present and having a life
No, this thread was started to discuss the derailing of the other thread. Not the derailing issue - the derailing. So you proceed to derail the discussion about derailing with the same hobbyhorse you used to derail the original one.
Let me be clear:
1) This thread was started to discuss the derailing of the other thread.
2) This thread has served its purpose insofar as the derailer has conceded that he derailed the thread.
3) Any discussion in this thread, which does not directly address the derailing of the original thread, cannot therefore derail this thread, since this thread has already reached its goal, or destination.
In other words, my engaging people in a discussion of circumcision should only frustrate you if it was preventing me from acknowledging that I derailed the other thread. posted by spacediver at 8:20 AM on January 9, 2007
I've already taken responsibility for derailing in the other thread (even though it was in response)
"I'm sorry I hit Billy (even though HE STARTED IT)"
As I clarified , I have not announced my intention to continue to derail. I announced my intention to continue to engage in the issue, when it comes up
Yes, but it seems that "when it comes up" is defined simply as "when spacediver sees an opening". You've seemingly announced an intention to inject your personal obsession wherever you find an excuse. I've known Christian evangelists who do the same thing, and justify it in the same terms. posted by cortex at 8:20 AM on January 9, 2007
Late to the, er, party. Just wanted to respond to Mitheral's comment. I deliberately asked that rhetorical question in a sexist way for the following reason. The entire context of what was done to the women by that psycho pseudo-doctor was sexist. So I asked the rhetorical question in my comment with that patriarchal attitide and sexism in mind.
Because the women who endured the abuses of this psycho doc were treated as if they only existed sexually for men, I wondered if the men in this context wouldn't have defended the women in their lives with whom they did not have a sexual relationship. Apparently they wouldn't and the abuses of female patients by Burt went on repeatedly for years with the psycho-doc never apologising nor being punished. posted by nickyskye at 8:21 AM on January 9, 2007
Wait, MeTa's are supposed to stay on-topic? When did that happen? posted by carmen at 8:25 AM on January 9, 2007
nickyskye, did you catch Kyrademon's comment that at least one husband had been sued in conjunction with the doctor? I suspect that more than one husband was involved (based on the historical involvement of husband's in clitoridectomy to treat diseases in the 19th and early 20th century). posted by carmen at 8:27 AM on January 9, 2007
"peckersweater"?
Oh dear, jonmc. I think I've got a new funny to use on the bf when he gets home... thanks! posted by bitter-girl.com at 8:27 AM on January 9, 2007
Carmen:
the information I'm trying to present is personally relevant. Most people here value pleasure, and the ability to fufil their sexual potential.
If they came to believe that male circumcision actually hinders this potential, or at the very least does remove erogenous tissue, they are more apt to change their minds.
The problem is that many people do not allow themselves the opportunity to even confront this information, and you will find that those who have changed their minds are those who did engage with this information.
At least in the past, people were honest about male circumcision. They recognized that it did remove sexually sensitive tissue, and indeed this was a major driving force behind the practice.
What is absurd about the practice today is that people are actually more ignorant. posted by spacediver at 8:28 AM on January 9, 2007
Wait, MeTa's are supposed to stay on-topic? When did that happen?
Normally, I'd fight for tangents in the gray. The grindstone in this case is the difference. posted by and hosted from Uranus at 8:29 AM on January 9, 2007
But if the "mean nasty boys" want to go discuss penises elsewhere, I promise we won't barge in and discuss vibrators, fisting, oral sex and other no-penis-required methods.
posted by bitter-girl.com at 9:55 AM EST on January 9
Actually I'm tempted to start a post about penises just so that you could barge in and talk about the above. It sounds way more interesting. I'm so bored about reading about penises and male circumcision that I'm going to go and get some work done... posted by ob at 8:31 AM on January 9, 2007
If they came to believe that male circumcision actually hinders this potential, or at the very least does remove erogenous tissue, they are more apt to change their minds.
and do what? wrap their johnson in uncooked crescent roll dough and install robotic sensors?
(putting aside whether there is any actuall difference in sexual pleasure, since as I've said, no woman ever told me 'you're cute, but you'd be hotter with a foreskin.') posted by jonmc at 8:31 AM on January 9, 2007
dirty sausage casings ... flap free rig ... peckersweater ... flyin' the foreskin flag ... German soldier helmet ... Battle Smegma
ob: I'm so bored about reading about penises and male circumcision that I'm going to go and get some work done...
My God, people. We've driven a fellow MeFite to go get some work done! See what happens? See? Are you happy with yourselves now? (mutter, mutter) posted by bitter-girl.com at 8:34 AM on January 9, 2007
cortex:
"I'm sorry I hit Billy (even though HE STARTED IT)"
No, I already said that I should have not done this even though it was in response, since I should have seen that it would "add more fuel to the fire"
i.e. the fact that he started it doesn't excuse my derailment.
Yes, but it seems that "when it comes up" is defined simply as "when spacediver sees an opening". You've seemingly announced an intention to inject your personal obsession wherever you find an excuse. I've known Christian evangelists who do the same thing, and justify it in the same terms.
Yes, defining relevance here is something that is a function of both my assessment and the community's assessment. Discussions like these certainly give me insight into what the community-here-apart-from-me deems as relevant, and I will certainly use this as a learning experience.
I think we can both agree that if the topic of male circumcision came up in an fpp then it would be relevant for me to chime in.
Bear in mind that I am personally motivated in engaging people on this issue, and that it makes sense from a game theoretic perspective for me to avoid "committing the sin of derailment". posted by spacediver at 8:34 AM on January 9, 2007
and do what? wrap their johnson in uncooked crescent roll dough and install robotic sensors?
hehe. Until regenerative medicine advances to that point, we'll just have to suffice with traditional foreskin restoration.
But no, the larger "good" here is that those who change their minds on the issue will prevent their own children from undergoing the procedure.
(putting aside whether there is any actuall difference in sexual pleasure, since as I've said, no woman ever told me 'you're cute, but you'd be hotter with a foreskin.')
I hardly see how a woman's aesthetic assessment of a cut penis has any bearing on the difference in pleasure between a cut and intact penis, anymore than I see how a man (or woman's) aesthetic assessment of a cut vulva has any bearing on the difference in pleasure between a cut and intact vulva. posted by spacediver at 8:38 AM on January 9, 2007
cmon armitage, we haven't even scratched the surface of penile humor yet. It's that deep a comedy well. posted by jonmc at 8:38 AM on January 9, 2007
and do what? wrap their johnson in uncooked crescent roll dough and install robotic sensors?
no, we're supposed to spend our lives whining about how mutilated and inadequate we are ... didn't you get the memo? posted by pyramid termite at 8:39 AM on January 9, 2007
spacediver, I understand what you're saying, but the thing about genital alterations is that a) they are about more/other things than pleasure and b) people who have them often don't know the difference. It's hard to convince someone who has a satisfying sex life that their sex life has been fundamentally and problematically damaged. This is a problem in the anti "FGM" literature and in the anti circumcision literature.
You might find that people who came to believe that circumcision was a problem did not have, as a first step, someone claiming that something terrible had been done to them personally. I, for instance, was first confronted with the possibility that male circumcision wasn't necessary when a friend explained why she wouldn't make that choice for her son (although she would allow him to make the choice for himself).
Take, for example, Mali. Claudie Gosselin went to Mali to study female genital cutting and found that women had other concerns. They didn't care about surgeries that they had had long ago. They cared about how they were going to feed their children and whether they could afford school fees, medical bills, etc.
Although surely not to the same degree of basic survival concerns, pyramid termite's comment is essentially similar: oh well, we have bigger concerns. If you want to make change, you have to find a way of relating circumcision to those bigger concerns. Otherwise it will always end up here. posted by carmen at 8:40 AM on January 9, 2007
I too would love to hear about barges and fisting, ob. Do ladies really talk about them in private? I always thought fisting was kind of a dominance/degradation thing ... is it possible it's actually pleasurable for the fistee (beyond the pleasure of pleasing your partner)? posted by and hosted from Uranus at 8:41 AM on January 9, 2007
traditional foreskin restoration.
I used to think 'anus bleacher' was the lowest rung on the aesthetician career ladder, but I guess 'foreskin restorer' has it beat. and 'restoring' sounds like something you do to old motorcyle. Do the guys from American Chopper come in and go to work on your cock with wrenches and blowtorches? posted by jonmc at 8:41 AM on January 9, 2007
I think we can both agree that if the topic of male circumcision came up in an fpp then it would be relevant for me to chime in.
In a vacuum, yes. Do you understand that your personal, way-above-average motivation to discuss the subject should be reason for you to be more discerning and more cautious about when to chime in? That you might have trouble being objective about when it's really relevant, when it would actually contribute to rather than distract from the ongoing conversation?
Look. I really love my wife. I'm a huge fan. I could talk about her all day, and lots of discussions here provide openings that I could use. But I don't, because that would annoy the living hell out of all these other people on the site. I keep it to a goddam minimum, and likewise with my other passions and personal interests, and even then I get on someone's nerves now and then. And when that happens, I take the hint and lay off it. I don't consider my personal inclinations to be a trump card. posted by cortex at 8:42 AM on January 9, 2007
I'm gonna have my kid circumsized twice, just to piss spacediver off. Who knows? Maybe I'll even raise a eunuch!
(One of my favorite things about the appropriation of "Who watches the watchmen?" into a political context has been how people don't seem to realize where it came from: Juvenal is saying that many of the so-called eunuchs which guard wives are actually fucking them, and the husbands have no idea.) posted by klangklangston at 8:43 AM on January 9, 2007
"Look. I really love my wife. I'm a huge fan. "
Man, is Cortex on another one of those "I love my wife" derails again? We get it already— you think she's really great. Do you have anything but personal opinion and long quoted passages from "experts" to back that up? posted by klangklangston at 8:45 AM on January 9, 2007
Foreskins are spacedivers' religion.
Unfortunately, it's more of an evangel religion instead of a zen religion. posted by five fresh fish at 8:45 AM on January 9, 2007
klang, you should have a bunch of eunechs, and frolic in the Sun. posted by cortex at 8:46 AM on January 9, 2007
Foreskins are spacedivers' religion.
does he kneel in front of them and prostrate himself? posted by pyramid termite at 8:47 AM on January 9, 2007
Foreskins are spacedivers' religion.
*looks at spacediver's 'leatherbound' bible. becomes unhinged.* posted by jonmc at 8:48 AM on January 9, 2007
Well, cortex, similarly my screwed-up elbow. I thought it was relevant to this topic since it involved a male doctor being an ass and treating me like a child, all while getting big pats on the back from other doctors and the same medical board who let this jerkface loose on the unsuspecting Ohio populace. Just because something relates to a topic doesn't mean it's necessarily relevant or welcome in the broader discussion.
jonmc? American Chopper? ooooooh... unintentional pun? posted by bitter-girl.com at 8:48 AM on January 9, 2007
spacediver, I understand what you're saying, but the thing about genital alterations is that a) they are about more/other things than pleasure and b) people who have them often don't know the difference. It's hard to convince someone who has a satisfying sex life that their sex life has been fundamentally and problematically damaged. This is a problem in the anti "FGM" literature and in the anti circumcision literature.
Yes, and this is a huge block in trying to get through to people. I completely agree with you here.
I also don't believe that relating circumcision to bigger concerns is necessarily a genuine move, since it really isn't that big of a deal compared to many other problems that the world faces.
As I said, I'm working on multiple fronts - a major one is the running of a study that would actually scientifically test whether male circumcision reduces sexual pleasure. Having pored through the literature, there is not one single study that addresses this - there is a lot of indirect evidence that suggests it reduces pleasure (e.g. circ'd males more likely to engage in oral and anal sex, presumably as a compensatory measure), but almost all of the research is based on self report. The study I hope to run (for which I've already constructed a fairly detailed proposal), is well controlled, and would assess multiple physiological markers, in effect measuring the orgasm profile of cut vs. intact males.
I believe that if such a study did show a difference, then physicians could no longer use the excuse "well there is no clear evidence that circumcision reduces pleasure". You're already seeing discussion in the bioethics literature which draws upon neuroanatomical research to argue against male circumcision, and in parallel, many medical organizations are taking this information into consideration in advising against male circumcision.
One key is to bridge the gap between scientific research, and medical practice, and that is a front which I hope to contribute towards.
Another front is engaging people like those on this forum, and I think the best way is to present high quality information, and make high quality philosophical arguments such as the ones which get people to examine their intuitions around FGM, and see why they don't apply them to MGM.
If you have any other suggestions on tactics I could use, I'd be grateful for them. posted by spacediver at 8:51 AM on January 9, 2007
circ'd males more likely to engage in oral and anal sex, presumably as a compensatory measure
whaaa? posted by jonmc at 8:52 AM on January 9, 2007
In a vacuum, yes. Do you understand that your personal, way-above-average motivation to discuss the subject should be reason for you to be more discerning and more cautious about when to chime in? That you might have trouble being objective about when it's really relevant, when it would actually contribute to rather than distract from the ongoing conversation?
Cortex: agreed. As I said, what is relevant to me may not be relevant to others, and finding this equilibrium is certainly going to be challenging for me. I find this particular discussion to be particularly useful for me in this regard. posted by spacediver at 8:53 AM on January 9, 2007
I second jonmc -- whaaaaaa? Cite, please? And not from some crazypants organization, from a peer-reviewed medical journal or the like. posted by bitter-girl.com at 8:54 AM on January 9, 2007
the orgasm profile of cut vs. intact males
orgasm profile? jeez, way to make one of the most pleasant experiences known to man sound tedious. posted by jonmc at 8:54 AM on January 9, 2007
circ'd males more likely to engage in oral and anal sex, presumably as a compensatory measure
whaaa?
just remember ... to the man who has a hammer, everything looks like a nail posted by pyramid termite at 8:55 AM on January 9, 2007
( Journal of the American Medical Association), Volume 277, Number 13: Pages 1052-1057,
April 2, 1997. ) posted by spacediver at 8:56 AM on January 9, 2007
and stats or no starts, people engage in oral and anal sex because they're fun, not for 'compensatory measures.' This is sex not long-term investing. posted by jonmc at 8:56 AM on January 9, 2007
jeez, way to make one of the most pleasant experiences known to man sound tedious.
On the other hand, "orgasm profiling" would make airport security a whole lot sexier.
if pickled foreskins were currency, you wouldn't say that ... posted by pyramid termite at 8:58 AM on January 9, 2007
Interesting datapoint: circumcision can reduce your risk of future flameouts. posted by koeselitz at 8:59 AM on January 9, 2007
If pickled foreskins were currency, being a bank teller would really suck. posted by jonmc at 8:59 AM on January 9, 2007
I'd like my orgasm profiled, is this the right line? posted by Floydd at 9:00 AM on January 9, 2007
Orgasm Profiler, cumming this fall on NBC.
There's also a peacock joke in there, but I am a lazy, lazy man. posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:01 AM on January 9, 2007
if pickled foreskins were currency, the _____ would have all the money ... posted by pyramid termite at 9:01 AM on January 9, 2007 [1 favorite]
and stats or no starts, people engage in oral and anal sex because they're fun, not for 'compensatory measures.' This is sex not long-term investing.
When you see a systematic difference in sexual practices between intact and cut males, it suggests there must be a reason.
One plausible reason is that cut males require more intense stimulation than that found by vaginal stimulation. posted by spacediver at 9:02 AM on January 9, 2007
oh wow carmen , no, I hadn't read that. Thanks for pointing it out. posted by nickyskye at 9:03 AM on January 9, 2007
Ok, so in the linked study, we get:
However uncircumcised men appear slightly more likely to to experience sexual dysfunctions, especially later in life. Finally, we find that circumcised men engage in a more elaborated set of sexual practices. This pattern differs across ethnic groups, suggesting the influence of social factors.
and
The association between circumcision status and the various sexual practices exhibited differences across ethnic groups (Table 4). While circumcised men of all 3 ethnic groups tended to engage in more elaborated set of sexual practices, this was less true of blacks and Hispanics. For white men, the difference between being circumcised and being uncircumcised was quite stark. Circumcised men exhibited a greater likelihood of experiencing each of the various practices.
Geeeeeee, you don't think this is because of the so-called "social factors" referenced in the first quote, do you? To go out on the Wild Overgeneralization Limb, at least here in the States, uncut men tend to be from more conservative social segments (über-Catholic, etc) -- hence cultural and social stigma associated with masturbation and more "elaborate" social practices. posted by bitter-girl.com at 9:03 AM on January 9, 2007
Damn, that last comment was supposed to be prefaced by the following:
"Hey chief, check out these splatter marks!"
"Good lord... someone get Jism Caulknbawls on the phone, now!" posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:06 AM on January 9, 2007
There's also a peacock joke in there, but I am a lazy, lazy man.
so what's the REAL meaning of the cbs eye? posted by pyramid termite at 9:06 AM on January 9, 2007
In a similar vein, it was found that intact gay men were less likely to use intravenous drugs than circumcised gay men.
One interpretation is that circumcised males needed the drugs to enhance their sexual experience more so than intact males, although this interpretation seems more tenous than the one for the above mentioned study.
( "The association between circumcision status and human immunodeficiency virus infection among homosexual men." Journal of Infectious Diseases. Vol 168 No 6: Pages 1404-1408, December 1993.) posted by spacediver at 9:08 AM on January 9, 2007
In a similar vein, it was found that intact gay men were less likely to use intravenous drugs than circumcised gay men.
That's surprising. I figured the foreskin would provide them with a few extra veins to shoot up in. posted by jonmc at 9:09 AM on January 9, 2007
Honey, I have to do you in the butt. You see, I'm circumsized. posted by klangklangston at 9:10 AM on January 9, 2007 [1 favorite]
Dear lord, jonmc. I don't even have a penis and that made me squirm. posted by bitter-girl.com at 9:10 AM on January 9, 2007
Geeeeeee, you don't think this is because of the so-called "social factors" referenced in the first quote, do you? To go out on the Wild Overgeneralization Limb, at least here in the States, uncut men tend to be from more conservative social segments (über-Catholic, etc) -- hence cultural and social stigma associated with masturbation and more "elaborate" social practices.
That same study found that cut males were more likely to engage in masturbation than intact males
More importantly, the differences in sexual practices were found after controlling for demographic factors. posted by spacediver at 9:11 AM on January 9, 2007
my question is "what would eraserhead do?" posted b
Subscribe
Seriously, can we? Please? I get that male circumcision is a pretty, er, sensitive issue, but it's not the issue that the post is about and it really does NOT need to be up for debate. For the love of all things holy, the post was about a gynecologist who "realigned" his patients vaginas without their consent. I fail to see the connection between that scenario and anything even vaguely penile.
I also fail to see the reason for dragging that debate out even further in an otherwise interesting thread.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 9:13 PM on January 8, 2007