Penile Lengthening Column

Great Debates
121

KellyM,

>Nothing in the Bill of Rights (or, in fact, the entire Constitution) creates positive law constraining individual citizens. The Constitution delineates the relationship between the federal government and the states, and binds only them. The people are beneficiaries of the Constitution but are not bound in any way by it. <

I don't really feel that it is appropriate for me to be getting into legal theory, but, oh well. The US Constitution does protect individuals from individuals. It is convoluted how this works, though. The US Constitution as it is enforced can protect one civilly or criminally. For example, if the Ku Klux Klan decides to hold a rally and informs the government agency that has jurisdiction over the area where the KKK wants to hold the rally, the government agency must protect the KKK against the hoards of people that are going to show up and threaten the KKK. This government agency must do this or the KKK will sue the government agency for violations of their rights under the First Amendment.
Another example is were the police officers who were criminally charged in the Rodney King case. They were charged under some federal statute that perhaps came from the Fifth Amendment (they were not charged with a "hate" crime so I don't believe that the 14th Amendment applied in any way). In any event, my understanding is that the officers were charged under the US Constitution in some way.
In both of these examples, individuals were protected from other individuals by the Federal government because the other government agencies didn't do their jobs.

> If a state were to, for some reason, repeal the relevant criminal law and abrogate the common law offense, there would be no recourse under federal law unless you could characterize the act as a civil rights offense under the appropriate federal statute (which is questionable). <

It's only questionable because one never knows how the political winds are blowing in Washington. One could almost certainly find a statute to file federal criminal charges under. The defendant might be the state, though.

>The fact that we have had to adopt specific laws forbidding female genital mutilation (even with the substituted consent of the parents) indicates that such an act is not illegal without such statutes. If consensual female genital mutilation is not prohibited by the constitution, neither is consensual male genital mutilation.<

It may indicate that such "an act is not illegal." Or, it might indicate that the existing law was not being enforced to protect these children. In any event, this law protecting only girls is so brazenly unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment that any ethical attorney's head should be spinning. Right there is a civil rights violation for a baby boy who gets circumcised. Won't be enforced though. Circumcision is a phenomenon that reaches out to all facets of America. What has gone wrong here?
122

jab1,
>What are you saying? That a cut man SHOULD hate his parents for it?<
That’s for each circumcision victim to decide for himself. I will say this, though: there is no logical reason for a circumcision victim to forgive his parents if they consented to this crime. That’s why, as humans, we’re very lucky to have emotions that can be allowed to supercede logic, if the individual desires it (and if the parents acknowledge their horrifying mistake).

> Do you think it’s ever all right to hate someone? <
Oh, definitely. Don’t you?

>Are you circumcised? If so, do you hate your parents for it? <
I really don’t feel that it is appropriate for me to talk about my own penis with you.

>Oh, you have GOT to provide evidence for this. It’s funny, but I’ve lived in California since 1989, and I have never heard of this. <

Well, I don't have a cite for this. It's just what I have heard. I'd like to verify it by calling the school district but I'm too afraid that ten minutes after I call I'm going to have a dozen police officers break down my door and dog pile on me. Why don't you call since you live in CA. Let me know what they tell you. Call from a pay phone ;-)

>What are they supposed to practice on? Ken dolls? <
No, they are suppose to practice doing their experiments on YOUR penis and not mine or anyone else’s.

123

Probably the only correct thing you said in this entire post.

No, actually, this is wrong. The KKK can indeed sue the government if it fails to protect them against lawless persons for denying them equal protection under the law, which falls under the 14th Amendment (or 5th Amendment, if the federal government is involved). But here the offender is the government for failing to afford equal protection to the members of the KKK, not the lawless individuals who interfered with the KKK’s activity. This sort of suit is difficult to sustain, because you have to show that the governmental agency deliberately failed to take actions which it was obliged by law to take. And to bring a suit for damages requires using the statutory mechanisms in the Civil Rights Act.

It might be possible to bring an action against the lawless mob as well, under the Civil Rights Act, but this is a statutory action brought under a statute enacted by Congress pursuant to the Constitution, not an action brought under the Constitution itself.

The Constitution does not oblige me to refrain from causing a riot at a KKK rally. I am obliged to refrain from causing a riot at a KKK rally by generally applicable state criminal law. The only way the Constitution becomes implicated is if I create a riot and the police (an instrumentality of the state) either willfully ignores the riot or willfully abets it in some way. As a private individual, I have no obligations whatsoever under the Constitution.

The only way the First Amendment would become implicated is if the government prevented the KKK from rallying through state action. The government has no obligation to prevent private actors from engaging in lawful action to prevent such a rally. A classic example of such lawful action by private actors was a small town in Tennessee (I think) where every business in town voluntarily closed shop for a week when the KKK arrived, leaving the Klan with no food and no place to sleep. They were unable to hold their rally as a result. This is entirely lawful.

Actually, you’re again wrong. They were charged with a criminal violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1966 (as amended), a federal statute enacted by Congress under the authority of Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The charge in that case was, while acting under color of state authority, engaging in conduct which acted to deprive a person of his Constitutionally guaranteed rights. This is a statutory offense; without the statute, there would be no charge.

Absent a statute enacted by Congress, the only remedy one can obtain for a Constitutional violation is injunctive: an order enjoining the enforcement of an unconstitutional law, regulation, or rule, or (in a habeas case) an order compelling the release of a person unlawfully imprisoned. Absent the Civil Rights Act, there would be no civil suits for damages and no criminal prosecutions for violations of individual Constitutional rights. It is the Civil Rights Act, and not the Constitution itself, that makes such prosecutions possible.

Will you please stop blathering about something you obviously know nothing about?

124

After avoiding this thread for days, I finally broke down and read it. I’m glad I did.

This is such a fucking riot.

Jack has gone from being a self-appointed ‘expert’ (and I use that term in its broadest possible sense) in the (wait, let me scroll, I’ve got to get this term just right, it’s such a hoot) ‘erotic nature of the penis’, to an expert in family psychology, to an expert in the application of civil rights to criminal proceedings. He’s a family counselor, a moral arbiter, legal scholar and perhaps most importantly he’s a cock-sure expert in penile eroticism.

Considering his, at best, muddled understanding of the application of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, does anyone else wonder if ole ‘Foreskin’ Jack’s ‘expertise’ in the (here it comes again) ‘the erotic nature of the penis’ (ha! love that, sounds like it should be outlined in glowing neon) is equally ummm questionable?

Jack, while I realize that drawing a huge number of your ‘cites’ from a website dedicated to the eradication of circumcision is certainly the easiest way to get your point across, most of the people around here are somewhat leery of such blatantly obvious deck stacking. If you are truly attempting to change people’s minds concerning circumcision, I would suggest trying to find more peer-reviewed information and less annecdotal ‘horror stories’. If you’re willing to dismiss everyone else’s statements that their sex lives are ‘wonderful’ by saying that they’re in denial, you should be able to understand that we would similarly dismiss someone’s individual story about the benefits of an intact foreskin.

Ankh “My first, last and only dip into the foreskin furor” Too

125

I wouldn’t worry about it at all. Here’s why:

  1. You’re not alone. By mathematical definition, 50% of men are “below average” too.

  2. Big isn’t best. I have a close friend who is of, shall we say, rather “high caliber”. His wife refuses to have sex because it hurts her too much. Just another data point for ya!

My apologies for hijacking, I couldn’t find a way to send this privately. On second thought, take that back. I think it’s the only thing in this thread that had to do with penile lengthening per se.

126

JDT replied to jab1: *“Are you circumcised? If so, do you hate your parents for it?”
I really don’t feel that it is appropriate for me to talk about my own penis with you. *

Great DAY in the morning, Jack, you have offered here dozens of unsolicited assertions about other people’s penises, ranging from criticisms of their sexual technique to predictions about their future psychological traumas to claims that their treatment for medical problems was unwise and unnecessary, but it’s “inappropriate” for you to state whether you yourself are circumcised? Whence this modest delicacy all of a sudden, Jack?

This thread is just one jaw-dropper after another. Summing up what little actual data can be extracted from it, I got some advice for my fellow female “penile researchers” (to borrow Jodi’s term): You can “research” with cut guys, there’s nothing wrong with or incapacitated about them. You can “research” with uncut guys, they are not “icky” or scary (and we have JAG’s word for it that they are not personally opposed to “creative” “research” either! :)). But do not “research” with wild-eyed logic-deprived anti-circumcision crusaders. Those dudes be crazy bad wack.

127

KellyM,

>No, actually, this is wrong. The KKK can indeed sue the government if it fails to protect them against lawless persons for denying them equal protection under the law, which falls under the 14th Amendment (or 5th Amendment, if the federal government is involved). <

Oh, I see, it's the Fifth or 14th Amendment and not the First Amendment. Thank you for clearing that up.

>But here the offender is the government for failing to afford equal protection to the members of the KKK, not the lawless individuals who interfered with the KKK’s activity. <
I think that I made this point pretty clear in my post. I know that it may be the state that the law holds accountable, nevertheless, this will protect one from individual action.

>It might be possible to bring an action against the lawless mob as well, under the Civil Rights Act, but this is a statutory action brought under a statute enacted by Congress pursuant to the Constitution, not an action brought under the Constitution itself. <

I made it clear in my post that the statute will come from the Constitution. Maybe not directly, but it still comes from the Constitution.

>The only way the Constitution becomes implicated is if I create a riot and the police (an instrumentality of the state) either willfully ignores the riot or willfully abets it in some way. As a private individual, I have no obligations whatsoever under the Constitution. <

How do you know that there isn't a federal statute that controls this behavior?

>The only way the First Amendment would become implicated is if the government prevented the KKK from rallying through state action. <

That's right. I forgot. I forgive myself, though, since I'm not an attorney.

>Actually, you’re again wrong. They were charged with a criminal violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1966 (as amended), a federal statute enacted by Congress under the authority of Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.<

That's good Info., thank you.

>It is the Civil Rights Act, and not the Constitution itself, that makes such prosecutions possible. <

Oh. Good Info. again. Thanks.

>Will you please stop blathering about something you obviously know nothing about?<

Oh, I obviously know something about it. Anyway, I'm American so I'll "blab" about the Constitution all that I want. Attorneys didn't write the Constitution. Attorneys didn't fight and die to put it into affect. So, I can talk about it all that I want to, thanks.
Oh, incidentally, why did you dodge the most obvious part of my post? Do you agree that the law against female circumcision is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment as written because it fails to protect males? Do you agree that say a 17 year old boy who was forcefully circumcised could file a civil rights case against the state as soon as he turns 18? Bear in mind, that hospitals and doctors are licensed by the state. And, anti-circumcision groups have informed state governments and probably all hospitals of the known damage that they are doing.
128

All federal statutes come from the Constitution. The Congress cannot enact a statute without a Constitutional basis for doing so.

**Indeed, you are perfectly free to make an ass out of yourself in public. Free speech is a two-edged sword, after all.

No, I do not.

No, I do not.

129

Good heavens, what a train wreck of a thread.

Anyway, just to kick him when he’s down:

You can have a law that covers female genital mutilation that doesn’t cover circumcision because female genital mutilation is to male circumcision as lopping off an arm is to getting a sliver of a fingertip removed.

Besides, the law covers a specific issue: removing the girl’s clitoris. It also covers boys. Any boy who has a clitoris is protected from having it taken off too. Happy now?

A girl who’s clitoris has been removed can’t have any sort of fulfilling sex (she certainly can’t have an orgasm). Even if your idiot proposition is correct that uncircumcised sex is better than circumcised, circumcised men can still enjoy themselves.

I understand from your posts that you have a gross sense of inadequacy about your sexual abilities and you are uncomfortable with your maleness.

However admitting that your penis has little to do with that your feelings of inadequacy is the first step in healing. (I understand this in the same way that you understood that Astraeus, back on page one had an unfulfilling sex life)

Fenris

130

[really minor legal quibble irrelevant to the main discussion]

Actually, the Thirteenth Amendment, which provides “[n]either slavery nor involuntary servitude, . . . shall exist within the United States . . .,” is positive law constraining individual citizens.

[/really minor legal quibble]

That being said, as amusing as this discussion is, it is very clear that the medical evidence is, at best, ambiguous, and Jack Dean Tyler’s medical conclusions appear to have about the same level of supportability as his legal ones. Though the tenacity with he defends his viewpoint may be admirable, vehemence in stating a point does not necessarily add to its credibility.

[2d hijack]
Hi Jodi. Good to see you back. Hope the break did you some good.
[/2d hijack]

131

I used to think so as well, but I’ve been informed by a law professor that it does not do so. All the first section of the Thirteenth Amendment does is prohibit either Congress or any state from sanctioning slavery. The second section authorizes Congress to make it illegal as a matter of general law, and Congress has done so.

Absent the federal (and state) antislavery statutes, the Thirteenth Amendment would only provide a defense against, e.g. a claim of ownership of another person. It would not be directly criminal to possess a slave, merely impossible to legally defend such a claim of ownership in court.

132

So is the foreskin “Life,” “Liberty” or “Property?”

I’m sorry, I’ve been following this thread for a few days, and have wondered about the futility of keeping it going; I didn’t even want to get into it.

Tell me, Jack: How did you get a hold of all of the women I’ve been with? And how did you broach the subject of how my horribly mutilated member satisfied them?

I have a letter sitting on my headboard at home from one who says:

Now, I’ve been circumsized since I was 8 days old, as many members of the SDMB have. I am perfectly satisfied with my penis and how it looks. The extra 1/2 inch you claim I’m being deprived of doesn’t matter to me or the women I’ve been with, and no, I don’t hate my parents.

Okay, maybe it’s mutilation. So are pierced ears and haircuts. Are you opposed to those too?

BTW: Looking at dicks does not make you an expert. It makes you a fetishist.

Stroking the penis laterally on a woman’s clitoris may be extremely pleasurable, but let’s keep in mind that sex is primarily for procreation. The fact that it’s extremely enjoyable is perhaps proof of a divine being. Using the penis in the way you suggest isn’t very good for making babies, is it?

And bear in mind: Any fool can write a book. Any great fool can defend it. Just because you’re published does not make you an authority on any subject. L. Ron Hubbard is a published author too. And I think he may have more going for him than you do.
I doubt that the controversy with its adjoining conspiracy theory is going to improve your book sales much. I know I’m not going to buy it.

I’ll stop there before our illustrious moderator send me to the Pit.

Suggestion: Let’s not give this thread, or its primary occupant the attention its crying for. I suggest we all stop responding, and maybe Jack will fade even farther into obscurity, where he belongs.

133

You know, most of this debate - insofar as it is a debate- has centered around trying to get Jack to provide some justification for his arguments. Nobody has come down hard on the other side, supporting circumcision. So, just for fun, I thought I’d try and find some evidence for the other side.

I checked out the American Urology Association’s policy statement on circumcision. Check 'em out at http://www.auanet.org/aboutaua/policy_statements/services.cfm

It states, in part,

In other words, there are pros and cons to circumcision. Jack is energetically ignoring the pros.

A little more data:

A survey of adult males using self-report suggests more varied sexual practice and less sexual dysfunction in circumcised adult men.
Laumann EO, Masi CM, Zuckerman EW. Circumcision in the United States. JAMA. 1997;277:1052-1057

Masters and Johnson noted no difference in exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination on the ventral or dorsal surfaces of the glans penis between circumcised and uncircumcised men.
Masters WH, Johnson VE. Human Sexual Response. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company; 1966:189-191

Yes, yes, I know. That study is thirty-four years old. And I agree with Jack, there’s not much recent comparative research available. At least, not that I could find in fifteen minutes of surfing. Now, if I were a penile function expert who has spent the past several years researching the topic, I do not doubt that I could find more.

But for those of you ‘snipped’ guys who are curious, this site claims to let you find out for yourselves about how much sexual sensitivity you’ve lost.

Felice

134

Boy. Guess I’m andros non grata with Jack all of a sudden.

Jack, I’d appreciate a response to my last post, please. Thanks.

135

KellyM,
>No, I do not.<
As an attorney, you will certainly fail. But, as a politician . . . I think you’ve got a future.
In my experience dealing with the legal system, I have found that the attorneys are usually the good guys—even if they are on the other side. It’s the politicians who are always hypocritical without fail. You belong in politics, KellyM !

136

Fenris,
>You can have a law that covers female genital mutilation that doesn’t cover circumcision because female genital mutilation is to male circumcision as lopping off an arm is to getting a sliver of a fingertip removed. <

This is the popular lore put out by the medical / research establishment. However, since the physiology of the foreskin has never been studied you have no basis upon which to make such a claim.

>Besides, the law covers a specific issue: removing the girl’s clitoris. It also covers boys. Any boy who has a clitoris is protected from having it taken off too. Happy now? <

The law protecting girls protects them from all genital mutilation including just the removal of a girls clitoral hood.

>circumcised men can still enjoy themselves. <

Not all of them. Many men can't even ejaculate during normal coitus as a result of their circumcisions.
137

blessedwolf,
> So is the foreskin “Life,” “Liberty” or “Property?” <
All of these things, of course.

>I have a letter sitting on my headboard at home from one who says: quote:
…you have a beautiful cock and I love sliding up and down on it. <

As far as I can tell, women who are with intact men don't talk like this. In fact, they barely talk about sex at all. When they are actually in the process of having coitus, they don't make insanely exaggerated sounds. They don't get wildly aggressive. They don't stand around the water cooler talking about how the man they had last night was a "sex machine." They don't leer and drool at men all day long, either. I believe that this behavior in women comes from their feelings of inadequacy because sex isn't as good for them as it seems (erroneously) to be to everyone else.
A year ago, the University of Chicago did a study where the researchers said that the results were "stunning." Apparently, in America, half of all women cannot experience orgasm during coitus. And, 1/3 of all men can't either. I know that someone like yourself will insist that this is because Mother Nature obviously can't design sex organs, but I think there might be something else to it &lt;duh&gt;.

>Now, I’ve been circumcised since I was 8 days old, as many members of the SDMB have. I am perfectly satisfied with my penis and how it looks. <

That's good. You're happy that 15 square inches of tissue has been cut off of your penis without your permission. I'm not saying that I understand that, but that's fine if that's the way you feel. Other men are not so happy about this, though.

>The extra 1/2 inch you claim I’m being deprived of doesn’t matter to me or the women I’ve been with,<

Maybe they don't know any better.

>Okay, maybe it’s mutilation. So are pierced ears and haircuts. Are you opposed to those too? <

So is amputating ones entire penis and testicles. I see your point.

>Stroking the penis laterally on a woman’s clitoris may be extremely pleasurable, but let’s keep in mind that sex is primarily for procreation. <

Oh, this is obviously not true in humans. If it were true, then human females would go into season and want sex only then just like dogs. In fact, a woman is generally always ready (except when she has to deal with a circumcised guy because that seems to cause headaches, this should be researched).
138

Jack, I now feel sorry for you. As a circumsised male, I have to tell you that I have expierenced all these reactions from my partners. How sad it must be to fixate on your own shortcomings, and blame them on someone else. At this point, if this “debate” is to continue, YOU MUST answer one question:are you circumsised or not??? Why do you feel the need to denegrade actual scientific findings with your own personal biasis? I have no feeling on the matter one way or another, but you’ve exhausted your credibility in this matter. I think what we have here is a man who has never had good sex blaming everyone but himself. I say we all ignore and pity him. Go on Jack, keep ranting. You have kiled all chance that we would consider your point as valid with your random rantings.

139

Thanks for the insult. It seems that my decision not to waste the time explaining why I disagreed with you was not ill-considered. You see, I figured that if I took the time to explain my disagreement, you would ignore it. Your response suggests that, indeed, you are not interested in my reasons. If you were, you would have asked for them; instead, you insulted me.

140

My, what…interesting reasoning. You say women who are with uncut men don’t talk about sex, don’t make enthusiastic sounds during sex, aren’t aggresive, don’t rave about their partners or seem interested in men sexually much at all. Therefore, clearly, since the women seem so indifferent, the sex with uncut men must be phenomenal. That’s almost as good as your previous implication that uncut men aren’t concerned about creativity during sex or being sensitive to their partners feelings, therefore clearly they must be great lovers.

I’m not a fan of circumcision, and would be perfectly happy to see it never practiced again. However, your arguments as to the amazingness of an uncircumcised penis are unconvincing, to say the least.