I've been following this, too. It IS a pretty interesting story. But it kills me that somehow those idiots at PETA somehow get lumped in with liberals. Like, the right has their dominionists, the left has their animal rights extremists. Why? Why do they have to be ours? I don't think we asked for them.
"He just not that into ewe" is pretty great. But I'm a little bewildered by the other scientist who says that Roselli has to "take responsibility" for the crazy responses to his work. Way to back the spirit of inquiry, dude.
The other interesting thing is that "rooted in biology" used to imply something like "immutable," and now it implies "mutable."
I am sort of tickled that the only reason this became news is that the researcher had to make some handwavy claim about possible applications to Humanity in order to get funding to learn about gay sheep.
I'm wondering if the implications of his research extend to blow-up party sheep....
2: Wolpe is "senior fellow at the university's Center for Bioethics". IMO that almost guarantees he's blowing smoke out of his ass. Think Randy Cohen with a CV instead of a resume.
6. I think that title means "Randy Cohen" but with an education and scholarly credentials. Or, to shorten, ~Randy Cohen.
Bioethics is a pretty serious field in medical schools. The Oregon bioethics people played a role in the right-to-die debate there.
As far as I know, Cohen is a pure journalist who got assigned the ethics beat.
Recast his statement as "She shouldn't have worn that outfit if she didn't want to get fucked" and see if plays better with his credentials instead of coming from the guys in the bar.
This is so Language Log, right? They've been posting forever about how bad headlines (chosen for cuteness, esp. in British papers) and bad science writing misrepresent research, leading to misinformed outraged responses that then get tacked onto the backs of perfectly normal, sane scientists. What do these papers have against scientists?
I remember years back something about an animal sexuality researcher saying something along the lines of "The way a female sheep indicates sexual interest is to stand around in a field. So for all we know, there could be a huge incidence of lesbianism among sheep, and they're all just standing around totally wanting each other."
Ever since then, every time I see a field full of sheep I think to myself "they're totally lesbians." Usually I manage not to say anything out loud.
6: If you are implying that bioethics is not a serious field of philosophy, then fuck you.
Rob Helpy-Chalk, bioethicist.
What do these papers have against scientists?
" there is now no academic discipline whose conclusions can be considered acceptable to orthodox Republicans. "
http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2003/03/01/its-academic/
14: That sounds like a pretty serious and divisive statement. You're now either a person with a graduate degree, or you're a Republican. Hey, I'm glad they said it so we didn't have to.
13: I'm inferring, from his comment, that serious practitioners of a field of philosophy, and the field itself, would be better served by not making off-hand comments to reporters. His comment applies just as much to himself as it does to his subject.
Okay, they didn't say it, but I think they'd agree, no? This is one statement we can all get behind?
It would have been so much better if the researcher had been Scottish, so I could make the "Hey, McCleod, get off of my ewe" joke without straining this much.
Bioethicists who provide soundbites for the media are a mixed bad. There are plenty who are just headline grabbers, as you would expect in any field. On the other hand there are many serious researchers who talk to the media well. Alta Charo and Bonnie Steinbock spring to mind.
Medical decision making is a place where very deep philosophical issues suddenly have immediate practical import. It is really unique in that sense.
I will distance myself from Wolpe by pointing out that his degree is in medical sociology, not philosophy. I generally find that there is a huge difference between the way philosophers and nonphilosophers do bioethics. Part of Leon Kass's problem, I'm convinced, is not just that he is a right wing zealot, but that he is not a philosopher and actively disdains a lot of philosophical practice.
Ben "Bad Science" Goldacre gets hold of the story and whacks it out of the park. Skinny: they weren't cutting through their skulls to stick sensors in their brains, the reporter simply made that up, and they were trying to turn straight sheep gay, not the other way around.
"The animals' skulls are cut open and electronic sensors are attached to their brains." It sounds gruesome. But this was simply - and rather bizarrely - not true. There's no neurophysiology in these experiments. They don't even measure things from nerve cells: they measure mate preference, by watching the sheep choose a mate. Cilla Black does not open up Blind Date contestants' skulls to attach electronic sensors to their brains (disappointingly in some respects) and they don't do it in these experiments either. From this point, if you can believe that such a thing is possible, the Sunday Times then goes rapidly downhill.
"By varying the hormone levels," they continue, "mainly by injecting hormones into the brain [cough] they have had "considerable success" in altering the rams' sexuality, with some previously gay animals becoming attracted to ewes." This is not just completely untrue, it is, in fact, the polar opposite of what the researchers really did. The only similar work completed and published by this team of researchers was about trying to make "straight" animals "gay" (although animal behaviour researchers avoid those terms) and in any case, that experiment was negative: it failed to achieve this aim. Go read the study if you don't believe me (Endocrine. 2006 Jun;29(3):501-11).
I could go on for pages: even the details are wrong. "Initially, the publicly funded project aimed to improve the productivity of herds..." Wrong. "Michael Bailey, a neurology professor..." Wrong. "The research is being peer-reviewed by a panel of scientists in America..." wrong, "...demonstrating that it is being taken seriously by the academic community." Wrong. I contacted the lab to double check: nothing is currently under peer review, because nothing has been submitted for publication, because no current experiments are completed. There aren't even any grants under review.
But most bizarre is the suggestion that the research was somehow ultimately about making gay people straight. This is stated and restated, even at the very top of the article: "Scientists are conducting experiments to change the sexuality of "gay" sheep in a programme that critics fear could pave the way for breeding out homosexuality in humans."
For those of you at the Sunday Times with some catching up to do, here's a news flash: we cleared up the question of Lamarckian inheritance of acquired traits over 100 years ago. If it helps, you could think about whether boob jobs will make future generations have larger breasts. And even if you could intervene to make a gay human straight - which only the Sunday Times and their friends are claiming here, not the researchers - then in any case, you might reasonably expect this to make any inherited tendency towards homosexuality more prevalent, rather than less...
Somehow this calls to mind "One thing is for sure: the sheep is not a creature of the air". I'm not the first to make the connection, either.
Don't mess with God's plan, folks. Gay or straight, whichever way God intended, leave them the way they are!
Heard any new sheepherder jokes?
High points of 10th grade sex ed: the teacher, in describing the male reproductive anatomy, described the foreskin. After talking about circumcision, she went on to say that people thought that, as it was vestigal and purposeless, future generations might evolve to lack foreskins. One of the boys in the class got up and said disgustedly: "Good God. The woman believes in Lamark," and stalked out of the room.
I think it was 8th grade sex ed when the teacher, a woman, claimed that it isn't possible for a man to pee when his penis is erect. We all owed Scott a debt for this: "Yes it is. Yes it is. HOW DO YOU KNOW?!"
"Good God. The woman believes in Lamark," and stalked out of the room.
I am endlessly reminded that parts of the country other than the one in which I grew up had vastly superior educational systems.
But the student was wrong—if the foreskin is vestigial and purposeless, it makes sense to think that people might evolve not to have one, since its creation and maintenance takes energy. If she thought that circumcision was going to be the agent of that change, then that would have been Lamarckian, but as the story is presented she's guilty at worst of presenting things poorly.
And sadly, knowing the kid involved, it was a badmannered stunt rather than any sort of genuine intellectual outrage. Still funny, though.
Credit where due: I'm glad Ben is around, because I didn't want to be bitchy, but the teacher's right.
Evolution isn't purposeful, people. It hasn't taken courses in how to more efficiently manage life by throwing out clutter.
The teacher was still being silly, because there's no particularly good evidence that the foreskin is purposeless, and vestigal body parts can hang on a long time -- there's no reason to think that the foreskin is going anywhere while Homo Sapiens remains recognizably the same animal. And she did bring it up right after circumcision.
But I'm sure she wasn't actually a committed Lamarckist.
My point was not that the kid was right, but rather that he was rude in a highbrow way that would have sent my 8th-grade self scurrying to the encyclopedia.
Dear 30,
Nothing in 26 implies that evolution is purposeful.
Yours sincerely,
33.
Dear 33: It doesn't make sense to think that a species is going to evolve not to have minor features that aren't especially purposeful, since life isn't about streamlining. Also, foreskins take no more energy or maintenance than, say, earlobes.
I realize you don't know much about foreskins, but 26 is just silly.
foreskins take no more energy or maintenance than, say, earlobes
That's just not true: they're more prone to infection, which is a cost, and increase the chance of transmitting AIDS, which could lead to sexual selection against them, or for less pronounced ones, etc. The teacher was perfectly right to say that they might go away.
You haven't cut your kid's foreskin either, have you? I'm so reporting you to Child Services.
I'm hard-pressed to imagine a lifestyle where presence/absence conferred any sort of functional advantage.
I can easily imagine it playing a role in sexual selection, as a preference, but that's a social, not biological process wit' us humans.
The history of the epispasm is instructive.
36: I thought Muslims practiced circumcision too.
Ogged and Ben are right. For instance, it is increasingly common for people to be born without wisdom teeth.
In order for sexual selection to be a possibility there'd need to be heritable variation in the human population for foreskin-hood. Which there isn't. So it's not.
That's not to say that a mutation might not occur, be selected for and reach fixity. But it's pretty unlikely.
I can easily imagine it playing a role in sexual selection,
We usually don't get a chance to peek beforehand.
For instance, it is increasingly common for people to be born without wisdom teeth.
I'd have thought that it'd be hard to increase a rate of 100%. Has anyone ever been born with wisdom teeth?
But seriously, I doubt it. Over what time frame are we talking about this data?
it is increasingly common for people to be born without wisdom teeth
I don't think anybody has ever been born with wisdom teeth.
40: Right, I took for granted that it wouldn't be a heritable variation; but its incidence, as an artifact so to speak, would be very receptive to the pressure of sexual selection, as it has been in the past for social.
We usually don't get a chance to peek beforehand.
That depends on whether you're doing internet dating.
35: They might go away, sure. But that isn't the same as what either the teacher (reportedly) or Ben was saying, which is that *because* they're vestigial, we might evolve not to have them. We might evolve not to have all sorts of things; vestigiality doesn't really enter into it.
LBwned.
42: That's why I take Lowell P. Thurber's approach.
We usually don't get a chance to peek beforehand.
Retention rate.
We usually don't get a chance to peek beforehand.
AWB, you ursine slut, in IDP's day, the girls got things started with a hand job.
46: It's only on CL that one gets pics of the actual machinery employed. The rest of us just exchange emails about flowers and hearts until we meet.
40: Zackly.
38: Yeah, which is why Ogged and Ben are so determined to argue that in the future, men won't have foreskins, so they won't have to undergo circumcision.
50: Right, but that commits you to marriage.
But seriously, I can't imagine anyone getting to the naked point with someone and then saying, "Actually, well, you, uh, you're not. Hm. I'm gonna go."
got things started with a hand job.
And still in Australia, unless Dick Gross gets his way.
But seriously, I can't imagine anyone getting to the naked point with someone and then saying, "Actually, well, you, uh, you're not. Hm. I'm gonna go."
Doesn't matter if you do the deed, it matters whether you let yourself get knocked up by someone defective.
40: Zackly.
40 doesn't prove your point, child abuser.
I once had somebody offer to blow me if I wasn't circumcised, because she'd never seen one up close. Unfortunately, I didn't meet the requirement. We ended up having sex anyhow.
54: As I say, it would operate by retention rate.
My older brother did actually explain protocols to me, circa 1965; by the time I came of age times had changed.
Now there's someone who really shouldn't use a nickname.
59: Oops wrong thread.
56: It does too. Do I need to get my long-haired, uncut athiest kid to explain how evolution works to you?
Reduction of jaw size has seen increasing rates of agenesis of third molars. Anecdotal point, I only developed third molars in my upper jaw. No wisdom teeth in the lower.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=1171628&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=11771787&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_docsum
Or, look at flightless moths. Non use has led to greatly reduced wings
http://www.aad.gov.au/asset/images/590_ul-Inver.jpg
Which is not to say people will necessarily lose foreskins, but it's not nuts to speculate. And is there a genetic variation for foreskin? Perhaps not, but assertions that there isn't are guesses.
There doesn't have to be a direct genetic cause for foreskin production for it be selected away. Suppose, for instance, that foreskins develop because the growth vector for the skin of the penis is more active than the vector for the internal material. The excess skin just bunches up around the front because it has no other place to go.
No suppose there are genes that contribute to skin growth but not to shaft growth. Individuals where these genes are less active or non existent might be selected for if the energy used by these genes in development wound up being used in more reproductively advantageous ways. It would also probably help if humans were competing in a more calorie scarce environment than they are now.
(I love making up evolutionary stories.)
59: Oops wrong thread.
Really? worked well 59=>55.
64: Oh, right. Yeah, that's what I meant.
"In order for sexual selection to be a possibility there'd need to be heritable variation in the human population for foreskin-hood. Which there isn't. So it's not.
That's not to say that a mutation might not occur, be selected for and reach fixity. But it's pretty unlikely."
Wouldn't circumcision actually make this even *less* likely, since you could get all the benefits of the small-foreskin-mutation and more without having the gene?
54: Why? Because you can't imagine someone bailing out that late in the process? Because I, um, can picture that quite clearly. To this day.
also, I buy that fewer people's wisdom teeth are erupting, but wouldn't the primary reason for that be that we're keeping more of our other teeth?
67: Either 'you poor dear' or 'what a lousy thing to do,' depending on which end of the problem you're remembering it from.
I've bailed myself, but not on that issue, nor on any physical issue, and boy, was she mad.
That is, assuming that the bailout was for the stated "objection to foreskins" reason. I can see perfectly good other reasons for a late bailout.
67 makes me really angry that we've instituted the stupid presidential pseudonyms. Back in the day, that would have been the kind of comment people would have been *proud* to leave under their regular names.
Because I, um, can picture that quite clearly. To this day.
Yeah, I'd probably post that comment anonymously too.
Perhaps George Washington was one of the cock photo mailers and wishes to maintain some semblance of anonymity.
the kind of comment people would have been *proud* to leave under their regular names.
If a woman I'd been fooling around with changed her mind after looking at my dick, I'm not sure I'd be eager to post that.
74: Nope. I didn't say their regular real-life names.
76: And that lack of manly courage is the problem, right there.
changed her mind after looking at my dick
No way is that going to fit.
No way is that going to fit
Plausible, but I've never experienced anything but dauntless courage.
71: Like what? has this happened to you? Laurier will explain if you will.
I can't say that it's ever happened to me either way, but someone could say or do something unsettling or unpleasant after having gotten naked that'd be reasonable grounds for flight. Perhaps "After this, you realize that we're married in the eyes of God"?
all the benefits of the small-foreskin-mutation
Yeah, but you lose the advantage of having one more place to stash berries and sharp flints for making arrowheads and such.
sharp flints
Biohazard is tough.
Open sores might be another reasonable ground for flight.
OK, that's what it was, rather neatly summarized. She said some things that I found unsettling and unpleasant, not concerning anything just coming into view, after having gotten naked. Flight was problematic, because it was my room. A very unpleasant memory.
"After this, you realize that we're married in the eyes of God"?
Most guys response to this from a woman would probably be, "of course baby" while making a mental note to change their phone number.
Most guys response to this from a woman would probably be, "of course baby" while making a mental note to change their phone number
I do think backing-out by men is not expected nor, therefore, easily adjusted to.
increase the chance of transmitting AIDS,
And cancer, according to some news story I once read. Let's just cut to the chase and give B the Hates Her Child Mostest of the year award.
I'm actually tied for that one.
Did someone say Lamarck? You mean, I can comment without feeling like I'm not working on my dissertation?
Excellent.
Of course, it also means I have to agree with ben in #26, whose account of Lamarckism is correct. Of course, it doesn't account for what no accounts of Lamarckism account for anymore, that is, what's grossly translated as "the complexifying force" (Spencer's "from homogeneous to heterogeneous" mantra).
As for his pedantic correction, however, I'm not sure when it was "decided" (or by whom) that his name contains a "c," but I can dredge up all sorts of historical documents, spanning centuries, in which you're as likely to find a "c" as not.
I had both of my boys circumcised, but am considering skipping it for the soon-to-arrive girl.
This, by the way, She said some things that I found unsettling and unpleasant, not concerning anything just coming into view, is just being a tease.
90: Aren't you worried that she'll feel like the odd one out?
91: I wasn't going to say anything, but yeah.
Scott, I didn't understand any of that.
This, by the way...is just being a tease.
I know. I honestly don't remember, or have repressed, exactly what she said then, but I can remember thinking "She's a nut! and I don't like her at all"; I found her thinking repellent, and I didn't want to have sex with her.
I'm a very earnest guy, in case you hadn't noticed.
If we have a boy, I'm going to be fairly insistent that we not circumcise. If the boy wants to remove it later, he canh.
84: during the late sixties a pleasant-seeming new neighbor couple stopped by to say hi. Things were going along fine until the bunch of us happened to walk by the bathroom, which had a clawfoot bathtub. The lady of the couple, who would be called a Goth today, looked at and said something like "That would look spacy filled with blood. "
96: Sure, keep your kid out of heaven. Some compassionate parent you are.
I'm a very earnest guy
No doubt. It'd take something pretty drastic to put me off.
"I have (insert STD)"
"I used to be a man"
Also, insistence on one of us getting peed on, etc.
Get your boys circumsized you bunch of screwballs.
This seems like a good place to mention the golden spike on the newest state quarter.
I used to be fairly adamant that I wouldn't have any son of mine circumsized. The actual proof of a reduced disease transmission for circumsized men has really made me reconsider my thinking.
100: It seems a little late now. "Newt, an acquaintance of mine on the internet would like us to arrange for a doctor to cut the end of your dick off. That good with you?" There's really a window of opportunity at birth, and if you miss it, I can't see doing anything other than leaving it up to the kid.
102: Mmm. Not circumsizing was an easy decision five years ago -- now I'd be thinking harder.
Honestly, barring religion, I completely fail to see the point of circumcision. I'm not even being all "don't mutilate your children!!!!!" about it: I just don't see why guys like apo and gswift *care*.
I mean, at least the "don't mutilate your children!!!!" crowd have a point, you know?
My mother had no wisdom teeth, I only had three.
103: well sure, you have to leave it up to him at this point, but you could at least emphasize to him that you'll be very disappointed in him if he doesn't agree to it, and that he'll be risking hell.
And tell him you'll be extra proud if he forgos anesthesia.
102: My understanding is that the difference in health issues between cut and uncut all but disappears if the uncircumcised male regularly washes under the foreskin, which doesn't seem too onerous. (Uncut, here, but I don't feel all that strongly one way or the other about it.)
It was essentially that she thought of me as an ethnic stereotype, which she found attractive. Fine, no problem, except that there was no self-deprecation, no sense that this was just a preference, no indication that there was any difference in her mind between the stereotype, ludicrous applied to me anyway, and a person. I knew her well enough to know she wasn't kidding; I guess you could say I felt objectified.
108: Exactly. Gee whillikers, you have to teach boys to wash their pee-pees. However will we manage?
Our son was circumcised at my wife's insistence. I didn't have much of a preference either way. For some reason, she's since decided that it was the most horrible decision she's ever made, and that his life will be ruined, and that he'll hate her for it. I think she's been reading some "Don't mutilate your children!" propoganda, against my advice.
110: You met a woman who was hot for Canadians, and you didn't take advantage? Talk about passing up a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
(Apologies to Cala.)
94: That's why I'm still working on the dissertation. One day, I hope to speak in English.
111: Except that then, you know, he'll have to handle it. And you know what that leads to.
My understanding is that the difference in health issues between cut and uncut all but disappears if the uncircumcised male regularly washes under the foreskin
So he won't get dick cheese. But there's still the disease transmission thing.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17079568&query_hl=8&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16822094&query_hl=8&itool=pubmed_docsum
and that he'll hate her for it.
Do any of the circumcised males here even think about it at all, ever, outside of comment threads like these? Honestly, they work just fine with or without a foreskin.
I've never had any trouble operating mine.
MC is equivalent to an intervention, such as a vaccine or increased condom use, that reduces transmission in both directions by 37%
Or, you can just teach him to use condoms.
I mean, this kind of thing makes sense when you're talking about population *groups* (large ones) and public health issues. But reducing it down to the individual level--if you don't have your son circumcised, he's more likely to get AIDS--is incorrect. Also, silly.
I didn't know whether I was circumcised or not until age 17 or so, when I figured out that I wasn't. That may have contributed to the pain and discomfort associated with the skin peeling back (which I experience to this day), or it may be that the skin's reluctance to peel back made me mistakenly think that I was circumcised. Anyway, I wish I had been.
119: Sure, but I haven't known uncircumcised guys to complain about having their foreskins, either. Which still goes back to the point that to circumcise, you have to make a positive choice to do so, and I just don't get why you would.
It's kind of the "would you cross the street to do x" test.
118: "Disease transmission" = "health issues". Are those studies controlling for hygiene? My point is that "teaching your kid to wash his bits" and "cutting off the foreskin" have comparable effect, to the best of my knowledge.
Or, you can just teach him to use condoms.
Well shoot, under that logic we could just do away with abortion providers, as well.
123: Okay, pwned by 122.
Re. pain/discomfort, you're talking about phimosis. Which is treatable, you know.
I'd like to see all God-fearing Americans start advocating against circumcision, on the same grounds that they advocate against HPV vaccines.
Seriously, B, you seem to have MUCH MUCH stronger feelings about this than either me or gswift.
126: Crappy analogy, as you well know.
Seriously, apo, why are you arguing *for* circumcision? I have a hard time believing that it's *really* because you're so terrified of getting HIV.
My cards are, I kinda like foreskins; they're nifty to play with.
Do any of the circumcised males here even think about it at all, ever
No, but I have run across some sites where it's been blamed for everything from depression to mania, and somewhere out there are instructions for using weights to re-create the foreskin.
Anyone want to bet against the notion that, as the Boomers age, the lack of a foreskin will be blamed more and more frequently for all sorts of ills?
My point is that "teaching your kid to wash his bits" and "cutting off the foreskin" have comparable effect, to the best of my knowledge.
I've yet to see anything in the literature suggesting you're going to reduce female to male disease transmission by washing. Offhand, I'm not even coming up with a possible mechanism here.
We didn't circumcise, even though I was aware of some of the evidence around disease transmission, because the risks of transmission only become significant when you are in a community with a lot of STDs to begin with, like central Africa.
I suppose, though, that you could argue that I am in some way free-riding on herd immunity, just as people who don't immunize are.
you're talking about phimosis. Which is treatable, you know.
If only there was a procedure that could prevent this. Hmmm.
Isn't the risk of female to male transmission of disease relatively trivial?
129: Not circumcision per se: just that I never get why people argue for taking an action when not taking it is easier and doesn't have any obvious negative outcome. Especially if said action is even mildly painful. Y'all are weird.
I just googled "foreskin restoration exercises" and did not like what I saw.
Better hygiene=reduced potential for sores/breaks in the skin=lowered odds of female->male disease transmission? I don't know that it's the case, but it seems possible.
And I'm not seeing anyone being all that heated here.
134: Yeah, and it's a relatively rare problem. I kinda doubt folks choose circumcision to prevent their child from developing it.
why are you arguing *for* circumcision?
My argument is that it doesn't matter, not that anybody should choose one or the other. I simply said that I had my sons circumcised.
135: In the industrialized world, yes. In countries where there is a lot of disease going around, even low rates of female to male transmission can have a significant effect. This is why AIDS can be a problem for heterosexuals in Africa.
132: WTF? Shorter exposure time by washing off the crud with the infectious agent in it. Healthier skin on the inside of the foreskin = fewer dermal fissures for the infectious agent to enter.
132: Also, bringing up the average level of self-respect (and hence health) of the sexual partner, because the clean girls will recoil in horror from the dick cheese.
141: Disingenuous. You compared failing to circumcise with outlawing abortion. If it doesn't matter, why'd you have your kids circumcised?
Although everyone should admit that the (small) risk of very serious freak accident in the procedure ought to at least make one pause and consider...
141...and then sauteed the foreskins.
119: I've thought about it, in a "maybe I'm really missing out" kind of way. It's difficult to do the controlled experiment, of course.
I have read (probably in some disreputable corner of the Intertubes) that men who h av ebeen circumcised as adults report a decrease in sensation and quality of orgasms. I like sex and orgasms just fine, but the thought that they could be even better makes it seem like a no-brainer, putting aside the paying-someone-to-slice-up-my-boy's-wang aspect of it all.
129, 145: Arguments of the form: "Geez, you're really bent out of shape about this." "No, I'm not, but you are." "Nuhuh, you're the one who's all excited about it." "Am not -- I really don't care -- but you clearly think it's a huge deal." are really dull. Can we all agree that no one here cares all that much other than gswift? (who really needs to chill out some, geez.)
149- another argument against: the closest thing we've got to controlled experiments are adult circumcisions, and my understanding is that the overwhelming majority report significantly reduced sexual satisfaction. (But my data may be coming from the "Don't mutilate your kids!" folks, so I'm not sure how good it is.)
150: Hugo Schwyzer (if you don't know him, he's a feminist really really Christian academic with a blog) had a post about getting circumcized as an adult for somewhat peculiar emotional/spiritual reasons, and I don't think reported any loss of sexual sensation.
You compared failing to circumcise with outlawing abortion.
No, I was saying that it's a poor rationale for either institution.
why'd you have your kids circumcised?
Aesthetics.
I'm curious whether any of the women here have a preference. (Performance-related, not aesthetic.)
"it's" referring to "they can use condoms"
That just seems bizarre to me. As noted above, the odds of a sex partner (and who else's opinion would you give a damn about) expressing a negative esthetic judgment on someone's genitals for being either circumsized or un- seems really low.
154: Fair enough. I think it's weird, b/c I like the way foreskins look better, but okay. (I wasn't saying condoms were a reason not to circumcise, btw.; just expressing doubt that the disease thing is *really* why guys defend circumcision.)
153: Am I allowed to say that I refuse to take anything Hugo says seriously?
157->154.
No preference, because I've never encountered anyone uncircumsized -- I think in my age group, it's pretty rare.
Shorter exposure time by washing off the crud with the infectious agent in it. Healthier skin on the inside of the foreskin = fewer dermal fissures for the infectious agent to enter.
All right, my bad. Now that I think about it, I've seen this proposed, but never actually demonstrated. Is there any actual data on this? Makes sense for reducing things like ulcers, but doesn't necessarily mean the sole difference in transmission is due to sores.
158: I read his blog with fascination, because he seems like a decent guy who comes out on the right side of lots of stuff, and his thought process is so weird.
cares all that much other than gswift? (who really needs to chill out some, geez.)
Circumcise, you damn hippies!
113: No, it was the Viking/Highlander thing. Towards someone genuinely attracted to Canadians, shouting out the names of Prime Ministers, or singing The Wreck of The Edmund Fitzgerald, I'd have felt differently.
Honestly, it's hard to convey. I played with the stereotype myself, as at the LCB. I was just turned-off completely by how crazy she was.
And I may have been mistaken; the easiest way to get rid of her, or to have got to a place it would have been easy to agree not to see each other, might have been afterwards. Then I wouldn't have offended her vanity. But I wasn't thinking like that, I didn't want to feel that way.
My adviser, to whom I turned for like, advice, seems to have thought I might as well have gone ahead. Other faculty members were more sympathetic, but amazed. Looking back, I feel lucky the story didn't show up in a Bellow novel.
155: I already answered that. I think foreskins are fun to play with, and all other things being equal, I prefer the way they look. I don't dislike cirumcised penises, though. I'm just curious why an essentially neutral decision (if you're willing to allow that both the pain argument and the disease argument are fairly minor issues) is something so many people choose to go out of their way to do.
I assume that it's either b/c folks want to defend their own decisions (or rather, their parents') or else simply b/c of the status quo thing, but it's interesting that no one says that.
My adviser, to whom I turned for like, advice
Okay, now your story gets weird...
163: Yeah, I can understand that, actually. It does seem a bit bizarre.
I like the way foreskins look better, but okay.
My conversations with women suggest that this position is held by a rather small minority, at least in the U.S.
161: There's something about his voice and incredibly careful, elaborate explanations that I can't help finding condescending. He drives me up a wall.
167: Which is it, gswift? Disease, or "women prefer it that way"?
168: But you'd develop a habit of incredibly careful overexplanation if you were, like, from Mars, as he appears to be. Again, he just seems so totally weird to me that I don't read him as annoying, just bizarre.
Which is it, gswift? Disease, or "women prefer it that way"?
Bit of everything. Reduced disease transmission, ease of maintenance, and the chicks dig it. What's not to like?
171: Well, probably, yes. I dunno, I get a really strong more-feminist-than-thou vibe off him. I'm suspicious of his motivations. Maybe I'm just being sexist, but I don't trust men who spend *that* much energy Very Seriously Explaining why Feminism Matters, and who seem incapable of even a single, teeny weenie cock joke.
Come to think of it, I don't really trust women like that either.
29 30
Evolution is not purposeful but the effects of evolution are to optimize design over time through incremental improvements. So if foreskins have no purpose (which is not exactly proven) there is a tendency for them to eventually go away. The situation with the sex organs is a little complicated because the foreskin will have some analog in women (does anybody know what?) which might have a purpose which would tend to preserve the structure in men.
A common illustration of this tendency is the loss of vision over time in fish living in caves.
the foreskin will have some analog in women (does anybody know what?)
Oh, dear god. Please, someone, tell me this isn't a serious question.
Also, LB and B, you should be aware that you've more or less foreclosed "porn star" as an occupation for your sons. You're circumscribing their opportunies.
teeny weenie cock joke.
Most of us are threatened by those, which is why we stick to the enormous cock jokes.
some analog in women (does anybody know what?)
Pocketbooks.
178: Thank you, Reverend Jackson.
some analog in women (does anybody know what?)
Nipples.
176: I have no idea, but surely there must be a niche market here, right?
The VikingKittens link is very silly, but not nearly as silly as the lyrics to that Led zepplin song.
Seriously, I had never understood what he was saying before, and that was for the best.
183: You see uncircumcised willies more frequently in European porn.
187: You can't buy that kind of global knowledge.
surely there must be a niche market here, right?
Not one I'm going to try and search for from my office computer, that's for sure...
Not a Lur, but apparently a lure, when I wasn't prepared to be one. Honestly, I'm willing to believe I was mistaken, but I drew back, and didn't want to go through with it.
184: That song is awesome, and needs to be the Vikings kickoff song. "Welcome to the JUngle" is a suckass kickoff song.
He's right that the various parts of the two genitalia types are analogous. One is a deformed, dfective version of the pther.
184: I don't remember the lyrics, which I never saw written before, as being so imaginative and literate.
http://www.cafepress.com/spookyharris
JM seems to be unaware that drugs re required for anyone paying attention to Zep lyrics. It's like she was sitting in a dark room looking at photographs.
187: You also see pissing on people and people eating shit more frequently in European porn. Coincidence?
Also, there's no money in European porn. The big stars are all in LA.
196: "photographs" s/b "uncircumcised penes"
197: You see, B? You've set PK up for a life of coprophagy.
Eh, if PK decides that porn is his true calling, he can schedule the surgery his own damn self.
194: "imaginative and literate" s/b "pretentious and corny," no?
202: no disagreement, just that as JM says, I'd never seen them before, and had no idea any of those ideas were even there. It's their existence, not their quality, I'm reacting to.
The funny thing is that I remember singing along to that song.
Late 1970, right? My clearest memory of that song was from a very cold day that winter, on the firing ranges. The guy next to me, one of the "head cases" disturbingly common in those days, as mental requirements had been relaxed, became disoriented and pointed his loaded rifle at me. Must have heard it on the way over, or afterwards; we sure didn't hear it, or anything else, on the ranges themselves.
Let a hundred flowers bloom. Racists.
Stoners: the last minority. Poor Chong.
Is he still in jail for selling bongs?
Chong, whose full name is Thomas B. Kin Chong, apologized for his conduct and said he had tried to make amends by instructing young people in inner-city L.A. to dance and learn about the movie industry, saying he has a "natural ability to teach."
He also said anti-drug commercials don't work on young people and he asked for the chance to "make a difference" by using his celebrity to help them stay sober.
"I play a loser for laughs," he said. "My movie, 'Up in Smoke,' was made 30 years ago. I couldn't make that movie today. I'm not that person anymore."
Federal prosecutors indicated they weren't entirely convinced.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Mary McKeen Houghton pointed out, for example, that when agents raided his home they found close to a pound of marijuana.
Compressed into the shape of a model truck.
I'm just wondering how a bong could be illegal but not a hookah, since they're largely the same sort of thing.
Jesus H, how'd this become a pro/con circumcision discussion? And what's with all the circumcision talk lately - some loon on DKos posted like 20 diaries on this in a week. It doesn't seem like something worth getting excited about either way to me, but I will say that those who look to the before-after studies to argue that there's a loss of sexual sensation need to understand that being circumcised as an adult is not at all the same thing as being circumcised as an infant, for reasons I tried patiently to explain here.
Water pipes, hookahs, are sold in grocery stores in my neighborhood. Seems as if they'd be adaptable.
You can tell which is which by the dirty hippies selling the bongs.
216: Eh, people get touchy about their genitalia. I'd say that you're clearly right on the 'no big deal either way' front.
Right, the crux is whether you're selling them for tobacco use or marijuana use, which is shitty law, but it is what it is. This is why, in many head shops, they will insist you refer to them as water pipes rather than bongs.
220: I get touchy with mine every opportunity I get.
For a long time I have wanted to open a head shop called "for tobacco use only."
Lord almighty, do Zeppelin fans ever value accuracy:
Their wait was rewarded with 'Stairway To Heaven', on a fourth album which bore no name but a series of runic symbols, one for each member. The song was written in stages, beginning at the Bron-Y-Aur cottage, moving from acoustic soft to slashing electric in deliberate movements, its verses reminiscent of The Faerie Queene, opening to a miles-long depth and resolve. On the same album, 'Rock and Roll' let their fans know that megatonnage could never be forgotten.
You know, because it mentions faeries.
Raedawn Chong has changed too. No longer naked and tied to a tree by cannibals, she looks like a soccer mom.
I think that "Trampled Underfoot" is the best Zep song. It has some sort of weird organ and sounds soccer-hooliganish as it repeats the same kick over and over.
Mozart did some good stuff too, though.
Not circumsizing was an easy decision five years ago -- now I'd be thinking harder.
This.
Also, I've all my wisdom teeth -- two up top, two beneath -- and yet, I recognize my mouth says things that aren't so wise.
Extra wisdom teeth do not impart additional wisdom either.
I can't let you think that line was mine.
147
The risk involved is certainly a consideration as I have heard some real horror stories about botched circumcisions. I once looked into this but found it was difficult to ascertain the true risk because of the amount of pro and anti propaganda. I expect the risk is less when performed by a surgeon in a hospital rather than as part of a religious rite.
175
I guess that is what I get for being too lazy to google it myself. For the curious the female analog to the foreskin is the clitoral hood. Is that something women are willing to do without?
I would think the opposite, but don't let him suck the blood.
For more on cave fish eyes and evolution see here.
What about finger eyes and evolution?
I expect the risk is less when performed by someone who does a lot of them in places where lots of them are done, discounting the diseased vampires with delusions of religiosity mentioned above. That holds true for every medical procedure I've seen studies about.
the clitoral hood. Is that something women are willing to do without?
Again, I'm really hoping this is a joke.
Hint: if you have to *google* to find out the answer...
238
Yes, you are correct, you want someone who does a lot of them.
And, as we well know, circumcision cures everything.
I taught the Offspring to wash his penis correctly when he was a little tyke. Should he desire to be circumcised, well, he's over 18, he can do anything he wants. Most of his early-childhood cohort weren't cut.
According to this study, 1 oin 476 newborns has some sort of complication related to circumcision., but only 1 out of roughly 10,000 uncircumcised newborns has a complication related to the fact that he was not circumcised.
What he means by that is the preputium clitoridis>/i? or clitoral prepuce, in case you were wondering.
