[K703]

I heard someone making a comment to a man who is not circumcised who is considering getting a vasectomy.

I heard someone else make this comment: "Well, after that you can't really call yourself intact anymore."

I didn't say anything, but I would've said this: "At least the operation you're having serves a useful purpose, is being done with your consent, and (barring any complications) won't hamper your sex life."

 

[MCatLvrMom2A&X]

It is apples and oranges to me. A infant going under the knife without his knowleged or concent vs. an adult fully educated man deciding to have a vasectomy to prevent future children.

Though the penis will still be intact with a V so that still dosnt fit.

How is that even compairable??

There are more than a few people who have various parts removed through life so are not "intact" I dont have a thyroid or a gall bladder now so that means I am not 100% of a human I guess

 

[bandgeek]

Sorry that makes no sense to me. When referring to "intact" vs. "circed" we are talking about foreskin, not whether an man can produce sperm or not. When a woman has her tubes tied, or even a hysterectomy, we don't say she's missing anything. It's generally a medical decision, or at least, a practical one. A woman isn't intact if she has a uterus and circed if she doesn't.

 

[Smokering]

Eugh. "Intact" is a specific term referring to the presence of a foreskin (in a male); it can't be generalised out of context to refer to other body parts. I had my adenoids out as a kid, but it's still appropriate for me to refer to myself as an intact female, given that my genitals haven't been surgically modified.

Sure, according to a different, less-specific definition of "intact" a vasectomied man could be considered non-intact. But that's irrelevant. These kinds of word-games annoy me: we all know what the words are supposed to mean! Just as "pro-choice" refers to abortion rights, not being pro- the choice to eat salami, and "pro-life" similarly has no bearing on the rights of ducklings to life, and "vegetarian" doesn't mean someone who eats only things which are technically categorised as vegetables, and "omnivore" doesn't mean someone who eats everything under the sun including bicycle tyres...

It's true that, biologically speaking, the body of a man post-vasectomy doesn't work as optimally as it used to. But men know that when they go in for surgery; the biological "malfunction" is a deliberate choice. So pointing it out to them is a little bizarre. It's like saying "You know, once you get that tattoo your skin will be permanently stained". Well... duh. That's the point.

 

[4chunut1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smokering Eugh. "Intact" is a specific term referring to the presence of a foreskin (in a male); it can't be generalised out of context to refer to other body parts. I had my adenoids out as a kid, but it's still appropriate for me to refer to myself as an intact female, given that my genitals haven't been surgically modified. Sure, according to a different, less-specific definition of "intact" a vasectomied man could be considered non-intact. But that's irrelevant. These kinds of word-games annoy me: we all know what the words are supposed to mean! Just as "pro-choice" refers to abortion rights, not being pro- the choice to eat salami, and "pro-life" similarly has no bearing on the rights of ducklings to life, and "vegetarian" doesn't mean someone who eats only things which are technically categorised as vegetables, and "omnivore" doesn't mean someone who eats everything under the sun including bicycle tyres... It's true that, biologically speaking, the body of a man post-vasectomy doesn't work as optimally as it used to. But men know that when they go in for surgery; the biological "malfunction" is a deliberate choice. So pointing it out to them is a little bizarre. It's like saying "You know, once you get that tattoo your skin will be permanently stained". Well... duh. That's the point.

Good post Smokering...but I have a mild objection of your use of the word "optimally" in the last paragraph. (I hope I'm not hijacking this thread with my argument), but I would have preferred you use another word...maybe "fertile..?" The optimal result of the vasectomy is infertility. That may be a circular argument though. You're a great writer, and I'd be happy to continue the discussion in a separate thread...

 

[Greg B]

Keep in mind that many do not even know what a circumcision is. So I am sure there are even more not familair with the word "intact" and it's specialized use by us.

Regards

 

[Pumpkinheadmommy]

"Intact" is the word veterinarians and other animal experts use when referring to animals that have not been neutered. So this is probably a reference to that usage. Still offensive, though.

 

[Smokering]

Quote:

Good post Smokering...but I have a mild objection of your use of the word "optimally" in the last paragraph. (I hope I'm not hijacking this thread with my argument), but I would have preferred you use another word...maybe "fertile..?" The optimal result of the vasectomy is infertility. That may be a circular argument though. You're a great writer, and I'd be happy to continue the discussion in a separate thread...

Well, as I say, the biological optimum for a man is fertility (you could call it the evolutionary optimum if you like). I don't think there has to be a value judgment attached to that, though: obviously from the POV of the guy having the vas, his body is more, as it were, socially optimal by virtue of being less biologically optimal.

If having something not work "right" is the point of the operation, you can't then say it works "wrong"; it just works right in a different context. But yes, you could probably substitute the word "fertile".