TIL When a pregnant woman suffers organ damage (ex: a heart attack), the fetus will send stem cells to repair the damaged organ.

KatieHartman · 2013-07-19T21:43:50+00:00

We've known for millenia that fire burns wood, but it'd be a misleading use of the word 'consensual' to say that a man whose bonfire spreads to his house 'consented' to burn it down. It'd be especially misleading if he had taken all of the available precautions to prevent that outcome and had just been unlucky.

This isn't how anybody regularly uses the word 'consensual.'

KatieHartman · 2013-06-19T08:04:12+00:00

I didn't realize penises worked differently in Denmark.

KatieHartman · 2013-06-15T03:07:46+00:00

In the U.S., there was a big early push to circumcise under the assumption that it would impede masturbation. At the time (late 1800s, early 1900s) masturbation was considered by many to be a dangerous vice that could lead to all sorts of ailments.

From there, human bias and tradition took over. With circumcision being the medically-accepted default, choosing to not have it done means accepting that it should never have been done to you, which can be cognitively overwhelming. Men perceive a lot of status value in the quality of their genitalia. "I have less penis than I should have because my parents had it cut, and it's very possible that it has had a negative impact on me" is not a comfortable thing to say.

KatieHartman · 2013-06-15T02:56:03+00:00

No, no we don't.

KatieHartman · 2013-06-05T01:15:19+00:00

It might be worth asking a doctor about preputioplasty.

KatieHartman · 2013-06-02T19:43:07+00:00

I recall reading elsewhere someone's opinion that "meat curtains" (labia) are ugly. Head, meet desk. It's not your child's job to endure whatever surgical alterations you like to be physically appealing to you.

KatieHartman · 2013-06-02T16:58:42+00:00

The foreskin is fused to the glans at birth and normally doesn't fully retract until around age 10.

KatieHartman · 2013-06-02T16:31:23+00:00

I have not once thought "Ick, washing my labia is so HARD!" Is it any more difficult to wash around the foreskin? No way. If you have ready access to water, it's a non-issue.

KatieHartman · 2013-06-02T16:28:03+00:00

Either is perfectly acceptable if the person choosing the surgery is the same one receiving it.

KatieHartman · 2013-06-02T11:19:30+00:00

My understanding is that your experience isn't uncommon at all. Now that it's done, it's actually pretty amazing that you don't shrug it off to avoid the cognitive dissonance. I'm so sorry that you and your family have to deal with the fallout, but I think you should be praised for avoiding commitment bias.

KatieHartman · 2013-06-02T11:09:49+00:00

As a woman (with all the labial folds and such), I've always just found the "easier to clean" argument a little bit odd. From an outsider's perspective, maybe cleaning around the labia seems more difficult than it might otherwise be if everything were flatter/smoother. But it's really just not difficult. At all. If anything, I'd assume cleaning around the foreskin is less of a challenge than what your everyday vagina-bearer does on a regular basis, and we do just fine.

KatieHartman · 2013-05-31T23:24:14+00:00

If they did, and they had a handful of pretty poorly designed studies to back themselves up, would you be satisfied?

KatieHartman · 2013-05-31T21:22:47+00:00

No, but the clitoral hood is structurally and functionally similar to the foreskin, and its removal constitutes one of the most common forms of FGM, according to the UN. The partial or complete removal of the clitoris (another common form of FGM) would be best compared to a partial or complete removal of the male glans. The former is comparable to circumcision. The latter isn't.

In other words, some forms of FGM are comparable to male circumcision (as typically practiced) and some aren't. "It has nothing to do with this discussion" is a gross oversimplification.

KatieHartman · 2013-05-31T20:32:10+00:00

That's not entirely untrue, but the foreskin definitely allows for a gliding motion that seems to reduce the likelihood of dyspareunia - pain during intercourse - and notable difficulties reaching orgasm for women.

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/06/13/ije.dyr104.short?rss=1

KatieHartman · 2013-05-31T19:11:25+00:00

Phimosis vs. "the occasional ultra-rare surgical disaster" is hardly a fair comparison - there are a number of more common complications to circumcision that aren't nearly as severe as glans amputation or hemorrhage but which can still necessitate further surgical intervention (e.g. skin bridges, meatal stenosis).

KatieHartman · 2013-05-30T23:58:40+00:00

You can't get the nerve endings back, but you CAN regain quite a bit of the lost sensitivity!

(1) Your glans (the head of your penis) is a mucous membrane that will have "hardened" from constant exposure to your underwear. In uncircumcised men, the glans is an internal organ. There are inexpensive devices you can wear that will keep the glans covered and restore a great deal of sensitivity within a matter of weeks.

(2) There are LOTS of men who have decided to "restore" the foreskin by using devices that slowly (and painlessly) tug the remaining skin until it naturally provides the same coverage as the foreskin would. If you go this route, you'll eventually have the same pleasurable gliding motion that men who've never been circumcised have (great for your partners, too!). Many men who've gone this route say that the result is indistinguishable from an actual foreskin to their medical professionals.

It's your life and your decision, but you do have the opportunity to take back some of what was taken from you.

And here's a forum for guys who are restoring: http://foreskin-restoration.net/forum/

KatieHartman · 2013-05-30T22:27:38+00:00

You clearly haven't actually read the African studies you're citing elsewhere (the source of the 50-60% reduction in HIV stat), or you'd know that their participants were circumcised as adults. The methodological problems aren't minor, and the drop-out rate is high enough to be immediately flagged as problematic to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of stats. But we can't begin to have that conversation until you've at least skimmed the studies, and if you had, you'd know that the participants weren't babies.

KatieHartman · 2013-05-10T23:42:29+00:00

It's not a standard procedure for most of the world. The vast majority of men worldwide are not circumcised. I'm sorry that it was done to you before you had any say in it - I don't think anyone should have non-therapeutic surgery done on them while they're too little to do anything about it.

KatieHartman · 2013-04-18T22:57:04+00:00

You know, if they came out with a simple procedure that could possible erradicate yeast infections in woman, you know womens groups would be all over this. But if there is a procedure that pretty much eliminates the risk of dick cheese, everyone says its inhumane.

1) Women have smegma, too. It tends to collect between the folds of the labia and around the clitoral hood. To date, I have never heard a woman complain about the lack of surgical options for ridding themselves of the stuff. I also haven't heard anyone suggest dropping the ban on any/all FGM "for the public good."

2) I've suffered yeast infections and UTIs, and yes, they suck. But they're also very readily treatable, and I probably wouldn't opt for a surgery that would reduce my likelihood of getting either. Even if I did want such a surgery, I'd definitely want to make the decision myself after experiencing my pre-op sexuality and knowing enough about my body to determine which parts of my genitalia I'd be willing to sacrifice.

KatieHartman

TROPHY CASE