The Circumcision Argument.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-08-2011, 11:15 AM
RE: The Circumcision Argument.
(20-08-2011 09:56 AM)Ghost Wrote:  The only time an organ is maladaptive is if it kills you BEFORE the age of sexual maturity. If you cannot reproduce, it cannot replicate. If it kills you after you have kids, then its effect, from an evolutionary standpoint, is irrelevant.
(20-08-2011 09:56 AM)Ghost Wrote:  When we talk about advantage in this case, we just mean ‘it's useful’. That is to say, the advantage is utilitarian, not evolutionary. If penis infections were killing people at 7, then it would certainly be an evolutionary advantage, but that isn't the case. The advantage, as I understand it, is that it helps with hygiene and avoiding infections (unless people want to add advantages to that list). Outside of that, it's purely a cultural issue.

I copied the two paragraphs where your lack of knowledge shows the most.
A phenotype does not have to kill you before you reproduce to be disadvantageous. It needs to make you statistically less likely to produce fertile offspring at the same rate as your competitors. If your brother is born with a marginally smaller foreskin than you and this, as is the proposition, makes it ever so slightly less probable for him to get an infection, then he might manage to spawn 1000 great great great....great grand children while you only manage 999. Survival of the fittest is not just about reproduction rates. It's about differential reproduction. I find it hard to believe that you have read all that stuff your quoting and linking to without gaining even this much insight into what it's all about.

(20-08-2011 09:56 AM)Ghost Wrote:  It in no way effects procreation

Wait, What!?
Didn't you ever have sex-ed?
The foreskin eases penetration and reduces the effects of vaginal dryness.

That would have a pretty high impact on reproduction rates in a pre-lubricant society, don't ya think?

I want to rip off your superstitions and make passionate sense to you
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2011, 11:15 AM
RE: The Circumcision Argument.
It may be considered battery but that doesn't mean anything if the parent doesn't step up. Often times a doctor can simply suggest a small complication which required the choice and clear up a battery charge (unless they are charged repeatedly). Doctors imposing on the rights of patients is a very real thing. And misinformation is definitely not something that can be easily corrected when there really isn't much substantial evidence.

You can trust doctors all you want, they fucked me over royally.

And again on the infection issue, circumcised children have a much higher rate of infection during infancy and early childhood.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2011, 02:33 PM
RE: The Circumcision Argument.
Ok, Norseman.

Did I bruise your ego or something, cause yer comin at me pretty aggressive and I gotta tell ya, I aint havin it.

There is a difference between having a lack of knowledge and keeping it simple.

When you wrote that there is only adaptive and maladaptive and that exaptive is a myth, I took that to mean that you lacked an understanding of evolution so fundamental that I had to keep it simple. The fact that you then turn around and accuse me of not reading things, fuck you for that by the way, is shocking to me. Please, don’t pull that sort of stunt again.

For the record, in the face of Darwin’s own words, do you still deny that traits can be exaptive?

As far as differential reproduction goes, yeah, thanks, I get it. Representation in the gene pool and all the rest. But we weren't talking about representation. You were saying that the foreskin has to be adaptive, because if it wasn't, it wouldn't HAVE a representation in the gene pool. That’s a different argument altogether.

We were having a discussion on the level of organs, not specific differences in phenotypic expressions of that organ. So don't pretend like I missed the point when we weren't even having that conversation. I said, CLEARLY, that I wasn't saying that the foreskin was exaptive. I was saying that it was my educated guess that it was but that I was unqualified to make that determination. I also said that its historically adaptive quality seemed clear, but that within the context of the current environment, one with underwear, it was less clear and I even asked if other people had things to add. So get off your high horse.

If an organ blows up like a grenade inside you before you hit puberty, then yeah, that's a maladaptive organ. It will eliminate itself from the gene pool. If my dick skin is slightly bigger than yours, I MIGHT chase you out of the gene pool, but that’s really just a representation issue. On top of that, there are ZERO studies that show that foreskin size, or even penis size for that matter, have ANYTHING TO DO WHATSOEVER with procreation rates. Economic conditions have way more of an effect. In fact, we KNOW that foreskin size and dick size are pretty much irrelevant when it comes to human procreation.

If you can produce a single shred of evidence that even touches the notion that women, pre-lube, used to reject men as mating partners because they were helmets, I'll listen to what you have to say. But I gotta be honest, I'm pretty confident that no such data exists.

Like I said, nothing lives in a vacuum. Generally speaking, women have NO IDEA whether a man is circumcised or not before they fuck them because men walk around wearing clothes. So unless he just blurts it out over coffee or if she asks when he asks for her phone number, it's an absolute lottery for the woman and not at all a part of the courtship process. Now if you can produce statistics that discuss a woman's likelihood of rejecting a man as a mating partner because of slight variations in foreskin size or because they have foreskins or not, you might have something. But since that's a bunch of crap, we can admit that foreskins have a laughingly negligible effect on whether a man is going to reproduce or not and ZERO effect on whether or not he’s capable of reproduction.

Hey, Lilith.

Quote:It may be considered battery but that doesn't mean anything if the parent doesn't step up. Often times a doctor can simply suggest a small complication which required the choice and clear up a battery charge (unless they are charged repeatedly).

Well then that's some bullshit right there.

Don't get me wrong. Doctors are humans. My brother was almost killed this year because the doctor prescribed him fatal overdose levels of a drug. I don't remember saying trust them implicitly anywhere. I'm saying they should tell parents what's what and they shouldn't be allowed to make unilateral decisions.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2011, 06:49 PM (This post was last modified: 20-08-2011 06:50 PM by lucradis.)
RE: The Circumcision Argument.
I don't have anything else personally to add, I just came across this website and thought it was good enough to share. I especially like the educational resources section.
Oh and hey guys calm down, it's only the internet.

[Image: internet-joke.gif]
Forgot to add the website lol.

Here it is you scurvy dogs

"I think of myself as an intelligent, sensitive human being with the soul of a clown which always forces me to blow it at the most important moments." -Jim Morrison
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes lucradis's post
20-08-2011, 10:09 PM
RE: The Circumcision Argument.
I made the mistake of googling "restoring foreskin". Oh god, I so do not want mine back.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2011, 02:47 AM (This post was last modified: 21-08-2011 03:09 AM by Norseman.)
RE: The Circumcision Argument.
Fuck me? well ok then. If thats the way you want to react, on your head be it. I'm not going to stoop to that level with you.
I was not trying to offend you unnecessarily, I was expression genuine disbelief.
I suppose it's hard to know someones tone when you communicate solely through text.

What both you and Darwin fail to take into account is that any mutation that cause you to grow an organ which is neither advantageous or disadvantageous IS disadvantageous, because it wastes important resources.
And i didn't accuse you of not reading. I observed that you seemed to have done a lot of reading, and not so much understanding. I see that this is insulting, but it is just an observation. Darwin is excused for not understanding every small detail of how evolution works, unlike us he started from scratch 150 years ago.

And to clear up a technicality, an organ IS a phenotypic expression. A genetic mutation causes a change in the phenotype. Or just a change in the "body" to keep it simple. (Oh crap. Now your probably offended you again.)

To give credit where credit is due, yes, the technological advances of the last 5000 years like clothes and soap and so on might constitute a change in the environment that changes the evolutionary pressure so that having a foreskin changes from adaptive to maladaptive. I would still like to hear your educated guess as to how though.

As for the three last paragraphs of your post directed at me. I think you must have misunderstood me. I wasn't suggesting that women choose mating partners on the basis of how much foreskin they have. And personally I have no reason to think that they do. What I was saying was that if having less foreskin makes it more difficult to "do the nasty", then that will have an effect on procreation rates.

I might be picking at something you didn't really mean here, but are you saying that an organ that does not "blow up like a grenade inside you" until after you reach sexual maturity is not maladaptive?

Edit: added link to wikipedia

Edit2:
I think I should clarify what I meant when i said exptive traits where a myth. This was a shitty choice of wording. What I meant was that your understanding of the word was a common misconception. I understand perfectly why you didn't understand what I meant. Exaptation does not mean that a trait is neutral (this is impossible). It means that the evolutionary pressure on a certain phenotype has changed. Either from positive to negative, negative to positive, or even stayed positive (or negative), but with a different selective pressure than before because of a change in the environment.

I want to rip off your superstitions and make passionate sense to you
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2011, 08:57 AM
RE: The Circumcision Argument.
Hey, Norseman.

Quote:I see that this is insulting...

Thank you for acknowledging that.

Quote:What both you and Darwin fail to take into account is that any mutation that cause you to grow an organ which is neither advantageous or disadvantageous IS disadvantageous, because it wastes important resources.

I see where you're coming from, but you'll excuse me if I request some sort of source to back up your claim that Darwin was wrong.

Off the top of my head, the impression that I get from this is the notion that all organisms are paragons of efficiency and that only the most streamlined, energy efficient ones, have any chance at mating. The issue I have with that idea is that animals are not paragons of efficiency. Take the peacock. The male feathers are a massive waste of energy. They increase the likelihood of mating, because the females like big and pretty ones, but the males have to drag that shit around and those feathers are seriously heavy. You may be talking about something else though.

Quote:To give credit where credit is due, yes, the technological advances of the last 5000 years like clothes and soap and so on might constitute a change in the environment that changes the evolutionary pressure so that having a foreskin changes from adaptive to maladaptive. I would still like to hear your educated guess as to how though.

I already said why. Twice. But I didn't say from adaptive to maladaptive. I’ll come back to this later.

Quote:What I was saying was that if having less foreskin makes it more difficult to "do the nasty", then that will have an effect on procreation rates.

I understand that by the book, any advantage, however slight, affects reproductive success. But, since we're talking about Darwin pre-dating new ideas, this doesn't take memetic competition/co-evolution into account.

Big dick, little dick, hook dick, thick dick, thin dick, dick skin, no dick skin, short dick skin, longer dick skin, big ol' droopy wind sock dick skin, none of these are traits that females select for when looking for a mate. Women don't say, I would have had kids with the guy, but his dick was an inch off. So while in the purest sense, all of that stuff should have an impact on reproduction rates, it doesn't. That's because women are selecting for different genetic traits, like is the guy attractive and for memetic traits, like social standing, cultural beliefs... This is why my gut tells me that the foreskin's net impact on human procreation is zero. It's not advantageous to either have or not have or to have in different size, and it's not disadvantageous to either have or not have or to have in different size. The foreskin trait's influence on reproductive success is simply trumped by the importance to women of other genetic traits, by the importance of memetic traits, by the fact that the female's decision to have sex is made before any penis information is learned and by the existence of technologic aids like lube. That's why so many penis/foreskin variations have healthy representations in the gene pool.

Quote:I might be picking at something you didn't really mean here, but are you saying that an organ that does not "blow up like a grenade inside you" until after you reach sexual maturity is not maladaptive?

Yes.

In terms of sexual reproduction.

If it kills you before you reach the age of sexual maturity, there is no way for you to pass on any of your genes, including the genes for your grenade organ.

If it kills you after you've successfully procreated, your genes, including the genes for your grenade organ, have already been transmitted. The grenade organ had no effect on your ability to reproduce in life and since it killed you after you procreated, its effect on your reproductive success is irrelevant.

So perhaps you have some insight into the application of the word maladaptive that I'm just glossing over, but the scenario I just described is sound.

Quote:Exaptation... means that the evolutionary pressure on a certain phenotype has changed. Either from positive to negative, negative to positive, or even stayed positive (or negative), but with a different selective pressure than before because of a change in the environment.

I'm cool with that.

Quote:Exaptation does not mean that a trait is neutral (this is impossible)

I gotta go with Darwin on this one because this simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Take visual impairment. Intuitively, we know that having perfect sight is better than having shitty sight. If we ran naked through the wild, the fully sighted would for sure have an advantage over the near and far sighted. They'd probably get eaten a lot less and thus, reproduce more successfully. All of that makes perfect and intuitive sense.

But that isn't our environment.

Now we have glasses. Glasses remedy visual impairment and put us all on an even keel. So the genetic mutations that cause the differences in visual acuity persist happily because they don't have an impact anymore, ie, they don’t aid anyone in, or prevent anyone from, procreating. It's still certainly not advantageous to be Mister McGoo level blind, but it's no longer a disadvantage. Then add on top of that the fact that we're not being preyed upon. Having glasses or not doesn't affect your ability to make a living. There are zero genetic cues that make women turned off by glasses (although there may be memetic ones, but that just illustrates how complex the situation is).

Anyhoo, if you've got some slam-dunk source that can tell me why it's utterly impossible, I welcome it. But for now, both my intuition and my trust in Darwin tell me otherwise.

All of this, to bring it back to the point of the thread, is to say that it seems clear that the net result of having or not having a foreskin on reproductive success is zero.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2011, 10:10 AM
RE: The Circumcision Argument.
I'm gonna toss a "zero science" idea into the pot here. I've met women who have said very clearly that they find uncircumcised penises unattractive. So much so, that they have left guys because they simply could not have a fulfilling sexual relationship with them. Sounds harsh, I know, but it's also true. We need to be attracted to our mates, and if this feature is unattractive enough for someone to not want a sexual relationship, then perhaps a foreskin could be considered maladaptive to some degree? I mean in terms of survival of the species, it's all about who gets to procreate right?

Just throwin the idea out there to see what you guys think.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2011, 12:20 PM (This post was last modified: 21-08-2011 12:28 PM by Ghost.)
RE: The Circumcision Argument.
Hey, Stark.

Yeah, but that's anecdotal. I knew a guy whose wife could only get off if they had anal sex. The world is full of preference. I'm sure there's women who find helmets revolting. Point is, it's nothing genetic, ie, universal.

ON EDIT: I thought about this a little harder. That preference for or against foreskin is in fact a selection pressure. It's a memetic one. I still stand by the wang lottery theory, but if a woman has a choice and that choice is influenced by cultural preference, then yes, it's a memetic selection pressure.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2011, 12:49 PM
RE: The Circumcision Argument.
I agree that it's anecdotal, but also quite common. Anecdotal evidence is still evidence. Most definitely not conclusive, but evidence none the less.

Has anyone else heard of women having a preference with regard to how attractive a penis is? I've heard that it either doesn't matter, or that circumcised is better. Never the other way around though. Is that just the people I know or is it a common trend? I know there's some ladies here....what's your opinion? If it's true that there is a preference towards one or the other, then it stands to reason that the preferred penis will be somewhat more successful than the not preferred. Regardless of whether it's cultural or not, that would mean that overall, one type of penis could feasably prevail over the other....

Battle of the weiners?

Guess my point is, is that it doesn't matter what the cause for a preference is, and it doesn't matter whether it's something caused by natural selection or human intervention. If there's a preference, however slight, could that be considered evolution?

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: