Surgeon's fees
peterd
A question from the other side of the Atlantic, where circumcision these
days is relatively uncommon..... as I understand it, a baby boy in the
United States is circumcised at birth as routine. How much is the
surgeon's fee -- and is this easy money a reason why this unnecessary
surgery is performed so unquestioningly?
Paul
In Canada routine infant circ is no longer paid by insurance and the
rate of circ is falling to almost nothing. Parents don't wish to pay
for it and the insurance doesn't so it is not done. Kind of tells you
why it is done so regularly in the US doesn't it-it's easy money for
the surgeon and the parents are getting something "free".
Paul
Stan
On 13 Jun 1997 21:52:28 GMT, "peterd" <pet...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>A question from the other side of the Atlantic, where circumcision these
>days is relatively uncommon..... as I understand it, a baby boy in the
>United States is circumcised at birth as routine. How much is the
>surgeon's fee -- and is this easy money a reason why this unnecessary
>surgery is performed so unquestioningly?
>
[If you wish to contact me, drop the "f" from "fitis" in my email
address. Thanks.]
The fee for infant circumcision surgery varies in the US. The fee of a
physician for it can be anywhere from over $100 to several hundreds of
dollars. [This does not include the fee charged by the hospital.]
Where I live, one of the large HMO rackets (health maintenance
organizations) was charging a few years ago $148 for any of its
member physicians who do this horrendous and nature-insulting
operation on healthy, normal baby boys. [And the fee charged by the
hospital at that time was the same: another $148.]
Many health insurance companies in the US - *but not all of them* - do
indeed pay the surgeon and the hospital for the cost of "routine
infant circumcision" and for those infant circumcisions done due to
physician ignorance (i. e. claiming the foreskin is "too long" or
redundant, OR making a misdiagnosis of phimosis, which cannot really
be determined until the boy reaches the age of 17 years old) and done
due to physician deception (i. e. when the physician is greedy or
since he himself is sexually mutilated - "circumcised" - he inflicts
this sexual mutilation on a helpless, healthy baby due to anxiety,
fear and hatred of the normal, natural intact penis].
Though this sexual mutilation racket here in the US brings in (or
wastes) about $1 billion yearly, there are those insurance companies
that wish to save money so these companies do not cover "routine
infant circumcision". [But knowing about the rampant fraud, greed and
carelessness in US medicine, I believe that these companies probably
pay for those in fact senseless and contraindicated infant
circumcisions performed by MD's who are either ignorant about the
nature of the baby's normal, natural, healthy intact penis OR who are
intentionally performing/inflicting the surgery based on their
diagnosis of some problem (i. e. they're actually knowingly making a
misdiagnosis so that they are paid for the surgery).
The insurance companies that do cover infant circumcision [what always
is the "routine infant circumcision"] may worry that they will lose
potential members/customers who examine what is and what is not
covered by the plans offered by the companies. So if company A did not
offer infant circumcision, someone might turn to company B that does
pay for infant circumcision and sign up with company B. [We who've
studied the notable problem of infant circumcision know that, as in
the case of the UK, Canada, and Australia, when the government or the
various insurers do not cover infant circumcision, parents are
generally unwilling to pay for the surgery themselves, and in this
way, boys remain intact as they should be in life.
Since widespread ignorance in the lay, in MD's and in those running
insurance companies in part supports the problem of infant
circumcision in the US (along with the support provided by arrogance,
denial, absence of ethics and morals, and greed in US medicine), we
will have here in the US this problem for some decades still.
The US government supported welfare system known as Medicaid also pays
for "routine infant circumcision" and for those circumcisions done due
to purposeful misdiagnosis by an MD. So the poor in the US - those
covered by Medicaid - are being taken advantage by MD's who know that
they will be re-imbursed by the government. The sons of the poor wind
up sexually mutilated too, when once they remained intact since the
parents could not afford such a "luxury" as circumcision. Probably
scores of millions of dollars are wasted in this fraud paid for by US
taxpayers.
On top of all this is the problem now of the selling of the foreskins
stolen from healthy baby boys. The public does not know that the next
great wave of deception connected with this national disgrace of
infant circumcision is the giant business that growing skin will bring
biotech companies preparing now for this new market. [The destroyed
and amputated foreskins of baby boys - those stolen during "infant
circumcision" - will be used to grow vast amounts of skin for burn
victims. While only a small number will be needed to produce a vast
amount of this skin, the public will be lead to believe that
incredible numbers of babies' foreskins will be needed to grow all
this skin. This grown skin will be used for burn victims and for the
testing of cosmetics, so that animals are spared the hazards and harm
from cosmetics and other products. While it is wonderful to help burn
victims, it is *wrong to destroy normal, natural, healthy and lifelong
beneficial body parts belonging to children - such as the foreskins of
baby boys who cannot consent to the donation nor to the surgery
performed on them - in order to help someone else.* Parents cannot
even consent to the donation of other healthy organs in their
children, yet this new practice and wrinkle in this atrocity and fraud
of "infant circumcision" IS forced organ donation. [Forced since
infant circumcision is forced upon someone who cannot understand,
consent, refuse, or escape this extremely painful surgery.]
The extent and magnitude of this problem, and the various forces that
keep it protected and safely in place, are truly sickening to those
who know what is going on. [But most of course think there's
absolutely nothing wrong with this in fact horrible practice presented
as and posing as medicine.] Please tell others in the UK and in Europe
about this, our great human rights violation of helpless, healthy
children and fraud in US medicine.
You'll probably find more information about this at the Web site of
the awards-winning CIRP, the Circumcision Information and Resource
Page, http://www.cirp.org/CIRP/
I believe the time has come to acknowledge that the practice
of routine circumcision rests on the absurd premise that the
only mammal in creation born in the condition that requires
immediate surgical correction is the human male.
- Thomas Szasz, M. D., 3rd International
Symposium on Circumcision, Univ. of Maryland,
May 1994
Whatever is done to stop the terrible practice of
circumcision will be of tremendous importance. There
is no rational medical reason to support it. It is high time
that such a barbaric practice comes to an end.
- Dr. Frederick Leboyer, author, Birth
Without Violence
Stan, confronting the problem of male sexual mutilation - "routine
infant circumcision' - in the US.
[If you wish to contact me, drop the "f" from "fitis" in my email
address.]
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity.
- Horace Mann (1796-1859, American educator)
D. C. Sessions
Stan wrote:
>
> On 13 Jun 1997 21:52:28 GMT, "peterd" <pet...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >A question from the other side of the Atlantic, where circumcision these
> >days is relatively uncommon..... as I understand it, a baby boy in the
> >United States is circumcised at birth as routine. How much is the
> >surgeon's fee -- and is this easy money a reason why this unnecessary
> >surgery is performed so unquestioningly?
> The fee for infant circumcision surgery varies in the US. The fee of a
> physician for it can be anywhere from over $100 to several hundreds of
> dollars. [This does not include the fee charged by the hospital.]
> Where I live, one of the large HMO rackets (health maintenance
> organizations) was charging a few years ago $148 for any of its
> member physicians who do this horrendous and nature-insulting
> operation on healthy, normal baby boys. [And the fee charged by the
> hospital at that time was the same: another $148.]
OK, that's a hair under $300; a bit high but not impossible.
> Though this sexual mutilation racket here in the US brings in (or
> wastes) about $1 billion yearly,
... but then this would imply 3,300,000 circs per year, which
seems a bit high. Especially since only about 2,000,000 boys
are born in the US each year. That would be a circ rate of
165% rather than the 60% claimed by activists on these threads.
--
D. C. & M. V. Sessions
sess...@primenet.com
http://www.primenet.com/~sessions under construction
D. C. Sessions
Lawrence Wade wrote:
>
> In article <33A474...@primenet.com>, sess...@primenet.com says...
> >
> >Stan wrote:
> >>
> >> On 13 Jun 1997 21:52:28 GMT, "peterd" <pet...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >A question from the other side of the Atlantic, where circumcision these
> >> >days is relatively uncommon..... as I understand it, a baby boy in the
> >> >United States is circumcised at birth as routine. How much is the
> >> >surgeon's fee -- and is this easy money a reason why this unnecessary
> >> >surgery is performed so unquestioningly?
> >
> >> physician for it can be anywhere from over $100 to several hundreds of
> >> dollars. [This does not include the fee charged by the hospital.]
> >> Where I live, one of the large HMO rackets (health maintenance
> >> organizations) was charging a few years ago $148 for any of its
> >> member physicians who do this horrendous and nature-insulting
> >> operation on healthy, normal baby boys. [And the fee charged by the
> >> hospital at that time was the same: another $148.]
> >
>
> physician's time, sterilization of tools and other overheads?
True, but why waste time arguing an inconsequential?
> >> Though this sexual mutilation racket here in the US brings in (or
> >> wastes) about $1 billion yearly,
> >
> >... but then this would imply 3,300,000 circs per year, which
> >seems a bit high. Especially since only about 2,000,000 boys
> >are born in the US each year. That would be a circ rate of
> >165% rather than the 60% claimed by activists on these threads.
>
> Bah. These idiots are nothing if not self-contradictory.
Perhaps more to the point, they subscribe to the maxim
that there is no such thing as a bad argument against
circumcision.
Lawrence Wade
>>
>> >A question from the other side of the Atlantic, where circumcision these
>> >days is relatively uncommon..... as I understand it, a baby boy in the
>> >United States is circumcised at birth as routine. How much is the
>> >surgeon's fee -- and is this easy money a reason why this unnecessary
>> >surgery is performed so unquestioningly?
>
>> physician for it can be anywhere from over $100 to several hundreds of
>> dollars. [This does not include the fee charged by the hospital.]
>> Where I live, one of the large HMO rackets (health maintenance
>> organizations) was charging a few years ago $148 for any of its
>> member physicians who do this horrendous and nature-insulting
>> operation on healthy, normal baby boys. [And the fee charged by the
>> hospital at that time was the same: another $148.]
>
I thought it was closer to, like, $50-$60, covering essentially only the
physician's time, sterilization of tools and other overheads?
>> Though this sexual mutilation racket here in the US brings in (or
>> wastes) about $1 billion yearly,
>
>... but then this would imply 3,300,000 circs per year, which
>seems a bit high. Especially since only about 2,000,000 boys
>are born in the US each year. That would be a circ rate of
>165% rather than the 60% claimed by activists on these threads.
Bah. These idiots are nothing if not self-contradictory.
Lawrence Wade
Eric Boyd
> On top of all this is the problem now of the selling of the foreskins
> stolen from healthy baby boys. The public does not know that the next
> great wave of deception connected with this national disgrace of
> infant circumcision is the giant business that growing skin will bring
> biotech companies preparing now for this new market. [The destroyed
> and amputated foreskins of baby boys - those stolen during "infant
> circumcision" - will be used to grow vast amounts of skin for burn
> victims. While only a small number will be needed to produce a vast
> amount of this skin, the public will be lead to believe that
> incredible numbers of babies' foreskins will be needed to grow all
> this skin. This grown skin will be used for burn victims and for the
> testing of cosmetics, so that animals are spared the hazards and harm
> from cosmetics and other products. While it is wonderful to help burn
> victims, it is *wrong to destroy normal, natural, healthy and lifelong
> beneficial body parts belonging to children - such as the foreskins of
> baby boys who cannot consent to the donation nor to the surgery
> performed on them - in order to help someone else.* Parents cannot
> even consent to the donation of other healthy organs in their
> children, yet this new practice and wrinkle in this atrocity and fraud
> of "infant circumcision" IS forced organ donation. [Forced since
> infant circumcision is forced upon someone who cannot understand,
> consent, refuse, or escape this extremely painful surgery.]
Interesting point. In two cases courts have rules that parents cannot
compell their children to donate organs. These cases are being cited as
precedents in a circumcision case in California. More complete info on this
case can be found in the NOCIRC homepage.
> I believe the time has come to acknowledge that the practice
> of routine circumcision rests on the absurd premise that the
> only mammal in creation born in the condition that requires
> immediate surgical correction is the human male.
>
> - Thomas Szasz, M. D., 3rd International
> Symposium on Circumcision, Univ. of Maryland,
> May 1994
Great quote. Read it a hundred times already, but it's still good
-seric
>
Lawrence Wade
In article <01bc784a$208a9f80$LocalHost@default>, pet...@dircon.co.uk says...
>
>A question from the other side of the Atlantic, where circumcision these
>days is relatively uncommon..... as I understand it, a baby boy in the
>United States is circumcised at birth as routine. How much is the
>surgeon's fee -- and is this easy money a reason why this unnecessary
>surgery is performed so unquestioningly?
I wouldn't call it unneccessary. I think that if you were to _objectively_
(this is a concept that is unknown to the anti-circ crowd that mostly wastes
the bandwidth in this newsgroup) research the issue, you'd see that there were
good reasons for doing it.
I was born in Cardiff, Wales, and, as such, I wasn't circumcised at birth.
Actually, I had it done last year and I love it. I'd do it over in a second.
I also live in Canada, where one of the replies to your post also replied
from. I live in Toronto, Ontario and have been studying cicumcision for years.
While it is true that the rate of infant circumcision has dropped in Ontario
since OHIP stopped covering it in 1994 under the mandate of Premier Bob Rae
(who is Jewish, no less), it is important to note that the rates of preschool
circumcision have been gradually increasing in that time, and are hovering with
a number close to 20% of children under 5 years old having to be circumcised.
So, may as well get it over in infancy when the kid doesn't remember it, rather
than having the separation anxiety and the fear of hospitals, not to mention
the discomfort of having it done at that age.
As for me, again, I love it. I realize that it's a foreign concept to you:
after all, we are talking about cutting off part of one's penis. But I think
that modern clothing has rendered the foreskin redundant: since we're no longer
shredding our glans on tall grass or various other hazards of living a life of
nudity, I think its benefits are now outweighed by its risks.
Try it for yourself: go and buy a roll of 3M Micropore and tape your
foreskin back every day for a month. There will be a few days of discomfort
involved as you get used to being "circumcised", but all you need to do is take
off the tape and not put it on on the last day of the month- no commitment- and
then you'll have a great idea of what it's like to be circumcised. Too bad the
tape isn't practical when you're having sex.... :)
Lawrence Wade
mercial.email
In article <33A474...@primenet.com>,
D. C. Sessions <sess...@primenet.com> wrote:
>Stan wrote:
>>
>> On 13 Jun 1997 21:52:28 GMT, "peterd" <pet...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >A question from the other side of the Atlantic, where circumcision these
>> >days is relatively uncommon..... as I understand it, a baby boy in the
>> >United States is circumcised at birth as routine. How much is the
>> >surgeon's fee -- and is this easy money a reason why this unnecessary
>> >surgery is performed so unquestioningly?
>
>> physician for it can be anywhere from over $100 to several hundreds of
>> dollars. [This does not include the fee charged by the hospital.]
>> Where I live, one of the large HMO rackets (health maintenance
>> organizations) was charging a few years ago $148 for any of its
>> member physicians who do this horrendous and nature-insulting
>> operation on healthy, normal baby boys. [And the fee charged by the
>> hospital at that time was the same: another $148.]
>
>
>> wastes) about $1 billion yearly,
>
>seems a bit high. Especially since only about 2,000,000 boys
>are born in the US each year. That would be a circ rate of
>165% rather than the 60% claimed by activists on these threads.
You are taking into account only the immediate cost of the circumcisions.
You also need to factor in the cost of complications, later treatment
to fix inadequate or botched circumcisions; meatotomies to correct
the iatrogenic meatal stenosis; the cost of restoration (surgical or
nonsurgical) for those who do not like being partial genital amputees;
loss of productivity, psychological illness, and work-time wasted
bickering on Usenet :-)
A new cost/benefit analysis by Dr. Robert Van Howe (pending publication),
for the US alone, yields a figure in close accordance with the $1 billion
quoted above.
g.
--
I conceal nothing. It is not enough not to lie. One should strive
not to lie in a negative sense by remaining silent. ---Leo Tolstoy
ADDRESS ALTERED TO DEFLECT SPAM. UNSOLICITED E-MAIL ADS BILLED $500/ITEM
Geoffrey T. Falk <gtf(@)math.rochester.edu> http://www.cirp.org/~gtf/
pbeavin
lw...@the-wire.com (Lawrence Wade) wrote:
>In article <33A474...@primenet.com>, sess...@primenet.com says...
>>
>>Stan wrote:
>>>
>>> On 13 Jun 1997 21:52:28 GMT, "peterd" <pet...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> >A question from the other side of the Atlantic, where circumcision these
>>> >days is relatively uncommon..... as I understand it, a baby boy in the
>>> >United States is circumcised at birth as routine. How much is the
>>> >surgeon's fee -- and is this easy money a reason why this unnecessary
>>> >surgery is performed so unquestioningly?
>>
>>> The fee for infant circumcision surgery varies in the US. The fee of a
>>> physician for it can be anywhere from over $100 to several hundreds of
>>> dollars. [This does not include the fee charged by the hospital.]
>>> Where I live, one of the large HMO rackets (health maintenance
>>> organizations) was charging a few years ago $148 for any of its
>>> member physicians who do this horrendous and nature-insulting
>>> operation on healthy, normal baby boys. [And the fee charged by the
>>> hospital at that time was the same: another $148.]
>>
>>OK, that's a hair under $300; a bit high but not impossible.
> I thought it was closer to, like, $50-$60, covering essentially only the
>physician's time, sterilization of tools and other overheads?
You might only pay the surgeon $50-$60 dollars but I would expect it
to be two to three times that cost. But the hospital is going to
charge $100-300 dollars for "use" of it's facilities.
>>> Though this sexual mutilation racket here in the US brings in (or
>>> wastes) about $1 billion yearly,
>>
>>... but then this would imply 3,300,000 circs per year, which
>>seems a bit high. Especially since only about 2,000,000 boys
>>are born in the US each year. That would be a circ rate of
>>165% rather than the 60% claimed by activists on these threads.
> Bah. These idiots are nothing if not self-contradictory.
> Lawrence Wade
pbeavin
Again, Lawrence, I am glad you had the choice and I am glad you are
happy with your choice, but I will say that I would imagine that many
if most of the childhood circs you are talking about are probably
unnecessary. They are the product of medically uneducated parents
being preyed up on by doctors who are unwilling to work with the
parents to solve their son's problem without surgery or of others who
just don't understand what is going on.
I cannot agree that modern clothing has eliminated the need for the
foreskin, in fact I think it has increased the need for the foreskin
to eliminate the abrasion of our clothing against the bare glans of a
circed man. After a few years when you have lost most of the
sensitivity you had prior to your circ, then you will probably wish
you had not had the circ done. I hope this never happens to you but it
seems to be the concenses of men who were circed as adults.
I was circed as an infant and I am now using that roll of 3m tape to
restore my lost foreskin. I am very pleased with the results as is my
wife.
Best of luck to you and out of curiosity, how's my grammar and
punctuation???
Paul
lw...@the-wire.com (Lawrence Wade) wrote:
>In article <01bc784a$208a9f80$LocalHost@default>, pet...@dircon.co.uk says...
>>
>>A question from the other side of the Atlantic, where circumcision these
>>days is relatively uncommon..... as I understand it, a baby boy in the
>>United States is circumcised at birth as routine. How much is the
>>surgeon's fee -- and is this easy money a reason why this unnecessary
>>surgery is performed so unquestioningly?
> I wouldn't call it unneccessary. I think that if you were to _objectively_
John Pritchard
pbeavin wrote:
>
> Again, Lawrence, I am glad you had the choice and I am glad you are
> happy with your choice, but I will say that I would imagine that many
> if most of the childhood circs you are talking about are probably
> unnecessary. They are the product of medically uneducated parents
> being preyed up on by doctors who are unwilling to work with the
> parents to solve their son's problem without surgery or of others who
> just don't understand what is going on.
Circumcision is rarely *necessary* but educated and intelligent parents
can view it as *desirable*.
> I cannot agree that modern clothing has eliminated the need for the
> foreskin, in fact I think it has increased the need for the foreskin
> to eliminate the abrasion of our clothing against the bare glans of a
> circed man. After a few years when you have lost most of the
> sensitivity you had prior to your circ, then you will probably wish
> you had not had the circ done. I hope this never happens to you but it
> seems to be the concenses of men who were circed as adults.
The majority of intact men have some degree of permanent retraction and
since they too will experience some loss of sensitivity, in some cases
to an extent similar to that of a circumcised man, your argument
suggests that some intact conditions are better than others. You should
not generalize about the intact condition since there is no typical
intact condition.
There is nothing to suggest that the glans continues to toughen
endlessly from simple exposure to clothing than does any other part of
the body. Few men have calouses of their kneecaps from their trousers
(and no doubt few men have calouses on their foreskins). The glans
adapts to its enviroment.
Surveys that I have seen indicate that most adults circs are happy with
their condition. Furthermore, a recently widely-published study stated
that circumcised men have fewer problems in middle age.
> I was circed as an infant and I am now using that roll of 3m tape to
> restore my lost foreskin. I am very pleased with the results as is my
> wife.
>
> Best of luck to you and out of curiosity, how's my grammar and
> punctuation???
And the best of luck to you. I hope that your high expectations of the
value of some stretched shaft lacking a frenar band will be met.
> Paul
Lawrence Wade
In article <1997Jun16.1...@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>,
g...@cirp.org.This.blocks.unsolicited.commercial.email says...
>>>
>>> >A question from the other side of the Atlantic, where circumcision these
>>> >days is relatively uncommon..... as I understand it, a baby boy in the
>>> >United States is circumcised at birth as routine. How much is the
>>> >surgeon's fee -- and is this easy money a reason why this unnecessary
>>> >surgery is performed so unquestioningly?
>>
>>> physician for it can be anywhere from over $100 to several hundreds of
>>> dollars. [This does not include the fee charged by the hospital.]
>>> Where I live, one of the large HMO rackets (health maintenance
>>> organizations) was charging a few years ago $148 for any of its
>>> member physicians who do this horrendous and nature-insulting
>>> operation on healthy, normal baby boys. [And the fee charged by the
>>> hospital at that time was the same: another $148.]
>>
>>
>>> wastes) about $1 billion yearly,
>>
>>seems a bit high. Especially since only about 2,000,000 boys
>>are born in the US each year. That would be a circ rate of
>>165% rather than the 60% claimed by activists on these threads.
>
>You also need to factor in the cost of complications, later treatment
>to fix inadequate or botched circumcisions; meatotomies to correct
>the iatrogenic meatal stenosis; the cost of restoration (surgical or
>nonsurgical) for those who do not like being partial genital amputees;
>loss of productivity, psychological illness, and work-time wasted
>bickering on Usenet :-)
Ah, but we're talking about odds almost as high as getting hit by lightning
and winning the State lottery the same day.
And you certainly can't count the cost of 'restoration'. Fishing sinkers and
duct-tape are things that every self-respecting lunatic keeps around the house
for the other cause of the day, like getting fluoride banned from tapwater or
whatever. Gimme a break. That's not a liability of circumcision, that's a
liability of your own poor psychological condition.
As for the loss of productivity and psychological illnesses you consider in
your argument, I think it's fairly safe to say (and most expectant parents who
quietly read this newsgroup will agree with their authorizations) that had you
_not_ been circumcised, your psychological problems would be forced to manifest
themselves in other ways.
Circumcision is, after all, a relatively benign target- any rational person
will see that you're all cracked. But if you _hadn't_ been circumcised, maybe
your illness would manifest itself in an inexplicable need to bludgeon people
who wear yellow socks? Perhaps then, if it weren't for circumcision, you'd be
in an institution somewhere? Yellow-socked people everywhere can breathe a sigh
of relief!
You know, it's interesting to note that some of the most ardent supporters
of routine infant circumcision are urologists- who don't even make any money
off infant circs! Since infant circs are done by obstetricians in most cases,
they're the ones who make the money, and yet urologists endorse the procedure?
Sounds like that's the death-knell of the profit-mongering physician theory!
Lawrence Wade
Peter Rabbit
In article <5o7pm3$lvp$1...@news.the-wire.com>, lw...@the-wire.com (Lawry
Wade) wrote and carried on and insulted people he doesn't even know and
generally acted like a boor:
> And you certainly can't count the cost of 'restoration'. Fishing
sinkers and
>duct-tape are things that every self-respecting lunatic keeps around the house
>for the other cause of the day
Lawrence, 99% of this group, whether pro-circ or anti-circ, really don't
like you. You seem totally unable to post a message without making snide
personal remarks about those whose opinions you don't agree with. You have
absolutely no business making these remarks or the other insults you
constantly hurl or the taunts you toss out with every single post. Why
don't you lay off this garbage. Instead, get back on track and write
reasonably intelligent posts. You have every right to your opinion about
whether or not people of any age are circumcised, but you do NOT have the
right to continually insult people. Your behavior in this respect
certainly doesn't improve the image of your viewpoint.
>
> Circumcision is, after all, a relatively benign target- any rational person
>will see that you're all cracked. But if you _hadn't_ been circumcised, maybe
>your illness would manifest itself in an inexplicable need to bludgeon people
>who wear yellow socks? Perhaps then, if it weren't for circumcision, you'd be
>in an institution somewhere? Yellow-socked people everywhere can breathe a
sigh
>of relief!
From another post:
>>with great eloquence. I would also recommend _How to Raise a Healthy Child_
>>by Lendon Smith.
>
> Isn't it one of those wonderful books that tells mothers they should bleed
>to death at home on the shag carpet in the den when they really should be
>giving birth at the perfectly good hospital down the street?
>
> Please. When we're talking about credible people with medical degrees, not
>ageing hippies who don't know that the '60s are over, maybe I'll stop making
>fun of your sources. Oddly enough, contradictory to your paranoid instincts,
[snip]
>
> You'd make me laugh if your foolishness weren't so dangerous.
God Lawrence, you just don't let up, do you. What drives you into such
psychotic frenzies, anyway? Okay, okay, we ALL know now how you feel about
those posters who don't agree with your position. Now why don't you calm
down and quit your ranting and raving. You are sounding worse than those
you berate and you've definitely shown that you're lower than whaleshit by
your very uneducated tenor.
PR
--
(To reply to my e-mail address, remove "nospam" from the posted address!)
EH Scholl
Lawrence Wade wrote:
> >You are taking into account only the immediate cost of the circumcisions.
> >You also need to factor in the cost of complications, later treatment
> >to fix inadequate or botched circumcisions; meatotomies to correct
> >the iatrogenic meatal stenosis; the cost of restoration (surgical or
> >nonsurgical) for those who do not like being partial genital amputees;
> >loss of productivity, psychological illness, and work-time wasted
> >bickering on Usenet :-)
>
> Ah, but we're talking about odds almost as high as getting hit by lightning
> and winning the State lottery the same day.
You obviously missed some humor... see the :-) up there?
I thought it was funny - the part about bickering... ;^)
> And you certainly can't count the cost of 'restoration'. Fishing sinkers and
> duct-tape are things that every self-respecting lunatic keeps around the house
> for the other cause of the day, like getting fluoride banned from tapwater or
> whatever. Gimme a break. That's not a liability of circumcision, that's a
> liability of your own poor psychological condition.
Or you own wishes to meet you own self body image... after-all, dieting, low fat
foods, liposuction, plastic surgery all have to do with people's own body-image.
Foreskin restoration has a LOT less money sunk into it and certainly fits into the
same type of category.
> As for the loss of productivity and psychological illnesses you consider in
> your argument, I think it's fairly safe to say (and most expectant parents who
> quietly read this newsgroup will agree with their authorizations) that had you
> _not_ been circumcised, your psychological problems would be forced to manifest
> themselves in other ways.
I think of a lot of those problems to also be guilt of a parent who had a son
circumcised with complications that have occurred. Parents who have to take time off
form job to take care of sons going thru corrective surgery for botch jobs, etc. Its
not all just the person himself - sometimes it the parents as well.
Estimates say that as many as 1 in 100 circumcisions have some sort of complication.
That's 1 in 200 new parents having to take care of a sick child who would not
necessarily otherwise be sick (if we take the other 100 children to be female...)
That's no small number.
> Circumcision is, after all, a relatively benign target- any rational person
> will see that you're all cracked. But if you _hadn't_ been circumcised, maybe
> your illness would manifest itself in an inexplicable need to bludgeon people
> who wear yellow socks? Perhaps then, if it weren't for circumcision, you'd be
> in an institution somewhere? Yellow-socked people everywhere can breathe a sigh
> of relief!
You're starting to repeat yourself. I won't even address your rudeness and your need
to insult. Perhaps you yourself are insecure somehow....
It is not benign - like I said, some 1% of all circumcisions have complications.
People are having elective surgery for newborns with a 1% complication rate. I find
that to be absolutely amazing... just mind-boggling....
> Lawrence Wade
Betsy
mercial.email
In article <5o9cbt$dh6$1...@news.ipass.net>,
EH Scholl <scholl@ipass.{ANTI-SPAM}net> wrote:
>Estimates say that as many as 1 in 100 circumcisions have some sort of
>complication. That's 1 in 200 new parents having to take care of a sick
>child who would not necessarily otherwise be sick (if we take the other
>100 children to be female...) That's no small number.
Right, it's not a small number. Anyways, according to Williams and
Kapila (the most definitive study of circumcision complications done so
far), a realistic estimate of the rate of complications is anywhere
from 2% to 10%.
[Complications of Circumcision. Brit J Surg 1993, 80: 1231-1236.]
http://www.cirp.org/CIRP/library/complications/williams-kapila/
(For comparison, this is higher than the rate of urinary tract infections,
that circumcision was supposed to help prevent!)
Lawrence Wade
In article <pop-ya023680001...@news.mindspring.com>,
p...@mindspring.com says...
>
>In article <5o7pm3$lvp$1...@news.the-wire.com>, lw...@the-wire.com (Lawry
>Wade) wrote and carried on and insulted people he doesn't even know and
>generally acted like a boor:
>
>sinkers and
>>duct-tape are things that every self-respecting lunatic keeps around the
house
>
>Lawrence, 99% of this group, whether pro-circ or anti-circ, really don't
>like you. You seem totally unable to post a message without making snide
>personal remarks about those whose opinions you don't agree with. You have
>absolutely no business making these remarks or the other insults you
>constantly hurl or the taunts you toss out with every single post. Why
>don't you lay off this garbage. Instead, get back on track and write
>reasonably intelligent posts. You have every right to your opinion about
>whether or not people of any age are circumcised, but you do NOT have the
>right to continually insult people. Your behavior in this respect
>certainly doesn't improve the image of your viewpoint.
...blah blah blah <snip!>
>God Lawrence, you just don't let up, do you. What drives you into such
>psychotic frenzies, anyway? Okay, okay, we ALL know now how you feel about
>those posters who don't agree with your position. Now why don't you calm
>down and quit your ranting and raving. You are sounding worse than those
>you berate and you've definitely shown that you're lower than whaleshit by
>your very uneducated tenor.
>
>PR
Sure thing, "Peter Rabbit". You're about as credible as the sources you so
cherish.
The Chesire Cat and I are both shocked and disappointed at your lack of
courage and gumption to be able to take me to task with your own _real_ name.
Your comments and opinions are certainly welcomed- that's why *I* don't hide my
real name and e-mail address, nor do I mock others' names as you did mine. I
will read them all and give them the attention they deserve, one by one,
provided the replies are literate enough to merit my time.
Further, agree with my position or not, I *do* strike hard blows at your
arguments and I do say the things other people are afraid to say. I tell people
straight-up and flat out when they're full of shit. And I've discovered that
the anti-circ crowd on the whole doesn't like hard blows being rained down upon
it. Like most card-houses, all you need to do is shake the table a bit and it's
reduced to a pile of laminated cardboard resting on your poker-table. I'd have
hoped you'd at least taped some of the edges together a bit. :) You don't like
me telling you that you're full of shit- because you know you are, on some
level, and the insecurities come streaming back.
I don't dislike anyone here. Aside from this one issue that amuses me so
because some people are so small and pitiful and pathetic that they've devoted
their entire lives to it, I'm sure at least a couple of you carry on worthwhile
existances. Some of you might even be employed! But I don't know you from a
hole in the wall and the only taste of you I've seen is the garbage posted here
by fictional characters from bad children's books and by people who don't know
whether to use "their", "there" or "they're" in a given sentence. I amuse
myself because I know the facts about circumcision- I studied it _objectively_
prior to having it done- and I love the outcome. I know what I'm talking about
better than all of you put together. I've actually had sex with a foreskin and
without. And I love sitting back here and watching you all misinterpret studies
and findings, exaggerate numbers and twist claims to your own agendas. You'd be
as amusing as the ant-farm I had when I was a kid, except your ability to
mobilize troops to a dubious cause is second only to Adolf Hitler's.
Uneducated? I don't think so. Ranting? No- I *do* get several e-mails every
day from people who think that my insight into anti-circ people on the whole is
very amusing and very accurate. Many of them are from expectant parents who
you're alienating with your flat-out wrong statistics. Fine, the spectrum of
human belief is huge and you're still only painting in pastels, but anything
exceeding that is better relegated to supermarket checkout lines, where
Bigfoot and Elvis get into a UFO and ride off into the sunset.
Personal attacks? Is the implication that your group may worship the moon
and keep fishing weights and duct tape around the house a personal attack on
you? I'd bet money at least one of you does- are you so insecure that you
immediately assume the finger to be pointed at you? Wow, maybe you should see
the shrink- more urgently than before.
Lawrence Wade
(See that? My _real_ name- like us adults use.)
Lawrence Wade
In article <5o9cbt$dh6$1...@news.ipass.net>, scholl@ipass.{ANTI-SPAM}net says...
>
>Lawrence Wade wrote:
>> > and work-time wasted
>> >bickering on Usenet :-)
>>
>> Ah, but we're talking about odds almost as high as getting hit by
lightning
>> and winning the State lottery the same day.
>
>You obviously missed some humor... see the :-) up there?
>I thought it was funny - the part about bickering... ;^)
I got it and I did think it was funny. My boss liked it, too. :)
>> And you certainly can't count the cost of 'restoration'. Fishing sinkers
>> and
>> duct-tape are things that every self-respecting lunatic keeps around the >>
house
>> for the other cause of the day, like getting fluoride banned from tapwater
>> or
>> whatever. Gimme a break. That's not a liability of circumcision, that's a
>> liability of your own poor psychological condition.
>
>Or you own wishes to meet you own self body image... after-all, dieting, low
>fat
>foods, liposuction, plastic surgery all have to do with people's own
>body-image.
>Foreskin restoration has a LOT less money sunk into it and certainly fits into
>the
>same type of category.
Sure. And teenage girls starve themselves to death everyday to try to meet
their own self body-image. Karen Carpenter succeeded, Tracy Gold tried really
hard. Again, I don't think these people are arguably psychologically normal, do
you?
>> As for the loss of productivity and psychological illnesses you consider
>> in
>> your argument, I think it's fairly safe to say (and most expectant parents
>> who
>> quietly read this newsgroup will agree with their authorizations) that had
>> you
>> _not_ been circumcised, your psychological problems would be forced to >>
manifest
>> themselves in other ways.
>
>I think of a lot of those problems to also be guilt of a parent who had a son
>circumcised with complications that have occurred. Parents who have to take >
time off
>form job to take care of sons going thru corrective surgery for botch jobs, >
etc. Its
>not all just the person himself - sometimes it the parents as well.
I have nothing but the utmost sympathy and compassion for someone
circumcised poorly. Circumcision is a surgical procedure, and, like anything
else, there is always the possibility that something can go wrong. No doctor is
perfect, and sadly, some poor doctors have been allowed to wield Gomco clamps
over the years. To discard circumcision as a procedure because it has been
performed poorly is akin to throwing out the baby with the bathwater- let's fix
the real problem- getting circumcision no longer seen as a proving ground for
new physicians.
But, in truth, the chances of a circumcision being performed poorly is
rather slim. You'd pretty much have to be drunk with a Mogen clamp in your hand
to do one wrong. That's not to say it doesn't happen- but I think that when the
correct numbers are cited, to all but the most jaded opponent of the practice,
the benefits *do* outweigh the risks.
>Estimates say that as many as 1 in 100 circumcisions have some sort of
> complication.
>That's 1 in 200 new parents having to take care of a sick child who would not
>necessarily otherwise be sick (if we take the other 100 children to be
female...)
>That's no small number.
Even Rosemary Romberg quoted a lower number in her book, "Circumcision: The
Painful Dilemma". (For the uninitiated, that book was published in 1983 and
attempted to impress upon the expectant parent the author's very dim view of
circumcision by regaling one with facts and numbers compiled from no medical
authority. My personal belief is that she sat down with a calculator before
coming up with the number and saying to herself, "That looks good, but will
they believe _that_?". She contradicts her own numbers and findings over 4
times that I've noticed in reading the book.)
The actual chances of complication, including infections caused by
neglectful parents who don't care for the fresh circumcision the way they are
instructed, is actually cited at being closer to 1 in 6500. Maintaining myself
the way *I* should, ie. cleaning myself carefully as part of a rigorous program
of personal hygiene, I suffered balanitis and phimosis each several times, the
phimosis as a kid (and I remember it well, let me tell you) and the balanitis
more recently. Two separate complaints in one lifetime (not trying to count the
recurrances, either)? That'd be tough to do if my chances for complications of
being _uncircumcised_ were only 1 in 6500. What's the square of 6500?
Calculators, anyone?
>> Circumcision is, after all, a relatively benign target- any rational
person
>> will see that you're all cracked. But if you _hadn't_ been circumcised,
maybe
>> your illness would manifest itself in an inexplicable need to bludgeon
people
>> who wear yellow socks? Perhaps then, if it weren't for circumcision, you'd
be
>> in an institution somewhere? Yellow-socked people everywhere can breathe a
sigh
>> of relief!
>
>You're starting to repeat yourself. I won't even address your rudeness and
your need
>to insult. Perhaps you yourself are insecure somehow....
>It is not benign - like I said, some 1% of all circumcisions have
complications.
>People are having elective surgery for newborns with a 1% complication rate.
I find
>that to be absolutely amazing... just mind-boggling....
Like I say, check your sources. I think you'll find the probability a lot
lower than 1% if you check with credible sources within the medical community.
Lawrence Wade
baloo
Lawrence Wade <lw...@the-wire.com> wrote in article
<5oa2lt$a5e$1...@news.the-wire.com>...
> In article <pop-ya023680001...@news.mindspring.com>,
> p...@mindspring.com says...
> >
> >In article <5o7pm3$lvp$1...@news.the-wire.com>, lw...@the-wire.com (Lawry
> >Wade) wrote and carried on and insulted people he doesn't even know and
> >generally acted like a boor:
> >
> >> And you certainly can't count the cost of 'restoration'. Fishing
> >sinkers and
> >>duct-tape are things that every self-respecting lunatic keeps around
the
> house
> >>for the other cause of the day
> >
> >Lawrence, 99% of this group, whether pro-circ or anti-circ, really don't
> >like you. You seem totally unable to post a message without making
snide
> >you berate and you've definitely shown that you're lower than whaleshit
by
> >your very uneducated tenor.
> >
> >PR
>
> Sure thing, "Peter Rabbit". You're about as credible as the sources
you so
> cherish.
>
> The Chesire Cat and I are both shocked and disappointed at your lack
of
> courage and gumption to be able to take me to task with your own _real_
name.
> Your comments and opinions are certainly welcomed- that's why *I* don't
hide my
> real name and e-mail address, nor do I mock others' names as you did
mine. I
> will read them all and give them the attention they deserve, one by one,
> provided the replies are literate enough to merit my time.
>
> Further, agree with my position or not, I *do* strike hard blows at
your
> arguments and I do say the things other people are afraid to say. I tell
people
> straight-up and flat out when they're full of shit. > Lawrence Wade
>
> (See that? My _real_ name- like us adults use.)
I think it's time that we all retreat to our own corners regroup. I for
one don't think that anyone in this group means any real malice except
perhaps one or two people. Those kind of people are easily delt with.
It's called a kill file. I know I subscribe to this group because the
information here is wonderful, the people I have met for the most part are
incredible and possibly make friends with, and the support here is
wonderful.
So as the saying goes, don't let a few bad apples spoil the whole bunch for
the group, just kill file them and be done with it.
Peace and happy pregnancy-
Kyra
"doula"
"peace maker"
"burn patient"
"ding a ling"
mercial.email
In article <5oa4l1$ak0$1...@news.the-wire.com>,
Lawrence Wade <lw...@the-wire.com> wrote of circumcision complications:
>
> Like I say, check your sources. I think you'll find the probability a lot
>lower than 1% if you check with credible sources within the medical community.
>
> Lawrence Wade
Once again, Williams and Kapila is the definitive report on circumcision
complications:
BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY 1993, VOL 80, (OCTOBER): 1231-1236.
"Some authors have reported a complication rate as low as
0.06 per cent[13], while at the other extreme rates of up to
55 per cent[14] have been quoted. This reflects the
differing and varying diagnostic criteria employed; a
realistic figure is 2-10 per cent[3,12,15]. Although
haemorrhage and sepsis are the main causes of morbidity, the
variety of complications is enormous. The literature
abounds with reports of morbidity and even death as a result
of circumcision."
3. Griffiths DM, Atwell JD, Freeman NV. A prospective
study of the indications and morbidity of
circumcision in children.. Eur Urol 1985; 11:184-7
12. Kaplan GW, Complications of Circumcision. Urol Clin
North Am 1983; 10:543-9
13. Speert H. Circumcision of the newborn; an appraisal
of the present status. Obstet Gynecol 1953; 2:164-72.
14. Patel H. The problem of routine infant circumcision.
Can Med Assoc J 1966; 95:576.
15. Fraser JA, Allen MJ, Bagshaw PF, Johnstone M, A
randomised trial to assess childhood circumcision
with the Plastibell device compared to a conventional
dissection technique. Br J Surg 1981; 68: 593-5."
EH Scholl
Lawrence Wade wrote:
>
> In article <5o9cbt$dh6$1...@news.ipass.net>, scholl@ipass.{ANTI-SPAM}net says...
> >> And you certainly can't count the cost of 'restoration'. Fishing sinkers
> >> and
> >> duct-tape are things that every self-respecting lunatic keeps around the >>
> house
> >> for the other cause of the day, like getting fluoride banned from tapwater
> >> or
> >> whatever. Gimme a break. That's not a liability of circumcision, that's a
> >> liability of your own poor psychological condition.
> >
> >Or you own wishes to meet you own self body image... after-all, dieting, low
> >fat
> >foods, liposuction, plastic surgery all have to do with people's own
> >body-image.
> >Foreskin restoration has a LOT less money sunk into it and certainly fits into
> >the
> >same type of category.
>
> Sure. And teenage girls starve themselves to death everyday to try to meet
> their own self body-image. Karen Carpenter succeeded, Tracy Gold tried really
> hard. Again, I don't think these people are arguably psychologically normal, do
> you?
"Normal" is a tricky word - but I would say that it is *unhealthy* to have these problems
with body image etc. However, I know myself that genetics has given me a certain type of
body, and dieting or whatever will get me to a certain point, but as a woman I have hips,
and nothing I do can change that.
However, if I were a man, genetics would also have given me a foreskin - which would have
subsequently been removed by my parents. (I know this because both of my brothers are
circumcised...) Any discrepency I have from my own image versus my mental self-image
would have been avoidable. Its sad that it is not avoided, and those decisions are not
left to adults.
> I have nothing but the utmost sympathy and compassion for someone
> circumcised poorly. Circumcision is a surgical procedure, and, like anything
> else, there is always the possibility that something can go wrong. No doctor is
> perfect, and sadly, some poor doctors have been allowed to wield Gomco clamps
> over the years. To discard circumcision as a procedure because it has been
> performed poorly is akin to throwing out the baby with the bathwater- let's fix
> the real problem- getting circumcision no longer seen as a proving ground for
> new physicians.
See now, this is *much* more effective way of presenting things than the name-calling
etc. =) =) Thank you. I communicate with people better when they talk more calmly. =)
My contention is that if there is a surgical procedure which, as any surgical procedure,
has a posibility of something going wrong, and there is no medical indication for that
surgery and the individual is not able to make the choice himself as to whether or not he
*wants* that elective surgery, it shouldn't be done. If, when he is older, he chooses to
have that surgery, like you did, then that is fine with me (and with most of the
anti-routine-infant-circumcision people). Its a problem, in my eyes, when its done
without the individual's consent.
> But, in truth, the chances of a circumcision being performed poorly is
> rather slim. You'd pretty much have to be drunk with a Mogen clamp in your hand
> to do one wrong. That's not to say it doesn't happen- but I think that when the
> correct numbers are cited, to all but the most jaded opponent of the practice,
> the benefits *do* outweigh the risks.
Which benefits are those? Because medical benefits are under a LOT of question.
If an infant or young child has a problem with recurring UTIs, then perhaps the
surgery should be considered (*perhaps*) just as tonsilectomies are done for people
who tend to have recurring throat infections. The question of benefits outweighing risks
is highly refuted. If it weren't these conversations wouldn't happen to such an extent
as they seem to.
> >Estimates say that as many as 1 in 100 circumcisions have some sort of
> > complication.
> >That's 1 in 200 new parents having to take care of a sick child who would not
> >necessarily otherwise be sick (if we take the other 100 children to be
> female...)
> >That's no small number.
>
> Even Rosemary Romberg quoted a lower number in her book, "Circumcision: The
> Painful Dilemma". (For the uninitiated, that book was published in 1983 and
> attempted to impress upon the expectant parent the author's very dim view of
> circumcision by regaling one with facts and numbers compiled from no medical
> authority. My personal belief is that she sat down with a calculator before
> coming up with the number and saying to herself, "That looks good, but will
> they believe _that_?". She contradicts her own numbers and findings over 4
> times that I've noticed in reading the book.)
The number I got was from a very impartial textbook called "Sexual INteractions" by
Allgeier and Allgeier, 3rd ed. 1991. And actually I quoted the wrong number (which I
admit freely) - I mis-remembered, I guess is the right way to put it. On page 300, they
state:
"The complication rate for circumcision is about 4 percent, which translates into more
than 50,000 complicated circumcisions each year. Hemmorrhage, gengrene, mutilation,
infection and surgical trauma are the most serious complications. (Andolsek, 1990)."
I have typed in a large passage from this book before, and could conceiveably do so
again, though not today - I'm too tired to have to deal with typos and getting flamed for
them ;^)
> The actual chances of complication, including infections caused by
> neglectful parents who don't care for the fresh circumcision the way they are
> instructed, is actually cited at being closer to 1 in 6500. Maintaining myself
> the way *I* should, ie. cleaning myself carefully as part of a rigorous program
> of personal hygiene, I suffered balanitis and phimosis each several times, the
> phimosis as a kid (and I remember it well, let me tell you) and the balanitis
> more recently. Two separate complaints in one lifetime (not trying to count the
> recurrances, either)? That'd be tough to do if my chances for complications of
> being _uncircumcised_ were only 1 in 6500. What's the square of 6500?
> Calculators, anyone?
But you had the option then of having your foreskin removed. People circumcised at birth
do not have the option of having their foreskins put back on. (And, speaking as a
statistician, your method of calculation is wrong... but that's neither here nor
there...)
> Like I say, check your sources. I think you'll find the probability a lot
> lower than 1% if you check with credible sources within the medical community.
As I said above, I double-checked some of my sources, and the one I've found to be most
impartial estimates a 4% risk - higher than I reported.
What it all comes down to, Lawrence, is that a lot (I'd say most, but probably not the
most vocal) of the anti-circumcision people around are not anti-circumcision as a whole,
but instead they are against taking the choice of circumcision away from the individual.
It is not a matter of whether or not a man should have a foreskin, but whether or not a
man should be allowed to CHOOSE to have a foreskin. I happen to think that he should be
allowed to make that choice himself, as you have. That choice is unfortunately taken
from many men. That is where I have the problem.
Now I'd like to take from another of your posts, just to save time and space....
You said:
> I amuse
> myself because I know the facts about circumcision- I studied it _objectively_
> prior to having it done- and I love the outcome. I know what I'm talking about
> better than all of you put together. I've actually had sex with a foreskin and
> without.
Being female, perhaps I should be smug in that I too like to study this issue
_objectively_. I know that the "facts" are hard to state, because a lot of things
concluded as "fact" today are refuted tomorrow or yesterday. I also know what I'm
talking about. As a female I've experienced sex with men who are both circumcised and
not circumcised - and I prefer the latter.
A lot of it is individual preference. Again, I wish the men in this world were given the
opportunity to make that choice themselves.
> Lawrence Wade
Elizabeth H. Scholl - B.S., M.S., Ph.D student.... also not hiding her name, and also not
hiding that she is "carry[ing] on worthwhile existance[]..." (to quote one of your
insults)
Though I've been known to typo and to get grammar and spelling wrong. I study math, not
english.
Hugh Young
>>> And you certainly can't count the cost of 'restoration'. Fishing
>sinkers
actually, specially designed weights, though some use elastic instead.
>>> and
>>> duct-tape
Just for the record, surgical tape. I know he was trying to be funny, but
this thing goes all over the world. We don't all know what duct tape is.
> Sure. And teenage girls starve themselves to death everyday to try to
meet
>their own self body-image.
> Karen Carpenter succeeded, Tracy Gold tried really
>hard.
But they weren't trying to undo what someone else had done to them.
> Again, I don't think these people are arguably psychologically normal, do
>you?
It's psychologically normal to want to cut part of the genitals off babies,
but not to want to get that part back.... Yeah.
>I think it's fairly safe to say (and most expectant parents
>>> who
>>> quietly read this newsgroup will agree with their authorizations) that
had
>>> you
>>> _not_ been circumcised,
Not all of us were.
> I have nothing but the utmost sympathy and compassion for someone
>circumcised poorly. Circumcision is a surgical procedure, and, like anything
>else, there is always the possibility that something can go wrong. No doctor
is
>perfect, and sadly, some poor doctors have been allowed to wield Gomco
clamps
>over the years. To discard circumcision as a procedure because it has been
>performed poorly is akin to throwing out the baby
Except that there is no baby, only bathwater.
> with the bathwater- let's fix
>the real problem- getting circumcision no longer seen as a proving ground
for
>new physicians.
>
> But, in truth, the chances of a circumcision being performed poorly is
>rather slim. You'd pretty much have to be drunk with a Mogen clamp in your
hand
>to do one wrong.
On the contrary (and see below) a baby's penis is a tiny slippery thing, and
the consequences of any tiny slip are greatly magnified 12-14 years later.
> That's not to say it doesn't happen- but I think that when the
>correct numbers are cited, to all but the most jaded opponent of the
practice,
>the benefits *do* outweigh the risks.
>
>>Estimates say that as many as 1 in 100 circumcisions have some sort of
>> complication.
Williams and Kapila (Br J Surg 1993 Vol 80 p1231 ff.) estimate that a
realistic rate of complications from neonatal circumcision ranges from 2% to
10%, but see below.
> The actual chances of complication, including infections caused by
>neglectful parents who don't care for the fresh circumcision the way they
are
>instructed,
Yet circumcision is promoted as "labour-saving"...
> is actually cited
by whom?
> at being closer to 1 in 6500.
That figure is absurdly low.
Maintaining myself
>the way *I* should, ie. cleaning myself carefully as part of a rigorous
program
>of personal hygiene, I suffered balanitis and phimosis each several times,
the
>phimosis as a kid (and I remember it well, let me tell you)
Phimosis is not preventable or treatable by cleaning, but by gentle
stretching and topical cortisone. It is often caused by premature attempts to
retract the foreskin.
> and the balanitis
>more recently. Two separate complaints in one lifetime (not trying to count
the
>recurrances, either)? That'd be tough to do if my chances for complications
of
>being _uncircumcised_ were only 1 in 6500. What's the square of 6500?
>Calculators, anyone?
Lawrence seems to be trying to compare his chances of getting two separate
foreskin-related complaints to having two separate circumcision
complications. This is comparing apples to oranges, especially since his
estimate of the chance is retrospective. The chance of it happening to him is
now 100%, and that could be because he *was* that one person in (his figure)
42,250,000.
>>> Circumcision is, after all, a relatively benign target- any rational
>person
>>> will see that you're all cracked.
Lawrence chose to be circumcised, therefore anybody else who minds that it
was done to them (or babies in general) without asking is "cracked".
> But if you _hadn't_ been circumcised,
>maybe
>>> your illness would manifest itself in an inexplicable need to bludgeon
>people
>>> who wear yellow socks? Perhaps then, if it weren't for circumcision,
you'd
>be
>>> in an institution somewhere? Yellow-socked people everywhere can breathe
a
>sigh
>>> of relief!
Since I wasn't circumcised, by Lawrence's reasoning, they are still in
danger....
>>It is not benign - like I said, some 1% of all circumcisions have
>complications.
>>People are having elective surgery for newborns with a 1% complication
rate.
>I find
>>that to be absolutely amazing... just mind-boggling....
>
> Like I say, check your sources. I think you'll find the probability a lot
>lower than 1% if you check with credible sources within the medical
community.
Depending what you mean by complications. Many do not manifest themselves
until puberty. The penises' owners may not know that their problems are due
to circumcision, and even if they take them to doctors, the complications do
not get sheeted back into the statistics. Skin-bridges, suture-holes,
skin-tags and the others may not actually prevent sex, and the doctors may
tell the men there is nothing the matter with them.
--
Hugh Young, Pukerua Bay, Nuclear-free Aotearoa / NEW ZEALAND
whomsoever
lw...@the-wire.com (Lawrence Wade) wrote:
>In article <pop-ya023680001...@news.mindspring.com>,
>p...@mindspring.com says...
>>
>>In article <5o7pm3$lvp$1...@news.the-wire.com>, lw...@the-wire.com (Lawry
>>Wade) wrote and carried on and insulted people he doesn't even know and
>>generally acted like a boor:
>>
>>> And you certainly can't count the cost of 'restoration'. Fishing
>>sinkers and
>>>duct-tape are things that every self-respecting lunatic keeps around the
>house
>>>for the other cause of the day
>>
>>Lawrence, 99% of this group, whether pro-circ or anti-circ, really don't
>>like you. You seem totally unable to post a message without making snide
>>personal remarks about those whose opinions you don't agree with. You have
>>absolutely no business making these remarks or the other insults you
>>constantly hurl or the taunts you toss out with every single post. Why
>>don't you lay off this garbage. Instead, get back on track and write
>>reasonably intelligent posts. You have every right to your opinion about
>>whether or not people of any age are circumcised, but you do NOT have the
>>right to continually insult people. Your behavior in this respect
>>certainly doesn't improve the image of your viewpoint.
> ...blah blah blah <snip!>
>>God Lawrence, you just don't let up, do you. What drives you into such
>>psychotic frenzies, anyway? Okay, okay, we ALL know now how you feel about
>>those posters who don't agree with your position. Now why don't you calm
>>down and quit your ranting and raving. You are sounding worse than those
>>you berate and you've definitely shown that you're lower than whaleshit by
>>your very uneducated tenor.
>>
>>PR
> Sure thing, "Peter Rabbit". You're about as credible as the sources you so
>cherish.
> The Chesire Cat and I are both shocked and disappointed at your lack of
>courage and gumption to be able to take me to task with your own _real_ name.
>Your comments and opinions are certainly welcomed- that's why *I* don't hide my
>real name and e-mail address, nor do I mock others' names as you did mine. I
>will read them all and give them the attention they deserve, one by one,
>provided the replies are literate enough to merit my time.
> Further, agree with my position or not, I *do* strike hard blows at your
>arguments and I do say the things other people are afraid to say. I tell people
>straight-up and flat out when they're full of shit. And I've discovered that
>the anti-circ crowd on the whole doesn't like hard blows being rained down upon
>it. Like most card-houses, all you need to do is shake the table a bit and it's
>reduced to a pile of laminated cardboard resting on your poker-table. I'd have
>hoped you'd at least taped some of the edges together a bit. :) You don't like
>me telling you that you're full of shit- because you know you are, on some
>level, and the insecurities come streaming back.
> I don't dislike anyone here. Aside from this one issue that amuses me so
>because some people are so small and pitiful and pathetic that they've devoted
>their entire lives to it, I'm sure at least a couple of you carry on worthwhile
>existances. Some of you might even be employed! But I don't know you from a
>hole in the wall and the only taste of you I've seen is the garbage posted here
>by fictional characters from bad children's books and by people who don't know
>whether to use "their", "there" or "they're" in a given sentence. I amuse
>myself because I know the facts about circumcision- I studied it _objectively_
>prior to having it done- and I love the outcome. I know what I'm talking about
>better than all of you put together. I've actually had sex with a foreskin and
>without. And I love sitting back here and watching you all misinterpret studies
>and findings, exaggerate numbers and twist claims to your own agendas. You'd be
>as amusing as the ant-farm I had when I was a kid, except your ability to
>mobilize troops to a dubious cause is second only to Adolf Hitler's.
It seems that you dislike everyone Lawrence, probably even yourself. I
find you amazing, tedious, odious, and angry but always somewhat
surprising. Tell me, are you so disappointed in your circumcision that
you have to urge others to have the same thing done for revenge.
> Uneducated? I don't think so. Ranting? No- I *do* get several e-mails every
>day from people who think that my insight into anti-circ people on the whole is
>very amusing and very accurate. Many of them are from expectant parents who
>you're alienating with your flat-out wrong statistics. Fine, the spectrum of
>human belief is huge and you're still only painting in pastels, but anything
>exceeding that is better relegated to supermarket checkout lines, where
>Bigfoot and Elvis get into a UFO and ride off into the sunset.
> Personal attacks? Is the implication that your group may worship the moon
>and keep fishing weights and duct tape around the house a personal attack on
>you? I'd bet money at least one of you does- are you so insecure that you
>immediately assume the finger to be pointed at you? Wow, maybe you should see
>the shrink- more urgently than before.
Yes, I do have duct tape and fishing weights around my house. I enjoy
fishing and I use duct tape for many reasons but I don't use either
for restoring.
whomsoever
Thank you for writing this response to Lawrence. I have started so
many times to write but did not and I could not have written so
eloquent a post as you have.
Thank you again.
p...@mindspring.com (Peter Rabbit) wrote:
>In article <5o7pm3$lvp$1...@news.the-wire.com>, lw...@the-wire.com (Lawry
>Wade) wrote and carried on and insulted people he doesn't even know and
>generally acted like a boor:
>> And you certainly can't count the cost of 'restoration'. Fishing
>sinkers and
>>duct-tape are things that every self-respecting lunatic keeps around the house
>>for the other cause of the day
>Lawrence, 99% of this group, whether pro-circ or anti-circ, really don't
>like you. You seem totally unable to post a message without making snide
>personal remarks about those whose opinions you don't agree with. You have
>absolutely no business making these remarks or the other insults you
>constantly hurl or the taunts you toss out with every single post. Why
>don't you lay off this garbage. Instead, get back on track and write
>reasonably intelligent posts. You have every right to your opinion about
>whether or not people of any age are circumcised, but you do NOT have the
>right to continually insult people. Your behavior in this respect
>certainly doesn't improve the image of your viewpoint.
>>
>> Circumcision is, after all, a relatively benign target- any rational person
>>will see that you're all cracked. But if you _hadn't_ been circumcised, maybe
>>your illness would manifest itself in an inexplicable need to bludgeon people
>>who wear yellow socks? Perhaps then, if it weren't for circumcision, you'd be
>>in an institution somewhere? Yellow-socked people everywhere can breathe a
>sigh
>>of relief!
>From another post:
>>>with great eloquence. I would also recommend _How to Raise a Healthy Child_
>>>by Lendon Smith.
>>
>> Isn't it one of those wonderful books that tells mothers they should bleed
>>to death at home on the shag carpet in the den when they really should be
>>giving birth at the perfectly good hospital down the street?
>>
>> Please. When we're talking about credible people with medical degrees, not
>>ageing hippies who don't know that the '60s are over, maybe I'll stop making
>>fun of your sources. Oddly enough, contradictory to your paranoid instincts,
>[snip]
>>
>> You'd make me laugh if your foolishness weren't so dangerous.
>God Lawrence, you just don't let up, do you. What drives you into such
>psychotic frenzies, anyway? Okay, okay, we ALL know now how you feel about
>those posters who don't agree with your position. Now why don't you calm
>down and quit your ranting and raving. You are sounding worse than those
>you berate and you've definitely shown that you're lower than whaleshit by
>your very uneducated tenor.
>PR
>--
whomsoever
"baloo" <ky...@mindless.com> wrote:
>Lawrence Wade <lw...@the-wire.com> wrote in article
><5oa2lt$a5e$1...@news.the-wire.com>...
>> In article <pop-ya023680001...@news.mindspring.com>,
>> p...@mindspring.com says...
>> >
>> >In article <5o7pm3$lvp$1...@news.the-wire.com>, lw...@the-wire.com (Lawry
>> >Wade) wrote and carried on and insulted people he doesn't even know and
>> >generally acted like a boor:
>> >
>> >> And you certainly can't count the cost of 'restoration'. Fishing
>> >sinkers and
>> >>duct-tape are things that every self-respecting lunatic keeps around
>the
>> house
>> >>for the other cause of the day
>> >
>> >Lawrence, 99% of this group, whether pro-circ or anti-circ, really don't
>> >like you. You seem totally unable to post a message without making
>snide
>> >you berate and you've definitely shown that you're lower than whaleshit
>by
>> >your very uneducated tenor.
>> >
>> >PR
>>
>> Sure thing, "Peter Rabbit". You're about as credible as the sources
>you so
>> cherish.
>>
>> The Chesire Cat and I are both shocked and disappointed at your lack
>of
>> courage and gumption to be able to take me to task with your own _real_
>name.
>> Your comments and opinions are certainly welcomed- that's why *I* don't
>hide my
>> real name and e-mail address, nor do I mock others' names as you did
>mine. I
>> will read them all and give them the attention they deserve, one by one,
>> provided the replies are literate enough to merit my time.
>>
>> Further, agree with my position or not, I *do* strike hard blows at
>your
>> arguments and I do say the things other people are afraid to say. I tell
>people
>> straight-up and flat out when they're full of shit. > Lawrence Wade
>>
>> (See that? My _real_ name- like us adults use.)
>I think it's time that we all retreat to our own corners regroup. I for
>one don't think that anyone in this group means any real malice except
>perhaps one or two people. Those kind of people are easily delt with.
>It's called a kill file. I know I subscribe to this group because the
>information here is wonderful, the people I have met for the most part are
>incredible and possibly make friends with, and the support here is
>wonderful.
Thank you for these comments, I for one plead guilty to being one of
those who has sucumbed to the anger and the hatred posted so often
lately. I will try to ignore some of these posters.
>So as the saying goes, don't let a few bad apples spoil the whole bunch for
>the group, just kill file them and be done with it.
Good luck to you.
Paul
whomsoever
John Pritchard <jpri...@escape.ca> wrote:
>pbeavin wrote:
>>
>> Again, Lawrence, I am glad you had the choice and I am glad you are
>> happy with your choice, but I will say that I would imagine that many
>> if most of the childhood circs you are talking about are probably
>> unnecessary. They are the product of medically uneducated parents
>> being preyed up on by doctors who are unwilling to work with the
>> parents to solve their son's problem without surgery or of others who
>> just don't understand what is going on.
>Circumcision is rarely *necessary* but educated and intelligent parents
>can view it as *desirable*.
Then I think the question is whether or not they are truly educated
and intelligent. I find the lack of kno wledge about any subject to
indicate a lack of eduction, not stupidity but uneducated.
>> I cannot agree that modern clothing has eliminated the need for the
>> foreskin, in fact I think it has increased the need for the foreskin
>> to eliminate the abrasion of our clothing against the bare glans of a
>> circed man. After a few years when you have lost most of the
>> sensitivity you had prior to your circ, then you will probably wish
>> you had not had the circ done. I hope this never happens to you but it
>> seems to be the concenses of men who were circed as adults.
>The majority of intact men have some degree of permanent retraction and
>since they too will experience some loss of sensitivity, in some cases
>to an extent similar to that of a circumcised man, your argument
>suggests that some intact conditions are better than others. You should
>not generalize about the intact condition since there is no typical
>intact condition.
You are correct in that not all uncut men look the same but I can't
determine how you make me out to say that some intact conditions are
better than others. I did not intend to generalize only to make a
comment.
>There is nothing to suggest that the glans continues to toughen
>endlessly from simple exposure to clothing than does any other part of
>the body. Few men have calouses of their kneecaps from their trousers
>(and no doubt few men have calouses on their foreskins). The glans
>adapts to its enviroment.
I have to differ with you on this. Constant abrasion tends to toughen
skin and once you get used to it you don't feel it anymore. I think
the experiences of men who have lost all sensation in their glans
tends to negate your argument. Perhaps I don't have calouses on my
kneecaps but the skin is far thicker and less sensitive than when I
was a child. And as to your last argument, yes the glans does adapt -
it becomes tougher and less sensitive.
>Surveys that I have seen indicate that most adults circs are happy with
>their condition. Furthermore, a recently widely-published study stated
>that circumcised men have fewer problems in middle age.
Most of the men I have talked with who were circed as adults are most
unhappy with their condition. Granted I have not done a survey but am
only going on the conversations I have had. I have not seen the
"recently widely-published" study you mention so perhaps it is not so
"widely-published" as you want us to believe.
>
>> I was circed as an infant and I am now using that roll of 3m tape to
>> restore my lost foreskin. I am very pleased with the results as is my
>> wife.
>>
>> Best of luck to you and out of curiosity, how's my grammar and
>> punctuation???
>And the best of luck to you. I hope that your high expectations of the
>value of some stretched shaft lacking a frenar band will be met.
Truthfully I am able half way to my goal and my expections are being
met every day. I doubt lacking a frenar band is going to make a lot of
difference to me since the changes are already incredible.
By the way you did not comment on my grammar and punctuation? Surely I
did not write a perfect letter?
Paul
>
>> Paul
Lawrence Wade
In article <2e20kgp6...@young.wn.planet.gen.nz>,
hu...@young.wn.planet.gen.nz says...
>
>In <5oa4l1$ak0$1...@news.the-wire.com> lw...@the-wire.com (Lawrence Wade) wrote:
>> Sure. And teenage girls starve themselves to death everyday to try to
>meet
>>their own self body-image.
>> Karen Carpenter succeeded, Tracy Gold tried really
>>hard.
>But they weren't trying to undo what someone else had done to them.
True. But again, the point that you're missing is that the benefits of
circumcision outweigh the risks. I can't make it any simpler than that. If you
did your research with reliable and accurate (read: scientific) sources and
were capable of amassing and processing the information without the distortions
that your own emotions have wrought, you would clearly see that.
I still am convinced that the issue is not one of circumcision, it's a
variety of psychological problems, exhibited in such a manner as to use
circumcision as a scapegoat.
Your views aren't relevant because they're borne of penis envy and
unpredictable emotion rather than cold, hard facts.
>> Again, I don't think these people are arguably psychologically normal, do
>>you?
>It's psychologically normal to want to cut part of the genitals off babies,
>but not to want to get that part back.... Yeah.
I was talking about anorexics. But, for that matter, yup. If someone had cut
off your glans or your testicles, I'd be rallying right along with you, since
they actually do something besides causing problems.
You're like the guy standing at the side of the road, admiring the Chevy
Vega going by, demanding that someone give you one. You never had one, so they
must be a great car, right? The truth of the matter is that GM built an
aluminum block engine with ductile iron piston rings and wondered why all the
world screamed that they knew nothing about metallurgy. The foreskin is every
bit as frustrating and troublesome as that oil-burning Vega.
>>I think it's fairly safe to say (and most expectant parents
>>>> who
>>>> quietly read this newsgroup will agree with their authorizations) that
>had
>>>> you
>>>> _not_ been circumcised,
>Not all of us were.
Okay. Well, if you're not circumcised, the way to mend your problems is
easy: Go to the drugstore and buy a roll of 3M Micropore tape. 1" width,
non-waterproof variety. Wash down your foreskin, inside and outside. Allow it
to dry. Then use a 1.5" piece of tape, about a 1/4" back from the glans, stick
it to the inner foreskin. Pull your outer foreskin forward and tape it so that
you have your inner and outer foreskin taped together at about the middle of
the 1.5" length of tape. This is best done with an erection, BTW. Do this every
day for a month whenever you get out of the shower. Stick with it, the first
few days will be itchy, but by the end of the month you'll prefer your new
state- I guarantee it. And when you're done the end of the month, release the
foreskin and watch it slide back over the keratinized surface of the glans.
Relax, the surface will turn back to its smooth, wet state within a few weeks.
Your only committment is tape and time and you can find out pretty accurately
what it's like to be circumcised.
>> I have nothing but the utmost sympathy and compassion for someone
>>circumcised poorly. Circumcision is a surgical procedure, and, like anything
>>else, there is always the possibility that something can go wrong. No doctor
>is
>>perfect, and sadly, some poor doctors have been allowed to wield Gomco
>clamps
>>over the years. To discard circumcision as a procedure because it has been
>>performed poorly is akin to throwing out the baby
>Except that there is no baby, only bathwater.
Which is why it's become coomonplace in virtually all developped nations.
Right. Did you know that Canada has socialized medicine? The doctors are paid
annual salaries by their province. They make no money from advocating
circumcision, and yet they do continue to advocate it. What's up there?
Conspiracy? You wish.
>> with the bathwater- let's fix
>>the real problem- getting circumcision no longer seen as a proving ground
>for
>>new physicians.
>>
>> But, in truth, the chances of a circumcision being performed poorly is
>>rather slim. You'd pretty much have to be drunk with a Mogen clamp in your
>hand
>>to do one wrong.
>On the contrary (and see below) a baby's penis is a tiny slippery thing, and
>the consequences of any tiny slip are greatly magnified 12-14 years later.
I know how small a baby's penis is. That's not a big deal for a good
physician, one who can sew back together arteries and other damage.
Circumcision remains one of the simplest procedures in any surgeon's
vocabulary; I would argue again that if the physician is competant, that's an
irrelevant issue. Circumcision isn't the problem, unskilled physicians are.
>> That's not to say it doesn't happen- but I think that when the
>>correct numbers are cited, to all but the most jaded opponent of the
>practice,
>>the benefits *do* outweigh the risks.
>>
>>>Estimates say that as many as 1 in 100 circumcisions have some sort of
>>> complication.
>Williams and Kapila (Br J Surg 1993 Vol 80 p1231 ff.) estimate that a
>realistic rate of complications from neonatal circumcision ranges from 2% to
>10%, but see below.
Like I say, even Rosemary Romberg (of "Circumcision: a painful dilemma")
quotes lower numbers in her dubiously-researched book.
Besides, the Williams study considers keratinization of the glans to be a
complication. That should blow them out of the water right there. And I dare
you to challenge me that a kertartinized glans is less sensitive to sexual
stimulation than an unkertatinized glans.
>> The actual chances of complication, including infections caused by
>>neglectful parents who don't care for the fresh circumcision the way they
>are
>>instructed,
>Yet circumcision is promoted as "labour-saving"...
It's hard enough to get a 4-year-old into a bathtub, let alone wash under
his foreskin (assuming the adhesional layer is already broken). The
consequence of not washing is phimosis. Trust me, that's really not fun- I've
experienced that first-hand as a child.
>> is actually cited
>by whom?
>> at being closer to 1 in 6500.
>That figure is absurdly low.
And your figures are absurdly high.
Burns and Walters study, 1994. Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons in
Ottawa, Canada has a very comprehensive list of studies on the subject.
> Maintaining myself
>>the way *I* should, ie. cleaning myself carefully as part of a rigorous
>program
>>of personal hygiene, I suffered balanitis and phimosis each several times,
>the
>>phimosis as a kid (and I remember it well, let me tell you)
>Phimosis is not preventable or treatable by cleaning, but by gentle
>stretching and topical cortisone. It is often caused by premature attempts to
>retract the foreskin.
The foreskin had already separated from the glans. That happened about the
age of 5 years. No, phimosis is caused by the general difficulties in getting a
child to wash himself.
If the foreskin is retracted every day and both it and the glans are washed
daily, phimosis will not be given a chance to bond the two tissues. And the
gentle stretching is excruciating.
>> and the balanitis
>>more recently. Two separate complaints in one lifetime (not trying to count
>the
>>recurrances, either)? That'd be tough to do if my chances for complications
>of
>>being _uncircumcised_ were only 1 in 6500. What's the square of 6500?
>>Calculators, anyone?
>Lawrence seems to be trying to compare his chances of getting two separate
>foreskin-related complaints to having two separate circumcision
>complications. This is comparing apples to oranges, especially since his
>estimate of the chance is retrospective. The chance of it happening to him is
>now 100%, and that could be because he *was* that one person in (his figure)
>42,250,000.
Sure. That's the point. Was I that one person in 42,000,000? Unlikely. I
think you're starting to get the picture. I think we're starting to get some
basic probabilities through to you! So the conclusion you can draw from this
is,
If the chance of a complication of circumcision is 1:6500 (the _accepted_
number, by the way, not the one you use to scare parents, then,
-chances of having one problem directly related to circumcision is 1 in
6,500;
-chances of having two different problems directly related to circumcision
is 1 in 42,000,000 (6,500^2).
Given that I had two separate problems with my foreskin and that I've never
yet won a lottery, perhaps it's safe to say that it's unlikely for me to be the
one in 42,000,000- the number must be a lot higher than that, because if the
complications of foreskin are as rare as the complications of circumcision, I'm
going to go out and invest my retirement savings in lottery tickets since about
4 of my 9 or so uncircumcised friends have had problems. The odds of that are
astronomical, unless my point that the risks of foreskin are a lot greater than
the risks of circumcision is proven.
>>>> Circumcision is, after all, a relatively benign target- any rational
>>person
>>>> will see that you're all cracked.
>Lawrence chose to be circumcised, therefore anybody else who minds that it
>was done to them (or babies in general) without asking is "cracked".
Nope. In fact, if I was circumcised at birth, I'm sure I'd research it the
way you did. Sadly, you didn't choose the right people to believe- mostly
because you refuse to be rational about this.
>>>It is not benign - like I said, some 1% of all circumcisions have
>>complications.
>>>People are having elective surgery for newborns with a 1% complication
>rate.
>>I find
>>>that to be absolutely amazing... just mind-boggling....
>>
>> Like I say, check your sources. I think you'll find the probability a lot
>>lower than 1% if you check with credible sources within the medical
>>community.
>
>Depending what you mean by complications. Many do not manifest themselves
>until puberty. The penises' owners may not know that their problems are due
>to circumcision, and even if they take them to doctors, the complications do
>not get sheeted back into the statistics. Skin-bridges, suture-holes,
>skin-tags and the others may not actually prevent sex, and the doctors may
>tell the men there is nothing the matter with them.
Skin bridges and suture-holes and skin-tags are not the fault of
circumcision. They are the faults of an incompetant physician, as are
hypospadias and lost glans and lacerations and the like. Again, I think you'd
find that any competant doctor would submit that information to their surveying
bodies (they would here) and that would be tallied as part of the statistics.
Lawrence Wade
EH Scholl
Lawrence Wade wrote:
> True. But again, the point that you're missing is that the benefits of
> circumcision outweigh the risks. I can't make it any simpler than that. If you
> did your research with reliable and accurate (read: scientific) sources and
> were capable of amassing and processing the information without the distortions
> that your own emotions have wrought, you would clearly see that.
Equally reliable and accurate sources have said that the benefits do not outweigh the
risks and that parents should be fully informed of both sides of the issue. I'm
sorry you had a bad experience, and it seems to have made emotional distortions for
yourself.
> I still am convinced that the issue is not one of circumcision, it's a
> variety of psychological problems, exhibited in such a manner as to use
> circumcision as a scapegoat.
Again - at times I agree with you. At times I do not.... like boys who lose their
glans. This type of problem can be prevented by not circumcising at birth. Your
problems of phimosis and balanitis could also be solved by circumcising later in
life, if you so choose (as you did). So what's the problem with waiting?
> Your views aren't relevant because they're borne of penis envy and
> unpredictable emotion rather than cold, hard facts.
How could Hugh have penis envy? Hugh - you and I often disagree - but I was always
under the impression you had a penis - an uncircumcised one, at that!
And again this sounds like the pot calling the kettle black, to use a phrase. The
facts and *scientific* results are very contradictory. You seem to only want to
listen to the ones that support your claims. Perhaps it is your emotions that are
getting in the way - especially since you did have painful problems with your penile
status.
However, I will not call your views irrelevant. Everyone's views on such a
complicated and at times emotionally-charged subject are relevant, and the fact that
you dismiss the opinions of those who disagree with you out of hand makes me wonder
why I'm even bothering to type this. Your mind seems to be closed on the issue. Why
are you even here?
> I was talking about anorexics. But, for that matter, yup. If someone had cut
> off your glans or your testicles, I'd be rallying right along with you, since
> they actually do something besides causing problems.
Foreskins do something besides causing problems as well. They are full of
nerve-endings, they help keep the penis moist and soft, they aid in intercourse,
masturbation, mutual masturbation, oral sex, and probably more sexual acts I can't
think of off the top of my head. They increase the surface-area of the penis, also
aiding in stimulation. They protect the glans from - well, lots of things (including
bug-bites, and potential toaster tragedies, as described by someone about a month
ago...) They are a part of the natural genetic make-up of the human body, yet for
some reason Americans have this uncontrollable urge to chop them off babies.
> You're like the guy standing at the side of the road, admiring the Chevy
> Vega going by, demanding that someone give you one. You never had one, so they
> must be a great car, right? The truth of the matter is that GM built an
> aluminum block engine with ductile iron piston rings and wondered why all the
> world screamed that they knew nothing about metallurgy. The foreskin is every
> bit as frustrating and troublesome as that oil-burning Vega.
For you it was. For millions of men it is not.
Not to mention this is a very odd analogy. Someone could buy a Toyota and it would
still function as well (if not better) than the GM. A person cannot, however, get
back a body part that was removed from him in infancy - and any sort of attempts at
"restoration" will not provide the same functionality as two cars might.
> Okay. Well, if you're not circumcised, the way to mend your problems is
> easy: Go to the drugstore and buy a roll of 3M Micropore tape. 1" width,
> non-waterproof variety. Wash down your foreskin, inside and outside. Allow it
> to dry. Then use a 1.5" piece of tape, about a 1/4" back from the glans, stick
> it to the inner foreskin. Pull your outer foreskin forward and tape it so that
> you have your inner and outer foreskin taped together at about the middle of
> the 1.5" length of tape. This is best done with an erection, BTW. Do this every
> day for a month whenever you get out of the shower. Stick with it, the first
> few days will be itchy, but by the end of the month you'll prefer your new
> state- I guarantee it. And when you're done the end of the month, release the
> foreskin and watch it slide back over the keratinized surface of the glans.
> Relax, the surface will turn back to its smooth, wet state within a few weeks.
> Your only committment is tape and time and you can find out pretty accurately
> what it's like to be circumcised.
Hugh doesn't feel he has a problem. He likes being uncircumcised. It was you who
had the problem - and you who had the choice as to how to treat or fix it. Wouldn't
it be nice if everyone had the opportunity to see if they'd have a problem in the
first place (because most don't) and then had the choice as to how to go about
solving it?
> Which is why it's become coomonplace in virtually all developped nations.
> Right. Did you know that Canada has socialized medicine? The doctors are paid
> annual salaries by their province. They make no money from advocating
> circumcision, and yet they do continue to advocate it. What's up there?
> Conspiracy? You wish.
Did you know that Canada no longer recommends routine infant circumcision? Did you
know that the only developed nation where it is commonplace is the US. It is not
common in the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, basically most/all of Europe... it
is not common in Japan, China, nor most of Asia. It is not common in South America.
Which nations did you mean by "virtually all developed nations"?
> I know how small a baby's penis is. That's not a big deal for a good
> physician, one who can sew back together arteries and other damage.
> Circumcision remains one of the simplest procedures in any surgeon's
> vocabulary; I would argue again that if the physician is competant, that's an
> irrelevant issue. Circumcision isn't the problem, unskilled physicians are.
Yes - and physicians are not trained to do circumcisions for the most part... maybe a
1-day topic, if that, on it in med school. Also arteries do not squirm and cry and
fuss and move around. Pateints who have arteries worked on do so either
voluntarily or because it is a matter of life-and-death, and all are asleep when
that surgery is done. Whether or not a surgeon is supposed to be able to
circumcise easily, evidence shows that often the surgeon does not. So the problem is
that babies are being unnecessarily harmed for no apparent benefit. Again, if
problems arise later, circumcision can always be done later - when the individual has
a choice about their penile status and can find a competent doctor.
> Like I say, even Rosemary Romberg (of "Circumcision: a painful dilemma")
> quotes lower numbers in her dubiously-researched book.
Why are you mentioning her if he research is dubious? What about others whose
research isn't quite so dubious?
> Besides, the Williams study considers keratinization of the glans to be a
> complication. That should blow them out of the water right there. And I dare
> you to challenge me that a kertartinized glans is less sensitive to sexual
> stimulation than an unkertatinized glans.
Some men who have been circumcised later in life have asserted just this.
As I've said before, the mucosal covering on the glans of a penis (which is NOT skin,
by the way) is similar to the skin of the lip, inside and outside. The outer lip is
'keratinized' just as the glans of a circumcised penis would be. It is also, at
least in my case, less sensitive than the skin just inside the lip, which has been
protected and kept warm and moist by my mouth... this is probably the most analogous
comparison I've heard yet to the glans of the penis.
> It's hard enough to get a 4-year-old into a bathtub, let alone wash under
> his foreskin (assuming the adhesional layer is already broken). The
> consequence of not washing is phimosis. Trust me, that's really not fun- I've
> experienced that first-hand as a child.
And I'm sorry you've had to experience that - and I'm glad you had an option to do
something about it. That option was not taken from you.
However, that was you who did not want to wash, and it was you who developed
phimosis. It is not, by any means, the majority of men.
> And your figures are absurdly high.
As compared to things you've read and believe. Many things I've read have cited this
same 2%-10% complication rate, without counting keratinization as a complication.
(Though many do cite tight-skined problems, including bowing of the penis, and
over-sensitivity to movement of penile shaft skin as problems. Having had a love who
had the latter, it can indeed be a problem...)
> Burns and Walters study, 1994. Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons in
> Ottawa, Canada has a very comprehensive list of studies on the subject.
Could you give a more complete citation please? I would like to look this one up.
> The foreskin had already separated from the glans. That happened about the
> age of 5 years. No, phimosis is caused by the general difficulties in getting a
> child to wash himself.
It can happen as early as 5 - it can happen as late as puberty. Problems arise when
parents try to force it back before it should retract naturally.
Phimosis can be caused in various ways - including poor hygene.
> If the foreskin is retracted every day and both it and the glans are washed
> daily, phimosis will not be given a chance to bond the two tissues. And the
> gentle stretching is excruciating.
You speak here as though 'phimosis' is a material or something.... phimosis is the
problem. And again this was caused by poor hygene - which was a problem you had. If
proper hygene is taught and practiced, then almost all problems can be prevented.
Its a 2-minute procedure which could have prevented your pain - both physical and
psychological. I'm sorry you had to suffer so much. But that does not mean what was
right for you is right for everyone.
Also the stretching can be less painful if the problem is noticed early enough.
Perhaps your phimosis had developed to the point where stretching alone was not
enough. Were steroids used to help you?
> Sure. That's the point. Was I that one person in 42,000,000? Unlikely. I
> think you're starting to get the picture. I think we're starting to get some
> basic probabilities through to you! So the conclusion you can draw from this
> is,
Again - you're doing your math wrong - so this whole argument is pointless.
Especially since there's probably a large correlation between people who have
balanitis also having phimosis.
[snip]
> Nope. In fact, if I was circumcised at birth, I'm sure I'd research it the
> way you did. Sadly, you didn't choose the right people to believe- mostly
> because you refuse to be rational about this.
I feel a lot of us are being very rational - the problem you seem to have is that we
just don't agree with you. The VAST amounts of literature are conflicting.
How would you know who the "right" people are versus the "wrong" people? Is most of
the world "wrong" because most of the world does not circumcise their baby boys out
of habit?
> Skin bridges and suture-holes and skin-tags are not the fault of
> circumcision. They are the faults of an incompetant physician, as are
> hypospadias and lost glans and lacerations and the like. Again, I think you'd
> find that any competant doctor would submit that information to their surveying
> bodies (they would here) and that would be tallied as part of the statistics.
But they would not happen if circumcision didn't happen, no? And since there are so
many apparently incompetent physicians out there, why take chances with the health of
an otherwise healthy young baby boy? I know I would never elect to have unecessary
surgery on any newborn child of mine, male or female.
> Lawrence WadeBetsy Scholl
whomsoever
lw...@the-wire.com (Lawrence Wade) wrote:
>In article <2e20kgp6...@young.wn.planet.gen.nz>,
>hu...@young.wn.planet.gen.nz says...
>>
>>In <5oa4l1$ak0$1...@news.the-wire.com> lw...@the-wire.com (Lawrence Wade) wrote:
>>> Sure. And teenage girls starve themselves to death everyday to try to
>>meet
>>>their own self body-image.
>>> Karen Carpenter succeeded, Tracy Gold tried really
>>>hard.
>>But they weren't trying to undo what someone else had done to them.
> True. But again, the point that you're missing is that the benefits of
>circumcision outweigh the risks. I can't make it any simpler than that. If you
>did your research with reliable and accurate (read: scientific) sources and
>were capable of amassing and processing the information without the distortions
>that your own emotions have wrought, you would clearly see that.
This comment is not born out by research by competent researchers. In
fact in most competently done research there is minimal statistical
diffference between circs and non-circs. You, Lawrence, are a fine one
to accuse someone else of distoring facts and information with their
emotions. You are definitely allowing your emotions to distort
everything you write.
> I still am convinced that the issue is not one of circumcision, it's a
>variety of psychological problems, exhibited in such a manner as to use
>circumcision as a scapegoat.
I am convinced that the issue is one of choice. My parents had me
circed as an infant and I spent much of the early weeks of my life
being treated for the complications, so much so that all my life I
have suffered with "White Coat Syndrome", which now evidences itself
as high blood pressure when I see anyone in a white medical uniform or
even if I just know that they are medical personnal, but when I was
little is was a general fear of anyone connected with medicine.
> Your views aren't relevant because they're borne of penis envy and
>unpredictable emotion rather than cold, hard facts.
Your views are so couched in your anger and hatred of all that don't
agree with you that yours cannot be considered relevant.
>>> Again, I don't think these people are arguably psychologically normal, do
>>>you?
Extremely so, much more than you are.
Why would anyone prefer being uncomfortable and why would anyone want
to loose the sensitivity in their glans? This is probably the worst
side effect of circ - the loss of sensation in the glans. It basically
renders one impotent as the years go by.
>>> I have nothing but the utmost sympathy and compassion for someone
>>>circumcised poorly. Circumcision is a surgical procedure, and, like anything
>>>else, there is always the possibility that something can go wrong. No doctor
>>is
>>>perfect, and sadly, some poor doctors have been allowed to wield Gomco
>>clamps
>>>over the years. To discard circumcision as a procedure because it has been
>>>performed poorly is akin to throwing out the baby
>>Except that there is no baby, only bathwater.
> Which is why it's become coomonplace in virtually all developped nations.
>Right. Did you know that Canada has socialized medicine? The doctors are paid
>annual salaries by their province. They make no money from advocating
>circumcision, and yet they do continue to advocate it. What's up there?
>Conspiracy? You wish.
I suppose you mean that Canada and the USA are the only developed
nations because they are the only ones that routinely perform
circumcision? I guess the nations of Western Europe will be happy to
hear that they are un-developed.
>>> with the bathwater- let's fix
>>>the real problem- getting circumcision no longer seen as a proving ground
>>for
>>>new physicians.
>>>
>>> But, in truth, the chances of a circumcision being performed poorly is
>>>rather slim. You'd pretty much have to be drunk with a Mogen clamp in your
>>hand
The number of improperly done circs is much higher than believed since
many of the problems are passed off as something else. The number of
deaths is much higher than reported because the babies usually die of
complications which are listed as the cause of death. Any time you do
something for teh first time you are more likely to make mistakes and
you don't have to be drunk. From personal experience I know that
interns and residents are given far less guidance and support than
needed and they are on their own without supervision far more than
most of us would like to think.
>>>to do one wrong.
>>On the contrary (and see below) a baby's penis is a tiny slippery thing, and
>>the consequences of any tiny slip are greatly magnified 12-14 years later.
> I know how small a baby's penis is. That's not a big deal for a good
>physician, one who can sew back together arteries and other damage.
>Circumcision remains one of the simplest procedures in any surgeon's
>vocabulary; I would argue again that if the physician is competant, that's an
>irrelevant issue. Circumcision isn't the problem, unskilled physicians are.
There is no such thing as a simple surgery. All surgery is a major
event since you are invading someone's body and it is easy to slip or
make another mistake. Just because you can sew together arteries or
repair damage is not a good reason to do damage to a person's body.
>>> That's not to say it doesn't happen- but I think that when the
>>>correct numbers are cited, to all but the most jaded opponent of the
>>practice,
>>>the benefits *do* outweigh the risks.
VERY UNLIKELY. THERE ARE TOO MANY RISKS TO ANY SURGERY TO JUST WAVE IT
OFF LIKE YOU ARE DOING.
>>>
>>>>Estimates say that as many as 1 in 100 circumcisions have some sort of
>>>> complication.
This is only the reported complications. As noticed in the news with
the young lady who found out she had been born a boy, but was made a
girl to hide a botched circ the results of the botching are enormous.
>>Williams and Kapila (Br J Surg 1993 Vol 80 p1231 ff.) estimate that a
>>realistic rate of complications from neonatal circumcision ranges from 2% to
>>10%, but see below.
> Like I say, even Rosemary Romberg (of "Circumcision: a painful dilemma")
>quotes lower numbers in her dubiously-researched book.
> Besides, the Williams study considers keratinization of the glans to be a
>complication. That should blow them out of the water right there. And I dare
>you to challenge me that a kertartinized glans is less sensitive to sexual
>stimulation than an unkertatinized glans.
From personal experience I can vouch for this statement.
>>> The actual chances of complication, including infections caused by
>>>neglectful parents who don't care for the fresh circumcision the way they
>>are
>>>instructed,
>>Yet circumcision is promoted as "labour-saving"...
> It's hard enough to get a 4-year-old into a bathtub, let alone wash under
>his foreskin (assuming the adhesional layer is already broken). The
>consequence of not washing is phimosis. Trust me, that's really not fun- I've
>experienced that first-hand as a child.
With a 4 year old you just put them in the tub and give them a bath.
You should be in charge not them. Your phimosis was not caused by poor
hygiene and circumcision was not the only way to correct it.
>>> is actually cited
>>by whom?
>>> at being closer to 1 in 6500.
>>That figure is absurdly low.
> And your figures are absurdly high.
> Burns and Walters study, 1994. Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons in
>Ottawa, Canada has a very comprehensive list of studies on the subject.
>> Maintaining myself
>>>the way *I* should, ie. cleaning myself carefully as part of a rigorous
>>program
>>>of personal hygiene, I suffered balanitis and phimosis each several times,
>>the
>>>phimosis as a kid (and I remember it well, let me tell you)
>>Phimosis is not preventable or treatable by cleaning, but by gentle
>>stretching and topical cortisone. It is often caused by premature attempts to
>>retract the foreskin.
> The foreskin had already separated from the glans. That happened about the
>age of 5 years. No, phimosis is caused by the general difficulties in getting a
>child to wash himself.
You, Lawrence, are always touting your intellegence and knowledge then
you make such an absurd statement as this.
I suspect that Lawrence either resents having to be circed, in his
opinion or is so unhappy with his present condition that he wishes
others to have to share the same unhappy condition.
> Nope. In fact, if I was circumcised at birth, I'm sure I'd research it the
>way you did. Sadly, you didn't choose the right people to believe- mostly
>because you refuse to be rational about this.
.
>>>>It is not benign - like I said, some 1% of all circumcisions have
>>>complications.
>>>>People are having elective surgery for newborns with a 1% complication
>>rate.
>>>I find
>>>>that to be absolutely amazing... just mind-boggling....
>>>
>>> Like I say, check your sources. I think you'll find the probability a lot
>>>lower than 1% if you check with credible sources within the medical
>>>community.
I would expect it to be higher than 1%. I think any surgery has a
higher percentage of complications than this, even if it is cutting
off a wart.
>>
>>Depending what you mean by complications. Many do not manifest themselves
>>until puberty. The penises' owners may not know that their problems are due
>>to circumcision, and even if they take them to doctors, the complications do
>>not get sheeted back into the statistics. Skin-bridges, suture-holes,
>>skin-tags and the others may not actually prevent sex, and the doctors may
>>tell the men there is nothing the matter with them.
> Skin bridges and suture-holes and skin-tags are not the fault of
>circumcision. They are the faults of an incompetant physician, as are
>hypospadias and lost glans and lacerations and the like. Again, I think you'd
>find that any competant doctor would submit that information to their surveying
>bodies (they would here) and that would be tallied as part of the statistics.
Not likely, because that would mean that the doctor or some other
doctor make a mistake and doctors are notorious about protecting their
own, regardless of how incompetent they are. It is almost impossible
for a doctor to loose his license via action of another doctor. Only
lawyers are more protective of their own.
> Lawrence Wade
Lawrence, I wish you the best in your unhappy existence but I wish you
would not force yourself on others so vigorously.
Paul, my real name for your information.
mercial.email
In article <5oi575$bv7$1...@news.the-wire.com>,
Lawrence Wade <lw...@the-wire.com> wrote:
> Okay. Well, if you're not circumcised, the way to mend your problems is
>easy: Go to the drugstore and buy a roll of 3M Micropore tape. 1" width,
>non-waterproof variety. Wash down your foreskin, inside and outside. Allow it
>to dry. Then use a 1.5" piece of tape, about a 1/4" back from the glans,
>stick it to the inner foreskin. Pull your outer foreskin forward and tape it
>so that you have your inner and outer foreskin taped together at about the
>middle of the 1.5" length of tape. This is best done with an erection, BTW.
>Do this every day for a month whenever you get out of the shower. Stick with
>it, the first few days will be itchy, but by the end of the month you'll
>prefer your new state- I guarantee it. And when you're done the end of the
>month, release the foreskin and watch it slide back over the keratinized
>surface of the glans. Relax, the surface will turn back to its smooth, wet
>state within a few weeks. Your only committment is tape and time and you
>can find out pretty accurately what it's like to be circumcised.
OUch.. Why on earth would anybody want to do that. You will lose the
fine sensitivity of the glans. It is supposed to be protected from the
elements in order to function best during sexual intercourse. That is
one reason Nature gave Man a foreskin in the first place.
Rick Pikul
{Followups trimmed.}
In article <5oi575$bv7$1...@news.the-wire.com>,
lw...@the-wire.com (Lawrence Wade) wrote:
{Foomph...}
>
> Which is why it's become coomonplace in virtually all developped nations.
>Right. Did you know that Canada has socialized medicine? The doctors are paid
>annual salaries by their province. They make no money from advocating
>circumcision, and yet they do continue to advocate it. What's up there?
>Conspiracy? You wish.
Wrong, in most provinces doctors are paid based on how many procedures
they do. Do try to get your fact right.
{Foomph...}
Phoenix, FALH
Vernon Quaintance
<g...@cirp.org.This.blocks.unsolicited.com> wrote regarding trying the
effects of circumcision with only some sticky tape:
> OUch.. Why on earth would anybody want to do that. You will lose the
> fine sensitivity of the glans. It is supposed to be protected from the
> elements in order to function best during sexual intercourse. That is
> one reason Nature gave Man a foreskin in the first place.
>
> g.
If the glans needs to be protected in order to function properly during
sexual intercourse why is it that Nature gives so many men such a short
foreskin that no more than half of the glans is covered when flaccid?
It is quite clear from the wide range of lengths of the 'natural'
foreskin, and hence the wide range of 'natural' cover of the glans, that
the presence or absence of foreskin cover is totally irrelevant to the
proper functioning of the penis during sexual intercourse.
--
Vernon Quaintance
mercial.email
In article <1997062600...@vt02-124.pool.dircon.co.uk>,
Vernon Quaintance <ver...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
><g...@cirp.org.This.blocks.spam.com> wrote regarding trying the
False conclusion. Even the shortest foreskin covers the corona (rim)
of the glans, which is the part that has the greatest contact with
the wall of the vagina. Furthermore, even the shortest foreskin keeps
its inner mucosa moist and protected (including the frenulum and
Taylor's ridged bands, nestled cosily there inside).
Furthermore, your statement that "Nature gives so many men such a short
foreskin..." is meaningless, without specific data (mean and standard
deviation for foreskin length, and the number of men so afflicted).
Xj...@aol.com
Well, Vern, here is another area where you exhibit your extreme
ignorance on the subject. Most of the men that you mention with short
foreskins that do not cover the glans even when flaccid, had their
foreskins separated from the glans neonatally by drawing a blunt probe
around the glans and under the foreskin. This is done by forcibly
tearing the foreskin from the glans until there is room to shove the
probe into the as yet unseparated area (the syneschia) and separate the
two tissues so that the mother may begin to draw back and clean the
area. As I advised you a few days ago, in infant males this is about as
necessary as douching infant girls.
At any rate, this separation causes a looseness in the foreskin that
ultimately results in a short and sometimes almost undefinable prepuce.
Stop practicing medicine without a license.
You're just an old quack with a circumcision fetish.
Hugh Young
In <5olv9r$i1k...@hubbard.uwaterloo.ca> RWP...@SCIENCE2.uwaterloo.ca (Rick
Pikul) wrote:
>
> {Followups trimmed.}
>
>In article <5oi575$bv7$1...@news.the-wire.com>,
> lw...@the-wire.com (Lawrence Wade) wrote:
>
> {Foomph...}
>
>>
>> Which is why it's become coomonplace in virtually all developped
nations.
On the contrary, it is now commonplace only in the US and in Jewish, Muslim
and tribal countries.
>>Right. Did you know that Canada has socialized medicine? The doctors are
paid
>>annual salaries by their province. They make no money from advocating
>>circumcision, and yet they do continue to advocate it. What's up there?
>>Conspiracy? You wish.
>
> Wrong, in most provinces doctors are paid based on how many
procedures
>they do. Do try to get your fact right.
>
> {Foomph...}
>
>
> Phoenix, FALH
But whatever the truth of the above claims, the rates in Canada have
plummetted:
Compare these numbers from Health Canada and the
respective Ministries of Health:
Quebec neonatal circumcision rates:
1971 31.2%
1972 30.0
1973 29.5
1974 25.8
1975 22.1
1976 16.5
1977 13.0
1978 9.8
1979 7.9
1980 7.1
1981 5.7
1982 5.7
1983 5.8
1984 6.4
1985 6.2
1986 5.3
1987 2.7
British Columbia neonatal circumcision rates:
1971 n/a
1972 n/a
1973 n/a
1974 n/a
1975 54.1%
1976 58.0
1977 46.0
1978 44.5
1979 42.8
1980 39.8
1981 37.5
1982 36.5
1983 35.6
1st half of 1984 36.10%
2nd half of 1984 00.38%
1985 0.35
1986 0.43
1987 0.33
Note that on July 1, 1984, BC stopped paying for routine infant circumcision.
You can see the powerful effect that economics played in changing the
circumcision landscape in British Columbia. The same has happened in
Alberta, Yukon, and other Canadian provinces as well.
Paul
ver...@dircon.co.uk (Vernon Quaintance) wrote:
><g...@cirp.org.This.blocks.unsolicited.com> wrote regarding trying the
>effects of circumcision with only some sticky tape:
>> OUch.. Why on earth would anybody want to do that. You will lose the
>> fine sensitivity of the glans. It is supposed to be protected from the
>> elements in order to function best during sexual intercourse. That is
>> one reason Nature gave Man a foreskin in the first place.
>>
>> g.
>If the glans needs to be protected in order to function properly during
>sexual intercourse why is it that Nature gives so many men such a short
>foreskin that no more than half of the glans is covered when flaccid?
There is a lot of variance throughout Nature and everything Nature
does is not the best or the most appropriate, nor does everything
Nature does survive. A certain proportion of all births are malformed
and don't survive. So one could not expect every man to look the same
and I for one would be most disappointed if everyone looked like me!
>It is quite clear from the wide range of lengths of the 'natural'
>foreskin, and hence the wide range of 'natural' cover of the glans, that
>the presence or absence of foreskin cover is totally irrelevant to the
>proper functioning of the penis during sexual intercourse.
If I were a Vulcan from the Star Trek series my comment would of
course be, "this is most illogical" but I am not. I am a human male in
the late 20th century but I still say that this is a most illogical
statement. This is like saying that every man should be 6 feet tall in
order to be normal or that red hair is abnormal. You should really
think out your arguments a bit more before making such illogical
statements.
Good to make your aquaintenance, Vernon, I have heard much about you
and now I understand much of what I have heard.
I am Sith, also known as Paul
>--
>Vernon Quaintance
Paul
ver...@dircon.co.uk (Vernon Quaintance) wrote:
><g...@cirp.org.This.blocks.unsolicited.com> wrote regarding trying the
>effects of circumcision with only some sticky tape:
>> OUch.. Why on earth would anybody want to do that. You will lose the
>> fine sensitivity of the glans. It is supposed to be protected from the
>> elements in order to function best during sexual intercourse. That is
>> one reason Nature gave Man a foreskin in the first place.
>>
>> g.
>If the glans needs to be protected in order to function properly during
>sexual intercourse why is it that Nature gives so many men such a short
>foreskin that no more than half of the glans is covered when flaccid?
Does this marvelously brilliant bit of knowledge mean that we should
be shocked that some men are taller than others, heavier than others,
hairier than others, thinner or fatter than others???? I personally
don't know anyone who is exactly like me. I don't even know anyone who
is mostly like me.
If I were a Star Trek Vulcan I could not tell you that your logic
stinks because a Star Trek Vulcan would not be that impolite but since
I am not I will tell you that your comments are about the lousiest
logic I have ever had the misfortune to read anyplace. Most 12 year
olds have enough knowledge about the world to NOT make such an
illogical statement.
Fortunately everyone is different because if we weren't it would be a
very boring world. Each man's foreskin is as individudual as each
man's hair, his teeth, his eyes, everything that makes him a man. I
like it that way and I hope it stays that way. I like being an
individual and I enjoy meeting other individuals.
>It is quite clear from the wide range of lengths of the 'natural'
>foreskin, and hence the wide range of 'natural' cover of the glans, that
>the presence or absence of foreskin cover is totally irrelevant to the
>proper functioning of the penis during sexual intercourse.
From personal experience having been circed as an infant and being in
the process of restoring my foreskin, I can tell you that that
statement is utter garbage. Restoring one's foreskin is a major
decision and if is not easy but if it weren't worth it, we who are
doing it would soon quit. The number of men who are restoring, give
the lie to your comments.
I apologize to all for being so longwinded.
I am Sith,also known as Paul
>--
>Vernon Quaintance
John Pritchard
In article <5p1kvt$s...@chronicle.concentric.net>, pbe...@concentric.net
(Paul) wrote:
> ver...@dircon.co.uk (Vernon Quaintance) wrote:
>
> ><g...@cirp.org.This.blocks.unsolicited.com> wrote regarding trying the
> >effects of circumcision with only some sticky tape:
>
>snipped
Your disagreeing with them does not make Vernon Quaintances comments
garbage. You simply disagree with them.
Yes, everyone is different. That is the point. Since no two are alike, it
is difficult to generalize regarding the function or value of the
foreskin.
In the final analysis, the glans does not REQUIRE the protection of the
foreskin nor is such protection necessarily even desirable. The penis can
provide its primary funtions of procreation and urination without a
foreskin and the lack of one may actually improve the sexual experience.
You find restoring to be rewarding. I, and it seems from surveys, most
adult circs find the sexual experience improved after circumcision.
So while the comment regarding procreation and urination cannot by
seriously denied, the effect of circumcision upon sexual experience is a
matter or perception and opinion.
John P
>
>
> >--
> >Vernon Quaintance
>
> >ver...@dircon.co.uk
Paul
jpri...@escape.ca (John Pritchard) wrote:
Garbage is garbage and his comments are very illogical. Just because
someone is different does not lead to a knowledge of which is better.
It may be better for one but not for another.
>Yes, everyone is different. That is the point. Since no two are alike, it
>is difficult to generalize regarding the function or value of the
>foreskin.
Even you are supporting my argument and voiding his.
>In the final analysis, the glans does not REQUIRE the protection of the
>foreskin nor is such protection necessarily even desirable. The penis can
>provide its primary funtions of procreation and urination without a
>foreskin and the lack of one may actually improve the sexual experience.
I have to disagree with you on this. As one who lost almost all
sensitivity in a covered glans and has seen it return since I began to
keep my glans covered with my partially restored foreskin, I can
fromexperience state that this is definitely not true.
Yes the penis can provide it's primary functions or procreation and
urination without a foreskin but this is not the crux of the
discussion. And the lack of a foreskin may improve the sexual
experience but I for one doubt that the improvement will last for
long. As the skin of your glans thickens and dries you will loose more
and more sensitivity and soon the sexual experience will be lessened,
so much so that it could become too much work to be worth the effort.
>You find restoring to be rewarding. I, and it seems from surveys, most
>adult circs find the sexual experience improved after circumcision.
I find the use of un-scientificly managed surveys to be a waste of
time. I would like to see a well done survey and then have this
discussion. Obviously you are looking at a survey of people who wanted
to be circed for reasons other than medical reasons and I am looking
at surveys of people who are unhappy with the fact that they were
circed as infants or small children without consideration of their
wishes or their future. Neither of these surveys is in any way valid
in a scientific sense.
>So while the comment regarding procreation and urination cannot by
>seriously denied, the effect of circumcision upon sexual experience is a
>matter or perception and opinion.
That can only be settled by a well done survey. Of course some people
look upon circumcision, their own and others, as a sexual experience.
In many tribal cultures, circumcision both malel and female is a
coming of age rite and therefore a sexual experience.
Glad you wrote, John, it is nice to have a good discussion.
Paul
D. C. Sessions
Geoffrey T. Falk wrote:
>
> In article <33A474...@primenet.com>,
> D. C. Sessions <sess...@primenet.com> wrote:
> >Stan wrote:
> >>
> >> On 13 Jun 1997 21:52:28 GMT, "peterd" <pet...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >A question from the other side of the Atlantic, where circumcision these
> >> >days is relatively uncommon..... as I understand it, a baby boy in the
> >> >United States is circumcised at birth as routine. How much is the
> >> >surgeon's fee -- and is this easy money a reason why this unnecessary
> >> >surgery is performed so unquestioningly?
> >
> >> The fee for infant circumcision surgery varies in the US. The fee of a
> >> physician for it can be anywhere from over $100 to several hundreds of
> >> dollars. [This does not include the fee charged by the hospital.]
> >> Where I live, one of the large HMO rackets (health maintenance
> >> organizations) was charging a few years ago $148 for any of its
> >> member physicians who do this horrendous and nature-insulting
> >> operation on healthy, normal baby boys. [And the fee charged by the
> >> hospital at that time was the same: another $148.]
> >
> >OK, that's a hair under $300; a bit high but not impossible.
> >
> >> Though this sexual mutilation racket here in the US brings in (or
> >> wastes) about $1 billion yearly,
> >
> >... but then this would imply 3,300,000 circs per year, which
> >seems a bit high. Especially since only about 2,000,000 boys
> >are born in the US each year. That would be a circ rate of
> >165% rather than the 60% claimed by activists on these threads.
>
> You are taking into account only the immediate cost of the circumcisions.
> You also need to factor in the cost of complications, later treatment
> to fix inadequate or botched circumcisions; meatotomies to correct
> the iatrogenic meatal stenosis; the cost of restoration (surgical or
> nonsurgical) for those who do not like being partial genital amputees;
So let's make sure we're still playing with the same Hollerith
deck: $300x60%x2E6 = $360E6 ($360 million annually). The
remaining 64% of the quoted $1E9 is made up by guesswork?
This closely resembles the famous mathematical proof where
the next-to-last-step is "and here a miracle occurs."
Somewhat more quantitatively, it would help if (yup, here
it comes again) these oft-cited 'complications' were broken
down quantitatively, rather than lumping together everything
from minor postsurgical inflammation to amputation. We do
recognize that it detracts from the polemical utility of
"5% complications, including death" when one discloses that
the majority of 'complications' are treated successfully
with nothing more than Bacitracin; still, $640E6 divided
by (5%x60%x2E5) is an average of over $10,000 per
'complication'. Sanity check time.
> loss of productivity, psychological illness, and work-time wasted
> bickering on Usenet :-)
Oh! Well, THAT is quite another matter. Maybe $1E9 is
an underestimation after all.
> A new cost/benefit analysis by Dr. Robert Van Howe (pending publication),
> for the US alone, yields a figure in close accordance with the $1 billion
> quoted above.
An appeal to the authority of an unpublished paper? How often
do we run across these in Usenet? (About weekly, if you read
the groups under assault by MLM "health food" sales agents;
they LOVE to cite the conclusive studies proving the wonders
of their goodies, which are going to be published Real Soon Now.)
--
D. C. & M. V. Sessions
sess...@primenet.com
http://www.primenet.com/~sessions under construction
D. C. Sessions
Geoffrey T. Falk wrote:
>
> In article <5oa4l1$ak0$1...@news.the-wire.com>,
> Lawrence Wade <lw...@the-wire.com> wrote of circumcision complications:
> >
> > Like I say, check your sources. I think you'll find the probability a lot
> >lower than 1% if you check with credible sources within the medical community.
> >
> > Lawrence Wade
>
> complications:
>
> BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY 1993, VOL 80, (OCTOBER): 1231-1236.
>
> "Some authors have reported a complication rate as low as
> 0.06 per cent[13], while at the other extreme rates of up to
> 55 per cent[14] have been quoted. This reflects the
> differing and varying diagnostic criteria employed; a
> realistic figure is 2-10 per cent[3,12,15]. Although
> haemorrhage and sepsis are the main causes of morbidity, the
> variety of complications is enormous. The literature
> abounds with reports of morbidity and even death as a result
> of circumcision."
Still waiting for that quantitative breakdown. The continued
silence on the matter suggests that the truth might be less
useful polemically than juxtaposing "2-10%" with "death."
D. C. Sessions
EH Scholl wrote:
>
> Lawrence Wade wrote:
> > As for the loss of productivity and psychological illnesses you consider in
> > your argument, I think it's fairly safe to say (and most expectant parents who
> > quietly read this newsgroup will agree with their authorizations) that had you
> > _not_ been circumcised, your psychological problems would be forced to manifest
> > themselves in other ways.
>
> I think of a lot of those problems to also be guilt of a parent who had a son
> circumcised with complications that have occurred. Parents who have to take time off
> form job to take care of sons going thru corrective surgery for botch jobs, etc. Its
> not all just the person himself - sometimes it the parents as well.
>
> Estimates say that as many as 1 in 100 circumcisions have some sort of complication.
------------------------------------------------------------^^^^^^^^^
> That's 1 in 200 new parents having to take care of a sick child who would not
> necessarily otherwise be sick (if we take the other 100 children to be female...)
> That's no small number.
Reaching a bit, aren't we? Just how many parents with a week-old
baby are already back to work, and of those how many would stay
home to put Bacitracin on an inflamed circ (instead of just
Vaseline as with an uninflamed circ)? Our babysitters were
quite able to handle common diapering issues (Desitin for rash,
Lotrimin for yeast, things like that) without needing us to
stay home for it.
D. C. Sessions
Eric Boyd wrote:
> In article <33a2d188...@news.itis.com>, eme...@fitis.com wrote:
> Interesting point. In two cases courts have rules that parents cannot
> compell their children to donate organs. These cases are being cited as
> precedents in a circumcision case in California. More complete info on this
> case can be found in the NOCIRC homepage.
The relevance of this is (to be generous) less than obvious.
Eric Boyd
> Eric Boyd wrote:
> > In article <33a2d188...@news.itis.com>, eme...@fitis.com wrote:
>
> > Interesting point. In two cases courts have rules that parents cannot
> > compell their children to donate organs. These cases are being cited as
> > precedents in a circumcision case in California. More complete info on this
> > case can be found in the NOCIRC homepage.
>
> The relevance of this is (to be generous) less than obvious.
> D. C. & M. V. Sessions
Did you read the full info on the court case? The lawyers are trying to argue
that parents have the authority to consent to medical procedures that treat
some definable problem. They cannot compell children to undergo procedures
for the benefit of others, or for any other reason than medical treatment of
a condition recognized as a disease or defect.
Being male is not defect. It does not require surgical correction.
-seric
Hugh Young
>jpri...@escape.ca (John Pritchard) wrote:
>>In the final analysis, the glans does not REQUIRE the protection of the
>>foreskin
This is true.
> nor is such protection necessarily even desirable.
Juxtaposing "necessarily" and "desirable" creates a logical tangle. *Nothing*
is necessarily desirable because desire and necessity are two different
things.
> The penis can
>>provide its primary funtions of procreation and urination without a
>>foreskin
As any woman can tall you, one can urinate without a penis, and as many
lesbians can tell you, one can also procreate without a penis. So let's make
infant penectomy as routine as infant circumcision. (It would absolutely
eliminate the possibility of penile cancer, balanitis, meatitis, phimosis,
paraphimosis ....) It should at least be the parents' choice. I can see the
articles now: "The Penectomy Decision" "To Cut or Not to Cut" etc. "Opponents
of penectomy claim .... but medical studies show...."
> and the lack of one may actually improve the sexual experience.
Yes, and many people with HIV find a renewed purpose to their lives....
D. C. Sessions
Eric Boyd wrote:
>
> In article <33B6C8...@primenet.com>, sess...@primenet.com wrote:
> > Eric Boyd wrote:
> > > In article <33a2d188...@news.itis.com>, eme...@fitis.com wrote:
> >
> > > Interesting point. In two cases courts have rules that parents cannot
> > > compell their children to donate organs. These cases are being cited as
> > > precedents in a circumcision case in California. More complete info on this
> > > case can be found in the NOCIRC homepage.
> >
> > The relevance of this is (to be generous) less than obvious.
>
> that parents have the authority to consent to medical procedures that treat
> some definable problem. They cannot compell children to undergo procedures
> for the benefit of others, or for any other reason than medical treatment of
> a condition recognized as a disease or defect.
In other words, they're proposing that the Court create
an entirely new legal principle on it's own authority
and without reference to legislation of any kind. The
fact that somebody has PRESENTED something this harebrained
to a court is hardly remarkable. We'll start to pay serious
attention if the Court actually supports them.
Several times in recent years anti-circ posters have
trumpeted the authority of obscure lawyers' writings
as though they actually meant anything. It's almost as
silly presenting an untried case in the same way.
--
D. C. & M. V. Sessions
Eric Boyd
> Eric Boyd wrote:
> > Did you read the full info on the court case? The lawyers are trying
to argue
> > that parents have the authority to consent to medical procedures that treat
> > some definable problem. They cannot compell children to undergo procedures
> > for the benefit of others, or for any other reason than medical treatment of
> > a condition recognized as a disease or defect.
>
> In other words, they're proposing that the Court create
> an entirely new legal principle on it's own authority
> and without reference to legislation of any kind. The
> fact that somebody has PRESENTED something this harebrained
> to a court is hardly remarkable. We'll start to pay serious
> attention if the Court actually supports them.
The judges didn't find the precedent cases harebrained. They agreed that a
parent could not compell a child to donate an organ, or consent to any
procedure which was not for the benefit of the child. The real question,
which you havn't addressed, is whether or not these cases have any
relevance to the case at hand. I think they do.
-seric
John Pritchard
In article <1d38jha6...@young.wn.planet.gen.nz>,
hu...@young.wn.planet.gen.nz wrote:
> In <5p5urj$n...@chronicle.concentric.net> pbe...@concentric.net (Paul) wrote:
>
> >jpri...@escape.ca (John Pritchard) wrote:
>
> >>In the final analysis, the glans does not REQUIRE the protection of the
> >>foreskin
> This is true.
>
> > nor is such protection necessarily even desirable.
> Juxtaposing "necessarily" and "desirable" creates a logical tangle. *Nothing*
> is necessarily desirable because desire and necessity are two different
> things.
Let's not quibble. It is never necessary to have a foreskin. It is not
always desirable to have a foreskin.
> > The penis can
> >>provide its primary funtions of procreation and urination without a
> >>foreskin
>
> As any woman can tall you, one can urinate without a penis, and as many
> lesbians can tell you, one can also procreate without a penis.
I did not say that a penis was necessary for urination. I said that
circumcision does not affect the function of urination for the male.
Of course females can urinate without a penis. But they must squat or sit
to do so. Men, on the other hand, can pee standing up which is very handy
when one is fishin' in the middle of a lake and I think that that is the
reason why fishin' is more popular among men than it is among women.
Yes, lesbians, or any woman, can procreate without the use of a penis. I
have read that in the future a general male population will be unnecessary
and cease to exist. Procreation will be carried on from sperm produced by
a small group of captive males - really little more that sperm machines.
To be one of those captive males! Would that be heaven or hell? Think
about it.
> So let's make
> infant penectomy as routine as infant circumcision. (It would absolutely
> eliminate the possibility of penile cancer, balanitis, meatitis, phimosis,
> paraphimosis ....) It should at least be the parents' choice. I can see the
> articles now: "The Penectomy Decision" "To Cut or Not to Cut" etc. "Opponents
> of penectomy claim .... but medical studies show...."
Frankly, I think that would be going a little bit too far. But if you want
to champion the idea, go ahead. I see a big difference between cutting off
the foreskin and cutting off the whole penis.
> > and the lack of one may actually improve the sexual experience.
> Yes, and many people with HIV find a renewed purpose to their lives....
>
Studies indicate that male circumcision reduces the possiblity of HIV
transmission from infected female to uninfected male.
How do you figure that enjoying sex in itself promotes HIV transmission?
Paul
jpri...@escape.ca (John Pritchard) wrote:
>In article <1d38jha6...@young.wn.planet.gen.nz>,
>hu...@young.wn.planet.gen.nz wrote:
>> In <5p5urj$n...@chronicle.concentric.net> pbe...@concentric.net (Paul) wrote:
>>
>> >jpri...@escape.ca (John Pritchard) wrote:
>>
>> >>In the final analysis, the glans does not REQUIRE the protection of the
>> >>foreskin
>> This is true.
>>
>> > nor is such protection necessarily even desirable.
>> Juxtaposing "necessarily" and "desirable" creates a logical tangle. *Nothing*
>> is necessarily desirable because desire and necessity are two different
>> things.
>Let's not quibble. It is never necessary to have a foreskin. It is not
>always desirable to have a foreskin.
It is desirable to have the choice of whether or not to have a
foreskin. Your statement is, as usual for you, self-serving and offers
little.
>> > The penis can
>> >>provide its primary funtions of procreation and urination without a
>> >>foreskin
>>
>> As any woman can tall you, one can urinate without a penis, and as many
>> lesbians can tell you, one can also procreate without a penis.
>I did not say that a penis was necessary for urination. I said that
>circumcision does not affect the function of urination for the male.
>Of course females can urinate without a penis. But they must squat or sit
>to do so. Men, on the other hand, can pee standing up which is very handy
>when one is fishin' in the middle of a lake and I think that that is the
>reason why fishin' is more popular among men than it is among women.
>Yes, lesbians, or any woman, can procreate without the use of a penis. I
>have read that in the future a general male population will be unnecessary
>and cease to exist. Procreation will be carried on from sperm produced by
>a small group of captive males - really little more that sperm machines.
>To be one of those captive males! Would that be heaven or hell? Think
>about it.
Any competent physicial will tell you that sperm produced during
masturbation and sperm produced during the sex act are different. It
is one of the reasons that artificial insemination is so hard to
achieve. Having a small group of captive males and no others could
signal the end of the human race, if we don't kill ourselves off
first.
Paul
>> So let's make
>> infant penectomy as routine as infant circumcision. (It would absolutely
>> eliminate the possibility of penile cancer, balanitis, meatitis, phimosis,
>> paraphimosis ....) It should at least be the parents' choice. I can see the
>> articles now: "The Penectomy Decision" "To Cut or Not to Cut" etc. "Opponents
>> of penectomy claim .... but medical studies show...."
>Frankly, I think that would be going a little bit too far. But if you want
>to champion the idea, go ahead. I see a big difference between cutting off
>the foreskin and cutting off the whole penis.
>
>> > and the lack of one may actually improve the sexual experience.
John Pritchard
In article <5puslu$o...@chronicle.concentric.net>, cog...@concentric.net
(Paul) wrote:
> jpri...@escape.ca (John Pritchard) wrote:
>
> >In article <1d38jha6...@young.wn.planet.gen.nz>,
> >hu...@young.wn.planet.gen.nz wrote:
>
> >> In <5p5urj$n...@chronicle.concentric.net> pbe...@concentric.net
(Paul) wrote:
> >>
> >> >jpri...@escape.ca (John Pritchard) wrote:
> >>
> >> >>In the final analysis, the glans does not REQUIRE the protection of the
> >> >>foreskin
> >> This is true.
> >>
> >> > nor is such protection necessarily even desirable.
> >> Juxtaposing "necessarily" and "desirable" creates a logical tangle.
*Nothing*
> >> is necessarily desirable because desire and necessity are two different
> >> things.
>
> >Let's not quibble. It is never necessary to have a foreskin. It is not
> >always desirable to have a foreskin.
>
> It is desirable to have the choice of whether or not to have a
> foreskin. Your statement is, as usual for you, self-serving and offers
> little.
We don't have a choice in many things. Only last week, you yourself said
quote Does this marvelously brilliant bit of knowledge mean that we should
be shocked that some men are taller than others, heavier than others,
hairier than others, thinner or fatter than others???? end quote
From what you say, variation seems to be a great thing. Lack of foreskin,
occuring naturaly or from circumcision, is one of the many variations that
we all have to deal with - long skins, short skins, no skins, hairy backs,
etc. Should parents who perceive benefits to circumcision reject it upon
this basis alone? Do any or many of the intact short-skinned feel feel
like second-class citizens, deformed or deprived? Do any or many intact
short-skinned resort to artificial stretching? Yes, there is lots of
variation.
And how could a fellow make a *choice* based on the information your
people provide? He couldn't make an informed choice. Your notion of choice
is intentionally an illusion.
> >> > The penis can
> >> >>provide its primary funtions of procreation and urination without a
> >> >>foreskin
> >>
> >> As any woman can tall you, one can urinate without a penis, and as many
> >> lesbians can tell you, one can also procreate without a penis.
>
> >I did not say that a penis was necessary for urination. I said that
> >circumcision does not affect the function of urination for the male.
>
> >Of course females can urinate without a penis. But they must squat or sit
> >to do so. Men, on the other hand, can pee standing up which is very handy
> >when one is fishin' in the middle of a lake and I think that that is the
> >reason why fishin' is more popular among men than it is among women.
>
> >Yes, lesbians, or any woman, can procreate without the use of a penis. I
> >have read that in the future a general male population will be unnecessary
> >and cease to exist. Procreation will be carried on from sperm produced by
> >a small group of captive males - really little more that sperm machines.
> >To be one of those captive males! Would that be heaven or hell? Think
> >about it.
>
> Any competent physicial will tell you that sperm produced during
> masturbation and sperm produced during the sex act are different. It
> is one of the reasons that artificial insemination is so hard to
> achieve. Having a small group of captive males and no others could
> signal the end of the human race, if we don't kill ourselves off
> first.
>
> Paul
Yet the sperm from masturbation can impregnate. And semen from
masturbation continues to be used for sperm counts and analyses.
In the future world, since the method of impregnation will be less
efficient, then I guess we will require a large group of captive males
rather than a small group.
>
> snipped
John Pritchard
> jpri...@escape.ca (John Pritchard) wrote:
>
> >In article <1d38jha6...@young.wn.planet.gen.nz>,
> >hu...@young.wn.planet.gen.nz wrote:
>
> >> In <5p5urj$n...@chronicle.concentric.net> pbe...@concentric.net
(Paul) wrote:
> >>
> >> >jpri...@escape.ca (John Pritchard) wrote:
> >>
> >> >>In the final analysis, the glans does not REQUIRE the protection of the
> >> >>foreskin
> >> This is true.
> >>
> >> > nor is such protection necessarily even desirable.
> >> Juxtaposing "necessarily" and "desirable" creates a logical tangle.
*Nothing*
> >> is necessarily desirable because desire and necessity are two different
> >> things.
>
> >Let's not quibble. It is never necessary to have a foreskin. It is not
> >always desirable to have a foreskin.
>
> It is desirable to have the choice of whether or not to have a
> foreskin. Your statement is, as usual for you, self-serving and offers
> little.
We don't have a choice in many things. Only last week, you yourself said
quote Does this marvelously brilliant bit of knowledge mean that we should
be shocked that some men are taller than others, heavier than others,
hairier than others, thinner or fatter than others???? end quote
From what you say, variation seems to be a great thing. Lack of foreskin,
occurring naturally or from circumcision, is one of the many variations
that we all have to deal with - long skins, short skins, no skins, hairy
backs, etc. Should parents who perceive benefits to circumcision reject
it upon
this basis alone? Do any or many of the intact short-skinned feel feel
like second-class citizens, deformed or deprived? Do any or many intact
short-skinned resort to artificial stretching. Yes, there is lots of
variation.
And how could a fellow make a *choice* based on the information your
people provide? He couldn't make an informed choice. Your notion of choice
is intentionally an illusion.
> >> > The penis can
> >> >>provide its primary funtions of procreation and urination without a
> >> >>foreskin
> >>
> >> As any woman can tall you, one can urinate without a penis, and as many
> >> lesbians can tell you, one can also procreate without a penis.
>
> >I did not say that a penis was necessary for urination. I said that
> >circumcision does not affect the function of urination for the male.
>
> >Of course females can urinate without a penis. But they must squat or sit
> >to do so. Men, on the other hand, can pee standing up which is very handy
> >when one is fishin' in the middle of a lake and I think that that is the
> >reason why fishin' is more popular among men than it is among women.
>
> >Yes, lesbians, or any woman, can procreate without the use of a penis. I
> >have read that in the future a general male population will be unnecessary
> >and cease to exist. Procreation will be carried on from sperm produced by
> >a small group of captive males - really little more that sperm machines.
> >To be one of those captive males! Would that be heaven or hell? Think
> >about it.
>
> Any competent physicial will tell you that sperm produced during
> masturbation and sperm produced during the sex act are different. It
> is one of the reasons that artificial insemination is so hard to
> achieve. Having a small group of captive males and no others could
> signal the end of the human race, if we don't kill ourselves off
> first.
Yet the sperm from masturbation can impregnate. And semen from
masturbation continues to be used for sperm counts and analyses.
In the future world, since the method of impregnation will be less
efficient, then I guess we will require a large group of captive males
rather than a small group.
> Paul
David Wilton
John Pritchard wrote:
> We don't have a choice in many things.
So you would further limit the choices in life?
> Only last week, you yourself said
> quote Does this marvelously brilliant bit of knowledge mean that we should
> be shocked that some men are taller than others, heavier than others,
> hairier than others, thinner or fatter than others???? end quote
>
All naturally occurring variations, acceptable on their own terms. Even
birth without a foreskin is a naturally occurring phenomenon acceptable
on its own terms. The issue is who shall make the choice. The position
is: not parents.
> Should parents who perceive benefits to circumcision reject it upon
> this basis alone?
Yes. Parents should reject circ because prophylatic medicine is never
practiced on non-consenting patients in every other context.
Circumcision regardless of its benefit or lack thereof is by any
analysis prophylactic.
> Do any or many of the intact short-skinned feel feel
> like second-class citizens, deformed or deprived? Do any or many intact
> short-skinned resort to artificial stretching? Yes, there is lots of
> variation.
The issue remains consent, not the general perception of the
classifications you list above as second class or otherwise.
>
> And how could a fellow make a *choice* based on the information your
> people provide? He couldn't make an informed choice. Your notion of choice
> is intentionally an illusion.
>
How so? This is a conclusory statement without any reasoning to back it
up. What don't you understand about the issue of informed consent?
Consent is impossible from an infant. Therefore, circumcision of infants
with consent is an illusion because parents are not the principal
involved and therefore cannot give consent for elective surgery. To
illustrate, if you were in a coma, could your loved ones give consent to
give you a nose job? Babies occupy a similar position by definition, and
parents are not allowed to consent to a nose job on their behalf. So
then why are they given the option of consenting to circumcision, a
needless surgery in an infant?
> > >>
> > >> As any woman can tall you, one can urinate without a penis, and as many
> > >> lesbians can tell you, one can also procreate without a penis.
> >
I don't know from which side this came from, but this really is going
far afield to prove a point. Who cares about the relative advantages of
foreskins or no foreskins. It is ultimately a purely subjective question
answerable only by the owner of the penis in question either by getting
cut or wearing it back or restoring. The issue is so simple and so
direct: let the human being in question have his body as nature intended
and he can decide for himself. What a waste of time to spend energy and
money to stop this collosal violation of human rights. But alas it is so
important.
Paul
jpri...@escape.ca (John Pritchard) wrote:
>In article <5puslu$o...@chronicle.concentric.net>, cog...@concentric.net
>(Paul) wrote:
>> jpri...@escape.ca (John Pritchard) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <1d38jha6...@young.wn.planet.gen.nz>,
>> >hu...@young.wn.planet.gen.nz wrote:
>>
>> >> In <5p5urj$n...@chronicle.concentric.net> pbe...@concentric.net
>(Paul) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >jpri...@escape.ca (John Pritchard) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >>In the final analysis, the glans does not REQUIRE the protection of the
>> >> >>foreskin
>> >> This is true.
>> >>
>> >> > nor is such protection necessarily even desirable.
>> >> Juxtaposing "necessarily" and "desirable" creates a logical tangle.
>*Nothing*
>> >> is necessarily desirable because desire and necessity are two different
>> >> things.
>>
>> >Let's not quibble. It is never necessary to have a foreskin. It is not
>> >always desirable to have a foreskin.
>>
>> It is desirable to have the choice of whether or not to have a
>> foreskin. Your statement is, as usual for you, self-serving and offers
>> little.
>We don't have a choice in many things. Only last week, you yourself said
>quote Does this marvelously brilliant bit of knowledge mean that we should
>be shocked that some men are taller than others, heavier than others,
>hairier than others, thinner or fatter than others???? end quote
Yes I wrote that quote.
>From what you say, variation seems to be a great thing. Lack of foreskin,
>occurring naturally or from circumcision, is one of the many variations
>that we all have to deal with - long skins, short skins, no skins, hairy
>backs, etc. Should parents who perceive benefits to circumcision reject
>it upon
Most parents who chose circumcision for their male infants do so based
upon little or no information. I asked my mother why she had me circed
and the answer was, "the doctor said you should be". I asked if she
had any idea what the end results would be or if she even asked if
there were alternatives and her answer was, "no, the doctor knows best
and we would never question the doctor" and I must admit even today
in their 70's they still won't question the doctor. This way of
chosing which is the way many parents choose is less than informed and
less than quality parenting.
>this basis alone? Do any or many of the intact short-skinned feel feel
>like second-class citizens, deformed or deprived? Do any or many intact
>short-skinned resort to artificial stretching. Yes, there is lots of
>variation.
Yes, some men do resort to artificial stretching to lengthen their
short foreskins, just as many of us who were circed as infants and/or
adults are now restoring our foreskins by stretching.
>And how could a fellow make a *choice* based on the information your
>people provide? He couldn't make an informed choice. Your notion of choice
>is intentionally an illusion.
If a "fellow" will just ask there are many who post here who will
provide sources of information on which to make an informed choice.
Anyone who intends to make an informed choice about any action should
do lots of research before making that choice. To do otherwise or to
base a decision on "one person's" opinion is less that an "informed
choice" .
I don't understand your comment "your notion of choice is
intentionally an illusion." I intend all of my comments to lead to "an
informed choice" otherwise I am just as bad as you and others like you
who only offer harrassment.
>> >> > The penis can
>> >> >>provide its primary funtions of procreation and urination without a
>> >> >>foreskin
>> >>
>> >> As any woman can tall you, one can urinate without a penis, and as many
>> >> lesbians can tell you, one can also procreate without a penis.
>>
>> >I did not say that a penis was necessary for urination. I said that
>> >circumcision does not affect the function of urination for the male.
>>
>> >Of course females can urinate without a penis. But they must squat or sit
>> >to do so. Men, on the other hand, can pee standing up which is very handy
>> >when one is fishin' in the middle of a lake and I think that that is the
>> >reason why fishin' is more popular among men than it is among women.
>>
>> >Yes, lesbians, or any woman, can procreate without the use of a penis. I
>> >have read that in the future a general male population will be unnecessary
>> >and cease to exist. Procreation will be carried on from sperm produced by
>> >a small group of captive males - really little more that sperm machines.
>> >To be one of those captive males! Would that be heaven or hell? Think
>> >about it.
>>
>> Any competent physicial will tell you that sperm produced during
>> masturbation and sperm produced during the sex act are different. It
>> is one of the reasons that artificial insemination is so hard to
>> achieve. Having a small group of captive males and no others could
>> signal the end of the human race, if we don't kill ourselves off
>> first.
>Yet the sperm from masturbation can impregnate. And semen from
>masturbation continues to be used for sperm counts and analyses.
Yes, this is true, but haven't you ever wondered about the very low
success rate of artificial insemination? Probably not, I don't get the
impression that you think much at all.
Don Morgan
>>And how could a fellow make a *choice* based on the information your
>>people provide? He couldn't make an informed choice. Your notion of choice
>>is intentionally an illusion.
>
> If a "fellow" will just ask there are many who post here who will
>provide sources of information on which to make an informed choice.
>Anyone who intends to make an informed choice about any action should
>do lots of research before making that choice. To do otherwise or to
>base a decision on "one person's" opinion is less that an "informed
>choice" .
***** Anyone who is interested in the pros and cons of
circumcision can obtain an article ("Circumcision: the Pros, the
Cons, and the Bottom LIne") which I put together on the subject
after a very thorough investigation. I'll say up front that as a
result of my own investigation, I changed my stance from
strongly pro-circumcision to at least mildly anti-circumcision.
Send an e-mail to me: DonM...@nas.com (remove the anti-spam
'm' which may be shown in the address in the header) with the
following SUBJECT line exactly: send Pros & Cons
If you follow the instructions, my mailer will take care of it
automatically.******
Don
**IMPORTANT: To send me e-mail, remove the anti-spam 'm'
which may appear in the e-mail address shown in the header
and send to: DonM...@nas.com
Don Morgan
[Attributions lost, but someone wrote . . .]
>>> Any competent physicial will tell you that sperm produced during
>>> masturbation and sperm produced during the sex act are different. It
>>> is one of the reasons that artificial insemination is so hard to
>>> achieve.
Isn't it true that sperm is produced by the testicles well in
advance of sexual activity and released during ejaculation? If
so, it doesn't seem to make much sense that the sperm themselves
would be different depending on the type of sexual activity.
Bill the Omnipotent
>jpri...@escape.ca (John Pritchard) wrote:
I bet if we froze you for a while, you wouldn't be moving very well once
thawed out. Why should sperm be any different?
Bill, omnipotent
--
weasel3w3 at hotmail.com
wwweis at juno.com
weis3w3 at abs.net
Catulle
Don Morgan <mDonM...@nas.com> wrote in article
<33cc3be6...@news.nas.com>...
> [Attributions lost, but someone wrote . . .]
>
> >>> Any competent physicial will tell you that sperm produced
during
> >>> masturbation and sperm produced during the sex act are different. It
> >>> is one of the reasons that artificial insemination is so hard to
> >>> achieve.
And do U think there are differences when you try different positions ?
Maybe missionary sperm, 69 sperm, ass sperm... you really got a problem man
!
D. C. Sessions
David Wilton wrote:
> John Pritchard wrote:
> > Should parents who perceive benefits to circumcision reject it upon
> > this basis alone?
>
> Yes. Parents should reject circ because prophylatic medicine is never
> practiced on non-consenting patients in every other context.
> Circumcision regardless of its benefit or lack thereof is by any
> analysis prophylactic.
In keeping with long circ-thread tradition, Mr. Wilton
justifies his conclusion on a hyperbolic statement of
principle which cannot stand examination. Presumably
when the obvious exceptions are pointed out he will
(grudgingly, of course) admit them one by one and only
as necessary.
It remains a mystery why these exceptions, exclusions,
and of-course-it-doesn't-apply-in-cases-like-thats are
kept so closely guarded.
--
D. C. Sessions
dc.se...@tempe.vlsi.com
Eric Boyd
In article <33cc3be6...@news.nas.com>, mDonM...@nas.com (Don
Morgan) wrote:
> [Attributions lost, but someone wrote . . .]
>
> >>> Any competent physicial will tell you that sperm produced during
> >>> masturbation and sperm produced during the sex act are different. It
> >>> is one of the reasons that artificial insemination is so hard to
> >>> achieve.
>
> Isn't it true that sperm is produced by the testicles well in
> advance of sexual activity and released during ejaculation? If
> so, it doesn't seem to make much sense that the sperm themselves
> would be different depending on the type of sexual activity.
I think what's causing the confusion here is that it is true that semen from
five min of masturbation in the fertility clinic's collection room is
qualitatively different from semen that is the result of an extended
period of arousal, followed by extensive or periodic stimulation. The
longer period of stimulation leads to greater ejaculate volume due to
extended prostate activity.
This is my explaination for the "sperm count" scare. I think that early
suppliers of semen for research purposes might have had greater anxiety
about masturbation and rushed the job. More recent volunteers might be
taking their time and enjoying themselves. Their sperm concentrations might
be lower because their semen has a higher volume.
-seric
EH Scholl
cal wrote:
>
> What is a normal healthy baby?, is anyone normal?,circumcision is a choice
> and millions choose it!.
>
A normal healthy baby is one that is born with no complications, no
mutations...
Typical 10-fingers-10-toes thing.
And for baby boys that includes being born with a foreskin.
Yes, circumcision is a choice, but NONE of those baby boys choose it -
their parents choose it for them. And that is where people like me
start to have a problem. The right of the individual to make the choice
himself is something that I happen to think should be preserved. In
this case, it has been taken away.
--
=======================================================
To reply, please remove the ANTISPAM from my address.
Thank you.
sch...@ipass.net
=======================================================
cal
What is a normal healthy baby?, is anyone normal?,circumcision is a choice
and millions choose it!.
D. C. Sessions <sess...@primenet.com> wrote in article
<33A474...@primenet.com>...
> Stan wrote:
> >
> > On 13 Jun 1997 21:52:28 GMT, "peterd" <pet...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >A question from the other side of the Atlantic, where circumcision
these
> > >days is relatively uncommon..... as I understand it, a baby boy in the
> > >United States is circumcised at birth as routine. How much is the
> > >surgeon's fee -- and is this easy money a reason why this unnecessary
> > >surgery is performed so unquestioningly?
>
> > The fee for infant circumcision surgery varies in the US. The fee of a
> > physician for it can be anywhere from over $100 to several hundreds of
> > dollars. [This does not include the fee charged by the hospital.]
> > Where I live, one of the large HMO rackets (health maintenance
> > organizations) was charging a few years ago $148 for any of its
> > member physicians who do this horrendous and nature-insulting
> > operation on healthy, normal baby boys. [And the fee charged by the
> > hospital at that time was the same: another $148.]
>
> OK, that's a hair under $300; a bit high but not impossible.
>
> > Though this sexual mutilation racket here in the US brings in (or
> > wastes) about $1 billion yearly,
>
> ... but then this would imply 3,300,000 circs per year, which
> seems a bit high. Especially since only about 2,000,000 boys
> are born in the US each year. That would be a circ rate of
> 165% rather than the 60% claimed by activists on these threads.
>
Eric Boyd
In article <01bc92f1$6abd5d60$c1557ec2@default>, "cal"
<c...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> What is a normal healthy baby?, is anyone normal?,circumcision is a choice
> and millions choose it!.
It is a sure sign of confusion to assert that no one can say what a term
like "normal" means, and then to use "choice" as if it were perfectly clear
what that means.
We have defined "normal heathy baby" here as an undiseased, undamaged, infant
in good working order. If you take exception to this definition, please clarify.
If you accept this definition, yet still want to make a case for infant circ,
please explain how the normal infant penis is inherently defective.
Secondly, I reject the notion that circumcision should be viewed as a *choice*
at all. In what other cases is it considered acceptable to *choose* to alter
normal, undiseased, undamaged parts of of the body?
-seric
Peter Eichel
se...@hypercon.com (Eric Boyd) wrote:
>In article <33cc3be6...@news.nas.com>, mDonM...@nas.com (Don
>Morgan) wrote:
>> [Attributions lost, but someone wrote . . .]
>>
>> >>> Any competent physicial will tell you that sperm produced during
>> >>> masturbation and sperm produced during the sex act are different. It
>> >>> is one of the reasons that artificial insemination is so hard to
>> >>> achieve.
>>
>> Isn't it true that sperm is produced by the testicles well in
>> advance of sexual activity and released during ejaculation? If
>> so, it doesn't seem to make much sense that the sperm themselves
>> would be different depending on the type of sexual activity.
>I think what's causing the confusion here is that it is true that semen from
>five min of masturbation in the fertility clinic's collection room is
Five minutes? It took me nearly 20. I'm serious - its very difficult
to perform on demand in a strange place.
>qualitatively different from semen that is the result of an extended
>period of arousal, followed by extensive or periodic stimulation. The
>longer period of stimulation leads to greater ejaculate volume due to
>extended prostate activity.
This is probably true. However, in a fertility clinic the quantity
isn't so important (unless of course the problem is a low count) as
the sperm doesn't have to travel so far in lab conditions and hardly
at all in the case of IVF. Motility and low percentage of defective
sperm are still important though.
>This is my explaination for the "sperm count" scare. I think that early
>suppliers of semen for research purposes might have had greater anxiety
>about masturbation and rushed the job. More recent volunteers might be
>taking their time and enjoying themselves. Their sperm concentrations might
>be lower because their semen has a higher volume.
>-seric
Peter.
(shameless plug) Visit "The Virtual Foreskin" for the largest list of circumcision & restoration links on the net.
http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/8890
Paul
Another comment below:
se...@hypercon.com (Eric Boyd) wrote:
>In article <33cc3be6...@news.nas.com>, mDonM...@nas.com (Don
>Morgan) wrote:
>> [Attributions lost, but someone wrote . . .]
>>
>> >>> Any competent physicial will tell you that sperm produced during
>> >>> masturbation and sperm produced during the sex act are different. It
>> >>> is one of the reasons that artificial insemination is so hard to
>> >>> achieve.
>>
>> Isn't it true that sperm is produced by the testicles well in
>> advance of sexual activity and released during ejaculation? If
>> so, it doesn't seem to make much sense that the sperm themselves
>> would be different depending on the type of sexual activity.
>I think what's causing the confusion here is that it is true that semen from
>five min of masturbation in the fertility clinic's collection room is
>qualitatively different from semen that is the result of an extended
>period of arousal, followed by extensive or periodic stimulation. The
>longer period of stimulation leads to greater ejaculate volume due to
>extended prostate activity.
From personal experience, I can tell you that it is extremely
difficult to masturbate to orgasm when you have been handed a cup by a
nurse then led to a small room with white walls and no amenities for
comfort, knowing that when you finish you will hand the cup to the
nurse who is waiting outside the door. Although it is handled
professionally, it is somewhat unsettling to know that these people
know what you are doing and are awaiting you outside, it makes it very
difficult to "enjoy" onesself!
Paul
Once again, I find that my thoughts and my words do not always follow
each other.
I am the one who originally wrote the comment about the differences
between sperm produced during masturbation and during intercourse and
I can see now that I need to explain a bit.
My wife and I endured several years of "infertility workups" and were
eventually told that everything that could be done had been done,
goodby! During that time one of the methods of treatment was
artificial insemination using my semen. One of the comments make was
that "semen produced during masturbation differs from that produced
during intercourse", obviously a different statement than the one I
wrote previously. For this mistake I apologize.
The doctors explanation to us was that the semen differed for reasons
that were due to the differences in masturbation and intercourse. I
apologize for not remembering the exact details but it has been 18
years since I heard those comments. If I remember correctly it had to
do with sperm motility, viability, etc. but again my memory is not
very good on this fact. For one thing, I have tried to forget this
period of my life.
Again, I apologize for the inaccurate statement and the fact that I
don't remember any more than this.
Paul
"Catulle" <Cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Don Morgan <mDonM...@nas.com> wrote in article
><33cc3be6...@news.nas.com>...
>> [Attributions lost, but someone wrote . . .]
>>
>> >>> Any competent physicial will tell you that sperm produced
>during
>> >>> masturbation and sperm produced during the sex act are different. It
>> >>> is one of the reasons that artificial insemination is so hard to
>> >>> achieve.
>And do U think there are differences when you try different positions ?
>Maybe missionary sperm, 69 sperm, ass sperm... you really got a problem man
>!
>>
>> Isn't it true that sperm is produced by the testicles well in
>> advance of sexual activity and released during ejaculation? If
>> so, it doesn't seem to make much sense that the sperm themselves
>> would be different depending on the type of sexual activity.
>>
Paul
D.C.,
I will agree that millions choose circumcision but I wonder how many
of those millions are well educated on the choices? I suspect that you
are not well versed in the "realities" of circumcision since you
seldom offer more than a vehement statement.
Paul
"cal" <c...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>What is a normal healthy baby?, is anyone normal?,circumcision is a choice
>and millions choose it!.
>D. C. Sessions <sess...@primenet.com> wrote in article
EH Scholl
Eric Boyd wrote:
>
> In article <01bc92f1$6abd5d60$c1557ec2@default>, "cal"
> <c...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > What is a normal healthy baby?, is anyone normal?,circumcision is a choice
> > and millions choose it!.
>
> like "normal" means, and then to use "choice" as if it were perfectly clear
> what that means.
>
> We have defined "normal heathy baby" here as an undiseased, undamaged, infant
> in good working order. If you take exception to this definition, please clarify.
> If you accept this definition, yet still want to make a case for infant circ,
> please explain how the normal infant penis is inherently defective.
>
> Secondly, I reject the notion that circumcision should be viewed as a *choice*
> at all. In what other cases is it considered acceptable to *choose* to alter
> normal, undiseased, undamaged parts of of the body?
>
> -seric
While I am against routine infant circ, cosmetic surgery is very
accepted and is a choice to enlarge, reduce, nip, tuck, tighten, etc.
etc. otherwise normal undiseased, undamaged parts of of the body.... and
many consider circ to be exactly that - cosmetic surgery.
My problem is that it is not the choice of the individual to have that
surgery. Not the alteration itself. If the "alteration"
(re:circumcision) is done at the request of the man the penis is
attached to, I have no problem with that.
Ted P. Wemhoff
Eric Boyd <se...@hypercon.com> wrote in article
<seric-18079...@tnt1user243.concom.com>...
> In article <01bc92f1$6abd5d60$c1557ec2@default>, "cal"
> <c...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Secondly, I reject the notion that circumcision should be viewed as a
*choice*
^^^^^^^^^^
> -seric
>
That's right seric YOU reject this notion! Many others do not!!
Ted
Eric Boyd
In article <33CFF3...@ipass.ANTI-SPAMnet>, sch...@ipass.ANTI-SPAMnet wrote:
> Eric Boyd wrote:
> > Secondly, I reject the notion that circumcision should be viewed as a
*choice*
> > at all. In what other cases is it considered acceptable to *choose* to alter
> > normal, undiseased, undamaged parts of of the body?
> >
> > -seric
>
> While I am against routine infant circ, cosmetic surgery is very
> accepted and is a choice to enlarge, reduce, nip, tuck, tighten, etc.
> etc. otherwise normal undiseased, undamaged parts of of the body.... and
> many consider circ to be exactly that - cosmetic surgery.
Exactly, non-consensual cosmetic (as if having a crinkly Plastibell scar
can be considered "cosmetic") surgery when there is no definable defect
must always be considered morally wrong.
> My problem is that it is not the choice of the individual to have that
> surgery. Not the alteration itself. If the "alteration"
> (re:circumcision) is done at the request of the man the penis is
> attached to, I have no problem with that.
Hey, Who does? What adults do to their genitalia is none of my business.
-seric
David C. Wright
In group soc.women, article <33CFF3...@ipass.ANTI-SPAMnet>,
EH Scholl <sch...@ipass.ANTI-SPAMnet> wrote:
...
>My problem is that it is not the choice of the individual to have that
>surgery. Not the alteration itself. If the "alteration"
>(re:circumcision) is done at the request of the man the penis is
>attached to, I have no problem with that.
That is precisely the point. In the vast majority of cases, the
'alteration' is done without consent. Assume the case of breast
enlagement. Would you be prepared to endorse breast enlargement surgery
undertaken, unilaterally, by the parents, at birth? I suspect not. So why
are two million males in *Canada alone* mutilated every year without
consent, at birth? At adulthood, any person can mutilitate themselves as
they see fit. Women can undergo clitoridectomies, or mammectomies. Even
lipectomies. Men can undergo circumncision. This is all legal.
--
David C. Wright (wri...@autobahn.mb.ca)
(Remove "SS." from the Reply-to field for E-mail)
Those who know don't tell; those who tell don't know - Lao-tse
David Wilton
D. C. Sessions wrote:
>
> David Wilton wrote:
> >
> > Yes. Parents should reject circ because prophylatic medicine is never
> > practiced on non-consenting patients in every other context.
> > Circumcision regardless of its benefit or lack thereof is by any
> > analysis prophylactic.
>
> In keeping with long circ-thread tradition, Mr. Wilton
> justifies his conclusion on a hyperbolic statement of
> principle which cannot stand examination. Presumably
> when the obvious exceptions are pointed out he will
> (grudgingly, of course) admit them one by one and only
> as necessary.
Vaccinations was pointed out as a prophylactic exception. I don't
grudgingly admit this one. I gladly accept it. Vaccinations have done a
world of verifiable good. Got any others? I'd like to hear them and
discuss their merits. All principles have exceptions.
>
> It remains a mystery why these exceptions, exclusions,
> and of-course-it-doesn't-apply-in-cases-like-thats are
> kept so closely guarded.
>
Sounds like sour grapes to me. Must one be precluded from attacking any
evil because one approach will not accommodate every evil? Of course
not.
> --
> D. C. Sessions
> dc.se...@tempe.vlsi.com
--
David Wilton
dwi...@brokersys.com
Houston, Texas, USA
Hugh Young
In <7jh2zYBJ...@autobahn.mb.ca> wri...@autobahn.mb.ca (David C. Wright)
wrote:
>So why
>are two million males in *Canada alone* mutilated every year without
>consent, at birth?
Where does this figure come from? It sounds WAY too high to me.
From Health Canada and the respective Ministries of Health:
Quebec neonatal circumcision rates:
1971 31.2%
1972 30.0
1973 29.5
1974 25.8
1975 22.1
1976 16.5
1977 13.0
1978 9.8
1979 7.9
1980 7.1
1981 5.7
1982 5.7
1983 5.8
1984 6.4
1985 6.2
1986 5.3
1987 2.7
British Columbia neonatal circumcision rates:
1971 n/a
1972 n/a
1973 n/a
1974 n/a
1975 54.1%
1976 58.0
1977 46.0
1978 44.5
1979 42.8
1980 39.8
1981 37.5
1982 36.5
1983 35.6
1984 Jan-Jun 36.10%
On July 1 1984, BC stopped paying for Routine Infant Circumcision.
1984 Jul-Dec 00.38%
1985 0.35
1986 0.43
1987 0.33
You can see the powerful effect that economics played in changing the
circumcision landscape in British Columbia. The same has happened in
Alberta, Yukon, and other Canadian provinces as well.
Money is the key.
--
Hugh Young, Pukerua Bay, Nuclear-free Aotearoa / NEW ZEALAND
Magic eyes: * *
Astrology Astrology Astrology Astrology Astrology Astrology Astrology
- less - less - less - less - less - less - less
than than than than than than than
meets meets meets meets meets meets meets
the eye the eye the eye the eye the eye the eye the eye
! ! ! ! ! ! !
D. C. Sessions
David Wilton wrote:
> D. C. Sessions wrote:
> > David Wilton wrote:
> > > Yes. Parents should reject circ because prophylatic medicine is never
> > > practiced on non-consenting patients in every other context.
> > > Circumcision regardless of its benefit or lack thereof is by any
> > > analysis prophylactic.
> >
> > In keeping with long circ-thread tradition, Mr. Wilton
> > justifies his conclusion on a hyperbolic statement of
> > principle which cannot stand examination. Presumably
> > when the obvious exceptions are pointed out he will
> > (grudgingly, of course) admit them one by one and only
> > as necessary.
>
> Vaccinations was pointed out as a prophylactic exception.
'Fraid not. The above paragraph was the only statement on
the subject in the message; check DejaNews if in doubt (we
did -- absolutely nada wrt vaccination.)
> I don't
> grudgingly admit this one. I gladly accept it. Vaccinations have done a
> world of verifiable good.
There are as many -- and as vocal -- deniers of the benefits of
vaccination as of circumcision. Both, in fact, use similar
arguments (eg, the medical community can't be trusted because
they make lots of $$$ from vaccination|circumcision). If
anything, the anti-vacc gang have a stronger claim since they
can point (however justifiably) to large numbers of deaths and
neurological disorders.
> Got any others? I'd like to hear them and
> discuss their merits. All principles have exceptions.
>From a great deal of circ-thread history (no, we're NOT interested
in recapitulating it all over again!) the exception list just keeps
growing and growing and growing. The growth generally follows one
of two paths: explicit exception (as this one: "prophylatic medicine
is never practiced on non-consenting patients in every other context"
then acquires "except vaccination") and then the list of explicit
exceptions just grows like Topsy, one procedure at a time. The
sceptical reader is driven to the conclusion that the rule itself
is meaningless except as a pretext to disapprove of anything not on
the list of exceptions (somehow the addition of circumcision to the
list is in a different category.)
Alternately, the growth is via a list of ever-more complex rules
("so long as it doesn't involve cutting except when ....") which
also expands as each exceptional case is pointed out. Once again,
the sceptical reader observes the ever-increasing sets of epicyclic
'principles' and cannot escape the conclusion that they are drawn
not from fundamentals but from the desire to justify a preconceived
result.
> > It remains a mystery why these exceptions, exclusions,
> > and of-course-it-doesn't-apply-in-cases-like-thats are
> > kept so closely guarded.
>
> Sounds like sour grapes to me. Must one be precluded from attacking any
> evil because one approach will not accommodate every evil? Of course
> not.
???????
We frankly don't care if you find abortion -- or even genocide --
the best thing ever or spend your every waking moment trying to
stamp them out. We DO, however, have a problem with supposedly
universal ethical principles that only apply to to cases selected
by personal preference. That's why we want to see the rules
up front, rather than have them materialize as needed in the
course of discussion and only in response to failures of the
previous ruleset. (Sort of suggests that the conclusion didn't
derive from the principles but rather the other way 'round.)
If there is, in fact, a case to be made against circumcision
from first principles it has yet to see the light of Usenet.
Eric Boyd
> Alternately, the growth is via a list of ever-more complex rules
> ("so long as it doesn't involve cutting except when ....") which
> also expands as each exceptional case is pointed out. Once again,
> the sceptical reader observes the ever-increasing sets of epicyclic
> 'principles' and cannot escape the conclusion that they are drawn
> not from fundamentals but from the desire to justify a preconceived
> result.
The rules are not "ever complex". They are merely three in number. Surgery
without the subject's consent should be performed for three reasons: to treat
disease, to repair damage, and to correct defect. Routine infant circ is
done for none of these three reasons. Routine circ harkens back to a form
of black magic that attempts to gain supernatural control over the mysterious
penis. Fortunately, most of the world realizes that this "magic" is nonsense.
>
> If there is, in fact, a case to be made against circumcision
> from first principles it has yet to see the light of Usenet.
The case against circumcision is that there is no definitive case *for* it.
Not circumcising is the null hypothesis, the negative position, the defense,
or in other words, the position that is automatically assumed true until
conclusively proven otherwise.
-seric
Bridget
Did anyone ever mention just what the fees are?
Bridget
Lawrence Wade
>On Fri, 1 Aug 97 09:33:14 NDT, hu...@young.wn.planet.gen.nz (Hugh Young)
>expounded:
>>On July 1 1984, BC stopped paying for Routine Infant Circumcision.
>>1984 Jul-Dec 00.38%
>>1985 0.35
>>1986 0.43
>>1987 0.33
>>You can see the powerful effect that economics played in changing the
>>circumcision landscape in British Columbia. The same has happened in
>>Alberta, Yukon, and other Canadian provinces as well.
>>
>>Money is the key.
As a resident of Ontario, Canada, I think you'll be impressed to note that
since OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Plan) stopped paying for circumcisions at
infancy in 1993, the rate of circumcision among 2-3 year olds has more than
quadrupled (bbl: "OHIP Budget Report, Tabled By Procedure", May 1997).
The moral of the story seems to be that if you have your son circumcised in
infancy, they won't escape the procedure; merely, it'll have to be postponed
until they can actually remember it and become nervous about it.
The really nice thing about infant circs is that they never remember the
procedure and they aren't given the opportunity to become apprehensive about
the procedure.
And, unless you've got your head in the sand or are simply incapable of
dealing with the facts because of your own psychological issues (and
circumcision _does_ make a convenient scapegoat, doesn't it?), you'll have no
question that circumcision is a good idea and should be done.
Lawrence Wade
mercial.email
In article <5s51vf$9gs$1...@nr1.toronto.istar.net>,
Lawrence Wade <lw...@the-wire.com> wrote:
> The really nice thing about infant circs is that they never remember the
>procedure and they aren't given the opportunity to become apprehensive about
>the procedure.
This statement does not arise from any justifiable facts. Rather, it arises
from a perception that a baby is "just a baby", not a fully human person.
g.
--
I conceal nothing. It is not enough not to lie. One should strive
not to lie in a negative sense by remaining silent. ---Leo Tolstoy
ADDRESS ALTERED TO DEFLECT SPAM. UNSOLICITED E-MAIL ADS BILLED $500/ITEM
Geoffrey T. Falk <gtf(@)math.rochester.edu> http://www.cirp.org/~gtf/
Don Morgan
They range from about $69.00 to about $389.00 depending on who
does it and where.
***** Anyone who is interested in the pros and cons of
circumcision can obtain an article ("Circumcision: the Pros, the
Cons, and the Bottom LIne") which I put together on the subject
after a very thorough investigation. I'll say up front that as a
result of my own investigation, I changed my stance from
strongly pro-circumcision to at least mildly anti-circumcision.
Send an e-mail to me: DonM...@nas.com (remove the anti-spam
'm' which may be shown in the address in the header) with the
following SUBJECT line exactly: send Pros & Cons
If you follow the instructions, my mailer will take care of it
automatically.******
Don
David Wilton
I'm not a crossposter, but since this was crossposted to ensure maximum
exposure to discredit the so-called anti-circ'ers, I reproduce it here
as sent to alt.circumcision. I won't be crossposting anything else. (To
the relief of many, I'm sure.)
D. C. Sessions wrote:
>
> >
> > Vaccinations was pointed out as a prophylactic exception.
>
> 'Fraid not. The above paragraph was the only statement on
> the subject in the message; check DejaNews if in doubt (we
> did -- absolutely nada wrt vaccination.)
>
I don't recall that vaccinations was pointed out in the newsgroups. I
believe it was done so in private email. Mr. Sessions continues in his
misinformation campaign to stave off the growing awareness of the truth
of circumcision.
> > I don't
> > grudgingly admit this one. I gladly accept it. Vaccinations have done a
> > world of verifiable good.
>
> There are as many -- and as vocal -- deniers of the benefits of
> vaccination as of circumcision. Both, in fact, use similar
> arguments (eg, the medical community can't be trusted because
> they make lots of $$$ from vaccination|circumcision). If
> anything, the anti-vacc gang have a stronger claim since they
> can point (however justifiably) to large numbers of deaths and
> neurological disorders.
>
An irreelevant red-herring.
>
> >From a great deal of circ-thread history (no, we're NOT interested
> in recapitulating it all over again!) the exception list just keeps
> growing and growing and growing. The growth generally follows one
> of two paths: explicit exception (as this one: "prophylatic medicine
> is never practiced on non-consenting patients in every other context"
> then acquires "except vaccination") and then the list of explicit
> exceptions just grows like Topsy, one procedure at a time. The
> sceptical reader is driven to the conclusion that the rule itself
> is meaningless except as a pretext to disapprove of anything not on
> the list of exceptions (somehow the addition of circumcision to the
> list is in a different category.)
>
> Alternately, the growth is via a list of ever-more complex rules
> ("so long as it doesn't involve cutting except when ....") which
> also expands as each exceptional case is pointed out. Once again,
> the sceptical reader observes the ever-increasing sets of epicyclic
> 'principles' and cannot escape the conclusion that they are drawn
> not from fundamentals but from the desire to justify a preconceived
> result.
>
There's no growing list. Just Mr. Sessions growing verbosity. The
position is simple and straight forward. Circumcision violates a child's
right to an intact body. He may choose benefits or lack thereof, like
Mr. Lawrence, as an adult.
>
> We frankly don't care if you find abortion -- or even genocide --
> the best thing ever or spend your every waking moment trying to
> stamp them out. We DO, however, have a problem with supposedly
> universal ethical principles that only apply to to cases selected
> by personal preference. That's why we want to see the rules
> up front, rather than have them materialize as needed in the
> course of discussion and only in response to failures of the
> previous ruleset. (Sort of suggests that the conclusion didn't
> derive from the principles but rather the other way 'round.)
>
> If there is, in fact, a case to be made against circumcision
> from first principles it has yet to see the light of Usenet.
>
More verbosity based on a premise misunderstood by and apprarently
beyond Mr. Sessions ability to grasp. Funny how when you mischaracterize
or misunderstand the premise, the rest of your argument is sorta shot
all to hell. Anti-circ'er don't wish to force anything on the
pro-circ'ers. They may do as they wish with their own bodies. They are
the one's with a clear agenda: Take what is not theirs to take. My
response is keep your hands to yourself. And since this group is
devolving into a clear case of ad hominem BS, I'll leave the continuing
tired exchange to my betters. And to them, I just say don't give up. The
fascists mustn't rise again.
Eric Boyd
In article <1997Aug4.1...@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>,
g...@cirp.org.This.blocks.unsolicited.com mercial.email (Geoffrey T. Falk)
wrote:
> In article <5s51vf$9gs$1...@nr1.toronto.istar.net>,
> Lawrence Wade <lw...@the-wire.com> wrote:
> > The really nice thing about infant circs is that they never remember the
> >procedure and they aren't given the opportunity to become apprehensive about
> >the procedure.
>
> This statement does not arise from any justifiable facts. Rather, it arises
> from a perception that a baby is "just a baby", not a fully human person.
> g.
It's also a poor position because it esentially states that any action done
when someone is unconscious is allowable. I wonder if a Rohypnol rapist has
used this argument as a defense in court.
-seric
Don Morgan
On 4 Aug 1997 17:02:39 GMT, lw...@the-wire.com (Lawrence Wade)
wrote:
[snip]
> As a resident of Ontario, Canada, I think you'll be impressed to note that
>since OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Plan) stopped paying for circumcisions at
>infancy in 1993, the rate of circumcision among 2-3 year olds has more than
>quadrupled (bbl: "OHIP Budget Report, Tabled By Procedure", May 1997).
>
> The moral of the story seems to be that if you have your son circumcised in
>infancy, they won't escape the procedure; merely, it'll have to be postponed
>until they can actually remember it and become nervous about it.
This is hardly a logical conclusion. While it is obvious that if
you do NOT have your son circumcised in infancy, it is MORE
likely that he will have to be circumcised (as opposed to being
recircumcised) later in life, it is hardly LIKELY that he will,
in fact, have to undergo circumcision later in life.
What we need to know is what a quadrupling of the circumcision
rate in 2-3 year-olds amounts to; if, for example, it quadruples
from say 1 out of 100 to 4 out of 100, it means little in the way
of support for your conclusion. For example, we would need the
rate to quadruple from 13 in 100 to 52 in 100 before we could
logically conclude that it would actually be likely that a 2-3
would undergo circumcision.
Even then, we would need to know something about the need for
those circumcisions. We would need to know what percentage of
these circumcisions were necessary (i.e., the only solution for
an acute or chronic medical problem) and what percentage were
unnecessary (to satisfy a parental preference, for example).
In this regard, it is interesting to note that In countries which
have a very low infant circumcision rate to begin with (the
Scandinavian countries are a good example), there is also a very
low rate of later in life circumcisions--much lower,
surprisingly, than in a country such as the U.S. or Canada where
the infant circumcision rate is much higher to begin with. What
it seems to boil down to is that U.S. and (though to a lesser
extent) Canadian physicians do a lot of unnecessary
circumcisions.
By the way, circumcision in infancy does not entirely preclude
the necessity for (another) circumcision later in life. My
urologist has made something of a specialty of the repair of
circumcision complications and he says that he does about three
recircumcisions per month.
> The really nice thing about infant circs is that they never remember the
>procedure
This is an assumption, not a proven fact, and there is now some
good evidence (in the form of a medical study) that this is, in
fact, an incorrect assumption.
>and they aren't given the opportunity to become apprehensive about
>the procedure.
Well, I guess you can hardly be apprehensive about something
which you don't know about ahead of time. Still, there is the
pain.
> And, unless you've got your head in the sand or are simply incapable of
>dealing with the facts because of your own psychological issues (and
>circumcision _does_ make a convenient scapegoat, doesn't it?), you'll have no
>question that circumcision is a good idea and should be done.
Anyone who has thoroughly investigated the facts could certainly
question that circumcision is a good idea and question whether it
should be done. I have certainly investigated the facts and I
have concluded that it is, overall, not a good idea and should
not be done. While others may feel differently, to characterize
those with whom you disagree, as you have above, only serves to
make you look foolish to me.
***** Anyone who is interested in the pros and cons of
circumcision can obtain an article ("Circumcision: the Pros, the
Cons, and the Bottom LIne") which I put together on the subject
after a very thorough investigation. I'll say up front that as a
result of my own investigation, I changed my stance from
strongly pro-circumcision to at least mildly anti-circumcision.
Send an e-mail to me: DonM...@nas.com (disregard the antispam
address shown in the header) AND USE the following SUBJECT line
EXACTLY: send Circ info
If you follow the instructions, my mailer will take care of it
automatically. ******
Don
>
> Lawrence Wade
**** IMPORTANT: To send me e-mail, disregard the address shown
in the header and use the following address: DonM...@nas.com
Hugh Young
In <33EA08...@escape.ca> John Pritchard <jpri...@escape.ca> wrote:
>Hugh Young wrote:
>>
>> In <33E51C...@primenet.com> "D. C. Sessions" <sess...@primenet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >...the exception list just keeps
>
>snipped
>>
>> Yes, the Sessionses have an inexhaustible list of exceptions, of ever more
>> rare and obscure (or painful and life-threatening) cases, none of them
having
>> quite enough in common with routine infant circumcision to stand on its
own.
>> The one case that does compare closely is Female Genital Mutilation, and
that
>> is the one case where it is the Sessionses who bend over backward to find
>> differences.
>
>On one hand we have removal of the male prepuce (which statistically
>will for many tend to shorten with maturity).
A perfectly bizarre reference. Many? And so what? They won't lose their
10,000 nerve endings, nor will that occurence, IF it happens, involve risk,
pain, or infringement of their right to own all of their body. (And if you
deny there is such a right, then of course you won't mind if I come round and
chop off your little finger, will you?)
On the other hand we
>have removal of the clitoris, labia and
no, or. And/Or removal of the clitoral hood, or PREPUCE.
the sewing up of the vagina. You
>say that these procedures compare closely. If suspect few will agree
>with you.
As human rights abuses, they do. As surgical insults, the major form of
circumcision is worse than the least form of FGM. (And if few people agree
with me it's because they have been fed lies and don't want to think about
it.)
>> >If there is, in fact, a case to be made against circumcision
>> >from first principles it has yet to see the light of Usenet.
>>
>> The Sessionses characteristically put the cart before the horse. Not
>> circumcising is the default condition, it is circumcision that has to be
>> justified. And "We've done it for a very long time" doesn't cut it. The
same
>> could be said of slavery, segregation or burning witches.
>
>
>You don't seem to understand that parents who choose to neo-natally
>circumcise a son have no need to justify their decision to you.
Nor do slavers, witchburners or segregationists. There is a fallacy in this
attempt to turn a wider discussion of morality and ethics into a focus on one
individual (me), but I can't be bothered figuring out what exactly it's
called. I could go for the pomposity (not to mention the cruelty) of the
previous statement, but descending to personalities diverts attention from
the main issue. "Parents who choose to neo-natally circumcise a son" choose
to have a healthy and useful part of his sexual organs cut off. They have to
justify it to him.
--
Hugh Young, Pukerua Bay, Nuclear-free Aotearoa / NEW ZEALAND
... and Edward Scissorhands? He enlisted in the Swiss Army.
Mercy
John Pritchard wrote:
> On one hand we have removal of the male prepuce (which statistically
> will for many tend to shorten with maturity). On the other hand we
> have removal of the clitoris, labia and the sewing up of the vagina. You
> say that these procedures compare closely. If suspect few will agree
> with you.
Sorry! How mature does a male have to be? As a circumcised man, I will share
my experience in this matter. I am a naturist, so the human body is not a
shameful thing for me like Victorian prudes. One old man who is a friend did
have a very short foreskin, but the adult males (such as a number of them in
their forties) had foreskin that slightly exposed the meatus). A number of
males in there twenties still had overhang. I have not seen many natural
European males with short foreskin. It would appear from a casual observation
of the naturist magazines that foreskin naturally covers the glans even when
the male enters adulthood. Incidentally, the nerves do not "go away" when the
foreskin becomes short, but they are definitely lost with circumcision.
> You don't seem to understand that parents who choose to neo-natally
> circumcise a son have no need to justify their decision to you.
Of course not. But they may have to explain it to their son if he is upset
that a piece of his body was cut off of him without consideration for his
consent. But the doctors do have the responsibility to explain why they
perform procedures that are necessary or of dubious value, and they cannot
shirk their share in the responsibility off onto the parents. The medical
professionals have a responsibility according to medical ethics to perform
the least-invasive procedures. Circumcision is not the least-invasive
procedure.
EH Scholl
John Pritchard wrote:
>
> Hugh Young wrote:
> >
> > In <33E51C...@primenet.com> "D. C. Sessions" <sess...@primenet.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >...the exception list just keeps
>
> snipped
> >
> > Yes, the Sessionses have an inexhaustible list of exceptions, of ever more
> > rare and obscure (or painful and life-threatening) cases, none of them having
> > quite enough in common with routine infant circumcision to stand on its own.
> > The one case that does compare closely is Female Genital Mutilation, and that
> > is the one case where it is the Sessionses who bend over backward to find
> > differences.
>
> will for many tend to shorten with maturity). On the other hand we
> have removal of the clitoris, labia and the sewing up of the vagina. You
> say that these procedures compare closely. If suspect few will agree
> with you.
However, that is the EXTREME case of female circumcision, and certainly
not the most practiced (from what I've read). More common is to remove
the clitoral hood and/or snip the inner labia. This indeed would be
analagous to circumcision of the male.
The clit is considered analagous to the male penis, the hood the
foreskin. As a woman with all her original parts mostly intact (small
amount of tissue removed once for a biopsy) I will say if I lost my
clitoral hood I would be in a LOT of pain until the clitorus rubbed
enough to build up a callous.
It is said to be the same for the glans.
> You don't seem to understand that parents who choose to neo-natally
> circumcise a son have no need to justify their decision to you.
To me personally, no - but perhaps to their sons at a later time, and
the way things are moving in the US perhaps to society as a whole.
Many cultures view routine infant male circumcision to be as barbaric as
the US views routine infant female circumcision.
This is a large part of why that analogy is used.
Betsy
Neal
John Pritchard <jpri...@escape.ca> wrote:
>Hugh Young wrote:
>>
>> In <33E51C...@primenet.com> "D. C. Sessions" <sess...@primenet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >...the exception list just keeps
>
>snipped
>>
>> Yes, the Sessionses have an inexhaustible list of exceptions, of ever more
>> rare and obscure (or painful and life-threatening) cases, none of them having
>> quite enough in common with routine infant circumcision to stand on its own.
>> The one case that does compare closely is Female Genital Mutilation, and that
>> is the one case where it is the Sessionses who bend over backward to find
>> differences.
>
>On one hand we have removal of the male prepuce (which statistically
>will for many tend to shorten with maturity). On the other hand we
>have removal of the clitoris, labia and the sewing up of the vagina. You
>say that these procedures compare closely. If suspect few will agree
>with you.
>
>
>> >If there is, in fact, a case to be made against circumcision
>> >from first principles it has yet to see the light of Usenet.
>>
>> The Sessionses characteristically put the cart before the horse. Not
>> circumcising is the default condition, it is circumcision that has to be
>> justified. And "We've done it for a very long time" doesn't cut it. The same
>> could be said of slavery, segregation or burning witches.
>
>
>You don't seem to understand that parents who choose to neo-natally
>circumcise a son have no need to justify their decision to you.
>
John, taking "you" as "to others," that statement is really culturally
loaded. It is true in the US, Israel, and Moslem countries. Probably
nowhere else could a parent express a desire for a "routine infant
circumcision" without having to justify their desire to multiple
people. I recall a post (Hugh may have a copy) earlier this year
about a couple in New Zealand who wanted their new-born son
circumcised. They argued and argued with the doctors. They thought
they had won when the doctor said "Well, if you insist." Then the
doctor said "Bring him back when he is five and we will take another
look."
Perhaps you have adult daughter that I could marry. Then we could
have a girl, and about age 9 to 12 I could take your granddaughter to
Egypt, Sudan, or maybe Ethiopia or Kenya and get a full Pharonic
circumcision for her. Everyone involved would agree that it was for
her own good, she would be much cleaner, would be much more attractive
as a wife, that it would only hurt for a little while, that it
certainly should be done, etc. And everyone would agree, as I am sure
that you would, that there would be no need to justify our decision to
you.
IMHO Eric Boyd is correct when he stated "The case against
circumcision is that there is no definitive case *for* it. Not
circumcising is the null hypothesis, the negative position, the
defense, or in other words, the position that is automatically assumed
true until conclusively proven otherwise."
I wish some Europeans would jump in here and comment on the attitudes
and experiences in Europe. To here Mr Pritchard and others expound on
the problems of keeping the foreskin, one would assume that physicians
in Europe would spend at least 25% of their time on foreskin problems.
--
--
Neal
Note: To contact, remove the ".NS" from address
Martin Challis
In article <33eda20c...@news.idt.net>, Neal
<neal_...@rocketmail.NS.com> writes
>John Pritchard <jpri...@escape.ca> wrote:
[snip]
>I wish some Europeans would jump in here and comment on the attitudes
>and experiences in Europe. To here Mr Pritchard and others expound on
>the problems of keeping the foreskin, one would assume that physicians
>in Europe would spend at least 25% of their time on foreskin problems.
I'm in the UK. "Problems" with a forskin, it would seem, don't exist
over here (excluding religious reasons). It wasn't until I came across
groups like this did I even think about it.
Having talked to friends, all of whom have a foreskin, none had any
problems or knew of other men who had. Hygiene is not an issue, washing
is simply part of mine (and others) daily routine. The time taken a
couple of seconds.
All the research and reports about health risks simply do not exist.
Or, I have yet to find the same research duplicated outside of the USA.
It would seem that all the concerns over uncircumsised men is only
expressed in the US, which would suggest that this is a cultural thing.
A few years ago, there was a change to the way our dentists are paid.
Originally they were supported by the NHS, this has changed and now most
people have to pay for the work carried out. There have been a few
scandals about denists doing unnecassery work, filling teeth that didn't
need it, etc. It would seem that all this fuss about continuing a
practice with dubious benifits, is financial.
Just my 2p worth,
Martin
--
David Tillotson
>I wish some Europeans would jump in here and comment on the attitudes
>and experiences in Europe. To here Mr Pritchard and others expound on
>the problems of keeping the foreskin, one would assume that physicians
>in Europe would spend at least 25% of their time on foreskin problems.
>
Happy to oblige.
Speaking as a normal, un-circed male (like the majority of British men),
I can definitely assure you that doctors over here do not *seem* to
treat that many problems requiring circumcision. I say "seem", because
as usual we Brits generally don't like to talk about "down there". I
have spoken frankly with some of my friends over here, and it would seem
that the foreskin causes little or no harm (surprisingly:-).
To repeat an argument I have used earlier, I have met a number of people
with bone/joint problems, so if the pro-circ argument of pre-emptive
curing were valid, we should perhaps consider removing the skeleton at
birth. This may look like I'm being obtuse, but the odds are more in
favour of a bone/joint problem than a foreskin one.
--
David Tillotson
Hugh Young
In <33EA00...@earthlink.net> Mercy <ele...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Lawrence Wade wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 1 Aug 97 09:33:14 NDT, hu...@young.wn.planet.gen.nz (Hugh Young)
>> >expounded:
>> >>On July 1 1984, BC stopped paying for Routine Infant Circumcision.
>> >>1984 Jul-Dec 00.38%
>> >>1985 0.35
>> >>1986 0.43
>> >>1987 0.33
>> >That's pretty amazing.
>> >>You can see the powerful effect that economics played in changing the
>> >>circumcision landscape in British Columbia. The same has happened in
>> >>Alberta, Yukon, and other Canadian provinces as well.
>> >>
>> >>Money is the key.
>>
>> As a resident of Ontario, Canada, I think you'll be impressed to note
that
>> since OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Plan) stopped paying for
circumcisions at
>> infancy in 1993, the rate of circumcision among 2-3 year olds has more
than
>> quadrupled (bbl: "OHIP Budget Report, Tabled By Procedure", May 1997).
This could be true. It could have gone from 0.33% to 1.33%. It can't be
denied that universal circumcision does automatically take care of those VERY
few cases where it is actually needed. You should also be aware that many
doctors still have a circumcising mentality (especially if they're cut
themselves) and seize every opportunity to circumcise for the slightest
penile problem.
>> The moral of the story seems to be that if you have your son
circumcised in
>> infancy, they won't escape the procedure; merely, it'll have to be
postponed
>> until they can actually remember it and become nervous about it.
This is absolute rubbish. The vast majority of males never need to be
circumcised.
>> The really nice thing about infant circs is that they never remember
the
>> procedure
The Taddio et al. study (The Lancet, Vol. 349, March 1, 1997: Pages 599-603)
shows that they do remember it for months. There is NOTHING nice about
cutting a healthy part of a baby's sexual organs off.
>> and they aren't given the opportunity to become apprehensive about
>> the procedure.
>>
>> And, unless you've got your head in the sand or are simply incapable of
>> dealing with the facts because of your own psychological issues (and
>> circumcision _does_ make a convenient scapegoat, doesn't it?)
You assume that everyone writing against circumcision is circumcised. This is
just another ad hominem argument.
, you'll have no
>> question that circumcision is a good idea and should be done.
85% of the men in the world think this is a crazy idea.
>Circumcision is still unnecessary. There is a lot of misunderstanding about
>the proper care of the foreskin. Furthermore, tightness of the foreskin may
>be the excuse that the doctors in Ontario use to circumcise. The foreskin
>loosens over time through a process of desquamation. Doctors are still
>eaager
>to perform surgery for money! Circumcision is not the least-invasive
>procedure. There are still less-invasive alternatives. If the medical
>profession and society could move beyond their backwards prejudicism, they
>could take the next step to learn what those alternatives are.
The main motivation for circumcision is something murky in the depths of the
psyche of the circumcisors that has nothing to do with health.
Bern Nobel
neal_...@rocketmail.NS.com (Neal) wrote:
>I wish some Europeans would jump in here and comment on the attitudes
>and experiences in Europe. To here Mr Pritchard and others expound on
>the problems of keeping the foreskin, one would assume that physicians
>in Europe would spend at least 25% of their time on foreskin problems.
>--
>Neal
I am a German born American who has lived in the US since my youth and
have ample experience on both sides of the Atlantic. None of my male
European friends or family are circumcised except for one. My cousin
(also an immigrant to the US) was circumcised for phimosis as a
teen... which he regrets. No second generation boys are circumcised
and, if any adults had problems, then they must have been treated
without recourse to surgery.
Bern Nobel
English spoken here
Wir sprechen Deutsch
Hablamos espanol
John Pritchard
EH Scholl wrote:
>
> John Pritchard wrote:
> >
> > Hugh Young wrote:
> > >
> > > In <33E51C...@primenet.com> "D. C. Sessions" <sess...@primenet.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >...the exception list just keeps
> >
> > snipped
> > >
> > > Yes, the Sessionses have an inexhaustible list of exceptions, of ever more
> > > rare and obscure (or painful and life-threatening) cases, none of them having
> > > quite enough in common with routine infant circumcision to stand on its own.
> > > The one case that does compare closely is Female Genital Mutilation, and that
> > > is the one case where it is the Sessionses who bend over backward to find
> > > differences.
> >
> > On one hand we have removal of the male prepuce (which statistically
> > will for many tend to shorten with maturity). On the other hand we
> > have removal of the clitoris, labia and the sewing up of the vagina. You
> > say that these procedures compare closely. If suspect few will agree
> > with you.
>
> not the most practiced (from what I've read). More common is to remove
> the clitoral hood and/or snip the inner labia. This indeed would be
> analagous to circumcision of the male.
> The clit is considered analagous to the male penis, the hood the
> foreskin. As a woman with all her original parts mostly intact (small
> amount of tissue removed once for a biopsy) I will say if I lost my
> clitoral hood I would be in a LOT of pain until the clitorus rubbed
> enough to build up a callous.
>
> It is said to be the same for the glans.
Female circumcision is a term bandied about which can mean, or imply,
anything the writer intends it to at that moment. Even you seem to be
unclear on the concept. Which is it - to remove of the clitoral hood or
to remove the clitoral hood and/or snip the inner labia? If it requires
only removal of the clitoral hood and a medical benefit was well
demonstrated, then no doubt many would seriously consider the option. If
it requires more than removal of the clitoral hood, then the analogy
doesn't hold and we are discussing something completely different.
Said to be the same for the glans? By whom? Do you have calouses on your
nipples?
>
> > You don't seem to understand that parents who choose to neo-natally
> > circumcise a son have no need to justify their decision to you.
>
> To me personally, no - but perhaps to their sons at a later time, and
> the way things are moving in the US perhaps to society as a whole.
> Many cultures view routine infant male circumcision to be as barbaric as
> the US views routine infant female circumcision.
> This is a large part of why that analogy is used.
I suspect that the real reason the analogy is used is to misrepresent
and to misinform.
> Betsy
>
John Pritchard
Mercy wrote:
>
> John Pritchard wrote:
>
> > On one hand we have removal of the male prepuce (which statistically
> > will for many tend to shorten with maturity). On the other hand we
> > have removal of the clitoris, labia and the sewing up of the vagina. You
> > say that these procedures compare closely. If suspect few will agree
> > with you.
>
> my experience in this matter. I am a naturist, so the human body is not a
> shameful thing for me like Victorian prudes. One old man who is a friend did
> have a very short foreskin, but the adult males (such as a number of them in
> their forties) had foreskin that slightly exposed the meatus). A number of
> males in there twenties still had overhang. I have not seen many natural
> European males with short foreskin. It would appear from a casual observation
> of the naturist magazines that foreskin naturally covers the glans even when
> the male enters adulthood. Incidentally, the nerves do not "go away" when the
> foreskin becomes short, but they are definitely lost with circumcision.
No need to be sorry. And Victorian prudery has nothing to do with it.
See footnotes 1, 2 and 3 for further discussion. The erotic role of the
foreskin varies depending upon it length, tightness and how it reacts
during active intercourse.
> > You don't seem to understand that parents who choose to neo-natally
> > circumcise a son have no need to justify their decision to you.
>
> Of course not. But they may have to explain it to their son if he is upset
> that a piece of his body was cut off of him without consideration for his
> consent. But the doctors do have the responsibility to explain why they
> perform procedures that are necessary or of dubious value, and they cannot
> shirk their share in the responsibility off onto the parents. The medical
> professionals have a responsibility according to medical ethics to perform
> the least-invasive procedures. Circumcision is not the least-invasive
> procedure.
Parents must make decisions. Circumcision is a safe simple procedure
which is effective. Other so-called less invasive procedures require use
of steroids on pubescent boys or the use of unpleasant mechanical
stretching.
Footnote 1
Circumcision It aint so bad
From: jpri...@MBnet.MB.CA (Jack Pritchard)
Date: 31 Oct 95 16:32:05 GMT
Organization: The University of Manitoba
Newsgroups: misc.kids, soc.culture.jewish, soc.men, sci.med
I have frequently made the point that there may not be as great
a difference in sexual experience between the circumcised and
uncircumcised penises as some of more the rabid anti circ group
would have us believe. A young man requiring an emergency
circumcision to treat paraphimosis could well find the experience
physically and mentally traumatic. But for the sexually active
adult from my experience the difference is not great. I had
suffered from phimosis as a child but cured it nature's way -
masturbation. Circumcised as a sexual active adult who had
worn the foreskin retracted for some years, while I was glad to
get rid of the bulky foreskin, I noticed little difference is sexual
experience. As a result I am highly skeptical of the generally
exaggerated role of the foreskin seen in many postings.
Browsing recently at a used book sale I came across the book
Advice to Men by Robert Chartham an Englishmen who wrote
on sexual matters - perhaps an earlier and British version of
Dr.Ruth - from which I give an excerpt. I found it interesting
since my experience was that of the 18 uncircumcised men
who deliberately trained their foreskins to remain behind the
rim. More importantly, I think he summarizes quite well this
whole stupid circumcision debate - at least regarding the
so-called sensitivity aspect.
Advice to Men
Robert Chartham 1971
The New American Library of Canada Limited
Scarborough, Ontario.
When one comes to consider it, this lack of difference in the
sensitivity between the uncircumcised and circumcised penis
head is logical. The proportion of penises, that are completely
covered by the foreskin, which though retractable is worn
permanently forward, is comparatively small, since the majority
of men seem to prefer to expose the penis head for long periods
at a time. Even taking the naturally developed foreskin a study
of 2500 uncircumcised penises have revealed that less than
half - 45 percent - have foreskins that completely cover the head
of the relaxed penis, whereas in 32 percent the foreskin covered
only half the head, and in 23 percent did not cover it at all. I have
recently had the kind cooperation of one hundred uncircumcised
men, of whom 27 had foreskins which completely covered the
penis head. Of these 27 only 9 wore their foreskins permanently
forward; the remaining 18 deliberately trained their foreskins to
remain behind the rim. It is interesting to note that in these men,
who carried out this retractive training since their late teens, the
depth of the rim was pronounced. It looked as though the
constant hitching of the bulky foreskin behind the rim had
caused the rim to develop until it was capable of preventing
the foreskin from slipping forward.
What I am getting at is this: The great majority of uncircumcised
men either by design or natural development have the penis tip
exposed. The same conditions that are said to desensitize the
penis tip nerves in the circumcised desensitize the same set
of nerves in the uncircumcised.
Footnote 2
From: John Pritchard <jpri...@escape.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.circumcision
Subject: Re: Ignorance About: Foreskin not covering glans
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 09:51:08 -0500
Message-ID: <33CF82...@escape.ca>
Mufti the Great wrote:
>
> Robert G. Ziegler wrote:
> > Rojer Trickett wrote:
> > > Foreskin Questions.
> > > My son was not circumcised at birth, soon he will be requiring
information regarding personal male hygiene as well as other knowledge
about the pleasures or detriments of obtaining a foreskin. The pleasures
I am sure he will learn without guidance, the detriments if any are my
concern.
> > > When he reaches majority he will be at liberty to make his own choices relative to circumcision.
> > > Being that I was; without consent circumcised I can not know of nor
guide his education in reference to said subject.
> > > Therefore if anyone cares to offer their guidance regarding the
following questions their input will be genuinely appreciated.
> > > 1. Does the average fully-developed foreskin partially or completely encase the flaccid glands penis.
> That well depends on the individual, on the climate and on your sexual
behavior. As a European male nudist I have seen all kinds of penises and
talked to many people. Here are my findings about uncut penises:
Pre-puberty uncut boys here in Europe rarely have completely uncovered
glans. Most of them their glanses covered by foreskin, sometimes even
have a little "trunk". Later on, roughly about the age of nine to ten,
when their penises start to grow, or masturbation becomes more frequent,
many glanses become visible even when flaccid. With about thirteen or
fourteen years, about one third has most part of their glanses not
covered by foreskin anymore, the next third's glanses are about
half-covered, and last third still have their penises covered by more or
less foreskin.
My foreskin started to retract itself at eleven when my penis started
to
grow, leaving my penis's glans completely exposed at about fourteen.
This was about the age when I gave up pulling it forward again when it
rolled itself back during various occasions. The same is now happening
to my friend's son. He is seven now and the tip of his glans, sometimes
one third of it, is already exposed when flaccid. Naturally exposed
glanses at this age are much more common in Sahel countries in Africa.
The completely covered glans with the "trunk" is what I have often
referred to as the infantile or immature penis. With maturity, if the
foreskin does not permanently partly retract, it must at least be easily
retractable in order to permit sexual intercourse. Failure of this
*maturing* process to take place can cause a great deal of pain,
unpleasantness and embarrassment. Those who choose not to circumcise
their sons should be alert for these potential problems.
See footnote 3 for further discussion.
> > > 2. Does the average fully-developed foreskin partially or
> > > completely encase the erect glands penis.
>
> When I was a boy of nine, my foreskin always retracted complety when my
> penis was erect. This was the earliest age I remember. Now, as an adult
> male, it almost always (flaccid or erect) remains in this position. Only
> with very cold water the foreskin covers my glans for a prolonged
> period. As soon as it gets warmer, it retracts partly or fully. But when
> the foreskin still covers the glans when erect, you have a medical
> problem.
> On the other hand, I once saw and talked to a boy of about 16 who had
> such an enourmously huge glans that the little bit of foreskin he had
> could only be rolled forward to cover part of his penis' head when he
> squeezed his glans tightly. His glans kind of popped out of the foreskin
> immediately afterwards.
The anti-circ group refer to the lack of sensitivity after circumcision.
Here we have a case where the intact foreskin, what there is of it,
remains permanently retracted.
Since there is such great variation among the intact, and since among
the antic-circ people *sensitivity* or rather what is simply surface
tenderness is an issue, it follows then that some intact models must be
better than others.
> > > 3. During sexual activity; ie masturbation, sexual intercourse,
> > > fellatio ect, does the average foreskin retract sufficiently to allow
> > > complete and direct stimulation to the glands penis.
>
> As I said, my foreskin is quite short and my glans is quite well
> developed, so it stays completely retracted during any sexual activity.
> When masturbationg I stimulate my glans by stroking it directly. I do
> not use my foreskin for that.
Direct stimulation of the glans is seen by the anti-circ people as an
undesirable practice which results of circumcision. In fact, circumcised
men can masturbate on the shaft only and intact men may choose to
masturbate on the glans.
> > > 4. During bathing does the average uncircumcised male retract and
> > > bathe the penis with soap and water or with water only.
>
> Keep your foreskin retracted and clean and use whatever cleansing fluid
> you like. I don't see any problems here.
Good advice.
> > > 5. Does the average uncircumcised male prior to urination retract
> > > his foreskin partially, completely or not at all in order to maintain
> > > hygiene.
>
> Of course one should retract one's foreskin during this process.
> Everything else would just be inhygenic.
Good advice. This is particularly true if one has a trunk or overhang.
> > > 6. Can foreign matter such as pubic hair, sand, clothing fibers ect
> > > violate the opening of the foreskin and aggravate the glands penis.
>
> Never had trouble with this. My woman had some trouble when we fucked on
> a sandy beach in France; she got some sand in her pussy. Sand in the
> meatus can be peed out easily. Sand on the glans gives quite a nice
> feeling, but do not sandpaper your best friend.
An interesting and amusing comment. The feel of sand on the glans can be
*interesting?* but I wouldn't recommend intercourse in that condition.
In any case, in this situation an intact man's experience can be the
same as that of the circumcised man's.
> > > 7. Is it literally necessary for the average uncircumcised male to
> > > bathe beneath the foreskin on a relatively frequent basis, or is this
> > > just pro-circumcision propaganda?
>
> Every penis, circumcised or not, should be well kept clean. Ask the
> females. Circumcision does not give you the right to neglect you
> cleanliness.
Agreed. But the circumcised glans is very much easier to clean and to
keep clean. For some models of the intact penis there is a penile
version of five o'clock shadow.
> I would like to hear your thoughts about my findings.
>
> So long
> Mufti
In my opinion your account is accurate (and very interesting) as far as
it goes but it only tells half the story. It does not deal with the
other half of intact men who are less fortunate. However, it does
emphasize the fact that there can in fact be very little difference
between the circumcised and intact states.
Footnote 3
From: fo6...@rrz.uni-hamburg.de (Robin Stuart)
Newsgroups: alt.mens-rights,misc.kids.health,sci.med,alt.circumcision
Subject: Re: Blessing or Mutilation (was Re: Male Genital Mutilation:
DESPICABLE!
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 00:35:33 +0100
Message-ID: <1997012600...@enterprise.dialup.uni-hamburg.de>
John Pritchard <jpri...@escape.ca> wrote: a lot of statistics,
I believe you may wish to add these to your collection.
Schoeberlein distinguished between 5 different types of relationship,
between the foreskin and glans
A Glans and Sulcus free - lacking or atrophy (see note)__8.5%
B Glans partly free, partly covered __________________41.9%
C Glans fully covered by prepuce, can be laid free _____40.8%
D Glans covered by foreskin Sulcus cant be revealed,
small portion at tip of glans can be seen (phimose)__6.0%
E Phimosis ridgid no retraction possible ______________2.8%
Regarding group A he says
Among approximately one quarter of this group, reports or scars from
being circumcised could be established. Among a proportion reports were
questionable, Among approx. half the young men without prepuce, the
question of surgery was denied, and no evidence could be found. In
addition, among a large percent I received the confirmation of the
mother that no surgery was performed on their son. There is no doubt,
that the lack of, or atrophy of the foreskin occurrs spontaneously among
approx. 4% of young men.
DR. MED. WERNER SCHOEBERLEIN
"Bedeutung und Haeufigkeit
von Phimose und Smegma"
Muenchener Medizinische Wochenschrift 7.
pages 373-377 (1966)
Dr. med. Werner Schoeberlein gives an abstract in English which reads :
SUMMARY : SIGNIFICANCE AND INCIDENCE OF PHIMOSIS AND SMEGMA
The proportion of the prepuce to the glans penis was studied and the
incidence of existing smegma was recorded in medical examinations of
3,000 young men, mostly of an age between 18 and 22 years. In 8.5% there
was no prepuce, in approximately 50% of these without previous
operation. A phimosis was found in 8.8%. Smegma was found in 19.2%
including 1/3 with "a large amount". A comparison of school education
and professional groups of these young men revealed no difference in the
incidence of the impurity. A hypospadias was found in 3.7%.
EH Scholl
John Pritchard wrote:
>
> Female circumcision is a term bandied about which can mean, or imply,
> anything the writer intends it to at that moment. Even you seem to be
> unclear on the concept. Which is it - to remove of the clitoral hood or
> to remove the clitoral hood and/or snip the inner labia? If it requires
> only removal of the clitoral hood and a medical benefit was well
> demonstrated, then no doubt many would seriously consider the option. If
> it requires more than removal of the clitoral hood, then the analogy
> doesn't hold and we are discussing something completely different.
Female circumcision is an imprecise term because it can and does mean
more than one thing - there are varying degrees of cutting (and at times
sewing) involved. I am not unclear about the concept - I am clear that
different cultures and even different families within cultures
circumcise females to differing degrees.
I don't think many Americans would consider removel of the clitoral hood
to help prevent UTIs as a serious option....
At least none I've ever heard of.
Yet they will remove the foreskin (supposedly) for exactly that reason.
>
> Said to be the same for the glans? By whom? Do you have calouses on your
> nipples?
By many... and yes, I do, as do most people. Take a very close look.
> > Many cultures view routine infant male circumcision to be as barbaric as
> > the US views routine infant female circumcision.
> > This is a large part of why that analogy is used.
>
> I suspect that the real reason the analogy is used is to misrepresent
> and to misinform.
You may suspect whatever you wish...
> > Betsy
(again)
ran...@hotmail.com
In article <X5kwPDA$ai7z...@acmelabs.demon.co.uk>,
David Tillotson <Da...@acmelabs.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> In article <33eda20c...@news.idt.net>, Neal
> <neal_...@rocketmail.NS.com> writes
> [snip]
> >and experiences in Europe. To here Mr Pritchard and others expound on
> >the problems of keeping the foreskin, one would assume that physicians
> >in Europe would spend at least 25% of their time on foreskin problems.
> >
> >--
> Speaking as a normal, un-circed male (like the majority of British men),
> have spoken frankly with some of my friends over here, and it would seem
> David Tillotson
It never ceases to amaze me how many Americans posters will quite
categorically state that they themselves do not have a foreskin but then
try to tell me I have a medical time-bomb waiting to go off between my
legs.
Like David, I also come from a culture which understands foreskins and
knows from two hundred years of medical experience that they are
generally trouble-free. They are so trouble free, in fact, that we
hardly ever think about them, let alone worry about them or discuss them.
They are a non-topic. Just another part of the body like an ear-lobe or
eye-lid with the appropriate hygiene methods. If it goes wrong we take
the appropriate medical action. We don't worry all the time that it
MIGHT go wrong at some future date.
And then someone, WITHOUT their own foreskin, whose country has a medical
establishment with a good fifty year gap in their knowledge of them,
wants to tell me different!
Incredible. Just amazing. (I hesistate to use the word arrogant.)
We Europeans don't post our experience because we hardly ever need to
worry about the thing. It just doesn't cross our minds that it should
warrant any special consideration. We're too busy shaking our heads over
that strange penile social custom that seems to so obsess our American
neighbours.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Roy Turpin
I would suggest that the custom you call American actually comes here
from Europe. Puritans & other religious groups who were socially
outcasted from Europe arrived in America to continue their superstitious
and barbaric practice of male genital mutilation. To think that one will
be closer to "God" because part of their penis has been removed is
totally ignorant. Yes, someone can quote me chapter and verse about what
has been commanded, but the truth is, circumcision is an outdated
medical proceedure which needs to be seen in the same light as female
genital mutilation. It is more about passing along shame concerning
sexual pleasure and the negative religious attitudes regarding body
image that much of western society has been continually brainwashed with
rather than about cleanliness. I agree with you, washing an
uncircumcised penis with soap and water should be like shampooing one's
hair regularly. Just part of basic day to day hygiene.
Mercy
John Pritchard wrote:
>
> Mercy wrote:
> >
> > John Pritchard wrote:
> >
> > > On one hand we have removal of the male prepuce (which statistically
> > > will for many tend to shorten with maturity). On the other hand we
> > > have removal of the clitoris, labia and the sewing up of the vagina. You
> > > say that these procedures compare closely. If suspect few will agree
> > > with you.
> >
> > Sorry! How mature does a male have to be? As a circumcised man, I will share
> > my experience in this matter. I am a naturist, so the human body is not a
> > shameful thing for me like Victorian prudes. One old man who is a friend did
> > have a very short foreskin, but the adult males (such as a number of them in
> > their forties) had foreskin that slightly exposed the meatus). A number of
> > males in there twenties still had overhang. I have not seen many natural
> > European males with short foreskin. It would appear from a casual observation
> > of the naturist magazines that foreskin naturally covers the glans even when
> > the male enters adulthood. Incidentally, the nerves do not "go away" when the
> > foreskin becomes short, but they are definitely lost with circumcision.
>
> No need to be sorry. And Victorian prudery has nothing to do with it.
> See footnotes 1, 2 and 3 for further discussion.
You have LOOOOOOOOONG fooootnotes! 8-)
> The erotic role of the
> foreskin varies depending upon it length, tightness and how it reacts
> during active intercourse.
I would rather be one of the haves. :-)
> > > You don't seem to understand that parents who choose to neo-natally
> > > circumcise a son have no need to justify their decision to you.
> >
> > Of course not. But they may have to explain it to their son if he is upset
> > that a piece of his body was cut off of him without consideration for his
> > consent. But the doctors do have the responsibility to explain why they
> > perform procedures that are necessary or of dubious value, and they cannot
> > shirk their share in the responsibility off onto the parents. The medical
> > professionals have a responsibility according to medical ethics to perform
> > the least-invasive procedures. Circumcision is not the least-invasive
> > procedure.
>
> Parents must make decisions.
No duh! But a parent does not have to decide whether or not he or she will
have their children's fingers or toes cut off!
> Circumcision is a safe simple procedure
> which is effective.
Safe and simple? Circumcision has risks. Visit the following website:
http://www.cirp.org/CIRP/library/complications/
Effective? There are more effective alternatives such as preputial plasty.
Visit the following website to see how much more effective this alternative
to circumcision is:
http://www.cirp.org/CIRP/library/treatment/phimosis/cuckow/
> Other so-called less invasive procedures require use
> of steroids on pubescent boys or the use of unpleasant mechanical
> stretching.
What is more invasive? Using steroids or cutting off at least one-third of
the child's penile skin?
When the non-surgical balloon dilation technique was used to effectively
resolve an overly tight foreskin, the treatment was not unpleasant at all.
Visit this website to see a highly effective non-surgical cure for phimosis:
http://www.cirp.org/CIRP/library/treatment/phimosis/he-zhou/
I will not comment on the footnotes, because I do not have enough time to sit
all day on my computer. I have more important things to attend to. But I will
say that your referencing a pro-circ doctor who wrote a book rather than
discussing his studies in a medical journal where he can be critiqued by
other medical professionals is like me referencing an anti-circ doctor who
wrote a book rather than discussing his studies in a medical journal where it
really counts.
David Tillotson
In article <33F1B0...@escape.ca>, John Pritchard <jpri...@escape.ca>
writes
[snip]
>The anti-circ group refer to the lack of sensitivity after circumcision.
>Here we have a case where the intact foreskin, what there is of it,
>remains permanently retracted.
>
>Since there is such great variation among the intact, and since among
>the antic-circ people *sensitivity* or rather what is simply surface
>tenderness is an issue, it follows then that some intact models must be
>better than others.
>
I have to agree with this point, but it does not strike me as a valid
argument for RIC.
[snip]
>In my opinion your account is accurate (and very interesting) as far as
>it goes but it only tells half the story. It does not deal with the
>other half of intact men who are less fortunate. However, it does
>emphasize the fact that there can in fact be very little difference
>between the circumcised and intact states.
Which raises the question "So why circumcise?"
BTW What *half*? The figures given in the post would not be accepted for
a clinical trial, as the conditions/X-section were not exactly
representative. If anyone can provide *valid* and current figures, we
may be able to proerly discuss the issues.
--
David Tillotson
John Pritchard
EH Scholl wrote:
>
> John Pritchard wrote:
>
> >
> > Female circumcision is a term bandied about which can mean, or
>
> Female circumcision is an imprecise term because it can and does mean
> more than one thing - there are varying degrees of cutting (and at times
> sewing) involved. I am not unclear about the concept - I am clear that
> different cultures and even different families within cultures
> circumcise females to differing degrees.
Then let those who attempt to relate male circumcision to female
circumcision be very precise in what they mean.
> I don't think many Americans would consider removel of the clitoral hood
> to help prevent UTIs as a serious option....
> At least none I've ever heard of.
Simple speculation as to what many American would do, since I am not
aware of any studies which show the removal of the clitoral hood helps
to prevent UTIs.
> Yet they will remove the foreskin (supposedly) for exactly that reason.
Because some studies do suggest that male circumcision does in fact
reduce the incidence of UTIs.
> > Said to be the same for the glans? By whom? Do you have calouses on your
> > nipples?
> By many... and yes, I do, as do most people. Take a very close look.
>
> > > Many cultures view routine infant male circumcision to be as barbaric as
> > > the US views routine infant female circumcision.
> > > This is a large part of why that analogy is used.
> >
> > I suspect that the real reason the analogy is used is to misrepresent
> > and to misinform.
>
> You may suspect whatever you wish...
Thanks. Well, actually it is somewhat more than a suspicion but
............
mercial.email
In article <33FD8A...@escape.ca>,
John Pritchard <jpri...@escape.ca> wrote:
>I have visited a number of CIRP sites a number of times although not
>recently. The sole purpose of CIRP is to eliminate male circumcision.
That is your own opinion, and you have a right to it.
>In this setting, one could not reasonably expect to find circumcision
>shown as a desirable or even acceptable option. It is not so much what they
>say as what they fail to say.
John,
We would like the site to be as complete and informative as possible.
If you can suggest a specific way in which it can be made more complete,
without compromising on accuracy, please let us know.
Again, I am always happy to debate points of fact in this newsgroup.
Best
g.
--
I conceal nothing. It is not enough not to lie. One should strive
not to lie in a negative sense by remaining silent. ---Leo Tolstoy
ADDRESS ALTERED TO DEFLECT SPAM. UNSOLICITED E-MAIL ADS BILLED $500
Geoffrey T. Falk <gtf(@)cirp.org> http://www.cirp.org/~gtf/
Hugh Young
In <33FD8A...@escape.ca> John Pritchard <jpri...@escape.ca> wrote:
>Mercy wrote:
>> You have LOOOOOOOOONG fooootnotes! 8-)
>
>Because the same old crap keeps coming around so bloody often. Might
>just as well give the standard response to the standard statement. Why
>reinvent the wheel?
That is rich coming from someone who not only joins in recycling
pro-circumcision crap and repeating discredited crap but also actually
invents crap of his own: that a fullsized adult prepuce is "immature".
>> > The erotic role of the
>> > foreskin varies depending upon it length, tightness and how it reacts
>> > during active intercourse.
>>
>> I would rather be one of the haves. :-)
>
>Fair enough. I wouldn't. But how do you know you would be a have? Among
>the intact, it is the luck of the draw. That is the problem.
This is a "problem" of JP's own invention. The haves are the intact, who have
the ridged band and the 10,000 nerve-endings. He would have us believe that
people who have very short foreskins are a) common and b) not also haves.
Both claims are (his word) crap.
>> > > > You don't seem to understand that parents who choose to neo-natally
>snipped
>> >
>> > Parents must make decisions.
>>
>> No duh! But a parent does not have to decide whether or not he or she will
>> have their children's fingers or toes cut off!
>
>But parents do have the right to have a child's tooth removed. Teeth,
>foreskins, fingers and toes are all quite different and must be
>addressed individually and appropriately
And normal, healthy teeth (especially second teeth), fingers, toes,
clitorides, labia and foreskins (female and male) are the property of the
person on whose body they grew. Noboby else has any right to remove them in
the absence of pressing medical need.
>I have visited a number of CIRP sites a number of times although not
>recently. The sole purpose of CIRP is to eliminate male circumcision. In
>this setting, one could not reasonably expect to find circumcision shown
>as a desirable or even acceptable option.
How could it be? What madness is it that makes cutting part of someone's
genitals off without their consent "desirable or even acceptable"? At the
very best it may (occasionally) be considered a necessary evil.
>A medical journal that really counts? See the Maden report regarding
>penile cancer for starters.
And around we go again.
Maden found 37% of the cases of penile cancer were circumcised, drawn from a
population in which the circumcision rate was about 37%. In other words,
circumcision had very little effect, if any. In only 17% of cases was the
foreskin involved.
Significantly, when circumcised men get penile cancer, they tend to get it at
the scar. Someone (JP?) tried to argue that skin there was the most
"foreskin-like" and the cancer was somehow attracted there, but it seems much
more likely that it was the trauma of circumcision that disturbed the cells,
eventually leading to the cancer.
Like most such studies, the Maden report does not completely deal with the
many socio-economic factors that correlated with being, or not being,
circumcised, in the age group most likely to contract penile cancer (the very
old). The strongest correlation is with smoking.
But there is no need to deny that circumcision reduces the rate of penile
cancer. Obviously, if you cut part of the penis off, you reduce the cancer
rate. Cutting the *whole* penis off at birth would *eliminate* penile cancer.
John Pritchard
Hugh Young wrote:
>
> In <33FD8A...@escape.ca> John Pritchard <jpri...@escape.ca> wrote:
>
> >Mercy wrote:
> >> You have LOOOOOOOOONG fooootnotes! 8-)
> >
> >Because the same old crap keeps coming around so bloody often. Might
> >just as well give the standard response to the standard statement. Why
> >reinvent the wheel?
>
> That is rich coming from someone who not only joins in recycling
> pro-circumcision crap and repeating discredited crap but also actually
> invents crap of his own: that a fullsized adult prepuce is "immature".
Anti-circumcision articles repeat in an endless cycle. When the same
topic is brought up again and again, it by necessity requires the same
response again and again (in the absence of any new information in the
meantime).
Define "fullsized".
> >> > The erotic role of the
> >> > foreskin varies depending upon it length, tightness and how it reacts
> >> > during active intercourse.
> >>
> >> I would rather be one of the haves. :-)
> >
> >Fair enough. I wouldn't. But how do you know you would be a have? Among
> >the intact, it is the luck of the draw. That is the problem.
>
> This is a "problem" of JP's own invention. The haves are the intact, who have
> the ridged band and the 10,000 nerve-endings. He would have us believe that
> people who have very short foreskins are a) common and b) not also haves.
>
> Both claims are (his word) crap.
The role of the foreskin varies during active intercourse. If the
anatomy is such that during intercourse, the foreskin is little
stretched (that is, the foreskin is long and loose) and the
nerve-endings, regardless of how many, little stressed, the foreskin can
play a very limited positive role. In fact, it can play a negative role.
Alternatively, it can also play a negative role if it is too tight and
does not retract freely.
See footnote.
> >> > > > You don't seem to understand that parents who choose to neo-natally
> >snipped
> >> >
> >> > Parents must make decisions.
> >>
> >> No duh! But a parent does not have to decide whether or not he or she will
> >> have their children's fingers or toes cut off!
> >
> >But parents do have the right to have a child's tooth removed. Teeth,
> >foreskins, fingers and toes are all quite different and must be
> >addressed individually and appropriately
>
> And normal, healthy teeth (especially second teeth), fingers, toes,
> clitorides, labia and foreskins (female and male) are the property of the
> person on whose body they grew. Noboby else has any right to remove them in
> the absence of pressing medical need.
For any particular child, the concept of need must by in the hands of
the parents - not in your hands.
> >I have visited a number of CIRP sites a number of times although not
> >recently. The sole purpose of CIRP is to eliminate male circumcision. In
> >this setting, one could not reasonably expect to find circumcision shown
> >as a desirable or even acceptable option.
>
> How could it be? What madness is it that makes cutting part of someone's
> genitals off without their consent "desirable or even acceptable"? At the
> very best it may (occasionally) be considered a necessary evil.
For any particular child, the concept of need must by in the hands of
the partents - not in your hands.
> >A medical journal that really counts? See the Maden report regarding
> >penile cancer for starters.
>
> And around we go again.
>
> Maden found 37% of the cases of penile cancer were circumcised, drawn from a
> population in which the circumcision rate was about 37%. In other words,
> circumcision had very little effect, if any. In only 17% of cases was the
> foreskin involved.
>
> Significantly, when circumcised men get penile cancer, they tend to get it at
> the scar. Someone (JP?)
No, not me.
tried to argue that skin there was the most
> "foreskin-like" and the cancer was somehow attracted there, but it seems much
> more likely that it was the trauma of circumcision that disturbed the cells,
> eventually leading to the cancer.
>
> Like most such studies, the Maden report does not completely deal with the
> many socio-economic factors that correlated with being, or not being,
> circumcised, in the age group most likely to contract penile cancer (the very
> old). The strongest correlation is with smoking.
She wanted an authoratative report so I gave her one. It seems that you
do not agree with this report.
The authors of the Maden report list lack of circumcision first.
> But there is no need to deny that circumcision reduces the rate of penile
> cancer. Obviously, if you cut part of the penis off, you reduce the cancer
> rate. Cutting the *whole* penis off at birth would *eliminate* penile cancer.
Of course, but who would want to do that? Only you seem to continue to
bring up this goofy idea.
> --
> Hugh Young, Pukerua Bay, Nuclear-free Aotearoa / NEW ZEALAND
Footnote 1