Penile Lengthening Column

[jab1]

*Originally posted by sublemon *
Anyway, after looking at some of the anti-circumcision sties and other “evidence” offered by JDT, my feeling is that he is an anti-semite, and the anti-circumcision stance is by and large just a masked form of anti-semitism. Especially obvious when they start bringing up conspiracy theories, etc.

Well, I think it’s also possible that JDT is one of those people who believes in GUTs (Grand Unified Theories); that is, the belief that there is one, single explanation for a multitude of mysteries. A conspiracy to inflict circumcision is his GUT for male aggression, depression, and a high crime rate; disease; the Israeli-Arab conflict; sexual frustration; rape; etc. GUT’s are appealing because, it’s easier to believe in and remember just one explanation than a multitude of them. Frankly, it’s being lazy.

Anyone who thinks they could stretch themselves a new forekin is clearly whacko.

Actually, it just may be possible, but Tug Ahoy would be the incorrect method. One technique used today to treat burn victims is to implant a small balloon under undamaged skin and inflate it incrementally. As the balloon inflates, it stretches the skin. The body responds by growing more skin, just as it does when a person gains weight (or gets pregnant). After the balloon is large enough, it is removed and you have a huge new piece of skin that can be grafted over the burn area. And the body would not reject a piece of its own skin, whereas it might reject someone else’s skin. Perhaps a new foreskin could be crafted in the same fashion.

But first, you have to convince people that such an expensive procedure is medically necessary and not just cosmetic. Unfortunately, JDT is doing a poor job of convincing us.

[Lemur866]

Message to the Mods:

I know that ahem a cetain poster in this thread has come close to being edited. However, I am personally begging you to give that certain poster a little more, shall we say, slack. This thread has provided us with hours of fascinating information, it would be a shame to kill the gooose that lays the golden eggs.

That certain particular poster is a kind of treasure that only comes around once in a while. All of us will miss him when he finally leaves. I know you must do your duty if things get out of hand but consider the consequences for the rest of us and try to, shall we say, trim as little as possible.

[andros]

Perhaps a new foreskin could be crafted in the same fashion.

Perhaps it could. Except Jack cannot seem to make up his mind whether the foreskin is simply flesh (in which case the TugAhoy and grafting would be fine) or a mystical, holy organ unto itself.

[sublemon]

*Originally posted by jab1 *
Actually, it just may be possible, but Tug Ahoy would be the incorrect method. One technique used today to treat burn victims is to implant a small balloon under undamaged skin and inflate it incrementally. As the balloon inflates, it stretches the skin. The body responds by growing more skin, **

but would the body respond by growing new “mucosa”, “frenulum”, and the vast array of nerve endings attributed by JDT to the foreskin? It might grow some new skin, but probably not the other physiological structures that were supposedly removed…

[sublemon]

*Originally posted by Esprix *
The point you’re missing is that the Tug A-Hoy™ and similar such devices aren’t really meant to recreate one’s foreskins - they are mastrubation aids.

Esprix **

it doesn;t seem very pleasant…the pocket-pussy has got to be better…

[Esprix]

Here’s an interesting observation - on Jack’s web site, he has a whole page devoted to one man’s penis, and his own detailing thereof. Now, the last two pictures looked suspiciously like someone mastrubating. Fancy my surprise when the web site he links to where he got the pictures from is - you guessed it - a site created by and for gay men.

Sure, it sounds ad hominem, but it’s amusing nonetheless.

Esprix

[Gaudere]

Well, I’m not a gay male, but if I wanted to find a clear shot of a solo penis, I’d look on a gay porn site. Het sites just don’t have shots of men alone–straight men don’t seem to like to look at men grabbing their penises without a lot of chicks around.

[Una_Persson]

*Originally posted by Jack Dean Tyler *
**Anthracite,

Norfolk Naval Hospital no longer does Routine Infant Circumcision.**

So, the key word is routine in this case, not that they won’t do circumcisions, is that a correct re-statement?

I just want to make sure we all are on the same page here, is all.

[Jack_Dean_Tyler]

Sauron,

>My position at this time is that circumcision appears to significantly reduce the occurrence of penile cancer in men. The ACS doesn’t appear to agree, but I can’t find anything from them regarding the matter that’s more than 18 months old, while the studies I’ve cited are much more recent. . . . . Not performing the mutilation/minor cosmetic surgery could cause the incidence of that type of cancer to increase by 200 percent. <

Total Estimated New Cancer Cases and Deaths, United States, 2000, from the American Cancer Society http://www3.cancer.org/cancerinfo/sitecenter.asp?SCDoc=41170&CTID=8&PNT=0&SCS=4&SCSS=3&SCP=8.3.10.40038

Vagina & other genital: 2,100 cases and 600 deaths.
Vulva: 3,400 cases and 800 deaths
Testis: 6,900 cases and 300 deaths
Penis & other genital: 1,100 cases 300 deaths
Let’s assume not just worst case, but let’s go even greatly beyond worst-case and assume that the cancers for the “penis and other genital” will increase by 200% as you say that it will. By the statistics put out by the American Cancer Society, this would mean that for the year 2000 we would have been able to expect 3,300 cases and 900 deaths if American men were intact and able to experience the wonderful sensations of the foreskin. Using your reasoning and taking the American Cancer Societies statistics into consideration, we should be not just circumcising all baby girls, we should be doing full infibulations and turning them into sexual zombies in order to protect them from this incredibly slight chance that they might contract cancer at sometime in their life.

> Also, I can’t find anything from the ACS that indicates circumcision kills 1,400 infants every year. <

Actually, using the American Cancer Society statistics and even assuming a situation that far exceeds worst-case, one only has to show 900 deaths as a result of circumcision. http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/price-uklc/ This article should convince any rational person. You see, one should consider that later mortal complications that result form circumcision too.

> Also waiting on a response regarding the ACS’ position that one of the major risk factors for penile cancer is multiple sexual partners, <

HPV causes penile cancer. Your chances of contracting an STD are increased as you increase your risky sexual behavior. Go kick your sex ed teacher back in high school.

>and their assertion that uncircumcised men are more likely to have multiple partners than circumcised men.<

No, that's enough cites for you today. Let's see what affect we've had as of now upon your thinking.

[Jack_Dean_Tyler]

jab1,

> Well, I think it’s also possible that JDT is one of those people who believes in GUTs (Grand Unified Theories); that is, the belief that there is one, single explanation for a multitude of mysteries. A conspiracy to inflict circumcision is his GUT for male aggression, depression, and a high crime rate; disease; the Israeli-Arab conflict; sexual frustration; rape; etc. <

Yes, I do believe in a GUT in this area.

>GUT’s are appealing because, it’s easier to believe in and remember just one explanation than a multitude of them. Frankly, it’s being lazy.<

Yes, when I majored in astrophysics at UCLA I read all about those lazy physicists doing the same thing. Lazy persons.

> Actually, it just may be possible, but Tug Ahoy would be the incorrect method. One technique used today to treat burn victims is to implant a small balloon under undamaged skin and inflate it incrementally.<

The NORM groups have studied this method. They've done their research.

> But first, you have to convince people that such an expensive procedure is medically necessary and not just cosmetic.<

All any middle-aged man has to do is remember back when his penis worked like when he was 19. It can be that way again if he restores.
The Tug Ahoy only costs $100 and is very effective and convenient. Even if it was just for cosmetic reasons it would be worth it. But, it's much more than that with all of the increased power in the orgasms of restored men.

[Jodi]

JACK says:

http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/price-uklc/ This article should convince any rational person.

Well, it doesn’t convince me. First of all, it apparently was never published, which makes it, as a legal paper, essentially worthless. But turning to the substance of it anyway, it says:

1. Regarding proof of liability:

Further, it would be inappropriate for this paper to rehearse in any great detail the reasons why male circumcision medically cannot properly be regarded as harmless; that is dealt with fully by others elsewhere.

This is, of course, the crux of the argument. If the procedure is (a) medically harmless or even (b) medically defensible, it is beyond the reach of the law, because the law does not award damages without injury.

2. Regarding burden of proof:

Rather it is clearly for the circumcisers, not least in the light of mainstream medical knowledge and current legal concepts, to make good their general and specific assertions, by careful and rigorous evidence, arguments and refutation of the medical and legal position.

This is, practically speaking, incorrect. If a procedure has been routinely undertaken for millenia – as this one has – then that general routine (with apparent lack of ill effect) will justify continuation of the practice. If a lobby wants to persuade (or to force) people to STOP this ingrained practice, it is incumbent upon that lobby to prove that the practice is indefensible.

3. Regarding mutilation:

Mutilation is defined as “1. To deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or some principal organ of the body; to cut off or otherwise destroy the use of (a limb or organ) 2. To render (a thing, esp. a record , book etc.) imperfect by cutting off or destroying a part.’ Oxford English Dictionary OUP 1971.”

The author does not bother to explain, however, why “circumcision” should be considered a type of “mutilation,” since it does not “deprive [one] of a limb” nor “destroy the use of” that limb. It might render the penis less than “perfect,” but then “perfect” is a value-judgment. And there’s no explanation for why the author hasn’t seen a dictionary since 1971.

4. Regarding risk:

Circumcision is a procedure which carries risks which have been described as high as some 50%; of course, if the inevitable diminution of sexual function is counted as a complication (as would seem to be wholly sensible a course), then the complication rate is 100%.

There is NO citation for these figures – NOT A SINGLE ONE – which is damning in a scientific or legal paper, and glaringly emphasizes why no journal would publish it.

5. Regarding ill-effects:

   A. Pain. No citation that a single physically painful incident in early childhood generally produces long-lasting psychological effects.

   B. Dysfunction. Citations only to anecdotal evidence and to other “papers” that themselves do not contain citation. Therefore relegated to “argument,” but worthless as “proof.”

I could go on and on, but why? It’s apparent from reading the submission just how heavily Jack relies upon it for his position and his “proof.” But a chain is only as good as its weakest link and, if it were me, I wouldn’t build my house on a foundation of sand.

[Esprix]

Originally posted by Gaudere

Well, I’m not a gay male, but if I wanted to find a clear shot of a solo penis, I’d look on a gay porn site. Het sites just don’t have shots of men alone–straight men don’t seem to like to look at men grabbing their penises without a lot of chicks around.

I wonder how many chicks hang out with Jack? I’d guess zero.

Of course, it’s a well-known, logical fact that looking at penises and foreskins in such minute detail over a prolonged length of time does tend to bring to the surface one’s repressed homosexual urges, and it becomes only a matter of time before one takes the next logical step, i.e., same-gender sex. Any idiot can see that.

Esprix

[Esprix]

Originally posted by Jack Dean Tyler

You see, one should consider that later mortal complications that result form circumcision too.

“My penis made me do it!” - James Earl Ray

>and their assertion that uncircumcised men are more likely to have multiple partners than circumcised men.<

No, that’s enough cites for you today. Let’s see what affect we’ve had as of now upon your thinking.

Ooo, talking down to people - clever dodge of the question! We’ll still hang out and wait for your response.

Esprix

[Esprix]

Originally posted by Jack Dean Tyler

Even if it was just for cosmetic reasons it would be worth it. But, it’s much more than that with all of the increased power in the orgasms of restored men.

I like penises of all shapes and sizes, but I must say I have a preference for the looks of an uncut penis. YMMV, no doubt.

And “increased power in the orgasm?” All I can see is He-Man holding aloft something quite phallic saying, “I HAVE THE POWER!”

Esprix

[Gaudere]

Of course, it’s a well-known, logical fact that looking at penises and foreskins in such minute detail over a prolonged length of time does tend to bring to the surface one’s repressed homosexual urges, and it becomes only a matter of time before one takes the next logical step, i.e., same-gender sex. Any idiot can see that.

So that’s how you guys recruit! I always wondered…

[jab1]

*Originally posted by Jack Dean Tyler *
**>GUT’s are appealing because, it’s easier to believe in and remember just one explanation than a multitude of them. Frankly, it’s being lazy.<

Yes, when I majored in astrophysics at UCLA I read all about those lazy physicists doing the same thing. Lazy persons.**

(For those of you who don’t know, a GUT would be a mathematical description of the relationship between the four known forces in physics: the Strong Nuclear Force (which keeps atomic nuclei from flying apart); the Weak Nuclear Force (responsible for beta decay radiation); the Electro-magnetic Force (light, radio waves, X-rays, etc.); and Gravity. It is also called the “Unified Field Theory.” As yet, no one has conclusively proven he or she has devised a GUT; gravity is still not sufficiently understood. Even Einstein couldn’t do it.)

[Jack_Dean_Tyler]

sublemon,

> but would the body respond by growing new “mucosa”, <

The remaining mucosa can also be tugged out.

> “frenulum”, <

One restorer did successfully re-grow his frenulum. It was not structurally the same thing but the nerve sensations were returned and that’s them most important thing.

> and the vast array of nerve endings attributed by JDT to the foreskin? <

At the present level of this art, a circumcised man will not get back anything near what was taken. However, he will still get a lot back. If the medical establishment would throw off its fear of being labeled anti-Semitic and come to this movement's aid, who knows what the possibilities are?

[Esprix]

I’m thinking this whole Grand Unification Theory might have some credence. After all, it’s plain to see that his unhealthy obsession with penises and foreskins is the reason Jack’s life is in turmoil (what with the opposition to his stance here, plus his troubles with his ex-housemate, the city of Redondo Beach, etc., all clear to see on his website). By all the problems, anger and despondency I see there, I can only surmise that poor Jack was brutally mutilated in infancy by having been circumcised.

Well, that’s my theory, at least. That and he’s a flaming homosexual.

Esprix

[Smeghead]

*Originally posted by Jack Dean Tyler *
**Also, I realize that I have made two very large errors in a few of my earlier posts. Don’t know what I could have been thinking. **

Wow! That’s two down, 47,962 to go, by my count. Fighting ignorance does work!

I never thought I’d see the day where I missed the well-thought-out, insightful posts of jally.

[Nymysys]

I’ve spent the entire day reading this thread which finally convinced me to register so that I might post.

It’s admirable the way people are keeping their tempers on the whole, but my question would be: Why are you still using logic on this guy? He has to be one of the most irrational, illogical, maniacal people I’ve ever heard tell of. Next time he states one of his “facts” or puts forth some of his “theories” try replying with something like, “Remember when they were talking about that on the Mary Tyler Moore show?” Or perhaps, “I like eating soup with crackers. I like soup. I like soup.” If all else fails, I’d like to see someone try a big, fat “Your momma!”

As you were.