Foreskin Restoration / Intactivism Network

Go Back   Foreskin Restoration / Intactivism Network > FORESKIN RESTORATION > Le Bistro
Register FAQ Members List Calendars Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Le Bistro Off-topic discussion among members

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 14th, 2008
greg_b greg_b is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Delaware, US
Posts: 5,493
Default Re: Hypothetical Moral Circ Question

The problem for me with these type of questions is they do not give enough context and are too simplistic for me to answer, except in generalities. It all depends on the situation. For instance, assuming you could gop back in time and kill him, it seems reasonable to believe that you could do less than kill him to prevent your being circumcisied.

My general philosophy is that when you feel threatened, you take what action is necessary to stop the attacker/molester. In general, someone doing bodily harm has the potential to kill me, I suppose, so then my actions would be that necessary to stop the action against me, even up to killing him. But that is not me original intention.

My intention is to stop the action, not kill him. This makes all the difference philosophically for me.

Regards
__________________
Greg B.

"The foreskin isn't the wrapper...it's the candy!"
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old September 15th, 2008
1Taoist 1Taoist is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,301
Default Re: Hypothetical Moral Circ Question

Greg, you made something occur to me: this hypo question is deranged at it's base. It's not even hypothetical, cuz it's actually limited us to a solution from the outset rather than asking from a hypothetical position of what-if. The first line was "If you could go back in time and kill your circumcisor...". Not "if you could go back in time and stop your circumcision...". But I guess that would be boring, because it's obvious. He could have said "If you could go back in time and try to stop it, would you, upon stopping him, inflict punnishment to the point of death...". But then that doesn't make sense either. This question is really just asking "Are you so mad about being circ'd that if you could go back would you kill the doc not to stop it -but to feel better now?". The circular nature of this sorta thing never need posit the act of killing as a solution, hence why the poster asked the question forcing this option on us.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old September 15th, 2008
greg_b greg_b is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Delaware, US
Posts: 5,493
Default Re: Hypothetical Moral Circ Question

1Taoist: While I am glad you got the point that the question artificially constrains alternatives and thus forces you to a specific solution, I must say I do not agree with your characterization that it is "deranged", nor do I think it fair to assume you know the motives of the OP in posing this question. He is available to answer this if you wish to know and he can put it in words.

Regards
__________________
Greg B.

"The foreskin isn't the wrapper...it's the candy!"
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old September 15th, 2008
1Taoist 1Taoist is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,301
Default Re: Hypothetical Moral Circ Question

I think you missed the point. And you're right, he did posit the question with disclaimer. However, I personally think positing the solution of killing, which by the way is a Final Solution, is deranged.

This is like asking if you would kill your first girlfriend for breaking your heart cuz you lost the ability to trust and open up intimately.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old September 16th, 2008
Original Poster
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Hypothetical Moral Circ Question

I was worried that my original post would be misconstrued. That is indeed why I put the caveat in there that the issue of killing was NOT for revenge.

Let's back up a moment. I realize a hypothetical "thought experiment" has serious limitations. If it is indeed hypothetical, then it is by definition not real and thus seemingly not helpful to consider.

Also, you do get into issues such as the "butterfly effect" which complicates the ability to derive a good answer from examining the scenario.

However, a thought experiment CAN yield some interesting ideas that might not otherwise emerge. Even within its hermetically sealed world of assumptions, there may be value in going along with it and teasing out some answers and assertions. In this particular case, I wanted to get at how strongly people felt about having been circumcised.

Also, I didn't choose "death" in the scenario lightly. I mean, if it just involved hurting the circumciser then it's not too difficult a question to answer, is it? I guess we could change the scenario to go all the way up the continuum to death--would you be willing to have him be paralyzed for life? Go deaf? Lose a limb? in order for you to have remained whole?

Anyway, I knew this would be controversial, but I still wanted to post it. I personally feel very strongly about genital integrity. I wish I had been kept whole and I feel a lot of things would be different had I not been cut. Actually, since starting to restore, it's not that I THINK things would have been better - I KNOW they would've been better. I have proof.

But losing decades of sexual and related aspects of life because someone cut me--I think that brings up some pretty profound moral quandries.

Hence my original question...
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old September 17th, 2008
1Taoist 1Taoist is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,301
Default Re: Hypothetical Moral Circ Question

I think this whole idea of "what we've lost" is not only hypothetical but just pure speculation. Listen, many will jump on me for this and I could say so many things blowing smoke up everybodys asses about how sad this condition is and sorry for our loss. I'm sure I'm persona non grata for saying so, but I don't believe any of this is the case. Life isn't gonna be any better either way. You haven't "lost" any sex and to tell yourself things would have been SO much different with your foreskin is just so much hooey. I'm sorry. Life don't come down to your dick.

Maybe men will joke that it does, that all life revolves around their cock, but that's a joke. Realistically, unless you were butchered (like some) and can't fuck AT ALL, then sex ain't any better or worse. Yeah, circ is unnecessary and does damage to the sensitive tissue but for God's sake- when you're balls deep in some good trim, don't that feel pretty good? I think you're sellin yourself an irrational idea of what sex is. In other words, WITH foreskin you'd be sayin the same damn thing.

And just cuz you've tugged a bit and loosened up some skin don't mean you have any proof of what it's like to be uncut. You got proof of some loose skin.

My gut tells me you'd be unsatisfied with your life any which way, cuz that's your mindset. You remind me of this guy I grew up with who has always been so fixated on the fact that he isn't particularly great-looking that he believes women don't really like him. The truth is HE doesn't really like him. The fact that you were circumcised is such a small part of who you are, who WE are, that it can't POSSIBLY make that much difference. Sex isn't "better" with women because of us being cut or uncut, there's SO many factors that make sex good that if all you're focused on is what you're missing...I got news for you- it ain't EVER gonna be good.

Can you improve the function and sensitivity by restoring? Yes. Can it make your life what it's "meant" to be, or as great as you think it should be? No.

No no no.

That's why the idea of killing a person who is circumcising you is "hypothetically" off track. Something is wrong with your sex, and it ain't your missing foreskin. Something is wrong with your life, and it ain't your dick. Maybe I sound like a dick, but I'll tell everyone here this: don't go off the deep end. Stay aware that the many facets that make up you do not come down to excuses like "I was circumcised". I don't say this to be mean or shit on this party, but to be realistic.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old September 17th, 2008
admin admin is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,590
Default Re: Hypothetical Moral Circ Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1Taoist View Post
You haven't "lost" any sex and to tell yourself things would have been SO much different with your foreskin is just so much hooey.
I think some guys would rightfully disagree because they have lost much more than slack skin. Our comrades here have in many cases been hideously disfigured or lost so much skin that erections are very painful. A man who has zero mucosa left below the glans and hairy scrotal skin right up to the scar has a legit beef.

I grant that someone "lucky" enough to have an average circ might need an attitude adjustment if he's mired in murderous rage, but half of all circs are worse than average.

-Ron
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old September 17th, 2008
Tally's Avatar
Tally Tally is offline
Wholesome seeker
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 1,027
Default Re: Hypothetical Moral Circ Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1Taoist View Post
I think this whole idea of "what we've lost" is not only hypothetical but just pure speculation. Listen, many will jump on me for this and I could say so many things blowing smoke up everybodys asses about how sad this condition is and sorry for our loss. I'm sure I'm persona non grata for saying so, but I don't believe any of this is the case. Life isn't gonna be any better either way. You haven't "lost" any sex and to tell yourself things would have been SO much different with your foreskin is just so much hooey. I'm sorry. Life don't come down to your dick.

Maybe men will joke that it does, that all life revolves around their cock, but that's a joke. Realistically, unless you were butchered (like some) and can't fuck AT ALL, then sex ain't any better or worse. Yeah, circ is unnecessary and does damage to the sensitive tissue but for God's sake- when you're balls deep in some good trim, don't that feel pretty good? I think you're sellin yourself an irrational idea of what sex is. In other words, WITH foreskin you'd be sayin the same damn thing.
The above sounds like a pro-circ argument. "What is the big deal? You can still have sex, and all sex is good." Circumcision amputates erogenous tissue that is gone, never to be replaced.

Sure, you can still have sex after being cut (at least, most guys under 50 don't have a problem), but is it the same as it would be if you had all your working parts? Many who have been circumcised as an adult have stated that there is a BIG decrease in the quality of sex after being cut.

Sure, if you are color blind, you can still see, but can you appreciate the finer aspects of art? I think not. Saying otherwise is just fooling yourself.
__________________
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

See my other profile at RestoringForeskin.org and my blog at RestoringTally and my Facebook page and Celebrating Foreskin Tumblr.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old December 20th, 2008
finman finman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,510
Unhappy Re: Hypothetical Moral Circ Question

Circumcision removes a large amount of enjoyment from a man, and it is only after restoring that you can start to appreciate what you lost as some of it returns. You will never know what heights you may have reached if left intact.

I now enjoy the intimate time I spend with my wife far more, and this strengthens our marriage. One post said circumcised men still want plenty of sex, but that may just be due to them endlessly searching for an enjoyment they cannot receive.

While my car may still operate without servicing, the driving experience would be much diminished with an engine lacking power and failing brakes. Generally the penis still operates after circumcision, but in a very less efficient way.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old December 25th, 2008
estefan estefan is offline
hey, at least they didn't take the whole thing
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 167
Default Re: Hypothetical Moral Circ Question

I think "if-only"s are pointless. you know what? if I could go back in time, and stop myself from being circumcised, I wouldn't do it. everything that happens to you has long-ranging effects that can't be measured or predicted. how do I know my life would have been better if I hadn't been circed? maybe, for instance, I would have been in the hospital getting a foreskin problem checked out at a time when I otherwise would have had a formative life experience. maybe my masturbation schedule changed as a result of being cut and the fact I was jerkin' it at a different time meant that I avoided getting in a car accident that would have killed me. Maybe I would have had cancer of the penis, for god's sake! the point is, everything that happens to you becomes a part of who you are. maybe somewhere in an alternate universe there's an estefan whose parents elected to not circ him. that person is not me. as much as I hate being cut, and lament that it was done to me, it's a part of who I am, just like everything else (bad or good) that happened in my life.

now, if you asked me if I'd like to somehow grow a new foreskin, well, yes. yes I would. :P
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 20:27.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.