[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Jack Dean Tyler *
The glans has very little to do with it even though it does become desensitized after circumcision. Most of the erotic sensitivity is in the foreskin that is amputated.
[QUOTE]
I’m not sure how you can say this, since you’ve pointed out extensively that no major study of the foreskin has been done. If no study exists, isn’t it possible there is more erotic sensitivity in the glans? There just isn’t enough data to make a statement like yours, if your assertion regarding the lack of a study is true.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Jack Dean Tyler *
It depends what you mean by “sexual dysfunction.” IMEO, circumcision will result is a greatly INCREASED sexual libido (studies have shown that circumcised boys masturbate much more). Who knows, maybe the forced circumcisions of Americans during WW II was what was responsible for the baby boom (funny I never thought of that until now).
[QUOTE]
Here we go again. I want a cite from a peer-reviewed article or study that indicates circumcision will result in a greatly increased sexual libido, or that it causes much more masturbation. I do not agree with this point at all.
Are you seriously suggesting that during the Baby Boom, millions of men fathered millions of children via hundreds of millions of sexual encounters without benefit of a single orgasm? That goes so far beyond the realm of statistical possibility as to be patently ludicrous.
> I at least could have credited you with being a consistent bigot, but to say that politics is a Jewish establishment is truly the sign of a deranged mind. As if we needed any more signs of that from you.<
If one were to run for political office on an anti-circumcision platform, one would be labeled an anti-Semite (even if one was Jewish). There are many things that one might question about what politicians do that would cause one to be labeled an anti-Semite. It's aversion therapy to help your average American to think the "right" way. It's like training seals to slap their fins together. For example, you refer to me as a "bigot" when I am just trying to understand how such an impossible disaster as the sexual mutilation of America could have happened. It doesn't have any relevancy what religion any politician happens to be.
I hate to nitpick, but I’d like to know what basis you have for this statement. Military hospitals generally follow the same regs, and they are also bound by the same laws and regs that civilian hospitals follow. They certainly will perform circumcision when indicated, and that includes at the serviceman’s request. Military hospitals that also deliver babies also circumcise the newborns. I know this because I had to throw a screaming fit at the nurse who insisted that my son be circumcised over my objections.
Gaudere - Mr. Tyler has just insulted quite a few people. I’m curious to know why you haven’t edited his post.
Jack -
You’ve just claimed that it’s possible that circumcision is responsible for Americans supporting “various establishments.” Even assuming this is true, which almost makes my brain want to leap out of my head and find a pole to wrap itself around, how does this explain the women and uncircumcised men who have disagreed with you?
You’ve also just referred to the “Jewish establishment.” Exactly what establishment are you talking about? Politics? Don’t you know that every President except one has been Protestant, and the other (JFK) was Catholic? Don’t you know that the Jewish members of the House and Senate constitute a smaller minority than Jewish people do in the United States? You’d better watch what you write–some people might think you’re anti-Semitic.
Please explain how you know that we’re feeble-minded (I’m just assuming you’ve included me in this, based on your much earlier comments to me). I’ll put my IQ score up against yours any day. I was on “Jeopardy!” a short while ago, too, and did pretty well.
Oh, wait, sorry, I forgot. I disagreed with you. Yep, I must be stupid. Duh-huh. Yup. It’s a wonder I don’t run for President on the Republican ticket.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Jack Dean Tyler *
If one were to run for political office on an anti-circumcision platform, one would be labeled an anti-Semite (even if one was Jewish).
Am I the only person who would actually pay to see a debate between presidential candidates on circumcised vs. uncircumcised?
“I knew Senator John Holmes, sir. I served with Senator John Holmes. You, sir, are no John Holmes.”
Then don’t use those “observations” to defend your tenuous position if you’re going to shoot down everyone else for using the same “observations.”
Oh, so you’re circumcised and gay. What a shame.
Tell me, have you had any “hands-on” experience with your own foreskin research and/or theories (aside from yourself, that is)? I get the impression from the detailed pictures of the penis on your web site that someone obliged you with a quickcam online one night, but I could be wrong - perhaps you took these pictures yourself? And, as any good, unbiased scientist, took measurements, carefully examined and, perhaps, even tasted said penis? I mean, it’s all in the name of good, solid, unbiased scientific research, eh?
>I want a cite from a peer-reviewed article or study that indicates circumcision will result in a greatly increased sexual libido, or that it causes much more masturbation. I do not agree with this point at all.<
I can tell that you are very disturbed by all of this. So am I. That's why I'm here. Go to this web site that is run by a well-known physician in the media. This will give you a rundown on what is going on. Let me know if you need anything else.
The image in my head is Jack tenderly approaching another man, saying the above, and finishing up by saying, “Don’t be nervous - here, let me show you… <ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZIP!>”
Astraeus, I can’t speak for Gaudere, but Jack hasn’t named names–direct insults are right out, but “they’re fools” is so undirected that while it insults everyone, is directed at no one.
That’s not a peer-reviewed article; it’s the opinion of one doctor. His editorial also seems to be the site from which you’ve drawn many of your debating points.
Interestingly, I found the following article on the same Web site: http://www.healthcentral.com/news/newsfulltext.cfm?id=28911&StoryType=ReutersNews. Seems that circumcision can make a significant, favorable impact on the occurrence of invasive penile cancer. Of the 1,400 cases of invasive penile cancer diagnosed every year, the study estimates that circumcision could have prevented all but 70 of them. Conversely, the study estimates that the number of invasive penile cancer cases could double to 2,800 per year, if circumcision is stopped completely.
Well, bear in mind that no country has instituted anything of the sort. The US has not “instituted” circumcision. But let’s say that neo-natal little-toe removal was a common tradition in a country.
Yes, IMO, a class action suit is out of the question. Against the “medical establishment?” Who’s that? Why should they be sued? Hey, some doctors used to prescribe cigarettes, laudanum, cocaine–should they be sued as well? If it’s a procedure that is, as you say, medically senseless, and people begin to choose not to have the procedure done, it will gradually move out of vogue. But “medically senseless” alone does not, in my mind, constitute grounds for a lawsuit.
God’s blood! I do not live in this thread, you know, and may occasionally not see an insult for a while–it’s been, what, two whole hours? It’s not like the red Mod-Phone lights up whenever there is a insult posted in our forum (“Quick, David! To the Mod-mobile!”). If you see something you believe is a direct personal insult, please email David and I and we will look into it when we get a chance. Editing a post is done at our discretion, as well, and I generally only use it for throwaway insults that can be removed without any harm done to the meaning of the post. Please leave the moderating to the moderators.
Now that that’s cleared up: Jack Dean Tyler, vague references to “most or[sic] the posters here are feeble-minded” may not techically be directly insulting a particular person, but I would strongly advise you to watch your language a bit more carefully from this point on. Even if you don’t directly insult someone, simply being a jerk can get you banned, and the fact that you have ignored my and David’s requests that you moderate your tone does not reflect well on you. Should you feel the need to insult, we have a very fine BBQ Pit; it is not needed in a Great Debates thread. Got it?
>Seems that circumcision can make a significant, favorable impact on the occurrence of invasive penile cancer. Of the 1,400 cases of invasive penile cancer diagnosed every year,
the study estimates that circumcision could have prevented all but 70 of them. <
Why don't they just cut off their entire penises except for a little bit of the shaft to save the last 70 men? I've heard that men whose circumcisions were botched so badly that they have only stub left can STILL ejaculate. You: IF IT WILL SAVE JUST ONE LIFE . . .
While you're at it, why don't they routinely amputate the breasts of little girls to save them from breast cancer (which is a real menace, incidentally, unlike penile cancer that you get when you're sold old that something else is going to kill you before the cancer can, anyway)?
>Conversely, the study estimates that the number of invasive penile cancer cases could double to 2,800 per year, if circumcision is stopped completely. <
The American Cancer Society says that the actual number of DEATHS associated with penile cancer may approximate the number of deaths associated with circumcision.
The most erogenous part of the human body is the brain, and as you seem to be missing that, it is no wonder that sex for you must be as empty as your posts.
Don’t do it Jack! He’ll grind you up like prime chuck!
Too dumb to know when we’re insulted, are we? Pot, this is Kettle; you’re black.
Cue the violins for the appeal to David’s intellect!
Uh, maybe that feeling “deep down inside” isn’t fear; maybe it’s laughter. Or pity. And I don’t think anyone doubts that you’re not “doing your best to be logical,” Jack; the true tragedy is that by this point we’re pretty sure that you are doing your best, and this mess is it.
Ask for hazard pay, David! If you’re heart is wrenched everytime you edit a post, you deserve it. Gosh, I had no idea you mods took your responsibilities that seriously.
This thread is one of the most bizarre I’ve ever seen. It’s funny but pathetic – kind of like a train-wreck of clowns.
That’s a specious argument, at best. Taken to extremes, you can say that if we just kill all newborn males they’ll never die of penile cancer. What you consider mutilation, and what a fair portion of American society seems to view as extremely minor cosmetic surgery, apparently reduces the occurrence of a (admittedly rare) type of cancer by approximately 95 percent. Not performing the mutilation/minor cosmetic surgery could cause the incidence of that type of cancer to increase by 200 percent. This would seem to be a significant reason to avoid dismissing the procedure completely, as you want.
Incidentally, the story about invasive penile cancer rates said it was commonly diagnosed in men over 50. Over 50, to me, does not mean “so old that something else is gonna kill me soon.” Average life expectancy for a man in the U.S. is approaching 80 years, I believe.
You’re telling me that the American Cancer Society has done a study that indicates 1,400 circumcisions per year in the U.S. are botched so badly that infants DIE? If this is accurate, you will have gone a long way toward persuading me to your side of the debate. If it isn’t, your credibility with me is completely shot. Can you provide a link or a cite for that information? (You saw that coming, right?)
The next entry in The Quotable Jodi, methinks - that’s classic!
Reminds me of Homer Simpson - “Yeah, like when a clown dies.” (Although for the life of me I can’t remember what it was in response to - anyone? Beuller? Beuller?)
Just as info, I spent some time on the American Cancer Society’s Web site. I pulled this statement from there: “The American Cancer Society does not have a formal guideline statement on circumcision.” I couldn’t find anything saying that circumcision in the U.S. kills as many people as invasive penile cancer per year.
To further your argument, though, Jack, they do say their position is that circumcision is not a significant factor in reducing the occurrence of penile cancer. The page on their site from which I gathered that information was more than a year old, so it doesn’t reflect any findings from the study I cited earlier. Dunno if that would change their position. However, I find it interesting to note the the ACS says socio-ethnic factors are more likely to play a role in the contraction of penile cancer. Two of those factors, which they lump together, are: 1) Multiple sexual partners increases the risk of contracting penile cancer; 2) Uncircumcised men are more likely to be sexually active with multiple partners.
