The circumcision thread: restored

Great Debates
61

BunnyGirl,

> you went to school for astrophysics (I believe). Also, did you graduate? <

I did not graduate from UCLA. I finished as a senior.

> How did you get involved in medical experimentation and research? <

Well, answering this question would involve my disclosing a lot of personal information and so I'd rather not answer this question. Sorry.

> Also, are you married and if so, what does your wife think of your preoccupation with mens’ penises (or is that penii?)? <

I am not married. I know many women and none of them have any problem with my "preoccupation with men's [penes]" (this is the correct plural for penis; penises is acceptable, though). In fact, it was a young woman friend of mine that got me started studying this. She was very disturbed at what she was hearing about circumcision.
62

Sauron,

> In fact, the study was overseen by Dr. Schoen. <

Yes, he "over(saw)" a study while he was doing the Curly shuffle.

> Mind telling me on what basis you malign his professional status? <

Schoen has never produced any evidence to support circumcision even though he is very vocal about it being a good thing.
Schoen didn't even circumcise his own son.
Even though Schoen is in charge of pediatrics at Kaiser, Kaiser has adopted a policy of not doing routine circumcision.
Schoen and the rest of the Three Jewish Stooges are nothing but a bunch of [potentially libelous statement edited by David B -- see warning posted in separate message further down in thread]. That can be the only reason why they would tout such absurdities. Their education's are such that they MUST know that they are being dishonest.

> http://www3.cancer.org/cancerinfo/load_cont.asp?st=pr&ct=35&language=english <

The American Cancer Society is paying lip service to Shoen because the ACS (like Kaiser) is afraid of being labeled anti-Semitic when it takes the position that circumcision isn't a cost-effective preventative measure for penile cancer. The ACS is trying to walk the line as one grows to expect from the medical establishment.

> Dunno where you’re getting that figure, since you didn’t provide a cite. <

I'm getting $2,666 and $3 billion from surveys of hospitals and under cover operatives going into hospitals.

>"The National Institutes of Health estimate overall annual costs for cancer at $107 billion; <

Umhmm.

> $37 billion for direct medical costs (total of all health expenditures), <

Umhmm.

> $11 billion for indirect morbidity costs (cost of lost productivity due to illness), and $59 billion for indirect mortality costs (cost of lost productivity due to premature death)." <

The man is generally in his 70's or 80's when he gets penile cancer.

> Their estimate of the rate of penile cancer as a whole of cancer cases is 0.2 percent. So, if we take 0.2 percent of the total spent on cancer and say it was spent on penile cancer cases, that gives us a cost of $214 million. <

Some cancers are more expensive than others. I would imagine that they could probably treat penile cancer with a circumcision very often, anyway. Anyway, major cancer treatment on a man who is so old as to get penile cancer would probably kill him. I doubt if the cost of penile cancer is all that high. The guy's so old that you don't have to worry about a relapse, that's for sure.

> Not on a par with $3 billion yet, but wait, there’s more: <

Really?

> Wrong, O Logical One. According to the National Institutes of Health, we spent $8.7 billion on AIDS at the federal level. See here: http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/social/kaiser_family_found/2098.3d3f.html#chart1 <

Where's the study that says intact men get AIDS more often than circumcised men? You haven't shown that. In fact, AIDS and other STD's are more common in circumcised America than intact Europe.

> (Note how I use statistics that are fairly recent, as opposed to 51 years old? Little things like that tend to help bolster an argument. Might wanna try that sometime.) <

What's your point with your statistics, though?

> See above. I’m showing you research quoted by the American Cancer Society. <

No, you're not. You showing the ACS giving lip service to the Three Jewish Stooges.

> Show me a study, or heck, even the reference to a study by a reputable organization, and I’ll consider your point. Otherwise, proof is on my side at this point. <

Oh, you've shown no evidence of any sort.

> Again, see above. You know, this is either the second or the third time (not in this post; in the threads) I’ve directed you to the ACS site for this information. <

The Three Jewish Stooges again.

> You’re not intentionally ignoring contradicting evidence, are you, Jack? That would indicate adherence to a dogmatic belief, and I know you hate that. <

You're not trying to cloud the issue so that some new mother might get confused and let a child-mutilating pedophile have his way with her baby are you?

> But I thought you wanted to spend $900 billion a year on restoring foreskins? <

That's right. I expect the medical establishment to undo the damage that they have done.

> At any rate, the studies cited by the ACS (again, see above) indicate that uncircumcised men have poorer hygiene habits than circumcised men. <

The Three Jewish Stooges again. Can't you go rent a video or something?

> Might wanna revise that line of thinking a bit, Jack. We’re up to $13.9 billion a year so far. <

No, my thinking is still the same.

> Why do I have to define what a circumcision is? As you’ve mentioned, it’s been common practice in the U.S. for decades, and has been practiced by various religious and ethnic groups for centuries … in some cases, millenia. There seems to be a pretty good working definition of the procedure. <

Yes, here we go. The dogmatist is arguing about experimental results in order to obscure the fact that he has no argument to support his nonsense, in the first place.

> As for your last question, that’s what I’m doing. I’m proving my point that men are better off without their foreskin, and that as a result of circumcision, U.S. society as a whole would be better off in the form of lower mortality rates, lower incidences of sexually transmitted diseases, and less time spent debating with those who don’t understand the necessity of providing proof of their assertions. <

Well, you didn't prove any points but you are an excellent example of the pro-circumcision way of thinking.

[Edited by David B on 11-08-2000 at 06:02 PM]

63

Please don’t EVER use the word “oversaw” in a circumcision thread.

64

Regarding the Three Jewish Stooges, weren’t Larry, Moe and Curly all Jewish?

At least according to Adam Sandler…

65

I am well and truly amazed at the venom you spew forth, Jack. Incidentally, what exactly do you mean by “routine circumcision”? Does that mean that if parents request it, the hospital says no? Or does it mean they don’t do it without parental consent? I don’t know anybody that does routine ear-piercings, either, but it doesn’t mean you can’t ask for it and get it done.

Um, Jack, once again, it would probably be a good thing for you to actually read the material I’m providing as a cite. Or, heck, pay attention to stuff I’ve mentioned previously. The ACS doesn’t advocate circumcision as a preventive measure for penile cancer. Geez, man, I’m lobbing softballs at you here, and you’re STILL whiffing.

You have undercover operatives? Golly, G-3, that’s cool! Do you have neat wrist-radios, as well?

Excellent points, Jack! You’ve convinced me. Whatever could I have been thinking? I stand in awe of your incisive reasoning.

What, so he’s worthless and we should just let him die a painful death? The ACS says penile cancer is most common in men “over 50.” That’s quite a range, there.

Um, Jack, it’s fairly difficult to get a sexually transmitted disease if you don’t have at least one sexual partner. If you have multiple partners, your chances of contracting and promulgating an STD go up exponentially. Since uncircumcised men are more likely to have multiple sexual partners than circumcised men (according to studies cited by the American Cancer Society), they are therefore more likely to contract and transmit an STD. Shoot, if we add in all STDs, that $8.7 billion figure would go up a fair amount.

As I mentioned, the ACS is NOT quoting the doctors you mentioned. They don’t even give cites to the studies they reference. How do you know the three doctors in question did the studies? And what’s with the “Jewish Stooges” comment? Do I detect a bit of anti-Semitism in your remarks?

In contrast to the scads of evidence you’ve provided so far.

Show me on the ACS site where it mentions even ONE of the doctors you’ve vilified.

No, I’m not clouding anything. Are you seriously insinuating that any doctor that performs a circumcision is a child-mutilating pedophile? Mutilation can be debated in reference to this subject, depending on which side of the fence you fall. But pedophilia is another thing entirely, you know. I’m wondering if I should notify Schoen et al. of your accusations on a public forum. I would think they would have legal recourse.

I suppose I could, but that would cut into the time I spend contemplating my penis. (Get it? Get it? Ah, never mind.)

Yup. Dogmatic as usual.

Umhmmm.

Again, Jack, you’re not listening. I have no particular view on this matter; if anything, I lean slightly to the anti-circumcision side of the debate. But arguments, or lack thereof, such as you present are too much fun to destroy.

[Edited by David B on 11-08-2000 at 06:09 PM]

66

Moe = Moses Horowitz
Curly = Jerome Horowitz
Shemp = Samuel Horowitz
Larry = Larry Feinberg

Yeah, I’d say they were Jewish. And all brothers, except for Larry.

67

JACK says:

ROFL! After nearly ten pages, he STILL manages to entertain! But let’s review: 1. A truly satisfied woman just lies there (no unseemly moaning or moving about). 2. Advice regarding technique from a woman should be politely ignored because, heck, SHE doesn’t know what she’s talking about.

I would suggest the perfect woman for Jack would be an inflatable one: no bothersome wiggling or talking, and he can assume from the total lack of movement and comment that Plastic Paula is TOTALLY satisfied.

PSYCHOBUNNY said:

To which SMILIN’ JACK replied:

I begin to doubt your reading comprehension skills, Jack. Bunny didn’t say women do not promote FGM, she said FGM does not leave women with an “unchanged” sex life, as male circumcision arguably does. Check out this link:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm.htm

which says “The justification for the operation appears to be largely grounded in a desire to terminate or reduce feelings of sexual arousal in women so that they will be much less likely to engage in pre-marital intercourse or adultery.” In other words, FGM is practiced PRECISELY because it reduces or eliminates sexual response in women; an intentional reduction in sexual response is not generally among the reasons given for male circumcision.

Incorrect; this is, in fact, the most often-cited reason for FGM, and has been for millenia. Not only are you not an FGM “expert,” you appear to lack the basic information about the procedure that may be gleaned from a cursory web search. I would think it would behoove you to know something about it since you persist in trying to compare male circumcision to it.

Do you have a CITE for this? Of course you don’t.

Oh, and as JAB pointed out, “murder,” “rape,” and “theft” have precise legal definitions that include the word “unlawful” – murder is the unlawful killing of another human being, for example. It is not the same as homocide, which is a killing that may or may not be justifiable. (And, just so we’re clear, “murder” is not the same as “justifiable homocide” for this very reason.) It is therefore perfectly possible (and even easy) to prove that murder, rape, and theft are “bad things” – just as it is entirely provable (in theory) that male circumcision is a bad thing – just not by you, apparently. None of these constitute “proving a negative,” your allegation to the contrary notwithstanding. So we can add FGM, logic, and law to the list of subjects you are obviously not an “expert” at.

You “finished” as a senior, but you “did not graduate”? Are we to take it, then, that you dropped out – that you have NO degree, let alone an advanced one in Penile Science? If this is the case, kindly stop maligning the educations of others, because it seems to me that “take a community college course” might be advice best aimed at you yourself – maybe then you’ll finish that degree in Flemish Poetry.

Surprise!

Not that he says he knows women; not that he dates or sleeps with women.

Ah, the Jewish conspiracy again! (Dang those tolerant, conspiring Jews!) Do you have a CITE for this? Of course you don’t.

Incorrect. Since circumcision is removal of the foreskin only, it would be an effective treatment of penile cancer only if the cancer was confined to the foreskin – highly unlikely.

Incorrect. Penile cancer is treated with conventional cancer protocols, including surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. It is no more difficult (though, granted, no easier) for the elderly to tolerate aggressive treatment for this type of cancer than it is any other type of serious cancer.

Wow, man, that’s cold – and bad karma. Sounds like you’re asking for a nice case of penile cancer at the (relatively young) age of 70, only to find that our society considers you expendable and not worth the bother or expense of treating it.

68

Jack said:

Yeah, that’s the ticket. When the facts don’t support your position, just bring in the old Jewish Conspiracy. Works every time! Just ask him: ;j

69

Jack Dean Tyler, Master of Penises, wrote:

Is that irony I smell?

70

Jodi,

> I begin to doubt your reading comprehension skills, Jack. Bunny didn’t say women do not promote FGM, she said FGM does not leave women with an “unchanged” sex life, as male circumcision arguably does. <

No. You're dishonestly representing what Psychobunny said. And, you're are dishonestly representing my response to Psychobunny. Psychobunny said, "(m)ost victims of FGM do not assert that their sex life is unchanged as a result of the surgery." To which I pointed out, "(t)hey [FGM victims in Africa] use the same excuses to justify FGM that Americans use to justify MGM. That includes that FGM did no harm to them."
Can we now expect continued dishonesty of this sort from you?

> which says “The justification for the operation appears to be largely grounded in a desire to terminate or reduce feelings of sexual arousal in women so that they will be much less likely to engage in pre-marital intercourse or adultery.” In other words, FGM is practiced PRECISELY because it reduces or eliminates sexual response in women; <

Of course, this is true. This is why circumcision was started to begin with. Anybody that knows anything about circumcision knows that.

> an intentional reduction in sexual response is not generally among the reasons given for male circumcision. <

Such an excuse is not offered today to justify either MGM or FGM that I know of. But, reducing the sexual response was precisely the excuse used to start MGM in America during the 19th Century. Queen Victoria got circumcision started in England and the practice came to America, unfortunately.

> Oh, and as JAB pointed out, “murder,” “rape,” and “theft” have precise legal definitions that include the word “unlawful” <

Depends whose law you're following.

> If this is the case, kindly stop maligning the educations of others, because it seems to me that “take a community college course” might be advice best aimed at you yourself – maybe then you’ll finish that degree in Flemish Poetry. <

Oh, I don't need any degree (which is not to say that I don't have one) to study the science of logic. One only has to have the willingness to learn. Educated idiots are a dime a dozen.

> Not that he says he knows women; not that he dates or sleeps with women. <

Well, I'm sure not going to talk about my sex life with someone like you listening.

> Incorrect. Since circumcision is removal of the foreskin only, it would be an effective treatment of penile cancer only if the cancer was confined to the foreskin – highly unlikely. <

That's an interesting point. I wonder where the penile cancer in an intact man actually occurs. Does it occur in the foreskin or does it occur in the part of the penis that normally survives a circumcision? I'll bet it occurs in the foreskin only because you pro-circumcision people would be able to show at least some kind of nexus to a bad affect of having a foreskin if you could show that penile cancer in an intact man occurs more often in the part of the penis that normally survives a circumcision.

> Incorrect. Penile cancer is treated with conventional cancer protocols, including surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. It is no more difficult (though, granted, no easier) for the elderly to tolerate aggressive treatment for this type of cancer than it is any other type of serious cancer. <

Well, I would suppose that any kind of major cancer treatment would stand a good chance of killing an old person. (Personally, when I reach 60 years old, I'll never go to another doctor again because these doctors will kill you as often as they'll save you. I'll let nature take its course unless I have some medical problem that I can personally diagnose)
71

David B,

> Yeah, that’s the ticket. When the facts don’t support your position, just bring in the old Jewish Conspiracy. Works every time! <

I sure didn't expect to see you mocking me anymore. That is after you refused to have a well structured debate with me. Are you setting a good example for the "skeptics" in your little group by mocking me instead of debating me?
Incredibly, you call yourself a "skeptic" and then you misrepresent me on top of it. I don't claim a "Jewish conspiracy." I claim a de facto conspiracy on the part of the medical, corporate, and Jewish ESTABLISHMENTS. The average Jewish person didn't do anything.
72

[sub]Pssst! Jack. You forgot the Illuminati.[/sub]

73

JACK says I am . . .

Since I quoted you both VERBATIM – didn’t change so much as a comma – how can you assert that I have “dishonestly represented” what you said? I didn’t “represent,” honestly or otherwise, your words – I cut and pasted them.

Now you are misrepresenting your OWN words. Bunny DID say – correctly – “most victims of FGM do not assert their sex life is unchanged,” to which you replied: “Wrong.” This is NOT wrong; it is absolutely right. And, as I said before, the “excuse” used in justifying African FGM – intentional decrease in or total removal of sexual response – is NOT the “same excuse” used to justify “MGM” (ie, circumcision in America. In fact, I would imagine that intentional decrease in male sexual response is rarely if ever the rationale behind circumcision, and I asked you to provide a cite for this assertion – which, of course, you did not.

You can expect precisely the same level of continued “dishonesty” from me as you have received to date – which is to say none. I wish I could say the same for you.

Male circumcision was “started” to decrease male sexual response? Do you have a cite for this? Of course you don’t.

Then I suggest you do a simple web search for “female genital mutilation” or “female circumcision.” You will find that this continues to be the number one reason for, and the chief perceived “benefit” of, FGM. As you yourself said, stupidity is willful ignorance, so take your own advice and educate yourself.

I would not argue this is not true, because I don’t know, though I’d love to see a cite for it – not that you have one. In any event, the Victorian perception of reduced sexual response in circumcised males obviously cannot be taken as proof that such “reduced sexual response” exists, and that, to be truthful, is the cite I would REALLY love to see, since it would go a LONG way towards convincing people that circumcision is not a good idea.

I said:

To which JACK replies:

Well, no – not down here on planet Earth, it doesn’t. You can define “murder” to mean “kissing my great-granny on the lips,” but that will not change the fact that EVERYONE’S law (around here anyway) defines “murder” as "the UNLAWFUL killing of another human being (or words to that effect).

The point – since you missed it – is that uneducated people should not malign the educations of those who actually went to school. Now, I’m the first to agree that “educated” does not necessarily equal “smart,” but that does not make it wise for an uneducated man to criticize the educations of others. And while it’s true that uneducated idiots are a dime a dozen, I think you’ll agree that UNeducated idiots are even cheaper than that.

And yet you are not above talking about other people’s sex lives, with or without their permission, and telling them that they are not doing it right, or don’t know what they’re talking about, or don’t really feel what they claim to feel. Your squeamishness on the topic – but only as regards yourself – borders on hypocricy. If you don’t consider YOUR sex life to be a proper topic of conversation, then you shouldn’t take it upon yourself to criticize OTHER people’s sex lives.

Again, might I suggest a simple web search as a cheap and easy way to lessen your own ignorance? Cancer of the penis appears in the penis – not just in the tip or the foreskin. It doesn’t necessarily “begin” in any particular spot – just like breat cancer doesn’t start at the same stop in the breast every time.

What? It doesn’t often occur in the foreskin alone AT ALL – that was my point, which is why circumcision is not generally an effective treatment for penile cancer. It MAY start in the foreskin, but then again it may not, and no one is saying that it does or doesn’t. Saying that penile cancer is more prevalent in men who have foreskins is not the same as saying penile cancer arises in the foreskin.

And this is then an argument for not treating ill old people? Wow, your views get more and more outlandish.

That’s a damn fine line, Jack – the equivalent of blaming social ills not on black PEOPLE but on black ESTABLISHMENTS. Who do you think make up Jewish medical and corporate" establishments (whatever they may be) if not Jewish people?

74

Jack, I’d personally appreciate it if you’d at least pretend to have read what I post. How can you honestly pretend to know more about my foreskin and why it was removed than either I or my father do?

Jack, again please don’t insult my intelligence or that of my father or the two medical opinions we consulted. I don’t know why I got phimosis. For that matter, I also don’t know why I have hair on some knuckles and none on others.

Okay, Jack, you’re really starting to piss me off now. Until further notice do not presume to know more about my foreskin than I or my father do or did.

You may be amused to learn that I was, in fact, born in Kaiser Permanente Hospital in Oakland, CA. My social status at that point I see as largely irrelevant.

My parents, from what I know, didn’t have me circumcised because they didn’t see the point. They were plenty wealthy by the time my brother was born and had they seen it as a useful or necessary thing, they might well have done so.

I’m really getting tired of this, Jack, but there’s still some hope in my heart that you’ll start letting the information I’ve giving you seep into your brain and become useful.

75

Slipping into this thread is like skinny dipping in a pirhana infested stream, but I’ve read all of it (and the origional). I have a question for all those on here, why are you still bothering?

JDT does seem to be an amazing souce of interesting quotes, and fiction inspiration. Other than that the way in which he goes about making his points is hideously illogical and irritating. You aren’t going to convince him otherwise, let alone convince him that his beliefs may be wrong.

As for JDT, I really honestly am not convinced that circumcision causes emotional trauma or reduces a man’s ability to please a woman. As for increased sensitivity to a male, yeah I’m sure if it is tissue with nerves it will give sensation and when cut off it will by definition reduce sensitivity. But that there is any greater effect than that I don’t think has been shown.

76

sig material

77

  1. To fight ignorance.

  2. Because he’s pissed me off.

  3. Because I pity him.

78

Jodi,

> Since I quoted you both VERBATIM – didn’t change so much as a comma – how can you assert that I have “dishonestly represented” what you said? I didn’t “represent,” honestly or otherwise, your words – I cut and pasted them. <

Yes, you did post the quotes verbatim. That didn't stop you from misrepresenting them, though. Are you going to play the fool?
79

The Tim,

> As for JDT, I really honestly am not convinced that circumcision causes emotional trauma or reduces a man’s ability to please a woman. <

I gave you cites supporting the opposite of what you're concluding.

> As for increased sensitivity to a male, yeah I’m sure if it is tissue with nerves it will give sensation and when cut off it will by definition reduce sensitivity. <

Well at least you're ethical enough to admit that. Thank you.

> But that there is any greater effect than that I don’t think has been shown. <

IOW's, because the medical establishment won't study the foreskin, you can assume whatever you want since there will never be any study that you will have to take seriously. Go ahead and believe whatever you want then. Do you think that that will do you any good? It's said if you do.
    I wouldn't have a problem if you didn't want to accept evidence from my own surveys and research. But, I do have a problem that you accept that no research is being done by the medical establishment. Anecdotal research is much better than no research at all. You're saying something to the affect: "oh, the medical establishment has decided that I don't need to know about the foreskin; and, I don't like the conclusions of the anecdotal evidence that I am hearing, so I'm just going to pretend that everything is OK." You've still got a pair of testicles you know. You could take issue with the medical establishment.
80

Jodi-thanks for making my point so eloquently.

Jack-My point is that FGM is currently justified on the basis that it reduces female sexual feeling and response. I have treated victims of FGM-they all assert that this was why it was done and that this is the result, in contrast to most circumcised males, who feel that their sexual function is still excellent despite the procedure.

Also-I will take your bet on the penile cancer issue. Only skin cancer arises in the foreskin; penile cancer originates in the penis. Doctors are able to treat this quite well even in the elderly, but circumcision alone is worthless. The operation you are looking for is “partial penectomy” (Ok-guys, you can uncross your legs now-lol).

Why does the phrase “castration anxiety” come to mind?