serious question
ratsalad
question on the subject
if a doctor is going to circ a baby boy why wouldnt he remove skin tward the
base of the shaft and pull skin back uncovering the head then stitch it up
in other words leaving the entire foreskin intact but is now the skin of the
penis the scar would be under hair line and all the sexual pleasure nerves
still intact it would only remove plain old shaft skin not the best part
Jack
"ratsalad" <rats...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:eBDmk.10914$QX3...@newsfe02.iad...
healthy tissue from a baby squealing in pain, he's certainly not concerned
for the child's welfare.
Jake Waskett
> ok i think circumcision is worst thing on earth but i also have a weird
> question on the subject
> if a doctor is going to circ a baby boy why wouldnt he remove skin tward
> the base of the shaft and pull skin back uncovering the head then stitch
> it up
As an MD friend explained to me once, that would risk creating permanent
swelling. For proper drainage, the incision line needs to be a junction
between mucosa and ordinary skin (I must admit that I don't fully
understand why this is the case).
> in other words leaving the entire foreskin intact but is now the
> skin of the penis the scar would be under hair line and all the sexual
> pleasure nerves still intact it would only remove plain old shaft skin
> not the best part
The "foreskin's sexual pleasure nerves" are an invention of the anti-
circumcision lobby.
ratsalad
its a medical fact plus my cusin told me his foreskin has more pleasure than
head of penis dont ask why he told me that just the fact he did ask your so
called MD friend
"Jake Waskett" <ja...@waskett.org> wrote in message
news:aXDmk.156828$Lc6.1...@newsfe18.ams2...
Jake Waskett
> foreskins sexual pleasure nerves are not a invention you complete
> dumbass its a medical fact
In which case you'll be able to cite medical proof. I won't hold my
breath, however, because I happen to know that such proof does not exist.
Jack
neck, face, arm, legs, feet, etc it's interesting that you want to think
such nerves don't exist in the prepuce. And women certainly get enormous
pleasure from touching the clitoral hood, which contains analogous
enervation. And for myself, the bit of fredulum remaining is by far the
most light touch sensitive.
Jake Waskett
> "Jake Waskett" <ja...@waskett.org> wrote in message
> news:ZNFmk.110399$uq4....@newsfe23.ams2...
>> On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 09:36:35 -0700, ratsalad wrote:
>>
>>> foreskins sexual pleasure nerves are not a invention you complete
>>> dumbass its a medical fact
>>
>> In which case you'll be able to cite medical proof. I won't hold my
>> breath, however, because I happen to know that such proof does not
>> exist.
>>
> Since most people can get some sexual pleasure from the nerves in their
> neck, face, arm, legs, feet, etc it's interesting that you want to think
> such nerves don't exist in the prepuce.
To revisit Ratsalad's original claim, Jack, (s)he suggested that if a
circumcision were performed in such a way that only skin from the base of
the shaft were removed, "all the sexual pleasure nerves [would] still [be]
intact[;] it would only remove plain old shaft skin not the best part[.]"
This is an interesting statement: if skin were to be removed from the base
of the penis then *all* of the "sexual pleasure nerves" would be intact.
This suggests that Ratsalad believes in the existence of two broad classes
of nerve: "sexual pleasure" nerves and non-"sexual pleasure" nerves.
Ratsalad has not yet explained how these classes of nerve differ, and what
their distribution is. It is, I admit, possible that (s)he believes that
these "sexual pleasure" nerves exist in the neck, face, etc., but not for
some mysterious reason in the "plain old shaft skin".
Yet it seems more likely, given the reference to the foreskin being the
"best part", that Ratsalad believes that these "sexual pleasure" nerves
exist *only* in the foreskin.
> And women certainly get
> enormous pleasure from touching the clitoral hood, which contains
> analogous enervation.
A questionable assertion.
> And for myself, the bit of fredulum remaining is
> by far the most light touch sensitive.
Though presumably you're intelligent enough to realise that you cannot
extrapolate from that to the foreskin?
Jack
Speaking for myself, I can notice a much lighter touch along the
circumcision scar and line where the frendulum used to attach. These areas
appear to be a different kind of tissue.
>> And women certainly get
>> enormous pleasure from touching the clitoral hood, which contains
>> analogous enervation.
>
> A questionable assertion.
>
>> And for myself, the bit of fredulum remaining is
>> by far the most light touch sensitive.
>
> Though presumably you're intelligent enough to realise that you cannot
> extrapolate from that to the foreskin?
>
There's uncertainty in an extrapolation. The bit of tissue remaining of the
frendulum and the circumcision scar is the closest bit I have to go on
because someone cut off part of my penis when I was born.
Your major mistake is to think that something as complex as human sexuality
can be served up in journal articles. There's too much unknown to be able
to claim that no aspect of sexuality is lost from cutting off part of
someone's sexual organ and altering its mechanics. Hell, it wasn't 15 years
ago that modern medicine was telling parents that newborn infants can't feel
pain.
ratsalad
compared to foreskin if you were to rub the skin on the base of your penis
only at the base in a masterbation way would it feel the same pleasure if
you were to rub your foreskin only in the same way? of corse theres feeling
at the base but compared to the foreskin its just shaft skin lol im not a
doctor or scientist or a writer hell i didnt even graduate hs but i can read
and i have a penis and if you dont like what i say im sorry but you chose to
come here and read this so you made a effort to become part of my madness
and anger and misspelled blogging haha PS i still love you man...
"Jack" <furgfu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:nuudnX5AqOX0zgbV...@posted.echolabs...
Jake Waskett
Scar tissue. It may also have a different texture (often slightly rough),
though this may not be noticeable if you were circumcised as a newborn.
As for being able to sense very light touch, that's one kind of
sensitivity, but it doesn't necessarily contribute to sexual pleasure.
Nor does it imply that a heavier touch would create greater sensation. In
fact, nerve receptors ordinarily "fire" a signal only when the stimulus
begins or ends, so to "feel" a lot the stimulus needs to be at exactly the
right level for them. For example, your eyelashes (or to be precise, the
nerve endings at their roots) are highly sensitive to light touch, and if
you lightly brush them with your finger, the sensation will be very
intense (and probably ticklish). However, if you apply a little more
pressure, such that you push the hair down flat against your skin, you'll
find that you feel much less sensation.
>>> And women certainly get
>>> enormous pleasure from touching the clitoral hood, which contains
>>> analogous enervation.
>>
>> A questionable assertion.
>>
>>> And for myself, the bit of fredulum remaining is
>>> by far the most light touch sensitive.
>>
>> Though presumably you're intelligent enough to realise that you cannot
>> extrapolate from that to the foreskin?
>>
> There's uncertainty in an extrapolation. The bit of tissue remaining of
> the frendulum and the circumcision scar is the closest bit I have to go
> on because someone cut off part of my penis when I was born.
If you weren't circumcised, you wouldn't have a circumcision scar, so you
can't really judge much from that. Nor can you really judge the
sensitivity of the frenulum from the tag. One theory is that the nerve
endings reform at the site of excision, and if this is the case then the
tag you have is more sensitive per unit area than your frenulum would have
been.
>
> Your major mistake is to think that something as complex as human
> sexuality can be served up in journal articles. There's too much
> unknown to be able to claim that no aspect of sexuality is lost from
> cutting off part of someone's sexual organ and altering its mechanics.
I just expect people to be able to prove what they claim. If someone wants
to claim that circumcision prevents heart disease, I'll be no less
sceptical.
As for the unknowns, I think that those are addressed fairly well by those
who've been circumcised as adults. Anecdotal evidence is of limited value
scientifically, but if you find it useful you'll usually find that such
men (including myself) will be happy to answer your questions.
Alternatively, there are several studies in which samples of such men are
questioned about their experience.
Jack
>
> Nor does it imply that a heavier touch would create greater sensation. In
> fact, nerve receptors ordinarily "fire" a signal only when the stimulus
> begins or ends, so to "feel" a lot the stimulus needs to be at exactly the
> right level for them. For example, your eyelashes (or to be precise, the
> nerve endings at their roots) are highly sensitive to light touch, and if
> you lightly brush them with your finger, the sensation will be very
> intense (and probably ticklish). However, if you apply a little more
> pressure, such that you push the hair down flat against your skin, you'll
> find that you feel much less sensation.
>
Yes I've noticed that.
>>>> And women certainly get
>>>> enormous pleasure from touching the clitoral hood, which contains
>>>> analogous enervation.
>>>
>>> A questionable assertion.
>>>
>>>> And for myself, the bit of fredulum remaining is
>>>> by far the most light touch sensitive.
>>>
>>> Though presumably you're intelligent enough to realise that you cannot
>>> extrapolate from that to the foreskin?
>>>
>> There's uncertainty in an extrapolation. The bit of tissue remaining of
>> the frendulum and the circumcision scar is the closest bit I have to go
>> on because someone cut off part of my penis when I was born.
>
> If you weren't circumcised, you wouldn't have a circumcision scar,
>
Agreed.
>so you
> can't really judge much from that.
>
I'm circumcised.
> Nor can you really judge the
> sensitivity of the frenulum from the tag.
>
Do you have a journal article for that?
> One theory is that the nerve
> endings reform at the site of excision, and if this is the case then the
> tag you have is more sensitive per unit area than your frenulum would have
> been.
>
Other scars I have aren't like that including childhood scars.
>>
>> Your major mistake is to think that something as complex as human
>> sexuality can be served up in journal articles. There's too much
>> unknown to be able to claim that no aspect of sexuality is lost from
>> cutting off part of someone's sexual organ and altering its mechanics.
>
> I just expect people to be able to prove what they claim. If someone wants
> to claim that circumcision prevents heart disease, I'll be no less
> sceptical.
>
> As for the unknowns, I think that those are addressed fairly well by those
> who've been circumcised as adults. Anecdotal evidence is of limited value
> scientifically, but if you find it useful you'll usually find that such
> men (including myself) will be happy to answer your questions.
> Alternatively, there are several studies in which samples of such men are
> questioned about their experience.
>
Is there a journal article proving that men circumcised as adults have the
same experience as men circumcised as infants? After all, if a man had all
his parts as a child and into adulthood he would have had a different
experience from someone who never had it at all. You might know that
specific areas of the cortex are stimulated by specific tactile parts of the
body--the left ring finger, for instance, connects with a different part of
the cortex from the left little figer. So what happens to the part of the
cortex assigned to the foreskin if it's removed at birth. Versus what
happens to the part of the cortex that responds to the foreskin in a man who
developed with that intact then suddenly it's removed? Neuroscience is
incredibly complex and in its infancy as a science.
>> Hell, it wasn't 15 years ago that modern medicine was telling parents
>> that newborn infants can't feel pain.
>
In other words, there's too much complexity and variation and uncertainty to
ethically surgically alter a child's sexuality. Especially, since he can
have it done when he's of age to decide for himself.
Jake Waskett
> "Jake Waskett" <ja...@waskett.org> wrote in message
> news:dWJmk.186404$x66....@newsfe25.ams2...
>> If you weren't circumcised, you wouldn't have a circumcision scar,
>>
> Agreed.
>
>>so you
>> can't really judge much from that.
>>
> I'm circumcised.
Yes, you said.
>
>> Nor can you really judge the
>> sensitivity of the frenulum from the tag.
>>
> Do you have a journal article for that?
It's a logical consequence of the theory I mention (Xin et al., J Urol
1997; 158: 451-5).
>
>> One theory is that the nerve
>> endings reform at the site of excision, and if this is the case then
>> the tag you have is more sensitive per unit area than your frenulum
>> would have been.
>>
> Other scars I have aren't like that including childhood scars.
Probably not.
I like it.
Anti circ #1 makes wild claims about "sexual pleasure nerves", hence
circumcision is wrong
Pro science points out logical absurdity in these claims, and points to
empirical evidence that allow one to test the hypothesis.
Anti circ #2 introduces curious speculation that circumcision in infancy
*might* differ from circumcision in adulthood, hence circumcision is wrong
Well, yes, it might. And there might be a small pacific island on which
gravity doesn't apply. There are lots of improbable things that might be
the case. But in general, we base our reasoning on the best information
that's available.
Now if you believe that circumcising infants is wrong, that's fine. Who am
I to tell you what not to think? If you want to make serious claims, and
are willing to engage in a serious, scientific discussion about them,
that's great. Make the claims and propose a method of proving or
disproving them. But please don't insult my intelligence with this
pseudoscientific, unfalsifiable nonsense.
Jack
your could never decide for yourself to get circumcised?
> Anti circ #1 makes wild claims about "sexual pleasure nerves", hence
> circumcision is wrong
> Pro science points out logical absurdity in these claims, and points to
> empirical evidence that allow one to test the hypothesis.
> Anti circ #2 introduces curious speculation that circumcision in infancy
> *might* differ from circumcision in adulthood, hence circumcision is wrong
>
> Well, yes, it might. And there might be a small pacific island on which
> gravity doesn't apply.
>
Gravity on Earth is entirely predictable and can be decribed to great
accuracy with three variables and two constants. How someone's sexuality
will play out over a lifetime is a much different matter.
>There are lots of improbable things that might be
> the case.
>
The idea that cutting off part of a baby's penis in such a way that it
changes the mechanics and appearance and histology is reasonable but I think
you are a prejudiced in your way of thinking on this subject so that you
cannot see the obvious.
> But in general, we base our reasoning on the best information
> that's available.
>
> Now if you believe that circumcising infants is wrong, that's fine. Who am
> I to tell you what not to think? If you want to make serious claims,
>
The inconsistency of anesthetizing some but not all infant circumcisions is
quite a serious matter.
> and are willing to engage in a serious, scientific discussion about them,
> that's great. Make the claims and propose a method of proving or
> disproving them. But please don't insult my intelligence with this
> pseudoscientific, unfalsifiable nonsense.
>
But are you willing to venture beyond strict utilitarian calculus and
medical research into (gasp) ethics?