Do People Consider Newborn Rape Worse Than (Older) Child Rape?

Physical damage and psychological damage. An unsolicited penis causes potential psychological damage but not sexual suppression for life.

You do realize there are women who have suffered severe physical internal damage from rape, right? As well as women who never fully recover from the psychological wounds inflicted by rape and/or molestation? Men, too.

Because it makes huge amounts of money for medicine and big pharma, and it's a widely practised religious rite that, when challenged, leads to religious whackos going nuts.

You're referring to why you believe it hasn't been made illegal, while failing to acknowledge the fact that whether you like it or not, it is legal and performed by surgeons around the globe. You're also referring to circumcision without consent which I have already said I disagree with, you've yet to provide a convincing argument as to why voluntary circumcision should be outlawed.

I've given you the histological analysis. All the fine touch comes from the foreskin. There is no scientific paper in existence that proves otherwise. IF you have no fine touch sensation, you are numb.

Except I'm not numb. I have less sensitivity, yes, but that's it. I'm sorry if you have no sensitivity whatsoever, perhaps more skin was removed in your procedure than mine, but I can only speak from personal experience as can anyone else. Ultimately you can refuse to believe me and that's fine, I don't have to convince you, I can only point to the fact that studies on the topic are currently inconclusive. For instance:

http://www.webmd.com/men/news/20040202/adult-circumcision-affects-sexual-performance

"Circumcised men take longer to reach ejaculation, which can be viewed as "an advantage, rather than a complication," writes lead researcher Temucin Senkul, a urologist with GATA Haydarpasa Training Hospital in Istanbul, Turkey. His paper appears in the current issue of the journal Adult Urology."

And an analysis of 36 different studies:

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/12December/Pages/Male-circumcision-doesnt-affect-sexual-satisfaction.aspx

You cannot alter form without altering function.

Now you're playing word games.

IF the ability to have sex and procreate was all that was important, FGM would be legal.

Would it? I thought big pharma and religious nuts controlled what was and wasn't legal?

But you would say FGM does have a measurable effect on function. Because you use different logic for each.

Again, stop telling me what my position is, it appears all you're capable of is attacking straw men. I would say nothing of the sort, I oppose FGM because I oppose any surgical procedure done on a person without their informed consent, with possible exceptions including emergency life saving operations.

It changes sensation for all. Nobody has a magic penis. The people who report minimal change are lying.

I could just as easily say the people who are reporting negative changes are lying when they say it's a result of their circumcision, or I could say uncircumcised men who deny having ED in studies done to compare against circumcised men are lying. I could even say you are lying (or more likely, trolling), but it's pointless because I can't prove it.

Haven't you heard of circumfetishists? People who get off on having this done. Most adult men who choose to do this (and there aren't many) will be doing so for religious/weird personal reasons.

How exactly can you speak to everyone's reasons for choosing it? Furthermore, what difference would it make anyway? I'm not claiming men choose circumcisions in order to improve their sex lives, I'm saying that being circumcised has improved mine.

By your logic, if one woman says cutting her vulva off doesn't change anything, then we must believe her. Ergo, FGM isn't damaging.

It's not "one woman", we're talking about thousands and thousands of people and we're talking about feelings here, something which cannot be quantified or measured. You cannot reliably determine how much pleasure or pain a person is feeling unless you ask them, that's why when people are suffering heart attacks or other serious illnesses, doctors or paramedics ask the patient to rate their pain on a scale of 1-10 in order to assess their condition. Hell, there would be no use for surveys at all if we could tell the exact effect circumcision or other surgical procedures had on people's pleasure without interacting with them.

You cannot have a more intense orgasm if you have little to no fine touch reception.

Once again, I'd be living proof that you're wrong, but since you don't believe me there's really no point in a further dialogue. Longer lasting sex can produce a more intense orgasm because it involves a bigger buildup, again I've tried it both ways. Hang on a minute... little to no fine touch reception? So now you're admitting there could be some fine touch reception? Make up your mind.

You're trying to rationalise your mutilation. You have no point of comparison. There is zero evidence circumcision makes you last longer. If anything , it's the opposite.

There's anecdotal evidence, which is pretty much all we can obtain for either case at the moment. I'm not trying to rationalize my "mutilation" because it has little to do with rationality - these are physical sensations we're discussing.

Because circumcised men have little to no feedback, sex is more boring and they become more goal-oriented. How much of a prototypical mutilated man in denial can you be.

Wow, really? I actually feel sorry for you, in all seriousness. You think sex is boring for a circumcised man just because there's less sensitivity? Clearly you must've gleaned no psychological pleasure from sex, it seems the sex you've been used to is a wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am sort of deal, and for that you have my sympathies. I could probably enjoy sex even if I couldn't orgasm at all, I get turned on just from pleasing a woman, whether it's performing oral sex or fingering, etc. it's always exciting to me.

It is impossible to have an improved sex life by cutting off the organ responsible for all your sexual pleasure, the foreksin. It's like saying cutting off your left leg makes you a better sprinter.

Facile analogy, as we've discussed, you've provided no evidence that the foreskin is responsible for providing all of the sexual pleasure, especially since sexual pleasure itself is entirely subjective.

Let's see. Who should people believe. A man who has experienced both, or a man mutilated at birth who has zero knowledge of what the foreskin and normal sex feel like.

Why would it matter? If it's as obvious as you claim, then circumcised men wouldn't need knowledge of the foreskin to know they cannot experience any pleasure from sex, no? Unless you're implying of course that pleasure is... subjective? I am a man who's experienced both.

Circumcised men are 4-5 times more likely to have ED, hence why viagra sales are highest in the richest circumcising nations, e.g. Israel and USA. Man A having his foreskin cut off leads to the same outcome as man B or man C having his foreskin cut off. The result is no foreskin. No foreskin = no pleasure + ED. Fact.

So you're comfortable citing studies (I assume that's from a study, and not your rectum, though I wouldn't be surprised) with anecdotal evidence to support your claims against circumcision but if I offer opposing studies, then everybody's lying? What was the sample portion tested in the study that said they're 4-5 times more likely to have ED? Can you prove the uncircumcised men surveyed weren't lying about their ED? Perhaps they were just, you know, rationalizing it. The higher Viagra sales don't mean a thing, Viagra's not just used to treat ED and some men use it for recreational purposes to make sex last longer.

Possibly not, because you do come across as mentally ill.

Someone who cannot even accept the possibility that he may be wrong about a subjective issue is in my view a lot closer to mental illness than someone who acknowledges fallibility.

Probably because you're circumcised and women aren't satisfied by your mutilated limp dick.

Some women actually prefer circumcised penises, while some don't, depending on various factors. Some women have had bad experiences with uncircumcised men and some have had bad experiences with circumcised men, some have only ever had sex with one type and not the other, and so on. You may want to ask around, rather than assuming you can just know other people's feelings and opinions without consulting them. Then again, even if they said they preferred circumcised men you'd probably attempt to rationalize it in your head by calling them all liars too.






"I have no idea what "hammer time" is. Or how it differs from regular time."

reply share

add reply

formatting help