Sent from my iPad
On Sep 2, 2012, at 5:58 PM, Bill Bartlett <billbartlett at aapt.net.au> wrote:
> At 6:33 PM +0000 2/9/12, 123hop at comcast.net wrote:
>
>> So there's something to be said in favor of circumcision. Done shortly after birth, it is far less dangerous and heals much faster than done later in life.
There is a story in the old Testament about a dirty trick the Hebrews played on a tribe of their enemies, or people whose land they wanted, inducing the men to be circumcised, then killing them when they were incapacitated with pain. This is apparently something that the Hebrew priests who compiled the Jewish Bible wanted the Jews to remember and regard positively. Go figure. I will never understand the faith of my childhood.
>> So, one must weight the pain of the initial procedure versus the pain of repeated infections later in life both for the man and his partner.
>
> I don't remember any pain. Shortly after birth I expect there was a lot less blood flow in that area though. But it raises an old philosophical question - if someone-one recalls no pain, was pain really experienced? ;-)
This is actually a new philosophical question. I believe it was first formulated, or something like it, in the 1950s or 1960s with regard to dreams by Norman Malcolm. You need something like verificationism or Wittgenstein (Malcolm's route) to formulate it. Maybe both.
Inability to remember things from early infancy is not a matter of flow of blood to the brain. It's neural structure and development. Infants actually learn more and faster than older children or grown ups. They are basically learning too much and too fast to remember transient experiences the way grow ups do,and their nervous system are not built for it, since they lack the structures to classify and categorize what they "experience."
>
>> Some men report great loss of sensitivity as a result of circumcision. About this, I know little. 95% of the men I slept with were circumcised, and I did not notice any appreciable loss of sensitivity.
>
> That seems an odd thing to say. How would someone who was circumcised shortly after birth be able to experience a loss of sensitivity as a result of circumcision? Anyhow, I've got no complaints, it would be ridiculous to hold back from getting your son circumcised for fear he might not have any fun with sex.
>
I understand the theory is you lose the foreskin and whatever nerves it might have had that would have been stimulated during sex.
If circus sixes men generally reported less stimulation or desire or lowered libido, which, my understanding is, statistically, they do not (like you I have no complaints), that might be a reason not to circumcise.
> My sons weren't circumcised however, We did take the eldest along to the doctor for the procedure, but the doctor simply didn't turn up. I doubt it was because of any ethical concerns, he didn't bother turning up for the birth either, the useless bludger. You can't get good help these days.
>
> We didn't bother persisting - it wasn't terribly important to us, simply a custom.
Right. If you we Jewish you would have engaged a Moel. The one who circumcised my son was in fact a urologist, which made me feel better, but in Judaism this is a religious, not a medical practice, and the Moel doesn't have to be a doctor, just careful.
>
> To tell the truth I do find it a vaguely disturbing that people are getting their knickers in a knot about it. Hysterical ranting about "mutilation" seems quite bizarre. But as someone here just suggested, anti-semitism/islamophobia is a plausible explanation. I hadn't thought of that, but it makes sense.
>
I don't know. The anti-circumcisers I have heard are not generally right wing nuts and I don't hear their line as paired with antisemitic or anti-Islamic rhetoric. I think part of it may be nervousness about the thought of people slicing at the family jewels with sharp objects.
> Bill Bartlett
> Bracknell Tas
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk