Much obliged bluenun, thanks for the input.
Another Study: Women Prefer Circumcision
- Thread starter goodbutnotgreat
- Start date
Kong u must have really skimmed through that article... beacuse u are completely wrong with the 15% of women that had BOTH uncirc and circ, 100% wanted uncut....
heres an important part you are missing
However, of the group with dual experience (N =3D 24), two-thirds favored circumcision exclusively and a significantly greater proportion preferred circumcised partners for all the sexual activities listed in Table 1 (p < 0.01).
that means that 75% exclusively wanted circumsized... and basically 100% were not soley exclusive but clearly indicated on the test results that they liked Cut better.
heres an important part you are missing
However, of the group with dual experience (N =3D 24), two-thirds favored circumcision exclusively and a significantly greater proportion preferred circumcised partners for all the sexual activities listed in Table 1 (p < 0.01).
that means that 75% exclusively wanted circumsized... and basically 100% were not soley exclusive but clearly indicated on the test results that they liked Cut better.
okay, first of all, swank's contention that he only wants to show both sides of this issue is pretty much moot...basically because of the sticky I wrote at the top of this forum in which I relate my official stance on the benefits of FR and how I also admit that those benefits are more pronounced depending on the damage caused by the circ.
The problem with swank and I, and always has been, is that he continues to portray me as a zealot and has always misrepresented my official view of the benefits of FR.
When I try to explain how I have always presented FR (as a possible aid for men who had damaging circs) he says EVERY TIME "Oh, well, why didn't you say so. I wouldn't have nitpicked you for 12 hours if you had said that."
Which moves his motives for harassing me into the category of personal pissing contest.
Second, I admittedly skimmed the survey and did not catch that little stat. Sorry. Regardless, swank's survey is still kind of shady, considering that most of the women had not experienced sex with both cut and uncut men, the main gist of the questions concerned "ideal" penis (which might cause women to go with the socially acceptable response) and finally because its target demographic were woman who had just given birth and chose to circ because of social norms. I am sure they are going to chose uncut on the forms after having their boys "snipped".
Finally, all swank's fancy-talk aside, I believe that my common sense approach is far more convincing. You can't cut a part of the body without damaging it. That's only logical.
The problem with swank and I, and always has been, is that he continues to portray me as a zealot and has always misrepresented my official view of the benefits of FR.
When I try to explain how I have always presented FR (as a possible aid for men who had damaging circs) he says EVERY TIME "Oh, well, why didn't you say so. I wouldn't have nitpicked you for 12 hours if you had said that."
Which moves his motives for harassing me into the category of personal pissing contest.
Second, I admittedly skimmed the survey and did not catch that little stat. Sorry. Regardless, swank's survey is still kind of shady, considering that most of the women had not experienced sex with both cut and uncut men, the main gist of the questions concerned "ideal" penis (which might cause women to go with the socially acceptable response) and finally because its target demographic were woman who had just given birth and chose to circ because of social norms. I am sure they are going to chose uncut on the forms after having their boys "snipped".
Finally, all swank's fancy-talk aside, I believe that my common sense approach is far more convincing. You can't cut a part of the body without damaging it. That's only logical.
Kong, a good part of our extended arguments was in fact me defending my own statements from your questioning, which I do so gladly. I welcome discussion from either perspective. It takes two to tango, and I wasn't a one man argument machine, you contributed as well. This constant self-pity and victimhood identity that you express is only distracting from talking about circumcsion and FR, which is what I am determined to get back to.
An attack on your methedology, reasoning, evidence, ect., is not a personal attack on you. There are academics that spend years doggedly trying to unseat each other's beliefs in critical papers and lecture, and yet they remain the best of friends or least cordial associates outside of the debate. Take it a cue from that. We can talk debate these topics without things being a pissing contest. If two grown men can't defend and contrast their views on an internet forum without somebody's feelings being hurt or confidence underminded, then I just suggest you rethink your personal stake in the internet.
An attack on your methedology, reasoning, evidence, ect., is not a personal attack on you. There are academics that spend years doggedly trying to unseat each other's beliefs in critical papers and lecture, and yet they remain the best of friends or least cordial associates outside of the debate. Take it a cue from that. We can talk debate these topics without things being a pissing contest. If two grown men can't defend and contrast their views on an internet forum without somebody's feelings being hurt or confidence underminded, then I just suggest you rethink your personal stake in the internet.
Just a note - I think I attributed authorship to The Art of War to Lao Tsu, when in fact I think his name is Sun Tzu. I'm not sure who Las Tsu is, though I have a grating suspicion it's the name of a video game character. Keep that in mind before anybody decides I'm a snob . . .
T
TheExecutioner
Guest
First time reading this, I like the way you present your side of the argument swank, yet the basic ideaology is there; When you cut off a part of the body you are going to be at a disadvantage to someone who has had nothing cut off. Remove a finger, leg, foot, foreskin etc it's all the same. A function is lost as is thousands of un replaceable nerves. No amount of Medical studies will dispute this.
Wisdom teeth, head hair, nails, facial/body hair, breast reduction, laser eye surgery, sunburnt skin that peels, appendix....
Plenty of things that are removed from the body.. for various reasons, which leave the person just fine...
Exactly! Why remove ANY part of the body that has a natural, beneficial function? It's kind of insane, if you think about it. What makes it even more of a crime is that the foreskin contains nearly all of the erogenous tissue of the penis. That's not an opinion or some crazy internet snippet of info, that's a fact.
It sucks to realize that we've been robbed of something so valuable for the profit of some greedy industry-- and if you don't want to think about that, it's okay. Just make sure you don't let them do the same thing to your sons.
It sucks to realize that we've been robbed of something so valuable for the profit of some greedy industry-- and if you don't want to think about that, it's okay. Just make sure you don't let them do the same thing to your sons.
I agree - circumcision doesn't make a whole lot of sense and it's certainly not necessary. I've said that all along, it's in the posts time and again.
Same as cutting off eyelids? No way, the eyes can't function without eyelids. A man can have a 100% fully functioning happy and healthy penis with a circumcision.
Take Kong for example. He's a circumcised man and he's proclaimed that his sex life is totally awsome at the moment.
If the vast majority of erogenous tissue is taken with the foreskin then most men in this country would be effectively sexually disfunctional, and most of you reading this understand this isn't the case.
If you believe in evolution, than you know that the foreskin's primary function is protection of the penis and to facilitate easier penetration for fast sex in primitive times (didn't have a lot of time to stroke it when wild animals and other guys might be trying to kill you, especially if you weren't a dominant male).
It didn't develop as a pleasure mechanism, that's incidental because it's on the tip of the penis, where nerve response is centered so our more instinctual ancestors had desire to stick it in a warm wet place. Its role in male pleasure is certainly not primary, and probably little or at all for women. Procreation, in evolutionary terms, was all about making it work, not feel great. Instinct takes care of all that.
Same as cutting off eyelids? No way, the eyes can't function without eyelids. A man can have a 100% fully functioning happy and healthy penis with a circumcision.
Take Kong for example. He's a circumcised man and he's proclaimed that his sex life is totally awsome at the moment.
If the vast majority of erogenous tissue is taken with the foreskin then most men in this country would be effectively sexually disfunctional, and most of you reading this understand this isn't the case.
If you believe in evolution, than you know that the foreskin's primary function is protection of the penis and to facilitate easier penetration for fast sex in primitive times (didn't have a lot of time to stroke it when wild animals and other guys might be trying to kill you, especially if you weren't a dominant male).
It didn't develop as a pleasure mechanism, that's incidental because it's on the tip of the penis, where nerve response is centered so our more instinctual ancestors had desire to stick it in a warm wet place. Its role in male pleasure is certainly not primary, and probably little or at all for women. Procreation, in evolutionary terms, was all about making it work, not feel great. Instinct takes care of all that.
If you believe in evolution, than you know that the foreskin's primary function is protection of the penis and to facilitate easier penetration for fast sex in primitive times (didn't have a lot of time to stroke it when wild animals and other guys might be trying to kill you, especially if you weren't a dominant male).
It didn't develop as a pleasure mechanism, that's incidental because it's on the tip of the penis, where nerve response is centered so our more instinctual ancestors had desire to stick it in a warm wet place. Its role in male pleasure is certainly not primary, and probably little or at all for women. Procreation, in evolutionary terms, was all about making it work, not feel great. Instinct takes care of all that.
I think you are both a little bit right and a little bit wrong about this. Pleasure, of course, would be just as important as functionality, in that the caveman who enjoyed sex more would be more likely to fuck, and thus procreate. Natural selection would favor the caveman who was more of a horndog and loved fucking and did it every chance he got. Also, we were social creatures who lived in groups, and protected one another. As such, I don't think sex was quite as hazardous as you might believe. Not so run and gun as much as a social bonding thing.
It didn't develop as a pleasure mechanism, that's incidental because it's on the tip of the penis, where nerve response is centered so our more instinctual ancestors had desire to stick it in a warm wet place. Its role in male pleasure is certainly not primary, and probably little or at all for women. Procreation, in evolutionary terms, was all about making it work, not feel great. Instinct takes care of all that.
I think you are both a little bit right and a little bit wrong about this. Pleasure, of course, would be just as important as functionality, in that the caveman who enjoyed sex more would be more likely to fuck, and thus procreate. Natural selection would favor the caveman who was more of a horndog and loved fucking and did it every chance he got. Also, we were social creatures who lived in groups, and protected one another. As such, I don't think sex was quite as hazardous as you might believe. Not so run and gun as much as a social bonding thing.
The most important item mentioned in the study is that all of the women had given birth to a son, and 89% of these women had their newborn son circumcised. Women who choose to circumcise their son for aesthetics surely would defend their decision.
I'm willing to bet that virtually none of these women has ever heard a reasonable anti-circ arguement in their entire life. My wife would have had our son circumcised if I hadn't convinced her otherwise. She would have done it just because she "heard" that it's better, and because I am.
I'm willing to bet that virtually none of these women has ever heard a reasonable anti-circ arguement in their entire life. My wife would have had our son circumcised if I hadn't convinced her otherwise. She would have done it just because she "heard" that it's better, and because I am.
MDC said:
Exactly. I feel this whole study is suspect for the above reason, and for two more reasons: 1) 85% of the women in the survey hadn't even been with a guy who was uncut and 2) they asked them what the "ideal" penis is, which brings social acceptance into the equation. In the study I presented, the women were required to have been experienced with both cut and uncut men, and there were no shady factors like having just birthed a son, who was more than likely circumcised.