Sure, but if you make extraordinary claims, then you have to provide extraordinary evidence. A claim of "amputation is no severe than drawing blood" is an excessively extraordinary claim, and you have yet to provide any evidence.
> I think we agree. As I said, it should be easy to talk about and yet there are multiple factors one must weigh. This makes it compicated, but I'm happy we're talking about it.
What factors? There's only one I am aware of - superstition.
> So I would be fascinated to understand the opposite position, which you put forth, that circumcised men get less joy from sex.
This isn't actually under contention, unless you contend that less feeling during sex is better.
Besides, for at least 3 decades there's been a ton of papers correlating ED with circumcision.
The only people "just asking the question" are those who are not happy with the answers we already have. We already have the answers, we already have the research, it's a very widely researched thing due to the large number of amputations performed.
You may not like the answers, but they're out there, and they've been validated.
Now ...
You are proposing it as a fairly harmless procedure, you should be providing evidence that there is no harm. It is both unscientific and primitive to make claims and ask others to disprove them.
The fact that you are ignoring much of the evidence that is already well-known and then you go on to compare lifelong mutilation for a superstitious belief to a temporary pain with no negative permanent effect makes it seem that you are willfully deluding yourself.
Circumcised men get less joy from sex. The only credible reports we have from consenting adults are those who get circumcised as adults, and the large majority did indeed get less joy from sex. A significant minority suffer from ED. A small minority never have sex again.
I keep returning to the same examples, but there are many "amputations" performed for non-medical benefits. Frenectomy; tooth extraction; mole/skin tag removal. I don't know if circumcision fits somewhere on this scale, I think it does, many believe it is of a different nature. I don't see how removing connective tissues in the mouth is any less injurious than removing connective tissues from the genitals. They both sound bad on paper, but in life this is a common occurrence with benefits (real or perceived seems to be up for debate)
> This isn't actually under contention, unless you contend that less feeling during sex is better.
I'm asking you genuinely how someone can tell. Is my kid going to enjoy food less just because his tongue tie is removed? I had a painful skin tag removed from my back, so yea I suppose I'm less sensitive there now but in a good way; it is less painful taking a shirt on and off. I am not making a broad based claim, I'm saying on an individual scale I've not suffered diminished sexual pleasure.
> You are proposing it as a fairly harmless procedure, you should be providing evidence that there is no harm. Ok, I think every male in my family is evidence that you can get circumcised and no ill effects come from it. No infections; no ED; no pain. It'd be fascinating to find data on ED etc in Jews compared to the rest of the world. I can't find anything, but if you can, please share.
> lifelong mutilation for a superstitious belief to a temporary pain with no negative permanent effect Is it not possible for both to be true? Lifelong mutilation to fulfill a belief can involve temporary pain with no negative permanent effect. I'm suggesting circumcision is just that. Are these necessarily contradictory?
> Circumcised men get less joy from sex. The only credible reports we have from consenting adults are those who get circumcised as adults, and the large majority did indeed get less joy from sex. A significant minority suffer from ED. A small minority never have sex again.
I'm not debating adult circumcision, we have to agree that is of a different nature than adult circumcision. Just like so many other procedures that have different risks/outcomes as an infant vs as an adult.
I'm not convinced me that circumcision is barbaric. If you are someone who believes a child cannot make their own informed decisions about their body, but that a parent is also not in a position to make such decisions, then you seem to be arguing that kids shouldn't have anything done to their body. Unless you're proposing there should be a committee or something to make decisions for kids? That seems kind of fascist though.
How could one have raised 3 kids and write there is nothing intrinsically good about clipping nails? Or even done manual labor? It is one of the most basic tasks a parent has to do with a baby unless they want a baby that makes itself bleed all the time. Cutting nails is just a practice, it has obvious practical benefits.
And comparing blood tests, vaccines, and cutting hair to genital mutilation makes me think either you are trolling or our realities are so incongruent that there is no purpose in conversing.
I do not know enough about tongue ties or frenectomy’s to comment. I have heard it is over diagnosed and might be done just so parents can feel something was done, but again, I have not delved into it much.
I have delved into cutting off foreskins, and that one, as you even claimed, is all about tribal affiliation. In other words, the procedure is not being done for the medical benefit of the person. At minimum, you would be causing unnecessary pain and risk of infection, but while I am not a urologist, I do know that foreskins have a role in providing lubrication.
Maybe it is mostly inconsequential. But that is irrelevant to the principle that people should be in control of their own body as much as possible. Obviously there is a ton that will not be, but cutting off the foreskin on penis to signify which tribe the male belongs to is a pretty easy one to conclude that violates that principle.
The lack of willingness of uncircumcised adult men to be circumcised should be a huge clue that there is in fact a benefit to bodily integrity.
We aren't talking about temporary and reversible body alterations, we're talking about amputations.
Amputated parts don't grow back.
> Yes, because travelling through the birth canal is required to live, and doesn't affect sex in later life. Also, it doesn't result in any amputations. How does circumcision affect sex in later life? If circumcision is amputation, what is removing an unsightly birthmark? Or as I've said, teeth, extra skin in one's mouth...
> We do. There's a ton of nerve endings there. Slicing of a particularly sensitive area (due to the concentration of nerve endings there) is going to be painful. Being birthed causes extreme trauma. That's why doctors measure a baby's oxygen and heart rate. So clearly some amount of pain is worth it if the gain outweighs the pain, no? Then you have to ask what is gained through ritual circumcision. The gain is religious and cultural value, so it's hard to measure precisely. But, you know, Christians give alcohol to kids every Sunday and no one's complaining.
> If you want to do it, you need to show some evidence that it is not, not throw your hands in the air and say "well, we don't know").
I'm suggesting that we consider not everything that seems obvious is in fact obvious. Should I keep my kid from having routine blood drawn or vaccination because the needle hurts? Stop clipping their nails or cutting their hair? These are all cultural practices, there's nothing intrinsically good about grooming in this way.
> I think your are deluding yourself - few doctors visits or trips to the park results in cutting off a very sensitive part of the body. I am trying not to delude myself. I am trying to clarify one thing for myself and one thing for others. For others, I want them to understand oral suction during a bris is basically unheard of outside of a fringe group. For myself, I'm trying to clarify if circumcision results in long term pain (psychological or physical)
> It is a fairly easy topic.
I think we agree. As I said, it should be easy to talk about and yet there are multiple factors one must weigh. This makes it compicated, but I'm happy we're talking about it.
> The question of "Should we amputate a part of a newborns body, one that affects future enjoyment, and known to be incredibly sensitive" is an easy one to answer.
I think the question is based on a false premise. How can one measure the joy of sex, and even if you could how would you say "this person gets less out of sex than if he had his foreskin." How can you say what the same person would feel in a hypothetical scenario? I'll just point out this very argument dates back to antiquity. Plutarch has a piece about Jews and discusses ritual circumcision - iirc he takes the stance that circumcision leads to more sexual activity and depravity because the penis is always uncovered. Greeks and Romans thought uncircumcised penises were vulgar, gross, and a sign of overt sexuality. So I would be fascinated to understand the opposite position, which you put forth, that circumcised men get less joy from sex.