Sorry, everyone. I’m going to (futilely, I know) try to use logic on Jack.
So we know it’s hurting a baby when he starts crying (not going to go into the fact that babies cry at ANYTHING) but when he stops crying we cannot assume it stops hurting?
Felice,
> You know, Jack, this is the same argument that the cigarette companies have used for years to deny that there is a connection between cigarettes and lung cancer. <
Well, I've heard it said often about drugs and cigarettes that one who engages in the use of these things is experimenting on one's self. I think that most people who smoke cigarettes recognize that they are engaging in a vice. People should still demand a cost-benefit analysis from cigarette makers, though, IMHO. Because cigarette smoking is generally recognized as a vice, I don't see that tobacco companies are under the same obligation to do a cost-benefit analysis as the medical establishment is when it comes to circumcision.
> So, let’s try a slightly different approach. The data shows that there is a correlation between uncircumcised penises and incidence of penile cancer. <
The data apparently only shows that there is an absolute correlation between cancer of the foreskin and having a foreskin. No one has shown me that cancer of the foreskin is more or less likely than cancer anywhere else in one's body. Even if one could show that cancer is more likely in the foreskin that in many other parts of the man's body, I doubt if foreskin cancer is more likely than breast cancer and I doubt if any woman would agree that routine mastectomies are a good idea.
> So, what would you accept as evidence indicating that there is a causal relationship between lack of circumcision and penile cancer? <
There is an absolute correlation between foreskin cancer and having a foreskin.
> I’m asking you to try to think outside of your one-track mind <
You should work on not being so gullible.
> and imagine that there might be some beneficial aspects to circumcision. And then asking you to define what sort of evidence you would consider to support that such an argument. Try being skeptical about your own beliefs. For a change. <
I have already said numerous times that I want to see a cost benefit analysis that shows that circumcision is beneficial. This will require a thorough histological study of the foreskin. If all of this information can be brought together to form a sound argument that circumcision is beneficial, then I will agree that circumcision is a good thing.LaurAnge,
> So we know it’s hurting a baby when he starts crying (not going to go into the fact that babies cry at ANYTHING) but when he stops crying we cannot assume it stops hurting?<
Oh, I wouldn't assume that there's not some, at least, chronic pain continuing after the baby stops crying. We know that the pain of circumcision under local anesthesia for an adult is like being struck by lightning (babies usually have no anesthesia). And, we know that there is a lot of discomfort for weeks for an adult who is circumcised. There is also evidence that babies are more sensitive to pain that adults (not less sensitive as the medical establishment has been insisting for years). No, I wouldn't assume that the pain is not continuing just because the baby runs out of energy from all of the screaming and shock that he's just been through. In fact, I'd assume the opposite.Thanks for a really excellent reply. It’s nice to finally meet someone who can actually think about this and post sensibly, instead of spouting off with knee-jerk denial. Er-um, that last isn’t directed at anyone else here, BTW, I’m referring to other boards there.
Initially persuasive, but invalid. If you’re going to argue that the principles are undefined and therefore not equally applicable to boys, you’re thereby defining them yourself, by, er, definition.
I’d be very happy to see you present any elucidation of these principles which even potentially excludes boys from equal application. In the absence of such, the default position is that they are equally applicable. To argue otherwise is to argue against an inherent conceptual element of ‘principle’ in the first place – the characteristic of universality
It’s your responsibility to demonstrate how and why the principles are not equally applicable, remember? ‘Well, they might not be, somehow’ doesn’t satisfy that requirement. If it did, the equal application between the genders of the vast majority of all other legislation would collapse as well.
The equal application of principles must be assumed as a default. If not, our laws are no more than a bad joke. For example, before suffragism, the male (and white, and landowner, and etc.)-only franchise was no more than a bad joke. Hm. In fact, considering today’s political environment, I might even argue that at the federal levels, the franchise is still no more than a bad joke. If I was feeling p’tclly Grinch. See:
http://www.billionairesforbushorgore.com/
That analogy, however, is not accurate.
Parenthetical aside: cutting off the clitoris is most closely analogous to cutting off the glans, as the clitoral body itself continues into the body, branching just inside and passing to either external side of the vagina; on the average, its length is shorter than the average male penis, but it’s still measured in full inches. However, since its remaining length is internal and thus only subject to secondary and indirect stimulation, compared to the remaining directly accessible penile shaft in terms of affect in that sense, clitorectomy is probably more detrimental overall. I point this out for reasons of full accuracy and also to demonstrate that yes, I for one do try to maintain a sense of proportion about all this. I myself think Jack has gone over the line in a number of places. OTOH, I think he deserves a little more compassionate understanding than people have been willing to provide. I don’t know if his moments of raving are entirely due to his understanding of just what and how much he’s been deprived of, but for the first few months after I really understood what had been done to me, and what the lifelong consequences were, I had a tendency to get pretty hot under the collar myself.
Finding out that you’ve been sexually mutilated can make you turn pretty extreme. Especially when every time you raise the issue, you receive derision and dismissal. . . .
Returning to the inaccuracy of the akindom you suggest, I seem to recall that the 15 square inches of lost foreskin tissue figure has been more or less accepted around here. Personally I consider it to be the high end of the loss range, since my ear to the ground suggests that more usa medicos have been trying for ‘loose’ male genital reductions in recent years.
I’m reasonably satisfied with the range of 10-12 square inches as a general mean, how about you? Can we agree on that figure?
So, in light of the amount of tissue lost, therefore, it’s more accurate to compare a routine male genital reduction to a combined hood and labial excision (see below).
And beyond THAT point, allow me to point out that the movement of the foreskin is itself both highly erogenous and sexually pleasurable. Hopefully you have had some observational experience with this yourself, whether simple digital or combined oral/digital, if you’ll pardon the personal comment.
This is why mere reductive comparisons of the analogous structures involved, and even the comparable amounts of tissue lost, are more inaccurate than they are applicable. The removal of the foreskin ALTERS PENILE FUNCTION. This can be demonstrated with a simple physical exercise. And one clean enough for Disney, at that! (Well. . .the Disney responsible for the short subject film, ‘The Story of Menstruation’, at least. . . .)
Now, you have to actually do this. Just imagining it is cheating; you don’t get the direct empirical sensory impact if you only read it.
Hold out one hand, palm down, fingers together, flat, and pointed away from you. Place the index finger of your other hand on the back of the first, below the largest knuckle indentation of the middle finger. Roll the skin on the back of the hand around in a circle with the index finger.
Notice how the skin slides smoothly over the substrate of the hand? Notice how you can feel the skin itself extending and compressing, and how you can feel it sliding against the substrate below? That’s almost what the foreskin does on the erect penis; it slides around, and up and down, in a similar fashion.
Now, while still rolling the skin around in a circle, slowly close the extended fingers into a fist. Notice how the skin tightens up as the fingers close, and how it stops sliding around? Notice how the sensory input changes from the movement of the skin itself, and its movement against the substrate, to only friction input from the index finger as it moves around in a circle on the back of the fist?
That’s what happens when the foreskin is amputated. The greater the genital reduction, the tighter the skin on the penis. The tighter the skin on the penis, the less it moves. The less it moves, the more the penis receives only friction input. The more the penis receives only friction input, the more need there is for primarily rougher thrusting motions to stimulate it.
Now, while still sliding the index finger around on the back of the first hand, slowly unclench the fist again. Notice how the the skin slides smoothly over the substrate again? Notice how you can feel the skin itself extending and compressing, and how you can feel it sliding against the substrate below?
And if you balance out the pressure you apply with your index finger against the greatest range of movement of the skin, so that the skin is rolling around in a circle {and the index finger is rubbing against the skin as well, you can feel both the skin movement itself, and the friction input of the index finger moving against it, simultaneously. That’s really what the foreskin does on the erect penis; it slides around, and up and down, in a similar fashion, and it receives friction input from the surface it is rubbing against, at the same time.
Now, are you really willing to argue that friction input is the only valid method of penile stimulation? As you can see – and feel, by analogy – the removal of the male foreskin does indeed directly affect penile stimulation, and furthermore, it affects it not in a binary, on/off fashion, but over a range of potential affect. The more skin lost, the more the loss of natural sensory function.
Thus, the removal of the male foreskin is not a binary, on/off issue either, but one of degree of removal. . .and at that point, the argument over just how justifiable the removal of the foreskin really is changes completely. Now it’s a question of a continuum of loss. . .and at that point, anyone arguing in favor of the legality of this practice suffers under the requirement of establishing HOW MUCH of that continuum of loss is acceptable. Those who argue that any loss without a direct, superior benefit is unacceptable, have the superior position.
Because now, we have a model for how the amount of foreskin removed directly diminishes the amount of sensory function available to the male penis. And that changes everything. The argument is no longer whether foreskin removal affects penile sensory function, but to what degree.
Medically speaking, routine – i.e. done without a direct, curative need – male genital reduction is unethical. The fundamental purpose of both curative and preventative medicine is to preserve as much healthy function as possible. Obviously when a child has phimosis (abnormally tight foreskin) that is unresponsive to physiotherapy (about 5% of cases) and unresponsive to additional steroid cream application therapy (about 5% of the remaining 5% of cases, or .25% – 1 in 400), why then of course we anesthetise him and –
– make AS MINOR A DORSAL SLIT AS NECESSARY TO RELIEVE THE PRESSURE.
We DON’T just hack the damn thing off. Why? Because, as I said, THE FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSE OF BOTH CURATIVE AND PREVENTATIVE MEDICINE IS TO PRESERVE AS MUCH HEALTHY FUNCTION AS POSSIBLE.
When the kid’s got phimosis, it’s interfering with healthy function, so we do something about it.
When a little girl’s labia seal up together (it does happen, though rarely), do we cut them off completely? NO! We just SEPARATE them, dammit!
What we DON’T do is go straight to the complete damn amputation of the affected tissue! That’s simply ridiculous!
And it’s JUST as ridiculous to cut off a phimotic foreskin!
And it’s even MORE ridiculous to cut off a healthy foreskin because doing so might, just might, be beneficial!
Um, something being ‘less mutilative’ doesn’t necessitate that it’s somehow thus ‘not mutilation’. Could you justify that distinction, please? Why, exactly, is hood excision not in fact mutilation?
Hopefully, you’re already aware that there is a broad (snigger, snigger, snigger) variability among women as to the degree of direct or indirect stimulation of the clitoris that they find pleasurable. Some can’t stand to have it directly touched, even when highly excited, and prefer that it be stimulated through hood manipulation only – or even only the manipulation of the nearby flesh (Flesh! Aa-aaah! Will save every one of us!). At the other end of the range are the women who like to have it directly, even roughly sometimes, stimulated, by oral or digital means.
But, for women in the former category, clitoral hood excision is not a trivial, ‘non-mutilating’ proposition. It permanently places them in a situation where a sensitive, delicate primary sensory platform of their bodies is constantly at risk of painful stimulation, and likely to keratinize in self-defense with a corollary loss of sensitivity. In short, clitoral hood excision (you know what’s coming, sing along folks) ALTERS CLITORAL FUNCTION. Because whether you define the hood as ‘part’ of the clitoris or not, THE TWO STRUCTURES INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER.
Saying the clitoral hood isn’t part of the clitoris is fundamentally no different from saying the eyelid isn’t part of the eye. Well, no, technically it isn’t.
That doesn’t mean the loss of the eyelid doesn’t AFFECT the eye, however, now does it?
Excuse me, but you haven’t justified the distinction of hood excision not being ‘true genital mutilation’ as opposed to labial/clitoral excision/infibulation. The consensus among female genital reduction opponents is that hood excision is indeed ‘true genital mutilation’. Again, if we’re going to utilize parallels, then hood excision is just as likely to result in a similar keratinization of the clitoris as foreskin amputation results in a keratinization of the glans – with corollary desensitization (see below).
Female genital reduction is routinely designated as an issue of sovereignty, not severity. You are of course perfectly entitled to disagree with that designation. . .but the continuum question comes into play again, if you do – how much female genital reduction will you allow as acceptable, and why that much? And beyond that, why isn’t it a sovereignty issue in your estimation?
And of course, all of these questions apply to the case of the genital reduction of male minors, as well.
You might find this Seattle Times article interesting, then:
Uh oh! Where is it! Oh no, not again. . .oh. Okay, whew. They just reorganized, is all. Here it is:
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis/web/vortex/display?slug=cuts&date=19960913
That last there is a little. . .disappointing. Now when did excision and nicking get reduced to merely nicking, again? We’re not talking about merely ‘nicking’ the foreskin here, either, remember. . .if the amount of damage is what matters, why can’t parents have their children tatooed or given ritual scars – say, Maori facial marks – that don’t affect physical function? And if parents can have their children’s ears pierced, why can’t they have their children’s genitals pierced as well?
My answer: two words: Sovereignty Issues.
Remember, laws not only protect (and restrict) individuals, they protect (and restrict) principles as well.
BTW, in support of some of the above statements (which I arrived at on my own long before I read the following), I present these comments from Hanny Lightfoot-Klein, one of the world’s most prominent and respected researchers of and advocates against female genital reduction:
“By the same token, removal of the male foreskin is functionally analogous to removal of the female labia, whose function is to protect the clitoris and to keep it moist. The mere thought of an unprotected and dry clitoris would make any woman cringe. It is also highly unlikely that such a clitoris would have retained much of its original sensitivity by the time a woman reaches the age of 30.”
Cite: http://www.nocirc.org/symposia/third/hanny3.html
Believe me, folks, I know what I’m talking about. I’ve been steadily investigating this topic for over two years now. . .an interest instigated by learning how to care for my post-stroke Da, and seeing and handling an intact set of male genitalia for the first time in my life. I immediately thought the obvious differences between his and mine seemed far too. . .conditional. . .to be easily explained by genetic variation. . .
. . .and as it turns out, I was right.
Was that the source for the Encyclopaedia Brittanica quote?
Naughty, naughty, Sauron. You play fair now, or I’ll take my bat and my brain and go home.
However, as far as Schoen’s work goes, here’s another annoying question: Which source of information is MORE likely to present a truly neutral and objective assessment of the available data: a national organization focused upon the specific ailment, with no particular investment in either the continuation or prevention of the procedure except as how it relates to the specific ailment, or an individual with a probable investment in the continuation of the procedure on the bases of religious belief, monetary recompense, and self-justification for performing it?
Lay it down on that bias and BURN RUBBER, baby!
And in response I direct you to Cold, Storms, and Van Howe’s note regarding the age-correction of the Maden et. al. cancer research results which indicates no difference in penile cancer rates between intact and genitally reduced men.
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/vanhowe/
And all of which fits rather nicely with Van Howe’s suggestion that the true correlation lies not in the intact or genitally reduced condition but the SOCIAL STATUS associated with either condition. IME, the overwhelmingly most common reasons among adult men who choose to be genitally reduced are (A) being teased in their childhood, and (B) rejection by self-centered bitches when they discover that said men are intact. Interestingly, it’s the teasing victims who are reliably the most erratic, fanatic, and hypersensitive in their defense of the procedure.
‘Outside of the united states,
It gets even more bizarre,’
– Jello Biafra and Mojo Nixon & the Toadliquors,
‘Mascot Mania’, from the ‘Prairie Home Invasion’ album
According to a recent Philadelphia newspaper story, in South Africa, male genital reduction is so incredibly important that back in 1993, Xhosa attacked and killed tribesmen who had been genitally reduced in a hospital setting rather than the traditional brush ‘circumcision school’. I’d link to this one, but unfortunately the greedy bastards now charge like a $1.95 for access to it.
Now, where was I? Oh, yeah.
The fundamental problem with citations purporting to show a ‘prophylactic benefit’ from this practice in terms of penile cancer is that the penile cancer rates in countries where male genital reduction is less common or even virtually unheard of are FRACTIONS of those of the usa.
While I don’t agree with JDT about many things, and think he’s way over the line with many of his claims, Schoen, Wiswell, & Weiss are indeed people whose professional statements must be closely scrutinized. Not because I disagree with them. . .
. . .but because they’ve already been caught!
Because they lie like cheap rugs.
Consider these points from DOC member Dr. George Denniston, by way of a retired UK legal professional ‘DBA’ “cilcam” on another board:
"Despite the evidence, and despite the clear statement from the American Cancer Society that circumcision status has no bearing on contracting the rare (rarer than male breast cancer) penile cancer, we are still being sold the lie that being cut protects against penile cancer.
FACTS- Denmark- incidence of circumcision is 1.6% for boys under 15 years; the rate of penile cancer is 0.82 per l00,000
Japan, where the circumcision rate is for all intents and purposes zero; the rate of penile cancer is 0.3 per 100,000
Finland, where circumcised males make up less than l % of the population; the rate of penile cancer is 0.5 per l00,000
United States, where 60 to 80% of adult males are circumcised; rate of penile cancer is l to 2 per l00,000.
This is more than Denmark. This is twice the rate in Finland. This is over three times the rate in Japan. The rest of Europe is much the same as Denmark.
This should not be possible if circumcision prevents penile cancer. Advocates of universal circumcision cannot counter these facts, so they ignore them.
In 1997, Schoen claimed that “Newborn circumcision virtually eliminates this devastating threat [penile cancer]”.
In 1997, Weiss stated: “No patient circumcised at birth in the United States has been reported to have developed carcinoma of the penis.”
In their respective papers, Weiss and Schoen made these claims, even though they both cited a 1993 study that found a 20% rate of penile cancer in American males circumcised at birth and 37 % for all circumcised either at birth or in childhood.
In the same 1997 paper, Schoen made his oft-repeated claim that there have been only 10 cases of penile cancer in men circumcised at birth since the 1930s. Not only is this statement false, but it presents an ethical problem in that Schoen was made aware of this fact and provided with supporting references in the pages of the BMJ in 1996. Schoen also failed to acknowledge other published cases of penile cancer in neonatally circumcised males, of which he was well aware at the time.
Schoen’s claim that there have only been ten cases of men affected with penile cancer who were circumcised as newborns is deceptive on two levels.
First, the national incidence of disease is not determined by the number of published case reports. Not every case of a disease, no matter how rare, is, or could ever be, published as a case report in a medical journal. The United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare determines disease incidence by examining a large sample of hospital records from across the country. There is no meaningful relation between the number of case reports published and the incidence of disease.
Secondly - at the time he made this statement, there were more than ten such cases reported in the published medical literature. Between 1936 and 1997, at least 16 individual medical journal articles presented case reports of penile cancer for 34 neonatally circumcised males. Thirteen (38%) of these patients were Jews. One of these studies, by Wade et al. [45] documented Bowenoid papulosis of the penis, which histologically is squamous cell carcinoma in situ, in 11 young males, 10 of whom had been circumcised at birth.
In addition to these case reports, there have been a number of important largescale studies, published PRIOR to 1997 (i.e. PRIOR to the Schoen and Weiss papers), that have documented significant rates of penile cancer in circumcised males. In addition to Maden’s 1993 study, which found 41 cases (a rate of 20%) of penile cancer in neonatally circumcised males, a 1993 study by Malek et al. found that 79% of 34 patients with penile intraepithelial neoplasia had been circumcised at birth or in early childhood. [46] A subsequent study by Cupp et al. found that 9.5% of 25 patients with penile intraepithelial neoplasia or carcinoma in situ had been circumcised at birth. The circumcision status was not noted, however, in 16% of the patients. These large-scale studies demonstrate that the total number of cases of penile cancer in neonatally circumcised males is far in excess of 10.
Wiswell-
In 1990, he stated in Pediatric-:
‘Penile cancer is the only neoplasm which can be prevented categorically by a prophylactic procedure, neonatal circumcision’.
[NB all but 1 of the 16 papers -above- reporting penile cancer in cut men were before 1988, and most were 1970s or earlier --so there is NO excuse for his not being aware of them]
In 1997 however, he stated in the New England Journal of Medicine:
‘Furthermore, circumcision reduces the risk of penile cancer’
But guess which mendacious claim is usually used. And even the later claim is demonstrable nonsense by the knowledge then available, let alone available since then. The 2 comments simply cannot stand side by side; in fact neither can stand alone against the facts.
Wiswell supports this statement by referencing an opinion piece by Schoen, published in 1991.
Wiswell, however, then continues with the statement that:
‘In uncircumcised men, the lifetime risk of this cancer is about 1 in 500, as compared with a risk of 1 in 50,000 to 1 in 12 million in circumcised men’.
Wiswell offers no supporting reference for these remarkable figures and does not reveal how he calculated them. Schoen’s 1991 article does not make reference to such figures. Schoen, however, cites a 1 in 600 lifetime risk of penile cancer and mistakenly claims a national incidence of 2.2 per 100,000, which is roughly the equivalent of the 1 in 50,000 rate that Wiswell offers.
One attempt to calculate a lifetime risk for penile cancer was published in 1980. Schoen relies heavily on this paper in his 1991 article. The authors, Kochen and McCurdy, calculated a lifetime risk of penile cancer in intact men of 1 in 600, not 1 in 500, as Wiswell claimed. According to their calculations, the estimated median age of occurrence was 67 years of age. The results of Kochen and McCurdy’s calculations, however are invalid because they are based on the unsupported assumption ‘that virtually all of the reported cancers occurred in uncircumcised males.’ Despite belief to the contrary, there is no clinical evidence to support such an assumption and there is strong epidemiological evidence to disprove it.
Of grave concern is Wiswell’s improper and unexplained mixing of lifetime risk with national incidence rates. He gives the false impression that the incidence of penile cancer in intact males is 1 in 500. This gives the unwitting reader the impression that one in every 500 intact men will get penile cancer during his lifetime. This is false. Lifetime risk is not the same as national incidence. Lifetime risk is the estimated chance that an individual man will develop penile cancer by a certain age. National incidence data are based on the actual number of cases of penile cancer per year in 100,000 men.
Even the 1989 American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) ‘Report of the Task Force on Circumcision,’ of which Schoen was the chairman, improperly mixes lifetime risk with incidence rates, stating:
‘The predicted lifetime risk of cancer of the penis developing in an uncircumcised man has been estimated at 1 in 600 men in the United States; in Denmark, the estimate is l in 909 men.’
Lifetime risk is not expressed in ‘men.’ It is expressed in abstract statistical odds. Only incidence rates are expressed in ‘men.’ This gives the impression that figures for national incidence are being given and that the national incidence is far greater than it is in reality. Even with so many advocates of circumcision sitting on the 1989 American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision, it is disappointing that such a seemingly deliberate statistical blunder could have escaped peer review and could have been published.
Denniston, “Tyranny of the Victims”.
That it was published, suggests far more than mere incompetence. Weiss, Schoen and Wiswell are of course touted by cutters, especially Morris, Quaintass and others, as being the ‘holy grail’ of truth and accuracy --the reality is that they and their acolytes are throughly discredited
Incidentally, the AAP 1999 claim (also MUCH quoted by cutting advocates) that the risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the penis (SCCP) among men ‘who were never circumcised was 3.2 times that of men circumcised at birth’ does contain the rather tepid correction that ‘This study did not analyze in situ and invasive SCCP separately. This study also used self-report to determine circumcision status. Self-report may not be an accurate method of determining circumcision status’. The AAP only footnote that this was a paper from 1960; and do not report that in addition to the authors’ conceding that self-reporting of cirk status was unreliable (and that an earlier 1954 paper which supplies much support from the cervical cancer claim was also fatally flawed and was withdrawn), the authors accepted that their work could not be seen as definitive – yet LO AND BEHOLD up pops this figure in the 1999 AAP report as a central point/plank, although disclaimed by its parents (WHAT splendid scare-mongering!!!)"
Because they’re both inky black?
Didn’t expect THAT, now did you?
I wrote up twenty answers to that riddle somewhere back in hi skool.
<wheezing old buddhist voice>
Ah, grasshopper. . .
. . .<whacks Sauron about the head and shoulders with bamboo cane, repeatedly>. . .DO YOUR OWN FREAKING GOOGLE SEARCH, BARNEY!
http://www.google.com/advanced_search.html
Kids these days, I swear to god. . .the Republic is doomed, I tell you, fucking DOOOOOOMED. . . .
Yes, and I’ve noticed how much you’ve all trampled each other in you haste to give it to him, too.
Not.
The guy is either quite clearly in a world of hurt, you know, or else a passably talented troll. Regardless of which it is, he does need help far more than he needs abuse. But, sadly, the vast majority of those commenting on him are behaving like nothing more than another tertiarily syphillitic hyena pack of pathetic wannabe Usenet sucks, tearing at the flesh of the strange blue monkey in order to assauge their own pitiful insecurities at the self-identity level. Kill the mutant! Kill! Kill!
Oh, fucking spare me, Senator Kelly.
To which, and with all due respect, I can only respond, Stick It In Your Ear And Grow Corn There, Paranoia Boy.
I have no idea if that was the source for the EB quote. I pulled that info from a news story on a health-related Web site Jack referenced.
You know, it’s particularly irritating that both you and Jack tend to divide the world into two categories: those who are reasonable, and those who are raving, paranoid, dogmatic, biased sheep. Come to think of it, you may be right, but I think you’ve got the name tags reversed.
As I have said on more than one occasion in this and in the original thread, I have no particular stand on this matter one way or the other. I got involved in this thread because of the completely irrational arguments put forth by Jack.
However, I’ll note two things: 1) The ACS, while saying it doesn’t support circumcision as a preventive measure against penile cancer, has NO OFFICIAL POSITION ON CIRCUMCISION. Period. So saying they’re against it is a bit rash; 2) As far as I can tell, Schoen et al. are the only medical professionals who have done studies on circumcision, so it would stand to reason that they have information on the procedure. To me, it’s a little like going to the world’s foremost expert on brain surgery when you have a tumor in your cranium. He or she would be the person who has the most data. Now, we can argue (as you have done persuasively) that their data may be incorrect. But attacking these men personally (as Jack, and to a much lesser extent, you, have both done) is reprehensible. It’s one thing to draw conclusions; it’s another thing entirely to assign motive.
I do not accept the CIRP site as an unbiased party in this argument.
Is it not possible for either of you guys to make a point without insulting remarks? “Self-centered bitches”? What’s the deal with that? Perhaps I’m a product of a different time, but I have always invested a tremendous amount of time, attention, and love in a relationship before advancing to the sexual stage. At that point, it’s not a question of how the equipment looks when you finally disrobe. I suppose if you’re given to random sexual encounters, that type of thing could happen.
That’s so cool! But I fail to see what bearing it has on the discussion at hand. I posted that in response to a question Jack posed, regarding the rate of appendicitis as it correlates to circumcision. I saw no point in his question (which, by the way, he hasn’t answered), and that was my way of saying it was irrelevant. Do not presume to tell me what I expect, but since you brought it up: You’re right, I didn’t expect that. I expected a MUCH more intelligent response.
Perhaps I have the wrong perception of the concept of debating as it’s understood by you and Jack. In my world, those taking opposite positions in a debate are expected to provide statistics and data that prove their points. Apparently, in YOUR world, I’m supposed to handle proof for BOTH sides. My incentive to do this would be what, exactly? If Jack (or you, for that matter) won’t provide the statistics to back up your points, I sure as hell won’t.
Grownups these days, I tell ya … any wonder we can’t even elect a President?
Your statements lead me to believe you have not read the previous thread that spawned this one. Take a look at some of the venom Jack spewed on here. He told a rape victim her experience wasn’t what she thought it was. He told a man that his unborn child would be a freak. He has told both men and women that they’re not performing sex correctly, regardless of their assertions that they enjoy it very much. Given these inflammatory remarks, Jack has brought upon himself the treatment he has received.
That’s good! Almost on a par with the inky-black thing earlier. You show promise.
Your opinion in this matter says it all. Debating you further is useless. I do not understand you or your position, Jack, and I have no wish to do so. I would suggest that if you truly want to win people over to your view of this situation, you find a more reasonable line of argument than those you have presented thus far.
Sauron said:
Further?! Jeez, man, what about the past?!
I really think people should consider giving up on Jack and just thinking “Do Not Feed The Trolls” the next time they see him post. I know the point of The Straight Dope is to fight ignorance, but I think even Cecil would admit that some battles simply cannot be won.
JDT wrote:
“When that baby lets out that blood-curdling scream as his genitals are being slashed…”
When I was in nursing school, I had the opportunity to watch several circumcisions performed. I also watched the procedure performed on my own son (yes, I know, I’m such a monster. Can God EVER forgive me???). Not ONCE did any of these infants cry while being cut. As someone in an earlier posts wrote, it was only when the diaper was removed that the baby cried.
Jeez, and I thought I was obsessed with penises…
OK, Jack, you’ve convinced me… that you’re loony-toons. Ergo and forthwith, should I ever become a parent to a son, I will have him circumcised - this is what your arguments have convinced me to do. Congratulations.
I’m out. Y’all have fun.
Esprix
[Moderator Hat: ON]
Acksiom said:
You’re new here, so let me give you a word of advice: Statements like the above contribute nothing to discussion here and come perilously close to the point where we start flinging around warnings. Considering the way this thread has been going, you really don’t want to do that.
Thanks for your cooperation.
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator
[Moderator Hat: OFF]
And we have only your word that they are disreputable.
**
Mom tells me I screamed when I got my first haircut. I guess we should ban haircuts.
Ack! He said something that was true! Isn’t that against the rules?
© says (my paraphrasing in {}): “In {determining whether a surgical operation is necessary to the health of the circumcisee and therefore legal}, {ignore} the effect on the {circumcisee} of any belief on the part of that or any other person etc…”
That appears to say that, if I believe that circumcision is necessary as a matter of my religious rituals (Jewish) and my son will be harmed by not having one performed on him because he will lack that sign of Abraham’s covenant with God, a medical practitioner is free to ignore the effect of that belief and is not free to perform the circumcision for fear of running afoul of this statute.
Seems like religious discrimination to me.
Jodi? Anyone else read this a different way? Am I totally off base here?
Sauron replied:
ROTFLMAOASTN.
Nobody official is gonna touch these guys with a ten-foot pole, Sauron. You know better than that. Doctors’ organizations seriously criticizing their own member doctors? Cuuuuuue that laugh track! Just look at the shrieking, screaming, hand-wringing resistance to the suggestion of a national tracking database of professional conduct. Medicine is Big Business in the usa and just as subject to corrupt ‘self-protection’ legal/governmental behavior as any other corporate field.
Consider the scientific AIDS controversy, for example. The ‘heretics’ have raised quite a few interesting points, from the sketchy, questionable procedural/methodological origins of the current viral paradigm, to the close association of the syndrome with heavy drug use in industrial nations and miserably unsanitary living conditions in the developing nations, to the eyebrow-raising monetary incentives in terms of government grants and pharmaceutical profits off targeted drug therapies.
Now, is there something going on here in terms of a genuine transmissable ‘disease’? Yes, I think so. . .but I also think that tetanus, typhoid, tuberculosis, ad nauseum, were present in frightening amounts in africa LONG before anyone ever heard of a silent killer in gay bathhouses. . .and that relentlessly popping amyl nitrate or chain-jacking heroin or abusing whatever genic/tropic substance in whatever manner will Do The Freak all over your immune system in a new york minute. . .and, that like real ADD/ADHD sufferers versus kids simply raised on an exclusive diet of snap-image, instant gratification television, the numbers of AIDS cases are being inflated by false assignment of folks who are just plain sick because of drug abuse, poor nutrition, and rampant recurring virulent infections.
I’m not saying AIDS isn’t a serious problem. It clearly is.
I’m saying that it appears to me that the medical researchers and peer-reviewers who support the current AIDS paradigm are failing in the area of traditional scientific objectivity. And that this parallels the behavior of the medicos who support the current male genital reduction paradigm.
I mean, fuck, dude, the AJDC published Schoen’s sentimental doggerel, ‘Ode to the Circumcised Male’, (admittedly, back in 1987, but still!). You wanna call that responsible peer-reviewed editorial behavior?
No, I didn’t think so.
Well, to be accurate, they have done studies looking for benefits due to the procedure. Medical professionals who have done studies looking for detriments due to the procedure have found those, too. Remember, the AAP states that the true complications rate is unknown.
Arguably, it’s 100 PERCENT
Well, I can’t prove it, nor did I claim that I could. All I present – all I can present – is my reasons for viewing them with suspicion.
Screw his ‘undercover operatives’. I’m not playing Tom freaking Clancy bulldada games here. If I can’t cite it, I can’t use it.
Of course not. It’ll list anesthesia costs, practioner reimbursement, op room charges, etc.
Ayep.
That’s the IDEA.
You could put it that way. Of course, that’s less than every organization from the UN to AI has engaged in by creating a false distinction between female and male genital reduction, though. How many african boys have been mutilated, castrated, or buried in shallow graves in the wild over the past ten years? Nobody seems to know, officially, because apparently nobody official is trying to find out.
More to the point, however, is the fact that ‘circumcision’ etymologically means ‘cutting around’. That’s grossly inaccurate, for either gender. That would be a dorsal slit of some sort, or a hood nick, as Jodi has suggested. ‘Circumcision’, when used to denote significant tissue removal, is a disinformative euphemism.
I find ‘genital reduction’ works quite well, thank you. It doesn’t set people off the way ‘mutilation’ does, and it tends to make them think a little more, a little more often.
And here’s a sweet treat from the Netherlands, documenting that the use of the term ‘female genital mutilation’ was adopted by the Netherlands Institute of Human (Ha!) Rights in their study for the specific political purpose of distinguishing it from male ‘circumcision’ because they believed that including male genital reduction would make opposition to female genital reduction more difficult!
“The choice to make a dissociation between the two practices was at that time a pragmatic, political decision, related to the vehemently discussion in the Netherlands, and because the fight against female genital mutilation would be more difficult if male circumcision were also to be challenged.”
Cite: http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/smith/
Oh, and be sure to check footnote 7 on that page. It’s a warzi!
He did? I must have missed that. Could you direct me to the exact references? I’m not accusing you of anything, BTW; goodness knows I’ve made more than my own share of STN foulups over time.
IAMPUNHA, PLEASE NOTE FOLLOWING:
In any event, it’s wrong, or at least semi-inaccurate. I cite Taylor, Lockwood, & Taylor’s anatomical pathology study published in the BJU in 1996, ‘The prepuce: Specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision’. See:
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/
Also of interest is Barichello’s interview of Dr. John Taylor, the principle researcher and author of the above, about the above, at:
http://www.intactcanada.org/taylor.html
And also Taylor and Cold’s followup article published in the BJU in 1999, ‘The Prepuce’, at:
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/cold-taylor/
[Insult deleted by David B]
Again, IAMPUNHA, PLEASE NOTE FOLLOWING:
[Insult deleted by David B] Waste of my valuable time and energy and communicative abilities. Get the picture? I notice neither of you attacked them (as such, since your entirely valid question(s) about the source of my ‘meaningful neurological losses and sensory detriment’ claim isn’t really directed at the point I was making, about personal reactions to same). I was explaining my reasoning to the intelligent people. Whether you belong in their ranks is up to you
One more thing – [Insulting comment deleted by David B]
Here’s a little suggestion, kiddies, to make our time together more 'njoyable: you don’t flame me, and [Insulting material deleted by David B]
Okey-dokey?
Wow, that’s a good one. Seriously. I knew I’d find a better class of playmate at Unka Cecil’s place!
If it was an absolute, 100% guarantee. . .I don’t know. I really don’t know. I’ll think about it.
Hmm, what if the kid could restore later, by the usual means? Would that negate the benefit?
Oh, and turn it around, please; just how much of what female genital tissue would justify 20 more years 'round these parts for your daughter?
Well, I’ll tell you this much, a chance of considerably less than one in hundred that my son would benefit from the procedure medically in any way whatsoever sure as hell ain’t worth even one damn centimeter of his genitals. And that, by my study of the research, is where the issue stands at present – no valid AIDS prevention, based upon the comparative rates between primarily intact and routinely genitally reduced nationalities (which indicates that the AIDS-genital reduction association is correlational instead of causative); no valid STD prevention, based upon the contradictory body of research indicating no affect, positive affect, and negative affect; and the last, best word on UTI hospitalization rates, being the To et. al. study done up in canada on ~58,000 matched subjects, which corrected for some of the methdological flaws in the previous work on the subject.
Penile cancer prophylaxis I consider to be nothing more than frantic, desperate rationalization at this point; despite your cites about the associative factors from the ACS, the bottom line of what they OFFICIALLY SAY is that it’s NOT of preventive value – and beyond that, the incidence rate is what again? 1 to 2 in 100,000!? in the first place?
[Insulting comment deleted by David B]
Now, then – Esprix? Assuming thatt the question you were really asking was, ‘Did Jacksie go wunning to his wittle fwiendsies fo’ helpsies?’, well. . .
. . .Why not save your arch, condescending, pastel taffeta insinuation for someone who doesn’t find it so tragically unhip, mmmmkay? [Insulting comment deleted by David B]
A friend’s SO turned me on to Unka Cecil back in the 80s. Last time I was here (looking to see if he’d published a new collection yet), I’m not even sure if there were message boards. And he was full of the usual herd-animal shite about male genital reduction then, too, which was kinda depressing. I would’ve thought Cecil at least could see clearly through the smoke and mirrors, but ah well, no joy. This time I was looking to see if he’d ever written anything about neuro-linguistic programming. What’s this? Do my eyes deceive me? A Cecil BBS!? What a treat for me; other Cecil appreciados to romp with!
Of course, if I’ve misinterpreted your 'tude, I apologize.
If.
[Edited by David B on 11-10-2000 at 06:34 PM]
Jack Dean Tyler pronounced:
Sauron responded:
Yah. One problem with his stance (as with the ‘rape is worse than death’ meme) is that its logical conclusion demands the killing of all male genital reduction victims for their own good.
I’ll pass, thanks.
[Moderator Hat ON]
David already warned you about these sort of remarks in this thread. We do not allow direct personal insults in the Great Debate forum. If you wish to insult a particular poster, do so in the BBQ Pit.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
[Edited by Gaudere on 11-10-2000 at 06:33 PM]
[Moderator Hat: ON]
Well, there’s a first time for everything. The mods had a simulpost. While Gaudere was warning Acksiom, I was taking an editor’s marker to his attacks.
Let me reinforce what Gaudere said. Acksiom, you have two strikes. If you know baseball, then you know the rest. One more and you’re out.
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator
[Moderator Hat: OFF]
Acksiom,
How do you do? Thanks for your giving us you excellent information.
> Yah. One problem with his stance (as with the ‘rape is worse than death’ meme) is that its logical conclusion demands the killing of all male genital reduction victims for their own good. <
I wouldn't go so far as to say that this is my position. I am, at someone's request, only expressing my best opinion based upon the facts that I know as of now. Further, I wouldn't say that any survivor of sexual mutilation should be harmed (in fact, it is my opinion that half of the national budget should be devoted to fixing these men). However, I do feel that any expectant mother that intends to have her child circumcised should end the pregnancy rather than do that. That's how I feel.
Also, I would like to point out that I have repeated several times that the physiology of the foreskin has not been studied. I have also referenced Taylor and explained that Taylor's research is just the tip of the iceberg. As of now, no one has any publishable research that explains the foreskin well enough to know what sensations are lost in a circumcision. Nor, has anyone come up with anything publishable that explains the physiological affects over the whole entire body that are missing as a result of circumcision. That is to say: Very little publishable information exists that can give us insight into the psycho-sexual affect of circumcision.Acksiom said:
Ooooh, side with the Duesbergs of the world. That will win you credibility!
Did you really say that? 
You mean, “what, if any, sensations are lost”, right, Jack? Imagine that Taylor and others study the foreskin ad nauseum and come to the conclusion that it’s just another piece of skin. And that the foreskin and penis are actually meant to be thrust into the vagina and not rubbed dorsally on the outside. Assume this to be the case. Then what? Do you attack Taylor et al. as traitors who have succumbed to the Jewish conspiracy? Do you accept that maybe you’re wrong and you give up and go home (if Rodondo Beach will have you)? Or do you just dodge the issue by explaining that the circumstances I’ve described can’t be true and therefore you won’t dignify them with a response? Based on your prior posts, my guess is option 1 or option 3.