Here’s an interesting article:
TITLE: Circumcision and genital dermatoses.
AUTHORS: Mallon E; Hawkins D; Dinneen M; Francics N; Fearfield L; Newson R; Bunker C
AUTHOR AFFILIATION: Department of Dermatology, Imperial College School of Medicine, Chelsea & Westminster Hospital, London, England.
SOURCE: Arch Dermatol 2000 Mar;136(3):350-4
CITATION IDS: PMID: 10724196 UI: 20186791
ABSTRACT: CONTEXT: It is well recognized that the presence of a foreskin predisposes to penile carcinoma and sexually transmitted infections. We have investigated the relationship between the presence or absence of the foreskin and penile dermatoses. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there is an association between circumcision and penile dermatoses. DESIGN: A retrospective case control study of patients attending the department of dermatology with genital skin conditions. SUBJECTS: The study population consisted of 357 male patients referred for diagnosis and management of genital skin disease. The control population consisted of 305 male patients without genital skin disease attending the general dermatology clinics over a 4-month period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The relationship between circumcision and the presence or absence of skin disease involving the penis was investigated. The rate of circumcision in the general male dermatology population was determined. RESULTS: The most common diagnoses were psoriasis (n = 94), penile infections (n = 58), lichen sclerosus (n = 52), lichen planus (n = 39), seborrheic dermatitis (n = 29), and Zoon balanitis (n = 27). Less common diagnoses included squamous cell carcinoma (n = 4), bowenoid papulosis (n = 3), and Bowen disease (n = 3). The age-adjusted odds ratio for all penile skin diseases associated with presence of the foreskin was 3.24 (95% confidence interval, 2.26-4.64). All patients with Zoon balanitis, bowenoid papulosis, and nonspecific balanoposthitis were uncircumcised. Lichen sclerosus was diagnosed in only 1 circumcised patient. Most patients with psoriasis, lichen planus, and seborrheic eczema (72%, 69%, and 72%, respectively) were uncircumcised at presentation. The majority of men with penile infections (84%) were uncircumcised. CONCLUSIONS: Most cases of inflammatory dermatoses were diagnosed in uncircumcised men, suggesting that circumcision protects against inflammatory dermatoses. The presence of the foreskin may promote inflammation by a koebnerization phenomenon, or the presence of infectious agents, as yet unidentified, may induce inflammation. The data suggest that circumcision prevents or protects against common infective penile dermatoses.
(Oh-and a medline search turned up hundreds of studies on human foreskin-maybe you should check it out Jack)
psychobunny,
> Jodi-thanks for making my point so eloquently. <
Jodi, must be a mind-reader. What point of yours did Jodi make so eloquently? Did you say something that wasn't clear? It seemed pretty clear to me, what you said.
> Jack-My point is that FGM is currently justified on the basis that it reduces female sexual feeling and response. <
You also said: "Most victims of FGM do not assert that their sex life is unchanged as a result of the surgery."
I pointed out that you are wrong.
> 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. <
That's good information, thank you. I guess that FGM victims alter their positions on FGM according to whatever political environment they happen to be in (that's what I would expect). When they are in Africa, they fully support FGM as harmless.
> Also-I will take your bet on the penile cancer issue. Only skin cancer arises in the foreskin; <
I'll stop you right there since I'm sure that cancer can occur on mucosa also. That causes me to further wonder how broad the definition is for penile cancer. Even the actual skin of the penis is very unlike the skin anywhere else in the body. Could a skin cancer there be considered a penile cancer since the skin is so different? Never thought of that.
> penile cancer originates in the penis. <
Of course. That makes sense. Where else would it originate? You mean to say that the cancer originates in penile tissue other than the dermis. How do you know that for sure? Anyway, cancer originating in the mucosa would certainly be termed penile cancer.
> Doctors are able to treat this quite well even in the elderly, but circumcision alone is worthless. <
The mucosa could be ablated if that is where the cancer is.
> The operation you are looking for is “partial penectomy” (Ok-guys, you can uncross your legs now-lol). <
In any event, I think that with the way that the pro-circumcision people and their shills grab at any excuse to attack babies, they would have figured out this nexus and would be throwing it in our faces at every turn if it were true.
> Why does the phrase “castration anxiety” come to mind? <
Well, Sigmund Freud compared circumcision to castration. As a matter of fact, so did John F. Kennedy.
psychobunny,
>TITLE: Circumcision and genital dermatoses.<
Of course, if you don’t amputate your foreskin, you can have a few problems with it. A man’s foreskin can get sick just like a woman’s foreskin can. If you find anything that might indicate what the function of the foreskin is, please let me know. Information on the problems that a foreskin can have is readily available, though. Thanks for your help.
Holy crap!
Did he just say that?
I think my brain is bleeding.
And also Jack? Dou you see that little word bubbly thing at the bottom of every post? You know the one that says quote? That is what everybody uses to get those nice shiny, sparkly quote boxes. Please take note of this. It may help you in the future. If you can’t do that, you can always use {quote} {/quote}, substituting for the {}
[sub]I cannot believe he said that![/sub]
Jack said:
Well, then, perhaps you should reconsider whether you’re as smart as you think you are.
I cannot have a structured debate with a man who refuses to accept evidence. That would be you, by the way.
I didn’t know I had a “little group.” But if I did, they would see by now that debating you is useless. You are immune to facts – perhaps you got them in very small doses as a child and therefore your system developed the ability to fight them off without actually ever noticing or rationally responding to them.
I misrepresented nothing, Jack. You, on the other hand, have consistently posted nothing but bullshit regarding your own position and the positions of those debating you.
A Jewish establishment conspiracy instead of a Jewish person conspiracy? Oh, well, that really helps your case. :rolleyes:
Jack? You didn’t respond to my earlier post. Do you not want to play with me anymore?
(On second thought, that might not be the best way to phrase that.)
As info, I’m trying to find some contact information for Dr. Schoen and the other doctors you accused of being “pedophiles.” I imagine they’d want to know about this.
Jack, I’ll do you a favor, since you seem to be having a hard time parsing psychobunny’s double negative. (Of course, I understood it, but hey.)
Psychobunny sez:
This MEANS: “Most victims of FGM assert that their sex life is changed because of the surgery.” Therefore, bunny IS saying that their sex life has changed. Of COURSE it has!
Oh, and your comment on treatment for cancer and such being a waste for people over age 70? I’ll tone down my response, since I’m not in the Pit, but you’re wrong. All 4 of my grandparents are alive thanks to agressive medical care when they were 60. So kindly shut up. Thanks.
David B,
> I cannot have a structured debate with a man who refuses to accept evidence. That would be you, by the way. <
Really, skeptic? What evidence do I refuse to accept?
> I didn’t know I had a “little group.” <
Yes, your little group likes to play skeptic. You know, it's like playing doctor.
> But if I did, they would see by now that debating you is useless. <
They'd see by now that I won't run from dogmatists.
> You are immune to facts – perhaps you got them in very small doses as a child and therefore your system developed the ability to fight them off without actually ever noticing or rationally responding to them. <
What facts would those be, skeptic?
> I misrepresented nothing, Jack. You, on the other hand, have consistently posted nothing but bullshit regarding your own position and the positions of those debating you. <
Is that so? Give me an example.
> A Jewish establishment conspiracy instead of a Jewish person conspiracy? Oh, well, that really helps your case. <
It sure does. There are many Jewish people having to endure being called <laugh> anti-Semitic for their positions.
The Federal Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1995 states:
"116. FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION
"(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), whoever knowingly circumcises, excises, or infibulates the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris of another person who has not attained the age of 18 years shall be fined under this ti tle or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
"(b) A surgical operation is not a violation of this section if the operation is –
"(1) necessary to the health of the person on whom it is performed, and is performed by a person licensed in the place of its performance as a medical practitioners; or
"(2) performed on a person in labor or who has just given birth and is performed for medical purposes connected with that labor or birth by a person licensed in the place it is performed as a medical practitioner, midwife, or person in training to become such a practitioner of midwife.
“© In applying subsection (b)(1), no account shall be taken of the effect on the person on whom the operation is to be performed of any belief on the part of that or any other person that the operation is required as a matter of custom or ritual.”
You can read the full text at:
http://www.fgmnetwork.org/legisl/US/federal.html
Now, can any of you explain to me how and why the PRINCIPLES behind this legislation should not be equally applied to the situation of male minors?
No, but you play one on the SDMB.
Every time someone comes up with statements that are contrary to your position (hell, even some which support it), you dismiss them out of hand as dogmatic, sticking to your own sociological guns.
Isn’t that, too, and by definition, dogmatic? To wit:
Now, you say the “medical establishment” (my, what a wonderfully paranoiac term) would be defined as 1 a, “something held as an established opinion.” However, I put it to you that your dogmatic beliefs qualify as 1 c, “a point of view or tenent put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds,” because, as so many have pointed out, you have so far not provided any adequate grounds that you are an authority on the matter of circumcision. Well-versed, certainly, and passionate, to be sure, but an authority? Nah. If my spouse, my doctor, a second and third opinion all recommended I get my son circumcised, and you said I shouldn’t, I would wholeheartedly then disagree with you.
I also notice you’re ignoring my posts as well. Any particular reason?
Esprix
Um, religious discrimination?
Nope.
“© In applying subsection (b)(1), no account shall be taken of the effect on the person on whom the operation is to be performed of any belief on the part of that or any other person that the operation is required as a matter of custom or ritual.”
Care to try again?
From Britannica.com:
Another article says that uncut men have a higher incidence of STDs than cut men, probably because they aren’t washing themselves under the foreskins and bacteria and viruses are breeding in there. (EWWWWWW!) And it repeats that uncut men and cut men who practice good hygiene are at low risk for penile tumours.
No one can say for sure where or when the practice of circumcision began, but it is known that ancient Egyptians did it, but not until the boy was at least 6 or as old as 12. In fact, many cultures waited until puberty to perform it as a ritual to signify that the boy was now a man.
What I find significant is that the practice seemed to have originated in cultures that lived where regular hygiene was difficult, if not impossible do to the lack of water. What water was available was reserved for cooking and drinking. Bathing was a luxury. Perhaps the males of a certain tribe were getting sick because they couldn’t wash themselves regularly and the patriarch(s) decreed that the foreskins be removed to stop the illnesses. Maybe it was Abraham himself. Maybe he noticed that Egyptians were circumcised and asked why and decided to adopt the practice. And to forestall any objections, he said something like, “God commands it. That settles it.” Other tribes saw that it was good and adopted the practice themselves.
(Note that I do not necessarily believe there really was an Abraham as described in the Bible. But it’s likely the character was based on a real person or a number of persons, and perhaps it was one of them who started it. And he may have genuinely believed God commanded it.)
Oh, and Jack said he’d never go to a doctor as an old man and that he’d treat himself. As they say, a person who treats himself has a fool for a patient and an ignoramus for a doctor.
. . .the American Cancer Society?
Boy, THAT’S a toughie.
Gee whiz Alex, I think I’ll take ‘National Organizations Specializing In A Focus Upon The Specific Kind Of Ailment’ for a thousand.
"Circumcision: Whether or not circumcision is a negative risk factor (if it protects against penile cancer) is a very controversial issue.
“Circumcision is the removal of a part or all of the foreskin at birth or later on in life. This practice has been suggested as conferring some protection against cancer of the penis by contributing to improved hygiene. However, the penile cancer risk is low in some uncircumcised populations, and the practice of circumcision is strongly associated with socio-ethnic factors which in turn are associated with lessened risk. The consensus among studies that have taken these other factors into account is that circumcision is not of value in preventing cancer of the penis. It is important that the issue of circumcision not distract the public’s attention from avoiding known penile cancer risk factors – having unprotected sexual relations with multiple partners (increasing the likelihood of human papillomavirus infection) and cigarette smoking.”
Um, ‘what is a clearly superior source of information about penile cancer?’
Oh, and here’s another one, which I doubt you’ve seen before:
What is the comparative incidence rate between penile cancer and appendicitis?
That alone is enough to put this ‘genital reduction is valid prophylaxis against penile cancer’ nonsense where it belongs – in the crapper.
I said:
To which JACK, employing his logic skills, replies:
Maybe if I speak more loudly and slowly you’ll not only read but comprehend: SINCE I QUOTED YOU VERBATIM HOW CAN YOU ASSERT THAT I MISREPRESENTED WHAT YOU SAID ??? Please do not post again, “well, you did;” that is totally nonresponsive.
Heck, no. That role has been filled.
JACK says to BUNNY:
Not a mind-reader, just a regular ol’ reader.
See FALCON’S explanation, since you apparently still do not get it.
No, actually, she didn’t.
And yet you still managed to misunderstand it, or misrepresent it.
Note the use of the word NOT, Jack; “victims of FGM do NOT assert.” Once more, with feeling: This is RIGHT. Not wrong; RIGHT.
ACKSIOM says:
I’ll take a stab at it. I think there are two different answers, though; the strictly legal and the more-realistic social. But first, two important points:
-
The statute itself gives no indication of the particular principles underlying (though we can take a pretty good guess at what they are). So when you ask why the underlying principles would not be equally applicable, I think we must admit we don’t know for sure what those principles are.
-
In trying to answer this, I am by no means advocating FGM, or female circumcision, or even male circumcision, for that matter. Everybody got that?
Okay. The strictly legal answer would be that the statute does not seem to outlaw the particular procedure, performed on females, most generally conceded to be most akin to male circumcision – that is, the nicking or excising of the clitoral hood (as opposed to the clitoris itself). While I think you could argue that “clitoral hood” is included in the term “clitoris,” you could just as easily argue that it is not. Therefore, an argument can be made that the statute properly outlaws FGM, but does not serve to outlaw the least invasive and least mutilative form of female circumcision.
The social answer, more obviously, is that our society has allowed male circumcision forever, and therefore finds it acceptable. Female circumcision is not acceptable – especially since it more often than not is not really true female circumcision (the nicking or removal of the clitoral hood) but rather is true genital mutilation (infibulation or removal of the clitoris or labia – or all of these).
I’m not sure how the Constitutionality of the statute would fall out in any event. If a person claimed that their religion demanded female circumcision (or mutilation), the government would have to show a compelling state interest in stopping the practice as justification for violating the individual’s right to freedom of religion. I think a compelling state interest arguably exists to stop the true mutilation of female children; I think that’s a harder argument to make if we’re only talking about nicking the clitoral hood. That’s my guess, anyway.
Well, how about the study by Schoen et al. cited earlier, which indicated that the rates of penile cancer among circumcised men in the U.S. were 95 percent lower than those among uncircumcised men. Or that same study’s estimate that penile cancer rates could increase by 200 percent if circumcisions were stopped. Since that study was published very recently, and the ACS site was last updated more than a year ago, I lend more credence to the study evidence. Not saying it’s definitive; just that it provides an alternate point of view.
Also, that same ACS site you’re quoting noted that uncircumcised men are more likely to have multiple sexual partners, smoke, and engage in less-rigorous personal hygiene regimens. All of these factors are linked to penile cancer and/or HPV.
Why is a raven like a writing desk? Until you provide some statistically relevant answer to the question you posed, my riddle is as valid as yours.
Good to see you here, though. Jack has needed some help for quite a while now. Unless you’re just a sock-puppet of Jack’s, in which case you’re REALLY sad.
I was going to comment on this earlier, but I figured it would get into another battle of “this person is biased because I say so, but this person is not biased because I say so.” Call me a crank, but when I know the outcome it’s a waste of my time (in most cases).
My grandfather got stomach cancer when he was around 82. Because doctors were aggressive in their treatment of the cancer, he was able to live three more years. Maybe you don’t value that, but if I’m not mistaken those three years saw more than thirty birthday parties (not all for him, obviously), a few graduations, and the marriage of one of his daughters. So if you’ve got any more of this kind of opinion . . . probably best to keep it to yourself.
Jack said:
Requoting it all would mean requoting the whole damned thread. You didn’t accept it the first 100 or so times; I see no reason that you would suddenly decide to do so now.
Unlike you, I don’t “play” skeptic. I know what it means and live my life accordingly. You, on the other hand, appear to only be “skeptical” when it suits you.
You don’t run from anything – you just ignore it and go on your merry way. This is the precise way you deal with facts and evidence that stack up against you.
As I said before, restating them is pointless. You would simply ignore them again. And everybody else in the discussion has enough intelligence to know what I’m talking about.
Pick any random message you have posted. There is a good chance that is an example.
Well, I’m glad you’ve got that straight in your “mind.” At least we all know which mysterious conspiracy you’re blaming now.
[Moderator Hat: ON]
Jack: In your message of 11/7 at 3:10 pm, you made a statement about “Schoen and the rest of the Three Jewish Stooges.” That statement goes way beyond the bounds allowed here and could even potentially be libelous. As such, I have edited it out. (I have similarly edited it from people who quoted your original message.)
This sort of behavior is not allowed here. If you post in this manner again, you will be subject to further actions, up to and including deletion of your entire message and/or banning from this message board.
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator
[Moderator Hat: OFF]