The circumcision thread: restored

Great Debates
261

(I was posting this in a Pit thread when I realized that it was actually more or less rational and non-profane, so I decided it belonged in GD.)

(First off: Haiku Master Cantrip, you are one funny dude. :))

Now then. JDT replied to me: *Now of course you still have every right to hold to your own beliefs even if so many other people disagree with you out of their own personal experience. [I was referring to pro-circumcision personal testimonies from sites like the [Male Sexual Wellspring Center](http://members.tripod.com/mswc/d5.htm) and thecirc list. The quotes from Burton cited in an earlier post here also fall into this category.]

Positive experimental results that are alleged don’t have any bearing on the negative experimental results. *

…that are alleged. Nolo contendere on this one, Jack, I’m not saying that other people’s positive experiences with circumcision somehow negate or invalidate your negative ones or those of other people. But neither do your experiences disprove theirs.

*There are lots of issues on which reasonable people can disagree.

Circumcision is not one of those issues upon which reasonable people can disagree. *

Whoa! Which aspect do you mean? Are you saying that reasonable people cannot justifiably argue that RIC is medically necessary? Nolo contendere on that one too—I’ve been saying all along that it looks pretty clear that the medical benefits of RIC are at best minor, and I haven’t heard anybody here arguing otherwise.

But if you’re saying that reasonable people cannot justifiably argue that circumcision is ever anything but a catastrophic tragedy, then how do you explain the hundreds or thousands of men who chose to be circumcised as adults and prefer being circumcised? Or those who have always been circumcised and are very happy with their sex lives, as are their sexual partners?

If your only response to these opposing viewpoints is to allege a vast medical conspiracy and the brainwashing of the masses, you are no longer having the sort of conversation that a reasonable person can participate in. You must be able to see how implausible such conspiracy-theory allegations sound in a sober reasoned discussion, mustn’t you?

*Obviously, any reasonable person is going to insist that the medical establishment at least know the physiology of what it is that they are amputating before they do it. Anybody that doesn’t agree with that is not reasonable. *

Jack, is there any organ that the “medical establishment” ever removes that you consider to be “physiologically understood” to the degree of knowledge that you demand in the case of the foreskin? Hell, doctors are still not sure exactly what the vermiform appendix may do or ever did, but they remove them all the time. As for knowing, as you have claimed ought to be mandatory before allowing any circumcisions, the exact function of every receptor in every cell in the whole of this tissue—come on! Is there any organ in the body about which we can confidently claim to have such complete knowledge?

Fact is, many doctors, parents, and adult males feel confident that the physiology of the foreskin is well enough understood to justify removing it if so desired. You may feel that the foreskin is as crucial to sexual experience as the clitoris and labia, but it seems that many, many males consider it to be more on a par with the hymen: sure, it’s part of the genital tissue, but they didn’t care much about it when it was there, they don’t miss it now it’s gone, and in fact they enjoy sex more without it. Surely their testimony must count for something in this debate, even if it would be unreasonable (as I quite agree) to rush out and circumcise every male in sight on the strength of it.

262

God, make it stop, make it stop!

{ahem} In other words, perhaps feeding time is over.

Esprix

263

Kim, see the Pit (“Jack-Ass Dean Tyler” thread).

I responded to your thread there (not against you, silly!)

I must agree with Esprix. It’s been real, it’s been fun, but it hasn’t been real fun. He’s a person who refuses to allow the possibility that maybe, just maybe, he doesn’t know all there is to know about foreskins, other peoples’ sex lives, their breasts, diseases they had as a child, how to have good sex, and what real women experience when they have sex.

I say we give him the silent treatment. This has turned into a gerbil wheel discussion.

264

Whoosh.

Hint, Jack, - read the last word of Mr. Cynical’s post.

265

IT

WAS

A

JOKE!!!

I’m outta here!

266

Kimstu,

> …that are alleged. Nolo contendere on this one, Jack, I’m not saying that other people’s positive experiences with circumcision somehow negate or invalidate your negative ones or those of other people. But neither do your experiences disprove theirs. <

Their experiences don't have to be disproved. Only the question must be raised.

> Whoa! Which aspect do you mean? Are you saying that reasonable people cannot justifiably argue that RIC is medically necessary? <

At the present level of knowledge, absolutely.

> Nolo contendere on that one too—I’ve been saying all along that it looks pretty clear that the medical benefits of RIC are at best minor, and I haven’t heard anybody here arguing otherwise. <

It doesn't matter what the benefits are until you can say what the damage is.

> then how do you explain the hundreds or thousands of men who chose to be circumcised as adults and prefer being circumcised? <

Where are these men &lt;laugh&gt;? Are you including the men who don't talk about their circumcisions. Maybe they're embarassed.

> Or those who have always been circumcised and are very happy with their sex lives, as are their sexual partners? <

(Every man comes into the world intact) This is a result of denial, ignorance, or antisocial personality disorder. Further, it quite obviously qualifies as a "big lie" that amputating a large part of a man's penis is a good thing. And, we all know about the human predisposition to believe "big lies."

> If your only response to these opposing viewpoints is to allege a vast medical conspiracy and the brainwashing of the masses, you are no longer having the sort of conversation that a reasonable person can participate in. You must be able to see how implausible such conspiracy-theory allegations sound in a sober reasoned discussion,mustn’t you? <
Sure. What do you want? Motive? $2 billion a year. Opportunity: The physiology of the foreskin has barely been studied and yet the medical establishment is proceeding to amputate with no resistance from the public. I can elaborate on all of this but I have already done so earlier.

> Jack, is there any organ that the “medical establishment” ever removes that you consider to be “physiologically understood” to the degree of knowledge that you demand in the case of the foreskin? <

The foreskin is the only organ that is removed routinely, now.

> Hell, doctors are still not sure exactly what the vermiform appendix may do or ever did, but they remove them all the time. <

Not routinely, they don't anymore. They know that the appendix has an important immunological function.

>As for knowing, as you have claimed ought to be mandatory before allowing any circumcisions, the exact function of every receptor in every cell in the whole of this tissue—come on! <

Yes, you're dealing with somebody's sex organ here. You should know exactly what you are doing or let nature handle the matter.

> Is there any organ in the body about which we can confidently claim to have such complete knowledge? <

You can claim SUFFICIENT knowledge of every other organ in the body except maybe the brain.

> Fact is, many doctors, parents, and adult males feel confident that the physiology of the foreskin is well enough understood to justify removing it if so desired. <

Let the baby be the judge of that when he reaches the age of consent.

> You may feel that the foreskin is as crucial to sexual experience as the clitoris and labia, but it seems that many, many males consider it to be more on a par with the hymen: sure, it’s part of the genital tissue, but they didn’t care much about it when it was there, they don’t miss it now it’s gone, and in fact they enjoy sex more without it. Surely their testimony must count for something in this debate, even if it would be unreasonable (as I quite agree) to rush out and circumcise every male in sight on the strength of it.<

This testimony doesn't count for anything to me because there is too much innervation and too many nerve receptors in the foreskin for it not to be extremely important. We'll find out what all of these nerves are for first before I want to listen to any man's testimony about how all of his missing nerves mean absolutely nothing.
267

Of course you realize our silence and/or refusal to continue this farce of a debate will only be viewed by Jack as success on his part. :rolleyes:

Esprix

268

I am vehemently anti-circ. I think it is abuse (although not as bad as some other forms), and is a completely unneccessary procedure that people attempt to justify with false “medical” assertions because it has been a part of our culture for so long. I think it’s feasible that circumcision reduces sexual pleasure and may contribute to impotence. I think it makes sense that men who were cut at their parents’ behest look on the procedure positively in part to avoid associating their beloved parents with an abusive act.

That said, JDT is a NUTBALL, and I cringe to think that he is arguing my side of the issue. His assertions about uncut sex are crap, and he is obviously unable to provide support for his delusional theories. To people who would consider circumcising their boys: PLEASE ignore this lunatic! He makes the whole anti-circ movement look bad, and I wish he would shut the hell up.

269

Aeryn I’m curious do you think circ is justified for religious reasons?

270

Guess, what Jack? Wrong again. You’re thinking of the tonsils, which used to be routinely removed and have since been shown to have an important immunologic function. The appendix is still worthless.

271

No I don’t think it can be justified, The Tim. This is for the same reasons I believe anti-medicine sects must be forced to allow life-saving procedures on their children against the parents’ wishes. Your religious and parental rights end where they infringe on the health and bodily integrity of your child, unless the infringement is outweighed by a non-religious benefit. If people later wish to be mutilated in the name of their faith, I say more power to them. But I don’t think it’s proper to inflict such a procedure on a helpless infant. (Before you ask, I am also against infant ear-piercing and corporal punishment.)

At the same time, I’m not sure what can be done about this. The cultural beliefs surrounding this issue are very strong. In my experience, religious beliefs are many times moreso. I think people will do it no matter what the law is, if it is part of their religion.

Generally, I try to give factual information to people who mention that they’re trying to decide what to do - I don’t crusade against it and include it in every conversation, like some people we know.

272

Smeghead,
> Guess, what Jack? Wrong again. You’re thinking of the tonsils, which used to be routinely removed and have since been shown to have an important immunologic function. The appendix is still worthless. <

Nope, the appendix is no longer considered to be a vestigial organ.
273

Jack:

I was wondering if you cared to respond to my post concerning Mr. Burton, the explorer. It’s slightly up the page.

274

Scylla,

Well, I'll be glad to respond, but I don't know if I have a lot to contribute since I don't really know that much about Burton.

> In preparation for this journey Burton realized that he’d be spending months in the company of circumcised true beleivers. It seemed unlikely that he would be able to go about his daily business without having someone notice his uncircumcised penis. <

I've heard this story.

> So, in order to pass muster he got drunk one night and had a friend do it in an alley behind a tavern with a piece of glass using brandy to sterilize the instrument (both the glass and Burton.) <

Well, at that time, I believe that Burton would have had to have a stripping as opposed to a circumcision to pass muster with the Arabs. But, I don't know for sure.

> Now Burton was quite the lady’s man claiming 10,000 lovers in his life. <

Were the alleged lovers in England or on the Arabian penisula? That number is almost certainly inflated, but, I feel that extreme promiscuity is a sign that he needed changing visual stimulation to get aroused (same reason why circumcised men need to look at pornography). And, inflated numbers of conquests is a sign of low self in the area of sexuality.

> When asked about the difference years later after completing the pilgrimmage Burton wrote at length about the improvement as far as sensation went and hypothesized that Arabic culture which he admired for refining and sophisticating the art of love-making (as of course compared to England at the time which was pretty repressed,) had at least partially come into the practice of circumcision specifically to enhance sexual experience. <

FGM was very common in Arabic culture. Maybe that was what was responsible for this "sophisticated art of love-making."
Certainly, Burton, as a public figure, wasn't going to stand up and say "my dick's dead !!!"

> Apparently his wife Isabel who was a bit of a free spirit in he younger years approved of the change as well. <

I wonder what you mean by "free spirit." Did she participate in group sex with Burton and his various lovers? Or, did she have her own lovers? Intact men are very interested in sex. But, generally, don't look for sex partners the way a heroin addict looks for a fix.

> Burton makes a pretty good candidate as one of the greatest all around guys ever (to be technical.) I’m gonna accept his word for it. <

   I wonder if Burton's position had a significant impact on getting this circumcision nonsense started. Maybe a lot of people "accept(ed) his word for it" like you do.
275

Do you have a cite, or can you mention a formal study that shows that circumcised men actually suffer from the maladies you claim (I’m going to insist on something recognizably scientific or impartial here.)

276

::takes a deep breath, steps into the ring for the first, last and only time::

::begins hijack::

Well, sir, when I had my appendix removed last August, I was in the hospital for two weeks due to secondary infections, and during said time I would speak to the nurses fairly often for lack of human contact. Obviously, one of the topics of choice was the illness that almost resulted in my death not once, not twice, but three times during those two weeks: appendicitis. I asked the nurse what the point of an appendix was. He had some theories, but said they didn’t really know what it was for, and it didn’t seem to help anything and really only caused harm when it became infected. He said it was a vestigial organ.

Thank you for your time.

::ends hijack::

::goes far, far away::

277

Folks you heard it here first, JDT actually refused to comment on a subject citing “he didn’t know enough”.

What’s the number for Ripley’s?

(Let us just hope it becomes a trend.)

278

Well, I was ready to go off on this - I was gonna ask for a cite and everything - but I went and did some research, and guess what? Jack was, well, right! Sort of. Right is too strong a word. Let me 'splain before you all go order Tug-Ahoys.

It turns out that recent evidence suggests that the appendix is a minor source of some extra-thymal T cells. T cells are a very important part of the immune system. Most of them grow up in the thymus - hence the name T cells. Apparently, a few also grow in the appendix. Note: a few. We do just fine without an appendix, because our thymus makes plenty by itself.

This is a loooong way from either of Jack’s statements, i.e. that the appendix has “important immunological function” or that “it is no longer considered a vestigal organ.” Strictly speaking, there is no evidence that it has immunologic function at all. It’s merely a minor source of cells. Immunologic function would be something like the Peyer’s patches in the intestine - areas where lymphocytes are exposed to antigen and allowed to react. And it’s still a vestigal organ. Just a vestigal organ that makes a few T cells.

279

Smeghead,

> And it’s still a vestigal organ. Just a vestigial organ that makes a few T cells. <

I wouldn't bet on it. There was something like 50 organs that the medical establishment said was vestigial at the turn of the century. Now, we're down to one, the foreskin. I read somewhere that the appendix is mainly helpful to young children whose immune systems haven't had a chance to build up yet. The appendix is placed at some strategic position in the digestive tract to protect from all of the bacteria present. Even though removal of the appendix causes no catastrophic effect, it might very well cause some non-catastrophic negative effect. Treat appendicitis with antibiotics whenever possible. And, if you have insurance, definitely get a second opinion. Insurance equals dollar signs to the medical establishment.
280

Stop! Stop! For God’s sake, stop!

{ahem}

Really, people - is this worth it any more? I mean, sure, amusing at first, but just how long can we go about banging our head against a brick wall called Jack?

Esprix