Is circumcising an infant an initiation of force?

Ash, my coquettish little penis-sampler, I can't speak for all cut men but, for myself and the others I have spied over the years, when a cut man is flaccid there is still a reasonable amount of skin that covers most of the glans, although certainly not to the same extent as if uncut.

I'd suggest that circumcised men are as different from one another as they are from the uncircumcised, or as I like to call them: the unkempt :-)

Ross

Post 81

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 - 7:52pm

�when a cut man is flaccid there is still a reasonable amount of skin that covers most of the glans� [Ross]

You got a partial. Here�s the gut test: Wanna give up the rest?

Post 82

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 - 8:25pm

Couldn't decreased sensitivity to the male organ be a good thing, seeing as how it takes the average man 5-10 minutes for orgasm and the average woman twenty? Not to delve into my personal life here, but if I were more sensitive, let's just say that I would be, ummm, less popular.

Furthermore, there are articles to suggest that a) AIDS is more easily transmitted to the uncircumcised, due to microabrasions on the foreskin during sex and b) that the 1000 cases of PENILE (yikes!) cancer per annum can all be attributed to lack of circumcision. Of the 70,000 documented cases of penile cancer in the last 75 years, approximately 5 have been from men with circumcised penises. I would say that's a pretty good effective rate.

Let us not forget that failure to retract, odor problems and the like are routine for uncircumcised males, even in hygiene-conscious countries like the UK.

Post 83

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 - 8:28pm

"The average woman twenty"? LOL - not the ones I've met!!! Ten at the most, usually much sooner... but then they go on, and on, and on, and.......
(Edited by robert malcom on 11/01, 8:29pm)

Post 84

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 - 8:32pm

Couldn't decreased sensitivity to the male organ be a good thing, seeing as how it takes the average man 5-10 minutes for orgasm and the average woman twenty?

As far as this argument goes, if a woman hasn't had multiple orgasms before you even enter her, you're not doing your job.

Post 85

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 - 8:50pm

Jon:

"You got a partial. Here�s the gut test: Wanna give up the rest?"

Christ, Jon, if I was anymore cut I'd be castrated! If you don't mind the suggestion, study a few more cocks :-)

Steven:

"Of the 70,000 documented cases of penile cancer in the last 75 years, approximately 5 have been from men with circumcised penises. I would say that's a pretty good effective rate."

Really? I knew cervical cancer was lower in women with long term circumcised partners but that statistic is damn-near conclusive.

Jody:

"As far as this argument goes, if a woman hasn't had multiple orgasms before you even enter her, you're not doing your job."

Any of you guys ever heard of a technique known as "The Hitchhiker"? I'm pretty sure that's what it's called, however there is a slight chance that it's my pet name for it...

Ross

Post 86

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 - 8:53pm

Ross-
Havent't heard of it, at least not by that terminology, but I've got my thumb raised for an explanation.

Post 87

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 - 9:09pm

Secure that thumb, Jody, I may have spoken too soon.

You see, there are many female SOLOists and I don't think it'd be a good idea for us guys to give away all our best stuff. After all, we need all the advantages we can get.

Can I suggest the we straight guys have a club just like SOLO Homo, except call it something like SOLO Stud or SOLO Shag...
...perhaps, SOLO Thrust?

:-)

Ross

Post 88

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 - 9:17pm

"Can I suggest the we straight guys have a club just like SOLO Homo, except call it something like SOLO Stud or SOLO Shag...
...perhaps, SOLO Thrust?"

You could, but you know you're just going to be turning the gay guys on, you know...

Post 89

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 - 9:17pm

Ross-
My feeling exactly, I've petitioned in another thread for SOLO Hetero, but to no avail, despite the fact that I think we would be one of the most lively groups here.

Post 90

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 - 9:26pm

Joe, if some are going to get turned on by the *mere suggestion* of SOLO Thrust, then it's obviously a fantastic idea.

We may need an entrance exam, though...

Jody, keep petitioning, if that doesn't work I suggest a boycott. Let the homos & girlies slap it around by themselves for a while. They'll be *begging* us to come back!

:-)

Ross

Post 91

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 - 9:59pm

"We may need an entrance exam, though..."

I won't say it...I won't say it...

Post 92

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 - 11:08pm

" I won't say it...I won't say it..."

You won't? Well allow me.

We need an entrance exam lest some try to get in via the backdoor.

Sound policy, I think :-)

Ross

Post 93

Sunday, November 6, 2005 - 11:57am

Solo Thrust, Solo Stud....

Still reminds me of my old standby anytime I hear something like this "GUYS living with GUYS into GUYS!!!"

One of these days I need to post that whole bit online so someone will actually know what I'm talking about. (Henry Rollins: Think Tank track titled "The united colors of West LA")

---Landon

Post 94

Sunday, November 6, 2005 - 11:57am

Not to delve into my personal life here, but if I were more sensitive, let's just say that I would be, ummm, less popular.

Uncircumcised... never been a problem. At all. Matter of fact I wouldn't trade it for anything.

---Landon

Post 95

Sunday, November 6, 2005 - 5:43pm

I have to say, this is one of the funniest threads I've read - at least in regard to some of the comments by Joe and Ross. But back to the original question. The "initiation of force," in the Objectivist sense of the term, means forcing the victim's mind or will; it means gaining a value without the consent of the owner. In other words, it refers to coerced or involuntary action. Since a baby is not yet an autonomous person with the ability to grant or withhold consent, the initiation of force is inapplicable to him or her.

That does not mean, of course, that a baby cannot be harmed or mistreated by the parents. If circumcision were clearly detrimental to the person's welfare, then it should be prohibited, not as an "initiation of force," but as an act of harm against a child whose interests the parents are responsible for protecting. However, it appears from the discussion so far that whether circumcision is beneficial or harmful is controversial, so it is not entirely clear that the practice is against the child's best interests. Only if it can be established beyond a reasonable doubt that the practice is harmful should it be prohibited.

- Bill

Post 96

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 - 12:29am

     Trying to 'stay-on-track' here, like Bill, well...OF COURSE doing such is an 'initiation of force.' Just as much as moving the infant from the hospital to home, or dragging a 5-yr old to the dentist a 4th time.

     So what?

     Now, as to the moral 'justification' of having circumcision (or, whatever's "forced") done to a child/infant...that's a separate question.

     Getting back to the more important 'off-track' theme of separate Forum-Titles, how about...

    1) SOLO's Geisha-Appreciators

     2) SOLO's Fine Arts Searchers...for Fine Artisans

     3) What sort of man plays...SOLO?

     If these are too long, how about...

     4) SOLOs: James SOLOs

     5) SOLO Mio Mammas

     6) FEMO-LEGGOMY-SOLO

LLAP
J:D

(Jeez, ok; I tried)

~~ Edit for clarification: maybe that last one connotes the opposite of my intention. Try FEMO-DONLEGGOMY-SOLO. Hmmm...that seems too long (no pun intended)...ok; back to the desk. (Work, work, work...)

(Edited by John Dailey on 11/09, 12:41am)

Post 97

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 - 8:36am

My dad told me I was circumcised because my mom hadn't been cleaning my foreskin properly and I got an infection. That sucks. It would be great to have the "extra" sensitivity.

Post 98

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 - 9:31am

John Dailey wrote, "Trying to 'stay-on-track' here, like Bill, well...OF COURSE doing such is an 'initiation of force.' Just as much as moving the infant from the hospital to home, or dragging a 5-yr old to the dentist a 4th time."

Force in the Objectivist or libertarian sense of the term involves compelling someone to act against his will. Could it ever make sense to say that a newborn baby is willing or unwilling to be circumcised? I don't think so, because he or she cannot grasp its significance--cannot understand the procedure well enough to grant or withhold consent. As for dragging a 5-yr old to the dentist for the 4th time, that is a different story, because the child does understand what is happening and refuses to go. But even so, does this constitute the initiation of force?

Perhaps an analogy will help. Suppose someone is on a piece of property and you drag him kicking and screaming off the property. You have certainly forced the person, but have you initiated force against him? That depends on whose property it is and whether or not the person is there against the owner's will. In other words, it depends on whether or not the owner has a right to have the person removed from his property. If he does, then it is not the initiation of force. If he does not, then it is.

So, does the parent have a right to force the child to go to the dentist? Yes, if the parent is responsible for the child's welfare and the child refuses to go. But in that case, dragging the child to the dentist does not constitute the initiation of force any more than dragging a trespasser off of one's property. At best, it can be characterized as 'defensive' force, because the parent is simply defending his right (and responsibility) to provide for his child's health and wellbeing.

- Bill

Post 99

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 - 9:46am