The new circumcision thread! Circumcision of boys declared illegal in Germany!

[krischan]

I know that, but it would have led to a lecture of what the Onan tale really is about... but you did it anyway

[Stevinator]

There's a reason why the skin didn't disappear through evolution yet. However, evolution has not caught up yet with our quickly changing modern world.

I know I'm way late, sorry. But it annoys me when people get cunfuzzled about evolution. Evolution doesn't have a defined direction, nor does the phenomenom care about what we do to to surgically alter our bodies. If the surgery is safe, and it would still be performed whether you had a lot of extra skin or not, there's not going to be any selective pressure to make a change.

In fact, even before cleanliness was a big issue, because of the way we handled mating and marriage and all the politics and complications, i don't think there's a likelihood that the "stinky effect" would be enough to have any significant selective pressure.

And modern society slows it down even more as more and more of us are likely to breed. I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing that in 20k years you might see some changes in the human anatomy, but you won't likely see a natural change in foreskin size.

Anyway, evolution doesn't necessarily mean better. these days, the people having the most kids, and breeding the fastest are the poorer folks. the rich (people you'd assume to be the most successful) have less kids. evolution "prefers" sluts. ugh. i don't like how that came out. I'll edit later.

Also, WTF about this spellchecker thing. I have it turned on, but it's clearly not working. I apologize for what undoubtedly is a bazillion typos and mispellings.

[BobCox2]

Also, WTF about this spellchecker thing. I have it turned on, but it's clearly not working. I apologize for what undoubtedly is a bazillion typos and mispellings.

misspellings?
What browser and native spell check do you use.

[krischan]

I know I'm way late, sorry. But it annoys me when people get cunfuzzled about evolution. Evolution doesn't have a defined direction, nor does the phenomenom care about what we do to to surgically alter our bodies.

My point was that the world has changed quickly in the last centuries. I know pretty what evolution is and what it isn't. The point is that these processes are a matter of the environment and if the environment changes quicker than the processes can take place, most their typical results haven't occurred yet. For example, if something offer a something offers a 1% advantage under certain circumstances, it will need 70 generations to make it a 100% advantage in total (i.e. 1.01^70=2), i.e. these circumstances must persist for about 1400 years. That might be the case for a lot of natural factors, but not for the technical progress of the last 200 years.

If the surgery is safe, and it would still be performed whether you had a lot of extra skin or not, there's not going to be any selective pressure to make a change.

Every surgery applies bodily harm and every surgery comes with a risk (bleedings, infections etc.), no matter how small, while the constitution grants a right to stay unharmed. That doesn't mean that surgeries are illegal, of course, but that they need enough of a reason to be made. Grown up people can speak for themselves, that's enough of a reason. However, underaged people cannot, so it needs other reasons and if these reasons don't offer enough of a justification, it's illegal. That means it's a matter of weighing constitutional rights.

The surgery serves no practical purpose in a country with hygienic standards like in Germany. That leaves religious reasons. I see no reason why people cannot wait until their children are 14 (at which they can decide about their religion themselves). It's not a matter of preventing people from being subject to Jewish or Islamic rituals. The court decided that the right to remain bodily unharmed has a higher weight than freedom of religion *in this particular case*.

And modern society slows it down even more as more and more of us are likely to breed. I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing that in 20k years you might see some changes in the human anatomy, but you won't likely see a natural change in foreskin size.

Why not?

Why have Europeans so distinctive noses in comparison to Asians? Why are there so many blondes and redheads in Northern Europe? Why do Asians have slit eyes? That probably was a matter of a couple of a thousands of years or tens of thousands.

Anyway, evolution doesn't necessarily mean better.

Of course not. The one is a matter of what makes us happy while evolution is cause and effect, relentlessly. After all, that's why there are so many dumb people in the world .

[Dredd]

I see no reason why people cannot wait until their children are 14 (at which they can decide about their religion themselves).

Not a good situation for the child IMO. A 14yo is still almost entirely dependent on his parents. I think the familial pressure to conform would be tremendous - and the consequences for not abiding are potentially disastrous.

[krischan]

There are a lot of dependencies within families. Many people depend on their spouses, rich parents can threaten their grown-up children with disinheriting them, children might deny help to their old parents etc. That doesn't have to involve just money, but also things which they love or appreciate.

With advancing age, the weight of rights regarding religion increases and 14 years old juveniles are regarded as being capable enough of rational thoughts to take responsibility for for their deeds here. It's the age at which people can be sent into prison. Another reason for choosing that age probably is that children typically go to their conformation lessons at that age here (Lutheran evangelic church).

[jmervyn]

I know I'm way late, sorry.

You should be ashamed.

But it annoys me when people get cunfuzzled about evolution. Evolution doesn't have a defined direction, nor does the phenomenom care about what we do to to surgically alter our bodies.

I brought up a completely legitimate issue. If one accepts the "moth study" concept of positive mutation, then natural UNGUIDED!!! (yes, I went Comic Sans) evolution ought to come up with a shorter foreskin, eliminate the appendix, decrease body odor, and so forth. Instead, we still are pretty much the same creatures we were many thousands of years ago, just much taller and healthier due to diet & living conditions.

In fact, even before cleanliness was a big issue, because of the way we handled mating and marriage and all the politics and complications, i don't think there's a likelihood that the "stinky effect" would be enough to have any significant selective pressure.

Again, presuming the "moth study" represents an underlying evolutionary truth, it would have. Because males generally don't feel like breeding when you have a urinary tract infection.

And modern society slows it down even more as more and more of us are likely to breed.

Sigh. Liberals. Is there anything you don't - DON'T know?

It’s not that we’re breeding like rabbits. It’s that we’ve stopped dying like flies.

evolution "prefers" sluts. ugh. i don't like how that came out. I'll edit later.

Why? You believe it, though it isn't true. Evolution only "prefers" those who breed heavily when they are able to sustain that population through later years, whereas dropping babies on the floor ala the Monty Python sketch actually causes far more problems for sustainable population.

[BobCox2]

You should be ashamed.
I brought up a completely legitimate issue. If one accepts the "moth study" concept of positive mutation, then natural UNGUIDED!!! (yes, I went Comic Sans) evolution ought to come up with a shorter foreskin, eliminate the appendix, decrease body odor, and so forth. Instead, we still are pretty much the same creatures we were many thousands of years ago, just much taller and healthier due to diet & living conditions.
Again, presuming the "moth study" represents an underlying evolutionary truth, it would have. Because males generally don't feel like breeding when you have a urinary tract infection.

You should be ashamed.
It's Comic Cerns if you want to look Scientific now.

U Got the memo?


Just some Guidance for you?

I don't think A follows B above.

[Stevinator]

something about my spellcheck issue.

I had to restart for a completely unrelated issue, and when it came back up, the spell check magically worked again. My typing accuracy appears to remain unchanged.

My point was that the world has changed quickly in the last centuries. I know pretty what evolution is and what it isn't. The point is that these processes are a matter of the environment and if the environment changes quicker than the processes can take place, most their typical results haven't occurred yet. For example, if something offer a something offers a 1% advantage under certain circumstances, it will need 70 generations to make it a 100% advantage in total (i.e. 1.01^70=2), i.e. these circumstances must persist for about 1400 years. That might be the case for a lot of natural factors, but not for the technical progress of the last 200 years.

I'm not doubting your math, just your estimate that there's a 1% advantage, or any statistically relevant advantage. I think once they've survived the surgery, their chances of mating are mostly dependant on completely unrelated things. I mean, have you heard of women leaving a guy because he was uncut? If only it was something so simple.

Not that I'm any expert on women, perhaps on women leaving. :(

Every surgery applies bodily harm and every surgery comes with a risk (bleedings, infections etc.), no matter how small, while the constitution grants a right to stay unharmed. That doesn't mean that surgeries are illegal, of course, but that they need enough of a reason to be made. Grown up people can speak for themselves, that's enough of a reason. However, underaged people cannot, so it needs other reasons and if these reasons don't offer enough of a justification, it's illegal. That means it's a matter of weighing constitutional rights.

I understand, and even agree that people shouldn't subject their kids to pointless surgeries, but I'm a little hesitant to make it a law that you can't when parents make so many other decisions about their kids. I'd rather let parents be parents and let the lawyers argue about something else. If you are like bob, and very adamant about the topic, start an educational campaign or write a book or something. I mean, I'm cut and I still enjoy sex. I don't really feel like I'm missing anything. I suppose I wouldn't know...

The surgery serves no practical purpose in a country with hygienic standards like in Germany. That leaves religious reasons. I see no reason why people cannot wait until their children are 14 (at which they can decide about their religion themselves). It's not a matter of preventing people from being subject to Jewish or Islamic rituals. The court decided that the right to remain bodily unharmed has a higher weight than freedom of religion *in this particular case*.

I was baptized before I was 6 months old. Nothing really dangerous involved there, but I didn't get the choice. Parents often choose religions for kids. In fact I would argue that's the norm.

Why not?

Because I don't think it's a selective trait. Any changes would be random. Now size of the whole thing....people do seem to care about that.

Why have Europeans so distinctive noses in comparison to Asians? Why are there so many blondes and redheads in Northern Europe? Why do Asians have slit eyes? That probably was a matter of a couple of a thousands of years or tens of thousands.

Yes there are distinct differences between the races. More than the PC culture Jmerv rants about wants to admit. If I had to guess, those differences are more likely to diminish over time because we now travel so much more than we could before. As the races mix more and more, that should reduce the "velocity" (for lack of a better word) of evolution. It works best in smaller populations so those changes have a greater impact on future generations. the world population is growing, and becoming more interconnected.

Now that i've written all that, i wonder if i answered a question you didn't ask. let me know if I'm talking past you.


Speaking of talking past people, here's the patron saint of that

I brought up a completely legitimate issue. If one accepts the "moth study" concept of positive mutation, then naturalUNGUIDED!!! (yes, I went Comic Sans) evolution ought to come up with a shorter foreskin, eliminate the appendix, decrease body odor, and so forth. Instead, we still are pretty much the same creatures we were many thousands of years ago, just much taller and healthier due to diet & living conditions.

I addressed that above. i don't think foreskin size preference is enough to have a significant effect on whether a person is able to reproduce. Has any uncut guys here had women jump out of bed and run away in fear (or disgust)? I suppose if they did they might not admit that here.

Again, presuming the "moth study" represents an underlying evolutionary truth, it would have. Because males generally don't feel like breeding when you have a urinary tract infection.

Also, having not inspected any other penises than my own, I have to ask another uncomfortable question--is it really that much dirtier? i suppose no one is going to jump on that one and claim they're filthy...

links

I'll agree, the lower death rate is significant. both birth and death rates would matter. Excessive birthrates cause issues, but in modern society i don't think we're penalizing high birth rates much. Sure, Diapers, food, housing and college costs (etc) are higher, but it's not enough to kill anyone. That's not a value statement, BTW. Really, since we're delving into race issues above, I'll have that disclaimer apply to the whole response.

To Dredd: also wouldn't it affect the child a lot more than when it is newborn? Ouch.

[krischan]

I'm not doubting your math, just your estimate that there's a 1% advantage, or any statistically relevant advantage. I think once they've survived the surgery, their chances of mating are mostly dependant on completely unrelated things. I mean, have you heard of women leaving a guy because he was uncut? If only it was something so simple.

I heard stories about girls in the US refusing to have sex with somebody who isn't circumsized because it looks unfamiliar, but that's missing the point, just like the question of evolutionary reasons for the existence of the foreskin is missing it.

I understand, and even agree that people shouldn't subject their kids to pointless surgeries, but I'm a little hesitant to make it a law that you can't when parents make so many other decisions about their kids.

No separate law has to be made about it. All you need is a constitution with a paragraph which says that people have the right to remain bodily unharmed.

I'd rather let parents be parents and let the lawyers argue about something else.

In the particular case, the doctor was sued because the circumcision led to strong bleedings. It wasn't a civil lawsuit, however, i.e. a state attorney decided to start a lawsuit.

If you are like bob, and very adamant about the topic, start an educational campaign or write a book or something.

I'm not adamant about the topic. I'm aware of the fact that this opened a can of worms. Muslims probably won't have that much of a problem with it because no specific date is to be kept, but for ****, it has to be on the 8th day or so.

What I'm adamant about is the legality of the core of the court decision, being "The law is the law, if you want it to be different, then change the law". I think that's an excellent justification, it honors their attitude with respect to separation of powers. Judges must not make political decisions or follow a certain agenda. Their job is to interpret and apply the law as it is, no more, no less. If that's like living in an ivory tower, then it's the kind which I want them to be in. Changing the law is the business of a parliament, an instance which has been elected by the people.

I was baptized before I was 6 months old. Nothing really dangerous involved there, but I didn't get the choice. Parents often choose religions for kids. In fact I would argue that's the norm.

A baptism doesn't involve bodily injury, so it's solely a matter of religion. The parents are free to decide about it here until the child is 14 years old. You had no right to choose at that time because you weren't able to make rational decisions or even artitulate your desires. Of course, if some fanatic Christians insist that it has to be icy cold water and the baby has to be immersed fully, it would probably be disallowed as well.

Because I don't think it's a selective trait. Any changes would be random. Now size of the whole thing....people do seem to care about that.

If it was random, than it wouldn't even have developed and there would be as many men with a foreskin as without one. BTW, I'm not defending those who say "it serves some purpose, so it must not be circumsized". My point was that the foreskin probably serves a purpose, but that purpose might very well be irrelevant nowadays because of the rapid changes in the last few centuries.

Now that i've written all that, i wonder if i answered a question you didn't ask. let me know if I'm talking past you.

The point of the thread was weighing constitutional rights on the case of circumcision, not evolution, but I participated myself in discussing other aspects .