Proof that God exists!

Inspired, I have my *own* logical proof of God.

A Horse has 2 back legs
It also has forelegs.
that's SIX legs.
Six is an even number, but odd for a mammal.
The only number that is odd and even is infinity.
God is infinate, as are horses' legs.
Horses are real - so God must be too.

I'll be in the back waiting for my noble prize.

Why blame God, who isn't around to defend himself? It's natural selection that's really obsessed about sex.

According to the Raving Atheist, God is indeed male. Note that in his latest post, RA refers to the deity with, "...His existence..."

Scary.

Your comments do apply to the criminal barbaric practice of circumcision which is practiced by some archaic religions(I know it is a pleonasm).

Why does an advance industrial state like the U.S. tolerate this child abuse and child mutilation? If one cut off a child's hand, or ear, or a finger, they would immediately be arrested.

For those apologists for barbarity, take a look at some links. Especially in some of these links look up the videos of actual circumcisions. Most of you won't have the stomach for it. You can find some at the first link Cirp.

http://www.circinfo.org/links.html

Also see Penn and Teller's program on circumcision. It appears to no longer be on line.

Pets are better protected than children.

"LONDON, Dec 23 1999 [Reuters] - An English couple lay within a whisker of gaol terms on Thursday after a court found them guilty of animal cruelty for giving their cat Tigger the ultimate pet accessory - a pierced ear.

Bradford Magistrates Court was told the fake diamond stud had left the cat in a flap. It was due to sentence Simon and Melanie Whittaker later on Thursday.

The couple face a potential maximum six-month gaol term and a £5,000 ($US 8,053) fine."

http://www.circumstitions.com/Law-other.html

See the book 'God's Phallus' for an interesting discussion of male priestly love for a male god.

what a monstruous example of trying to completely dominate other sex's reproductive capabilities...Think next stage will be scalping, cutting their limbs off, then faces, then ( those rich enough to afford a life support machine ) amputating anything not needed for bare biological survival, and ultimatelly only thing left will be womb+ovaries which will be produced and traded exactly like cars or computers are. O.K. Im being paranoid, I know... but... that's where I see it to lead..

archaic religions(I know it is a pleonasm)

Others would argue that it is a neoplasm...

RavenT,

Some, but those wouldn't be lysdexic, now would they?

Why does an advance industrial state like the U.S. tolerate this child abuse and child mutilation? If one cut off a child's hand, or ear, or a finger, they would immediately be arrested.

If I could manipulate a sousaphone with my foreskin I'd be more concerned about its loss.

Some good news (more or less) on this issue: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5118376.stm

Hi,

There is a very interesting proof in HitchHikersGuideToGalaxy that proves that GOD does not exist. I am qouting below from the book {it is a bit long so please bear with me}:

"The Babel fish," said The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy quitely, "is a small, yellow and leechlike, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave eneregy received not from its own carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconsious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the consious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech cneters of the brian which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.

"Now it is such a bizzarely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of GOD.

"The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'

"'But,' says Man, 'the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isnt it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, yo don't. QED.'

"'Oh,dear,' says God, "I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

This is one of the funniest piecies in the book by Douglas Adams.

cheers

If God can do anything...

...can he not exist?

Here's a question for PZ to post to the pro-evolution supporters. I think it helps to reexamine some of our terminology or in this case, units of measure.
Some time back I got into it with a very religious family member. Her argument was that she had read that evolution takes perhaps thousands, even millions of years, but then saw someone taken to task for suggesting that some animals can evolve new characteristics in only a few weeks or months. The biologist in question was not refuted in any way, he stated that lifeforms which have shorter lifespans can pass on new traits to the next generation quite quickly, leaving the gap of 20-30 years between generations only a few months to a single year.
The argument didn't fly with my family member who claimed that "Evolutionists claims **** and they should stick with it! If they keep changing what they mean then why should anyone trust or beleive them!?!?"
I informed her that we tend to use personal frames of reference when making claims off the cuff. The biologist or biologists who make this are trying to say things in ways we can understand. But I wanted to stress to her that a person passing on their new traits requires at least 13 years give or take to acquire them and then become able to procreate and pass them on. Some animals don't need that long before coming to the right age able to procreate. I had to express to my family member that some experiments in evolutionary study involve creatures with faster life cycles, giving us more time to study the effects of forced traits. Of course the whole concept went right over her head as expected. The simple logic of it all was just unfathomable to people of her mindset.

So my first question is, do we cause more harm by using absolute terms when such absolute terms do not apply in all cases?
And the next question, upon which the first question is based, should we stop using the concept that evolution takes place over thousands of years and perhaps simply state that it takes place over multiple generations? Or simply replace the term 'years' with 'generations?'

MYOB'
.

Ummm... P.Z... "testicle flattening, penis knotting, and scrotum binding" are celebrated and highly valued practices in Australian culture...

This has only so much to do with god as theism is a supporting column of patriarchy. Control of female sexuality does seem to pose an evolutionary advantage, what with birth rates and gene spreading in patriarchal societies that control female, but not male sexuality and may even support polygamy.

If I could manipulate a sousaphone with my foreskin I'd be more concerned about its loss.

I find it's handy for bring the 1-3 valve combination down to pitch. Try pulling out the third valve slide with a bare glans. Not so easy, is it?

Errrm, Australian...culture? I so rarely see those two words together.

Speaking from my PotP experience, it's only culture in the loosest sense of the word.

1. You cannot prove a negative assertion.
2. You can prove a negative assertion.
3. God cannot be proven and is therefore a negative.
4. Negatives exist only as abstractions.
5. God can only be proven in the abstract.
6. If you multiply God and the Devil (also a negative) you will get a positive.
7. God exists, but only if the Devil agrees to play along.

+++

All my relationships convince me the f.s.m must be a women, how else can you explain the fickle cruelty

We can also suspect that he's probably male, since testicle flattening, penis knotting, and scrotum binding don't seem to come up often in his prescribed lists of genital abuses.

Err... PZ, I believe you overlooked some things:

I'm quite certain that Australians Aboriginals are known to practice some rather bizarre forms of penile mutilation. I have also heard of a number of cults that continue to practice castration (which is the Bible also supports). And of course there is always circumcision, which, in addition to being strictly practiced by Muslims and Jews is also practiced by a majority of Americans for practically no reason at all other than perhaps "to be normal," but I'm sure plenty of Europeans would differ. It is ironic how so much attention is going to female genital mutilation when male genital mutilation is far more prevalent. I say idiot America is to blame.

Taking all this into account, I suspect, contrary to PZ's claim, that the unintelligent designer is probably asexual, this then accounts for the prevalence of the mutilation of sexual features in both sexes. Perhaps sexual reproduction was some horrible, unintended mistake (due to absent-mindedness) that the unintelligent designer was not intelligent enough to satisfactorily reverse. Consequently, the UD keeps telling/inspiring various peoples at different places and times to try their best to destroy their genitalia/secondary sexual characteristics.

Or, as an alternate suggestion, there is no designer and it is necessary that we once and for all reject all bodily mutilation and come to appreciate the human body and form, both male and female, for what it is in its natural and unaltered state.

I like the last suggestion the most. It sounds far more pleasant.

TUT said, "amputating anything not needed for bare biological survival, and ultimatelly only thing left will be womb+ovaries which will be produced and traded exactly like cars or computers are."

Was I the only one who thought: AXLOTL TANKS?

I used to joke that the practice of circumcision was a proof of the existence of God, because even if one person thought of it, how could that person talk anybody else into it?

But then I had the notion of some primitive sect which required ceremonies to be done in the nude, and some priest within that sect getting bitten under embarrassing circumstances prior to a ceremony and coming up with circumcision as the deity's latest whim.

Australian culture? We have plenty of culture. There's AFL, soccer, rugby, hockey, golf, netball, tennis...

It is ironic how so much attention is going to female genital mutilation when male genital mutilation is far more prevalent.

Male circumcision doesn't usually result in the negation of all sexual pleasure though, and is done for very different reasons. You can't really compare the two.

Australian culture? We have plenty of culture. There's AFL, soccer, rugby, hockey, golf, netball, tennis...

You're forgetting Vegemite.

Male circumcision doesn't usually result in the negation of all sexual pleasure though, and is done for very different reasons. You can't really compare the two.

It's done for exactly the same reason: conformity. Everything else is just a rationalization.

As for not being able to compare the two: nonsense. Just because one is worse does not mean that both cannot fail to pass standards of basic decency.

I have proof that there is indeed a benevolent god.

Some Northern Australian aboriginal clans practice a form of penile mutilation that involves a lengthwise cut along the underside of the penis, leading to a "split-hotdog" affect.

This is performed when the boy reaches 12 years of age, while he's conscious.

Women who have had sex with both unsplit hotdogs and the split variety swear by the split ones.

pastormaker referenced "a form of penile mutilation that involves a lengthwise cut along the underside of the penis, leading to a "split-hotdog" affect."

This is done by some people in the "hard" body-modification scene. Some also do complete penile bifurcation.
Incidentally, I have an apadravya. Hurt like a bastard, but a hell of an experience to go through.

Errrm, Australian...culture? I so rarely see those two words together.

I think someone forgot to put the yoghurt back in the fridge again.

Bob

Think next stage will be scalping, cutting their limbs off, then faces,

No, just acid thrown in the faces of uppity women.

It's done for exactly the same reason: conformity.

Female circumcision and male circumcision are two different things. If you want to make comparisons, consider that female circumcision would be the rough equivalent of having the glans of your penis cut off and your scrotum sliced away.

UT said, "amputating anything not needed for bare biological survival, and ultimatelly only thing left will be womb+ovaries which will be produced and traded exactly like cars or computers are."

There is also trading amputated parts, like foreskins for example.

"The after market for human foreskin is where the real money is made. Foreskins are sold to biomedical companies, which use them in the manufacture of insulin. They're also sold to middlemen, who package them for sale to research companies that in turn use them for biochemical analysis. Corporations such as Advanced Tissue Sciences (ATS), Organogenesis, BioSurface Technology, Genzyme, and Ortec International are taking cells from amputated foreskins and experimenting with artificial skin. Products like Dermagraft-TC, which sells for about $3,000 per square foot, are grown from the cells in infant foreskins and used as a temporary wound covering for burn patients. One foreskin contains enough genetic material to grow 250,000 square feet of skin."

http://www.foreskin.org/f4sale.htm

Claiming that male and female circumcision are two different things is false. They are both serious mutilations. That argument for me is just a backdoor way of defending certain religious traditions. It is saying that some of these traditions are acceptable and others are not.

"Comparing male circumcision and female genital mutilation, in my opinion, the severity of the operation should not be an issue.80 Fact is that in all cases healthy tissue from a person without the consent of that person is removed. The focus must be placed on the children who are forced to suffer without consent. Male circumcision is, like female genital mutilation, a "harmful traditional practice" and as such in violation with the rights of the child. It is necessary to advocate full respect for these human rights for all children, boys and girls alike. By condemning one practice and not the other, another basic human right, namely the right to freedom from discrimination, is at stake. Regardless whether a child is a boy or a girl, neither should be subject to a harmful traditional practice."

http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/smith/

Why nontraditional circumcision in the U.S., the only advanced country to regularly use it?

In 1888, John Harvey Kellogg, M.D., of cereal fame, summed up the medical profession's opinion and gave justification for the next 60 years of foreskin removal. "A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind."

Today American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has stated that "the existing scientific evidence [demonstrating] potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision [is] not sufficient to recommend newborn circumcision."

Finally, for those who make light of it, here are two more sites not for the squeamish.

http://www.intact.ca/video.html

And a traditional one, notice the terribly hygenic conditions. http://www.circumcision.net/Bris_Video.htm

I could give you many more references, but if you use the sites given and do your own search, you will find the information you need. I will mention one other noharmm.org

SDorry PZ, but you've asked for it ...

You said:

"Errrm, Australian...culture? I so rarely see those two words together."

Well, here's a version of the Aussie Nat anthem, to be sung to the usual tune .....

Our ancestors were criminals
Sent far across the sea;
Their recreations alcohol
And bestiality;
The perfect Sheila's four foot tall,
Flat-headed,with no hair;
I rest my lager on her head -
Advance, Australia fair!

We sodomoise the bandicoot,
We rape Kaola bear;
No furry creature's safe with us -
Advance, Australia fair!

Our cultural diversity
Goes on and never stops:
We may have killed the Abos, but
We've let in Greeks and Wops;
We rule not just the swimming-pool,
Nor yet the cricket-square;
We top the melanoma leagues -
Advance, Australia fair!

We mount the duck-billed platypus,
Pork-sword Echidnas rare;
No monotreme stays virginal -
Advance, Australia fair!

Our interests intellectual
Are broad and wide and deep;
From group projectile vomiting
To buggering of sheep.
We've urbanised green coastlines, and
We've turned locations rare
Into a blight of bungaloids -
Advance, Australia fair!

We masturbate marsupials,
Screw dingoes in their lair;
The native fauna's safe with us -
Advance, Australia fair!

Oh, now please don't argue sexual discrimination here. There is more than a casual difference in severity between penile circumcision and female genital mutilation. Penile circumcision doesn't impair male sexual performance or ability to enjoy sex, and the historical reason for inventing this tradition was probably hygiene. Nobody intended to impair virility, whereas female genital mutilation serves explicitly to make sure the woman doesn't have sex until married nor is ever able to enjoy sex because women need only to be receptive holes and vessels for future children.

About the aboriginal practice I haven't heard before, but penile circumcision is a joke compared to the removal of the organ required for orgasm, plus the inner labia, plus the sewing together of the outer labia (which of course is fetishized with the men of these cultures). That is not to say I promote penile circumcision or don't understand the problem of an operation without consent, however among all the genital mutilations I know of this is the most unproblematic one. Think of children born with ambiguous genitals (intersexuals) who are operated so as to fit to the standards of one sex, irrespective of the child's identity or future ability to enjoy sexuality. Even the Chinese practice of breaking and binding feet (lotus feet) is more barbarian and causes more harm than the removal of a little skin.

"Penile circumcision doesn't impair male sexual performance or ability to enjoy sex, and the historical reason for inventing this tradition was probably hygiene. Nobody intended to impair virility"

Absolutely false! If you had taken a few minutes to consult some of the resources I linked, you would not say such utter nonsense. You are wrong on both points. Your post is another disguised attempt to defend some stupid religious traditions while rejecting others.

If you really want to learn something try the links and this additional one.
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/video/prepuce.html

"Even the Chinese practice of breaking and binding feet (lotus feet) is more barbarian and causes more harm than the removal of a little skin."

I am trying, but it is hard to remain civil to someone as totally intellectually dishonest as you.

There is more than a casual difference in severity between penile circumcision and female genital mutilation.

So what? It's not about what's most severe, it's about whether something is sufficiently harmful and irreversible to be abhorred.

Female circumcision and male circumcision are two different things. If you want to make comparisons, consider that female circumcision would be the rough equivalent of having the glans of your penis cut off and your scrotum sliced away.

So... what?

The glans isn't necessary for sexual function, and sex can still be "enjoyed" without it -- just like the foreskin.

If someone wanted to have their son's glans removed, I suspect people would respond in horror -- not because they have any real idea whether it's better or worse than circumcision, but because it's unfamiliar, and so its harm is more obvious. Would you respond by saying that it's not as severe as female genital mutilation?

"Your post is another disguised attempt to defend some stupid religious traditions while rejecting others."

How do you get to this conclusion? This is what I wrote: "That is not to say I promote penile circumcision or don't understand the problem of an operation without consent" and I will add that I'm an atheist and advocate the absolute application of human rights on any religious or ritual practice. I'm not defending penile circumcision, I'm just saying it is a different dimension than female genital mutilation. Reducing the sensitivity of the genital while maintaining ability to have sex and orgasms is something altogether different from removing the part required for orgasm, the clitoris, and rendering a person incapable of having sex without pain, let alone enjoy it.

What do you mean by "intellectually dishonest"? Maybe not to consider the counterarguments of another person? So have you informed yourself about the practices I mentioned and considered what it means to have a mutilating sex change without your consent or to have your feet broken and bandaged over years? Or to stick with female genital mutilation, have you considered what it means to never be able to enjoy sex, but instead endure it like punishment? How can you compare that with a procedure millions of males go through and happily have sex throughout their lives?

Bernarda, it sounds like you have a big chip on your shoulder that you need to work out.
"Intellectual dishonesty"? Where? And I don't think Frost was defending the practice of circumcision, just stating that it is not as severe as FGM.
So, please, check your baggage at the door.

"Claiming that male and female circumcision are two different things is false. They are both serious mutilations. That argument for me is just a backdoor way of defending certain religious traditions. It is saying that some of these traditions are acceptable and others are not."

I'm with bernarda here. There is a qualitative difference in how serious the mutilations are, but they are both damaging. Neither can be dismissed as "a joke".

To quote myself from earlier on this blog:
"Both male and female circumcicion means risks and pain. If we stick to male circumcision there are apparently several issues, which one can find on the web. If they are supported or not is often difficult to tell, it is a loaded quation apparently.

It can have its uses when treating specific medical conditions, but it is debated.

It can mean health benefits for women with sloppy male partners, but not if the man uses normal hygiene.

Part of the removed tissue is used to present infectous material to the immune system. Circumcised males have more health issues."

"It means lower sexual satisfaction for both partners. (Sexual mechanics with or without foreskin is apparently different!) Whether that is a health problem or not, is depending on the point of view.

My reflection is that since the removed tissue has at least two different functional uses, it is a clear case of amputation. How anyone can condone amputation on a healthy body I don't understand."

I note that it is hard to get a raise from a culture who practices circumcision. :-) I congratulate bernarda in starting a discussion for once, since I'm intrigued by the practice, and by now the reluctance to discuss it.

"It means lower sexual satisfaction for both partners."

Well, it does seem to be a subjective question since I read that some men undergo the procedure voluntarily in order to allow for more durable erections and enjoy sex longer, which of course is quite welcome to the woman, as well.

I didn't dismiss circumcision as a joke but stated that compared to female genital mutilation it is a joke. In my view, this whole aligning penile circumcision with female genital mutilation inappropiately relativizes and belittles the horror of fgm. I'm all for the abolishment of penile circumcision, but why should it be necessary to equate this practice to fgm? I think that's a slap in the faces of these women.

Frost is a fraud or a joke or an idiot. He obviously didn't read any of the information I gave him or look at the video I linked. He just repeats his uninformed opinion.

Wow, truth reveals itself! You're setting standards for conversation here, indeed. For your information, I'm not even a "he". Nor do I have to inform myself via biased websites that some person on the internet thinks I have to read before I'm allowed to utter my opinion. I prefer to read objective information, thank you.

I am a circumcised male. The procedure was probably unnecessary, but I am able to feel sexual stimulation, and I masturbate regularly. So I am unlikely to be convinced that male and female genital mutilation could be equated or should be equated just so that someone can make a point on how bad male circumcision supposedly is. I'm all for nobody being cut against their will, but I think we can still make value judgements on which practices are worse and therefore should have more attention paid to stopping.

I agree with Rey Fox. We can make a judgement about which is worse, but that doesn't imply that one is OK, just less bad.

Frost, "I prefer to read objective information, thank you."

What objective information for example? You have provided none. How are my sources nonobjective? Apparently just because they show that you don't have a clue.

You said, "I didn't dismiss circumcision as a joke but stated that compared to female genital mutilation it is a joke."

I gave you information to the contrary, but you didn't care to consult it. You, Frost, are a joke, and you have a hidden agenda. Anyone with any objectivity can consult my sources and decide for themselves.

Rey Fox, I completely agree with you.

Bernarda, I don't see how your information is supposed to be "to the contrary", unless of course it shows that penile circumcision is in fact a castration.

As to my sources of information, there's for example Wikipedia in different languages and amnesty international who state this:

"The effects of genital mutilation can lead to death. At the time the mutilation is carried out, pain, shock, haemorrhage and damage to the organs surrounding the clitoris and labia can occur. Afterwards urine may be retained and serious infection develop. Use of the same instrument on several girls without sterilization can cause the spread of HIV.

More commonly, the chronic infections, intermittent bleeding, abscesses and small benign tumours of the nerve which can result from clitoridectomy and excision cause discomfort and extreme pain.

Infibulation can have even more serious long-term effects: chronic urinary tract infections, stones in the bladder and urethra, kidney damage, reproductive tract infections resulting from obstructed menstrual flow, pelvic infections, infertility, excessive scar tissue, keloids (raised, irregularly shaped, progressively enlarging scars) and dermoid cysts."

That's leaving out the consequences for sexuality and childbirth.

Frost, the point that Bernarda was making was that you can find a similar list of consequences for male circumcision, if you cared to look. It's not simply the "removal of a little skin".

Male circumcision has been know to cause infections, scarring, loss of sensation, erectile dysfunction, buried penis, and occasionally, death. It's definitely on the same spectrum as FGM. The links Bernarda gave you would lead you to a plethora of men who have been significantly impacted by their circumcisions. Try telling those guys it's not so bad.

bernarda has been complaining about how circumcision impairs sexual enjoyment. I have to disagree with his/her sentiments. I know two men who have had circumcision as adults, and both agree that their sexual enjoyment is greater *post*curcumcision. They say that at first, it is painful to have the glans come into direct contact with fabric, etc. but after an initial period of discomfort, the penis adapts, and they are able to have more enjoyable sex now. Anecdotal evidence, but I still think that these two should know what they are talking about, since they`ve had sex with and without foreskins.

Incidentally, here in Japan, men are not circumcised. Instead, beginning at the onset of puberty, they begin to "train" their foreskins to stay above the glans of the penis. They roll the foreskin back, and wear tight underwear that keep it in place. If they ever feel it roll back down over the glans, they immediately retract it. After months-years of doing this, the foreskin will simply remain in the retracted position. When I was first told that Japanese don`t get circumcisions because their foreskins "roll back," I figured it was more "wareware Nihonjin" tall tales, but after hearing about the procedure from a few independent sources, who told me that they, as well as all the other boys they knew, did this, I`m thinking that it`s legit...

I've heard a great many conflicting claims, both here and elsewhere. One person claims circumcision has no effect on sexual sensitivity, while another brings up the claim that it leads to more "robust erections", which is generally associated with the idea that it reduces penile sensitivity. Some people claim circumcision had no effect on their sex lives, while others say feeling changed qualitatively without diminished in quality, others insist that their sexuality was forever altered. Some say it changes the mechanics of sex, others insist it doesn't. Some say the foreskin is "just a piece of skin", while simultaneously suggesting that its removal can do things like prevent HIV infection, while others point out that it's a delicate muscosal membrane with a variety of functions.

None of this really has anything to do with the routine circumcision of infants.

It is simply a fact that there aren't any medical reasons for routine infant circumcision that hold up to rational analysis. It is not acceptable for parents to perform body modification surgery upon their children.

We don't need to provide reasons NOT to have surgical interventions, we need to provide justifications that lead us away from the default position of not performing them.

Gosh. Why the vituperation? What is really going on? This thread is approaching irrationality. Granted: boy circumcision is wrong wrong wrong (how anyone can think babies don't feel pain is ridiculous.) Yet male babies are not circumcised with the express intention of making it impossible for them to have sex - even granting for the sake of the argument that many males are sexually diminished or whatever you want to call it.

FGM is intended to make each sexual act a form of rape, since the woman is rendered incapable of experiencing pleasure. It is not often done under sterile conditions - it is usually performed on someone's kitchen table, no anesthesia, with a boxcutter or a knife.

I saw the very informative video, for which I thank the submitter. But for the life of me I cannot see how FGM can be equated with male circumcision. Even if we grant that it is a bad thing to do, it is not the removal of the entire penis and scrotum in some grotesque and bloody act by a family member or a neighbor.

The ad hominem comments point to a deeper and odder motive, and are neither skilled nor constructive.

monstruoso asked, "Granted: boy circumcision is wrong wrong wrong (how anyone can think babies don't feel pain is ridiculous.) "

I`ll reply, http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/fetal_pain.php

Also, I think that there is a significant difference between forcing an adolescent to undergo a prolonged and terrifying mutilation that is very dangerous and whose sole purpose is to forever extinguish any physical sexual pleasure, and subjecting an infant with a memory that lasts in the minutes, if that, to a very quick snip of the foreskin, which will leave them with no adverse effect.

I`ll be honest with you. I`m circumcised, and I`m glad that I am. If I weren`t already circumcised, I`d go out and have the procedure done. I`m glad my parents opted to have me circumcised as an infant, because I don`t have any recollection of the procedure at all (which is not phenomenologically different from saying that it never even happened TO ME), and I enjoy the results.

I certainly wouldn`t tell you to circumcise YOUR kid, but I`ll not have you calling me a beast for planning on having mine circumcised either.

Getting back to the original topic of this thread for a moment, it seems to me that breast ironing is liable to result in damage to the mammary glands, possibly impairing their function or even leading to some ugly and painful benign tumors.

"the point that Bernarda was making was that you can find a similar list of consequences for male circumcision, if you cared to look."

I did look, and I learned that the frequency of unwanted side effects with penile circumcision only amounts to the frequency of unwanted side effects with ANY routine surgical operation. For example, the American Medical Association states there is a "complication rate between 0.2% and 0.6% in circumcised infants." The American Academy of Pediatrics adds "Most of the complications that do occur are minor." You can't reasonably compare this to the consequences of FGM.

"Try telling those guys it's not so bad."

I'm not. However I think it is "intellectually dishonest" (to quote Bernarda) to present anecdotal information representing very rare complications and to argue that "it's the same spectrum as with FGM". There's people who get a severe infection of the bone marrow or who lose sensation and motility of the tongue following the removal of wisdom teeth, yet most people would find it grotesque to compare this operation (on the basis of the spectrum of its risks) with a hypothetical religiously motivated removal of the majority of the teeth.

One of the many problems with that comparison is that wisdom tooth removal is usually done at the instigation of the person whose teeth are being removed. Another is that wisdom teeth had a clear and obvious function (replacement of teeth lost) that is no longer relevant; in fact, their presense sometimes leads directly to problems that cannot be easily avoided in any way other than surgical extraction. Another is that infant circumcision would be equivalent to pulling out one quarter to one third of a person's teeth and all of the grinding molars, extracting them directly from the gums.

What I find grotesque is that you're defending the practice.

Yet male babies are not circumcised with the express intention of making it impossible for them to have sex - even granting for the sake of the argument that many males are sexually diminished or whatever you want to call it.

What does the intention have to do with the matter? What determines whether it is ethically correct to perform is its effects, not the intentions of the people performing it.

Oh, and before I forget:

FGM is intended to make each sexual act a form of rape, since the woman is rendered incapable of experiencing pleasure.

While I consider FGM to be a particularly horrific crime against humanity, that reasoning is invalid. The concept of rape has nothing to do with how much pleasure is derived from sex and has everything to do with consent. It's the lack of consent that turns sex into rape -- the idea that it's pleasure that determines things actually causes a great deal of harm to rape victims, who sometimes believe that because of the physical sensations involved were complicit in their own assaults.

It's the lack of consent that is a key issue in circumcision, incidentally.

The concepts you have attempted to attach to the debate, and your criticism of your opponents' motives, strikes me as disingenuous.

disingenuous? huh? what the heck are you talking about? did you even read my post?

okay, I can see this is pointless - this is one of those wtf conversations it is best to walk away from... ta

Frost: "That is not to say I promote penile circumcision or don't understand the problem of an operation without conse"
Frost: "I'm an atheist and advocate the absolute application of human rights on any religious or ritual practice. I'm not defending penile circumcision, I'm just saying it is a different dimension than female genital mutilation."
Frost: "I'm all for the abolishment of penile circumcision, but why should it be necessary to equate this practice to fgm?"

Caledonian: "What I find grotesque is that you're defending the practice."

Are you actually reading the comments??

"One of the many problems with that comparison is that wisdom tooth removal is usually done at the instigation of the person whose teeth are being removed."

Yes, and that's why I think circumcision should be abolished, but I was talking about risks and the spectrum and probability of complications as compared to FGM (answering posts by Bernarda and Beth Martin), not about consent. It is quite pointless to attempt a discussion if only part of the participants actually read the comments.

I did look, and I learned that the frequency of unwanted side effects with penile circumcision only amounts to the frequency of unwanted side effects with ANY routine surgical operation. For example, the American Medical Association states there is a "complication rate between 0.2% and 0.6% in circumcised infants." The American Academy of Pediatrics adds "Most of the complications that do occur are minor." You can't reasonably compare this to the consequences of FGM.
So you're comparing a procedure performed by doctors with proper instruments in a sterile environments with an ignorant quack with a cooking knife? Gee, what a surprise that the infection and other complication rates are different!

What about this thought experiment: if female genital mutilation were performed by doctors with scalpels and had no effects other than what it's supposed to have, would it be OK?

The *intended* effect of both mutilations is to limit and control the sexuality of the victim.

Any mutilation of an infant is wrong (with the exception of genuine medical necessity - conjoined twins, maybe?). I don't see why people try to put up a wall and say "well, *this* kind of infant mutilation isn't really anything to worry about, but *that* kind is absolutely horrible". The fact that they're in different places on the horribleness scale doesn't make them fundamentally different - it makes them fundamentally similar. A difference of degree is not a difference of kind.

How is one fundamentally wrong mutilation of an infant *so different* from another fundamentally wrong mutilation of an infant? Unless you genuinely are defending mutilation of boys, I don't see how you can claim a real difference.

Frost, I know we're really on the same side in this, and I'm not trying to be a pain, but the statistics you quoted are misleading. They only take into account immediate side-effects from the procedure. (See http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html )

There is a disconnect between the circumcisers and their little patients - they usually don't see the results of their procedures when boys are all grown up and having issues.

I also used to think that FGM and MGM were incomparable. But now that I have a baby boy, it's pretty clear how severe that "little snip" would have been. In a grown man, the foreskin is a LOT of tissue. And I think about what it would be like to lose my clitoral hood (an even littler snip), and I would consider even that FGM.

"The *intended* effect of both mutilations is to limit and control the sexuality of the victim."

Oh give me a break. Circumcision was in the 18th and 19th century retroactively advertized as a method to keep boys from masturbating. Before and after that other purposes were promoted, possibly because the method isn't that effective against masturbation after all. During that time it also became popular in Western countries to perform clitoridectomies on girls that had been found masturbating. Circumcision nowadays has nothing to do with "limit and control [of] the sexuality of the victim" while female genital mutilation has been used throughout history explicitly to control women's sexuality, to please male lovers by the absence of the horribly sexual organ that is the clitoris and by rendering women "tight", and to deprive women of their sexual joy.

"What about this thought experiment: if female genital mutilation were performed by doctors with scalpels and had no effects other than what it's supposed to have, would it be OK?"

If you had spent a minute thinking this over it might have occurred to you that removing the greater part of the outer genitalia and sewing together the remainder under optimal medical conditions is quite different from removing a bit of skin under optimal conditions with respect to infection risk and reopening of the wound during excretion, sex and childbirth, let alone the consequences for sexuality.

Circumcision and FGM actually have NOTHING in common besides being genital operations without the consent of the subject.
Besides, for the millionth time, I never said that circumcision is nothing anyone needs to worry about.

Circumcision nowadays has nothing to do with "limit and control [of] the sexuality of the victim" while female genital mutilation has been used throughout history explicitly to control women's sexuality, to please male lovers by the absence of the horribly sexual organ that is the clitoris and by rendering women "tight", and to deprive women of their sexual joy.

Again: the purpose is irrelevant, it's what the effects are that matters.

Circumcision and FGM actually have NOTHING in common besides being genital operations without the consent of the subject.

Wrong. Hypospadias repair is done without the consent of the subject, but it is a correction of a birth defect. Male circumcision, like female circumcision, involves the amputation of sexually ennervated tissue for sociocultural reasons.

Tell us, Frost, why exactly do you prefer being circumcized? You say your parents had it done to you as a baby and you'd have it done now if it had not been so done. Why? How can you claim to prefer a state when you've never experienced any other state? What evidence do you have to conclude that you're better off?

Tell us, Frost, why exactly do you prefer being circumcized? You say your parents had it done to you as a baby and you'd have it done now if it had not been so done. Why? How can you claim to prefer a state when you've never experienced any other state? What evidence do you have to conclude that you're better off?

Hey, Category Error, er, Caledonian--

Frost is female.

Nyarlathotep is who you're trying to respond to.

Try to keep up. You may consider me a "particularly hysterical feminist", but at least *I* can read.

(I know I said I wasn't going to respond to that twit anymore, but this was *too* good to pass up.)

Whoops. The queen of vapidity has it right. Sorry, Frost -- you can explain to us precisely why you feel it necessary to defend the mutilation of males right after Nylary does.

I say that I would have it done now for asthetic (and olefactory/hygenic) purposes, if my parents hadn't opted for it when I was an infant.
I'm not averse to enduring a little pain if it gets me the desired effect. As I mentioned, and I think that this is germane, I got an apadravya a couple of years ago. Hurt like hell to have it done, but it didn't take long, and the pain went away after a week or so.
Also, after hearing about the experiences of my two friends that I previously mentioned who had circumcisions as adults, the sex is better post-circumcision, because the penis is able to take more stimulation (this also means that they are able last longer).

The midsummer holiday was long and eventful, apparently so was this thread.

Frost says:
"Well, it does seem to be a subjective question since I read that some men undergo the procedure voluntarily in order to allow for more durable erections and enjoy sex longer, which of course is quite welcome to the woman, as well."

It wasn't subjective. Research showed less satisfaction for both parts. In women sex was less likely to lead to orgasm, since the natural penile movement is within the foreskin. In men it was due to less sensitivity. What you say is unsupported belief.

"I didn't dismiss circumcision as a joke but stated that compared to female genital mutilation it is a joke. In my view, this whole aligning penile circumcision with female genital mutilation inappropiately relativizes and belittles the horror of fgm."

They are both serious mutilations. It is you who belittles.

"I`ll not have you calling me a beast for planning on having mine circumcised"

I'm sorry, but an involutarily amputation of functional helathy tissue can't be condoned.

"I would have it done now for asthetic (and olefactory/hygenic) purposes,"

The first is subjective, the second not true, the third not relevant since ordinary hygiene is as good or better.

"I'm intrigued by the practice, and by now the reluctance to discuss it."

This thread has taught me that it is an inflamed subject in some cultures. Factors may be that those who has undergone the amputation is reluctant to discuss it, or discuss the procedure, or risk admitting feelings toward it. (Not that I want to say that any here does that.)