Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MrDarwin · 02-18-2002, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrDarwin:
<strong>
Like I said earlier, we could cut the rate of breast cancer in half by removing just one of every infant girl's breasts at birth. The same goes for testicular cancer--remove one of a boy's testicles at birth, and the corresponding reduction in testicular cancer in adult men would be vastly greater than any reduced rate of penile cancer due to circumcision.

Can anybody explain why these are not good ideas that follow exactly the same logic as circumcision?</strong>

I had hoped that somebody would actually address this. Is my question too hard to answer, or does the pro-circumcision side actually agree with my suggestions since the sole justification for circumcision seems to be in weighing the benefits against the risks?

Rimstalker? rbochnermd?

GunnerJ · 02-18-2002, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Sorry but it is really hard to come up with a similar analogy. Perhaps we should just remove the mammary glands of infant females to prevent cancer there.

This would be closer, but it still has an important flaw: the mammary glands have a demonstratable function. The foreskin, so far as I have seen, has only annecdotal support for the contention of its functionality.

Quote:

The point still stands though. Are you saying it's okay to perform surgery on an infant because of potential health benefits many years later?

RED HERRING! It amazes me how many people here are willing to use the old "if you ain't with us, yer agin' us!" line of resoning on this subject. Obviously, if I point out a flawed analogy, that means I'm a full-fledged supporter of routine infant circumcision. There can be no other explaination. A desire to maintain a certain level of rationality in a debate? Nah, that can't be my reason! I muct be part of the Xian conspiracy to mutilate our boys!

Quote:

Perhaps we should remove the appendix of all infants. We don't need it, it's just a useless organ and we'll just have to remove it later in a small percentage of cases.

Again, RED HERRING. Why is it that no one actually pays attention to my many post on this thread where I have disavowed positive support for routine infant circumcision? Oh, wait, it makes it easier to score rhetorical points by demonizing those who dissagree with you. Sorry.

GunnerJ · 02-18-2002, 06:08 AM

Mr Darwin:

Quote:

"Like I said earlier, we could cut the rate of breast cancer in half by removing just one of every infant girl's breasts at birth. The same goes for testicular cancer--remove one of a boy's testicles at birth, and the corresponding reduction in testicular cancer in adult men would be vastly greater than any reduced rate of penile cancer due to circumcision.
Can anybody explain why these are not good ideas that follow exactly the same logic as circumcision?"

I had hoped that somebody would actually address this. Is my question too hard to answer, or does the pro-circumcision side actually agree with my suggestions since the sole justification for circumcision seems to be in weighing the benefits against the risks?

Rimstalker? rbochnermd?

I had hoped that by this time on the thread it would be painfully obvious that I am NOT "pro circumcision." I had also hoped that the intelligence and rationality you have shown in other debates in the past would be carried over to this thread. I had also hoped you would have actually followed the flow of this thread, and NOT ignored a post I made that ALREADY DEALT with this flawed, erronious analogy, in which I stated:

Quote:

Last time I checked, circumcision doesn't remove the WHOLE penis. Can we cut the bad analogies out, please?

This was in reply to Heather's suggestion that we remover girls breasts to prevent breast cancer. This, as I have shown, is not in any way analogous to someone removing the foreskin to prevent penile cancer because, as I have already stated, and you could have known because my statement was in the post you originally replied to (!!!), cricumcision does not remove the whole penis, and breast removal does.

Yes, I had hoped for all these things from a seemingly intellegent, logical fellow like you. But appearently, I set my hopes up too high.

Severely dissapointed, Rimstalker.

[ February 18, 2002: Message edited by: Rimstalker ]</p>

Daggah · 02-19-2002, 12:00 AM

Um, I feel kind of nervous and embarassed to ask this, because it's a personal question, but it's relevant to the debate.

Is it actually possible to be circumsized at the age of 19? I'm not, and I'm kinda concerned that the extra skin is interfering both with my orgasms and urination. When I urinate, if I pull the foreskin back, the stream becomes smaller but comes out at a much higher pressure, which I assume is normal for circumsized men? But the bigger issue to me is ejaculation - it sort of just dribbles out, and I've been under the impression that it was supposed to be a bit more forceful. Won't this interfere with my sex life? Is all of this normal?

tronvillain · 02-19-2002, 12:32 AM

Daggah:

It is definitely possible to be circumsized at the age of nineteen, but it sounds a little drastic. I'm not sure that you have a problem at all. This is a little personal, but how long does it take you to reach orgasm?

Daggah · 02-19-2002, 12:44 AM

Well, it really seems dependent on how fast I stimulate my penis (I've never really masturbated in the sense that one thinks of when one thinks of masturbation), but usually, I guess maybe 5-10 minutes, with an upper limit of about 30 or so. I'm not sure how that would compare to something more like real sex though. From what I can tell, though, when I do reach orgasm, there isn't much that actually comes out, but I've got no reference point to compare to. I'd be quite the studmuffin if I could go 30 minutes without orgasm during sex, I'm sure.

By the way, I posted that before I had finished reading the entire thread, and I can't remember who said it (Oolon?) but whoever mentioned the "double streams" - I know exactly what you're talking about. That's the only way it does come out for me (if I do push the foreskin back a bit, my aim goes to hell, so I don't).

tronvillain · 02-19-2002, 01:04 AM

I only ask because I find there's a fairly direct relationship between time, volume, and distance. I really doubt that having an intact foreskin would have much of an effect.

The "double strands" thing is still beyond my understanding. Do you urinate with the foreskin retracted or unretracted?

Daggah · 02-19-2002, 07:10 AM

Well, my theory was that, with the foreskin there, it was impeding the flow and making it all come out at once, making it seem like there was less there, but...I don't know.

The double-stream thing...thing about a double helix shape, like that of DNA. It's two small streams of urine entertwining so close to each other that if you looked quickly at it, it would seem like one stream. As I said above, I urinate with the foreskin unretracted, as my aim's better that way. Should I not be doing so?

MrDarwin · 02-19-2002, 02:37 PM

Daggah, this is something you need to discuss with your doctor. At the very least you should see a urologist--your foreskin may have nothing to do with your problems. Circumcision is not only drastic, it's irreversible and I believe adult circumcision has a higher rate of complications than infant circumcision--BUT there are times when it is the best solution, or even medically necessary. There may be other alternatives; you might be able to correct the problems with partial circumcision or other surgery. Only a doctor can give you the advice you need (and it should be a doctor you really trust and feel comfortable with).

tronvillain · 02-19-2002, 03:03 PM

Yes, I'd definitely see a urologist if I were - I hate worrying about these things.

Quote:

Well, my theory was that, with the foreskin there, it was impeding the flow and making it all come out at once, making it seem like there was less there, but...I don't know.

I'm having trouble picturing how your foreskin could possibly get in the way. It covers the urinary meatus during ejactulation? You might consider retracting it.

Quote:

The double-stream thing...thing about a double helix shape, like that of DNA. It's two small streams of urine entertwining so close to each other that if you looked quickly at it, it would seem like one stream. As I said above, I urinate with the foreskin unretracted, as my aim's better that way. Should I not be doing so?

No, it just surprises me that people urinate that way. It certainly wouldn't improve my aim.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-19-2002, 12:00 AM	#154
Daggah Banned Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Deployed to Kosovo Posts: 4,314	Um, I feel kind of nervous and embarassed to ask this, because it's a personal question, but it's relevant to the debate. Is it actually possible to be circumsized at the age of 19? I'm not, and I'm kinda concerned that the extra skin is interfering both with my orgasms and urination. When I urinate, if I pull the foreskin back, the stream becomes smaller but comes out at a much higher pressure, which I assume is normal for circumsized men? But the bigger issue to me is ejaculation - it sort of just dribbles out, and I've been under the impression that it was supposed to be a bit more forceful. Won't this interfere with my sex life? Is all of this normal?

02-19-2002, 12:32 AM	#155
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	Daggah: It is definitely possible to be circumsized at the age of nineteen, but it sounds a little drastic. I'm not sure that you have a problem at all. This is a little personal, but how long does it take you to reach orgasm?

02-19-2002, 12:44 AM	#156
Daggah Banned Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Deployed to Kosovo Posts: 4,314	Well, it really seems dependent on how fast I stimulate my penis (I've never really masturbated in the sense that one thinks of when one thinks of masturbation), but usually, I guess maybe 5-10 minutes, with an upper limit of about 30 or so. I'm not sure how that would compare to something more like real sex though. From what I can tell, though, when I do reach orgasm, there isn't much that actually comes out, but I've got no reference point to compare to. I'd be quite the studmuffin if I could go 30 minutes without orgasm during sex, I'm sure. By the way, I posted that before I had finished reading the entire thread, and I can't remember who said it (Oolon?) but whoever mentioned the "double streams" - I know exactly what you're talking about. That's the only way it does come out for me (if I do push the foreskin back a bit, my aim goes to hell, so I don't).

02-19-2002, 01:04 AM	#157
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	I only ask because I find there's a fairly direct relationship between time, volume, and distance. I really doubt that having an intact foreskin would have much of an effect. The "double strands" thing is still beyond my understanding. Do you urinate with the foreskin retracted or unretracted?

02-19-2002, 07:10 AM	#158
Daggah Banned Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Deployed to Kosovo Posts: 4,314	Well, my theory was that, with the foreskin there, it was impeding the flow and making it all come out at once, making it seem like there was less there, but...I don't know. The double-stream thing...thing about a double helix shape, like that of DNA. It's two small streams of urine entertwining so close to each other that if you looked quickly at it, it would seem like one stream. As I said above, I urinate with the foreskin unretracted, as my aim's better that way. Should I not be doing so?

02-19-2002, 02:37 PM	#159
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	Daggah, this is something you need to discuss with your doctor. At the very least you should see a urologist--your foreskin may have nothing to do with your problems. Circumcision is not only drastic, it's irreversible and I believe adult circumcision has a higher rate of complications than infant circumcision--BUT there are times when it is the best solution, or even medically necessary. There may be other alternatives; you might be able to correct the problems with partial circumcision or other surgery. Only a doctor can give you the advice you need (and it should be a doctor you really trust and feel comfortable with).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.