Penile Lengthening Column

[edwino]

10 bucks that JDT’s last post pushes this into the Pit.

*Originally posted by Jack Dean Tyler *
There is good evidence that you are less likely to suffer such violence at the hands of an intact man, though.

Good evidence – lemme see it. You can’t come around here and make an argument on “good evidence” if you are unable to cough it up.

This is an area where it is very hard to get any information. I did read an FBI study once, that said that most rapes are done by men under something like 30 years old. And, that in at least half of these rapes, the men are incapable of ejaculating. This would be consistent with a man who is sexually frustrated because his penis doesn’t work in the same way that many circumcised penises don’t work.

This one paragraph has so many logical inconsistencies that I can’t even scratch the surface.

-Can you produce the FBI study?
-Does the FBI study say anything about circumcision?
-What percentage of men (circumcised versus uncircumcised) have difficulty ejaculating?
-What evidence do you have that circumcision leads to rape?

This is the sort of information that cannot be collected for fear of what we might find out.

Lunacy. The medical establishment, as a branch of pure science, has made all of its advances throughout the past 100 years on rigorous adherence to scientific principles. Studies are conducted. Standard of care is constantly questioned. There is no “taboo” area of research IMHO.
Standard of care for nearly everything is questioned and studied. Tonsillectomy used to be a standard of care – now it is seldom done. I would see no problem researching foreskins, and I don’t see a reason why it wouldn’t get funded.

Homeopathy and herbal therapies are researched in double-blind controlled studies – and the pharmaceutical
companies are much more powerful that the pro-circumcision lobby. Unless you are preaching ZOG over here. So, Jack, do you believe in a Zionist Occupied Government?

As far as I can tell, a forcible rape carried out on a struggling woman is very problematic for an intact man even if his psychology is such that he desires to carry out such a thing. An intact penis is so sensitive that it’s not all that easy getting it inside of a woman who isn’t very sexually receptive. And, further, and this is just my studied opinion, the sensations that an intact man feels combined with a violent, hateful situation, would be an enormous barrier to carrying out a rape.

All we need is any tiny little eensy-weensy piece of evidence. You could get funded in an instance if you could actually show this. If you are the first with this idea, and you have evidence, contact a Urology department (BTW pediatric surgeons and urologists do circumcisions, not OB/Gyns) and apply for some NIH funding. While it would be controversial, this would appeal to any clinical researched/epidemiologist/criminal psychologist looking to make his/her name with some groundbreaking work.

I think I’ll leave the rest of your bizarre post for more qualified hands to tear into tiny little shreds.

[Drain_Bead]

Since when has Bill Clinton raped anyone? If making a crude pass at someone equates to rape, then I’m raped on average about once every two months.

Jack, I’ve been with several cut men of all ages, and none of them have ever had trouble ejaculating. Ever. Hell, a good 50% of them have had multiple orgasms (more than one orgasm without losing their erection) when they were with me. Obviously, they must be doing something right.

[Gaudere]

Didn’t we learn that Clinton was the same diameter of a quarter and was cut in the Paula Jones testimony?

I think Paula Jones’ estimates are even worse than mine. A quarter? I thought he was Slick Willie, not Little Willie.

[Green_Bean]

You have asserted that women who enjoy sex with a circumcised man “don’t know any better.” That implies that these women have never had sex with an uncircumcised man.

Why would you assume that?

I’m sure many of the ladies on this board have had sex with both the snipped and the unsnipped. Perhaps you should ask them what they think.

[KellyM]

*Originally posted by Jack Dean Tyler *
**Well, this is very interesting. I wonder how you can be so sure that he wasn’t circumcised. I don’t know the details of your rape. There is good evidence that you are less likely to suffer such violence at the hands of an intact man, though.
**

Before I proceed, I should point out that your response really pissed me off. There’s nothing that pisses off an abuse victim more than trying to deny some aspect of a victim’s experience, as you have just done above. I am quite bloody well certain that my perp was “intact”; I got an impressively close look at his penis and I would not readily be mistaken about something like that.

You may very well be correct in that the fact that he was intact may have made it difficult for him to achieve penetration. In fact, he failed to do so, which embarrassed him greatly. (In retrospect, I’m very lucky that he didn’t kill me.) He most definitely ejaculated. In any case, his failure to achieve penetration doesn’t make his act any less of a rape (although it did probably make it far less painful and harmful for me).

Anyway, thank you ever so very much for trying to invalidate my experience. You are, indeed, an asshole of the first order.

[Felice]

I do say, Jack, you’re getting in way over your head here, if you will pardon the pun.

Well, this is very interesting. I wonder how you can be so sure that he wasn’t circumcised.

You know, that’s so insulting to Kelly that I don’t even know what to say. Are you ABSOLUTELY INCAPABLE OF HEARING ANYTHING INCONSISTENT WITH YOUR BIZARRE WORLDVIEW? She said the rapist was circumcised. Take her word for it, you bloody fool. Trust me, that’s the kind of thing a rape victim is prone to notice.

There is good evidence that you are less likely to suffer such violence at the hands of an intact man, though.

Crap.

I did read an FBI study once, that said that most rapes are done by men under something like 30 years old.

(A) Reading an FBI study does not qualify you as an expert.
(B)If so, so what? From the very same demographics you have been quoting all along, the percentage of children circumcised has been going DOWN for the past thirty years. Therefore, the odds that a rapist under thirty would NOT be circumcised are actually higher than that a rapist over thirty would be. You’re arguing against yourself.

And, that in at least half of these rapes, the men are incapable of ejaculating.

Nope. In many rapes (I don’t have the statistic handy) the rapist does not ejaculate. That does not mean that he is incapable of ejaculating.

This would be consistent with a man who is sexually frustrated because his penis doesn’t work in the same way that many circumcised penises don’twork.

Crap again. Prison studies have illustrated that rapists are generally as capable of normal sexual erformance as any other violent criminal.

You are getting so far into left field that I can’t even follow you, Jack. Give it up while you’re not too far behind.

The ironic thing, actually, is that I don’t think anyone here disagrees with the fundamental premise of your argument - that being that routine infant circumcision is unnecessary. The way you are approaching the topic, however, is driving people to line up against you.

Felice

[Felice]

I beg your pardon, KellyM. UNcircumcised. A world of difference two missed keys can make.

Felice

[Weirddave]

I have rarely seen someone progress from interest, through fascination, into obsession and past it to lunacy so quickly. [Insult deleted --Gaudere] To imply that I am likely to rape someone because I am circumcised is something I find insulting in the extreme. I am sure I am not the only one offended here. Kelli, I feel moved to apologise on behalf or normal men because of this insensitive clod. He’s not worth it.

[Edited by Gaudere on 10-30-2000 at 01:56 PM]

[Weirddave]

Jack, could you Step over herefor a minute?

[Billdo]

Just a note, gang. To avoid crossing the boundaries of Great Debates (no matter how well deserved the comments are), there is a Pit thread open commenting on this thread and its main antagonist.

[edwino]

Somebody owes me 10 bucks…

[Billdo]

*Originally posted by edwino *
**Somebody owes me 10 bucks…
**

Sorry, edwino. The Pit thread had been started a few hours before JDT’s last and most extreme comment, which was a half hour before your bet. That may be why you didn’t get any takers on you bet.

[lee]

There is a difference, a definate difference.
But both are nice, though not at once.
Kinkda like theres a difference between.

Different strokes for different folks.

[Jack_Dean_Tyler]

edwino,
> -Can you produce the FBI study? <

I don't know where this study is. I read it something like 10 years ago. I only found out about this circumcision nonsense two years ago. I'll come across this study again and I will mark it for reference when I do. In the mean time, take my word for it.

> -Does the FBI study say anything about circumcision? <

No, it did not. I know of absolutely no study on criminal behavior that records circumcision status of the participants.

> -What percentage of men (circumcised versus uncircumcised) have difficulty ejaculating? <

What is known is that a whopping 1/3 of American men cannot ejaculate during normal coitus. This is known by a recent University of Chicago study. Of course, even with all of the frightening publicity and interest that has developed in recent years concerning circumcision, this study didn't inquire as to the circumcision status of the participants. Wouldn't even someone like YOU think that that would automatically have been asked right along with all of the other survey questions?

> -What evidence do you have that circumcision leads to rape? <

Here you will find general affects upon the psychology of victims.
http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/
Here’s an excellent paper.
http://www.violence.de/prescott/bulletin/article.html

> Lunacy. The medical establishment, as a branch of pure science, has made all of its advances throughout the past 100 years on rigorous adherence to scientific principles. <

Really?

>Studies are conducted. Standard of care is constantly questioned. There is no “taboo” area of research IMHO. Standard of care for nearly everything is questioned and studied.
<

Do tell !

> Tonsillectomy used to be a standard of care – now it is seldom done. I would see no problem researching foreskins, and I don’t see a reason why it wouldn’t get funded. <

Well, goodness gracious, why doesn't anyone want to study the most erogenous part of the human body?

> Homeopathy and herbal therapies are researched in double-blind controlled studies – and the pharmaceutical companies are much more powerful that the pro-circumcision lobby. <

Is there a pro-circumcision lobby?

> Unless you are preaching ZOG over here. So, Jack, do you believe in a Zionist Occupied Government? <

There is a large Jewish factor in the growth and continuation of the circumcision phenomenon in America. There's no escaping this. I'm sure that the Jewish establishment didn't mean any harm to come to any baby, but they are still in up to their chins in this disaster, I'm afraid. The only thing keeping the lid on this disaster now, are these egregiously harmed men and their state of denial.

> All we need is any tiny little eensy-weensy piece of evidence. You could get funded in an instance <

Let us travel through the looking glass, shall we?

> (BTW pediatric surgeons and urologists do circumcisions, not OB/Gyns) <

No, most neonatal circumcisions are done by ObGyns's. Then the pediatricians are left to pick up the pieces. This helps matters a whole lot in two ways: 1) the ObGyn doesn't get any feedback as to how the circumcision finally came out (it's just a man's genitals, that's all); and, 2) the pediatrician had better keep his mouth shut about any negative opinions to the parents about circumcision because that would cause the ObGyn to lose a whole lot of money and then the pediatrician isn't going to get anymore patients from that ObGyn.

> it would be controversial, this would appeal to any clinical researched/epidemiologist/criminal psychologist looking to make his/her name with some groundbreaking work. <

It would be the end of his / her career because if the results showed anything bad about circumcision, everybody would rip him / her apart. Absolutely, positively, that researcher would have to have his / her reputation destroyed. Being labeled anti-Semitic would be just the start of it. That researcher's background would get more scrutiny than anyone in history (remember that pencil eraser you stole in third grade). Welcome to the objective, scientific research of America. What a country ! ! !

[Jack_Dean_Tyler]

Green Bean,
>I’m sure many of the ladies on this board have had sex with both the snipped and the unsnipped. Perhaps you should ask them what they think. <
There’s already been a survey done. Circumcised lost.
Read my post to Cecil on the first page.

[Ms2001]

Speaking as an intact male, I can say that my foreskin is, at most, only as sensitive as the rest of the skin on my body - hardly erotic at all. I’d take a back rub over a little foreskin play any day.

This 1/2" stroke nonsense sounds like something pulled out of Cosmopolitan. I have sex like most people, with strokes of a few inches, and it doesn’t seem to be a problem.

I only know one other person who’s so militant about circumcision. He was the victim of a botched circumcision, and has some sort of sexual dysfunction because of it. Perhaps Jack is in the same situation.

[Jack_Dean_Tyler]

KellyM,

>There’s nothing that pisses off an abuse victim more than trying to deny some aspect of a victim’s experience, as you have just done above.<

I'm not trying to deny any part of your experience. I only brought up the question as to whether or not you could tell because it is often very hard for even me to tell right away if an erect man is circumcised or intact.
However, since you are acting all indignant, I will point out to you your snotty remark with regard to the 14th Amendment and it's equal application to men. The men on that you know all love the way that they were chopped up. Good for them. The fact of the matter is that there are 10's of thousands of men right now who are devastated by this attack on their bodies. You are a sexual assault victim (even though, I guess, you are not actually a rape victim but perhaps a sodomy victim at best) but, your prognosis for recovery is excellent to say the least. These men will never recover. You're behaving as though you are a man-hater. Once again, I do want you to know that I can't imagine a more frightening situation than the one that you had to face. But, don't you agree that any kind of sexual assault (whether it's a circumcision or a rape) is terrible? Do you know, that the circumciser plays with the baby's penis in order to get him erect in order to do the circumcision. That is most American men's first sexual experience.

[Jack_Dean_Tyler]

Mr2001,
>Speaking as an intact male, I can say that my foreskin is, at most, only as sensitive as the rest of the skin on my body - hardly erotic at all. I’d take a back rub over a little foreskin play any day. <

Well, let me ask you then. Do you know the difference between the mucosa of your foreskin and the true skin of your foreskin? When you are having heterosexual coitus in the missionary position, where does most of your sensation come from? Also, where were you born?

[edwino]

Jack:

First of all, I am Jewish. I have been taught the proveable advantages of circumcision in medical school. I have also been taught that it is considered a form of genital mutilation in some circles.

Listen:

What I think about circumcision isn’t my patient’s business. I think it is of a little proven benefit, and I will not push it on to any of my patients when I am a pediatrician. But, I cannot in good faith argue against it, as I think the balance is quite close. As much as you deny the pro-circumcision side, there are plenty of studies which show advantages (and not hypothetical stuff like you have posted, but epidemiogical rates of HPV associated cervical cancer in women correlated with circumcision status of their partners).

But, as most everybody else here, I will argue against you because A) you are looking to be debated and B) your arguments border on lunacy, and we consider lunatic-hunting kind of a sport around here.

*Originally posted by Jack Dean Tyler *
What is known is that a whopping 1/3 of American men cannot ejaculate during normal coitus. This is known by a recent University of Chicago study. Of course, even with all of the frightening publicity and interest that has developed in recent years concerning circumcision, this study didn’t inquire as to the circumcision status of the participants. Wouldn’t even someone like YOU think that that would automatically have been asked right along with all of the other survey questions?

I would have thought to ask that. But the fact that they didn’t ask it does not imply that circumcision is the reason for this. 1/3 of men can’t ejaculate. It has not been correlated to circumcision status. We cannot use these data to argue for or against cutting. Next point.

> -What evidence do you have that circumcision leads to rape? <
Here you will find general affects upon the psychology of victims.
http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/
Here’s an excellent paper.
http://www.violence.de/prescott/bulletin/article.html

2 papers here. The first from a anti-circ site, which of course begins suspect. The first has one line about circumcision being peri-natal trauma related to middle aged PTSD and violent or self-destructive behavior. Of the ten citations given for this line, none are peer-reviewed articles about circumcision and violence. Some are cites between perinatal trauma and violence (namely asphyxiation), some are cites about possible neural effects of circumcision (none of them negative) and some are totally unrelated (a famous case of ablatio penis and sex reassignment, blindness at birth, etc.)

The second is a psych essay mostly on attachment and maternal-child contact, which doesn’t seem to apply. This is a well established theory of modern psychiatry, and it takes a lot of hand waving to move from
mother-child contact -> sensory deprivation -> circumcision

> Lunacy. The medical establishment, as a branch of pure science, has made all of its advances throughout the past 100 years on rigorous adherence to scientific principles. <
Really?

Yes. Things get tossed if they don’t work. Things get studied to determine every long term benefit or harm of every drug and procedure. This is how research is done.

I would see no problem researching foreskins, and I don’t see a reason why it wouldn’t get funded. <
Well, goodness gracious, why doesn’t anyone want to study the most erogenous part of the human body?

Kinsey report. Masters and Johnson. 1922 citations in PubMed with the search terms “male AND circumcision”. Lots of debate each way. Scientific discussion. Plenty of people receive funding for this.

There is a large Jewish factor in the growth and continuation of the circumcision phenomenon in America. There’s no escaping this.

Are Jews actively pushing circumcision on non-Jews? Are Jews covering up evidence from the anti-circumcision people? Are Jews working actively to convince the NIH not to fund this research?

> All we need is any tiny little eensy-weensy piece of evidence. You could get funded in an instance <
Let us travel through the looking glass, shall we?

…

It would be the end of his / her career because if the results showed anything bad about circumcision, everybody would rip him / her apart. Absolutely, positively, that researcher would have to have his / her reputation destroyed. Being labeled anti-Semitic would be just the start of it.

I thought you claimed to be a penis expert. I thought you said you were doing some studies. If you turn something up that’s unique, there are hundreds of people researching this field that would be interested. There are thousands of GU surgeons who would be interested about the most important erogenous zone in the world and the most important discovery of all time.

One thing about science is we try hard to make sure that there are no sacred cows. It keeps the mind agile. Standard of care and paradigms can get tossed with good data. If you have data against the paradigm, some may scoff at first. All you need is more data to support it…

A few years back, Stan Prusiner said that proteins can cause disease. He was initially dismissed, but he came up with more data, and the data stuck. So he won the Nobel.

No, most neonatal circumcisions are done by ObGyns’s

IIRC, circumcision is performed hours to days after birth. Bris is at 8 days. Ob/Gyns don’t see the baby after they cut the cord. That’s when the neonatalogists and the pediatricians take over…

[Ms2001]

Jack:

Well, let me ask you then. Do you know the difference between the mucosa of your foreskin and the true skin of your foreskin?

No. I know which part is the inside and which part is the outside, and I’m going to guess that the skin-like part on the outside is the “true skin” and the mucous membrane part on the inside is the mucosa.

The only sensitive part is the edge, where the outside becomes the inside.

When you are having heterosexual coitus in the missionary position, where does most of your sensation come from?

The glans.

Also, where were you born?

California.