"No Foreskin", a true story
Stan
NO FORESKIN
[A man recalls his thoughts and feelings as a child over
60 years ago when he realized that part of his penis had
been cut off. Distilled by John A. Erickson from
correspondence with a man in Texas. Published in the Fall
1986 issue (#6) of FQ (Foreskin Quarterly).]
My parents never used the word "penis" because it
wasn’t in the Bible. They used the word "foreskin"
instead. This caused me endless confusion.
When I was about seven I asked my mother why my
"foreskin" always stuck out but my older brother’s
didn’t (since the head of his penis was covered with
skin but mine was always exposed).
"Oh, don’t you remember?" she said. "The doctor
sewed your foreskin so it would stay back."
To my young mind something that was only sewed could
become unsewed. I would ask her, "When is the doctor
going to unsew my foreskin?" But she always turned my
questions off, never telling me the truth.
When I was nine a house was being built near ours.
One afternoon, when the men had quit for the day, the
man who ran the steam shovel asked me if I’d like to see
how it worked. Naturally, I was thrilled. I climbed on
and he showed me all about it. He was about 40, a smooth
talker, and somehow got onto the subject of "skin".
He asked, "Can you slip your skin all the way back?
Does it ever pull tight or hurt?"
I didn’t know how to answer him because, unlike my
father and brother, I had no skin to slip back; but I
managed to say, "The doctor sewed my foreskin so it
stays back all the time."
He said, "I’ve never seen a foreskin that was sewn
back."
Anxious to understand what had been done to me, I
said, "I’ll show you my foreskin if you’ll show me
yours." (He had no way to know I really meant "penis".)
"Sure", he said, "I’ll show you my foreskin. Let’s
see yours first."
I opened my pants and took my rough-cut little penis
out. I was watching his eyes and saw his astonishment as
he said, "I’ve never seen a foreskin sewn back like
that." Then he took out his penis, the head completely
covered with skin. "See *my* foreskin?" he asked.
I could see it all right!
He slipped the skin back slowly until the head was
exposed, and said, "I can make mine look like yours too.
See yours? See the scar all around it?"
Yes, I could see it clearly. "That’s where I was
sewed", I said.
"Son", he said gently, "you are circumcised."
"Oh no, I’m not," I said bravely. "I’m a Christian.
I’m not a Jew." (I had heard in Sunday school that
Jewish boys were circumcised and Christian boys were
baptized.)
"See the little marks going all around?" he asked.
"Yes", I said.
"That’s where you were sewed. Look here." He pulled
gently on the skin of the shaft but it was too tight to
move. "See?" he said. "There’s no loose skin like mine."
Then he slipped his foreskin back and forth over the
head of his penis and I could see *exactly* what had
been done to me. I could see that *that* part of me had been
*cut* OFF!
I panicked.
"When will my foreskin grow back???" I asked.
"Son," he said softly, "it will never grow back. You
are circumcised, and you will always be circumcised.
Nothing can ever change that. **You have no foreskin.**"
I was too stunned to speak. I burst into tears. I
didn’t want him to see me cry. I climbed down and ran
until I was out of sight. I was so enraged I couldn’t
talk. The people I had trusted had told me all those
lies about being "sewed", and I realized I would be
*cut* like that - an amputee - for the rest of my life.
I went back the next day but the steam shovel was
gone, and I never saw the man again.
I never told my mother I knew she had lied to me. I
couldn’t make myself talk about it. Several times I
worked up the courage, but when I opened my mouth to
speak, the words stuck in my throat and no sound came
out.
That was over 60 years ago, but I remember it as
clearly as if it happened yesterday - and the words,
"You have no foreskin" still resound in my head.
[John A. Erickson is an educator and human rights activist
who has, since 1981, been working to end the human rights
violation, the sexual mutilation of helpless
baby boys known euphemistically as "infant circumcision".]
===============================================================
Information on the normal intact penis and its anatomy,
on the physical/mechanical functioning of the normal
intact penis during sex, on the lifelong harm and
damage from "infant circumcision" (i. e. male sexual
mutilation), on the shocking history of this brutal,
anti-human practice, and on various other aspects of the
practice is found at:
http://www.cirp.org/CIRP/ [The Circumcision Information and
Resources Pages]
Read and study these Web pages:
http://www.cirp.org/CIRP/library/anatomy/garcia/
What exactly is circumcision and what is it not?
http://www.cirp.org/CIRP/pages/anat/
Anatomy of the Penis and Mechanics of Intercourse: an
illustrated guide
http://net.indra.com/~shredder/intact/anatomy/index.html
Anatomy of the Intact Penis
http://users.aol.com/ks21107l1/3zones.htm
The 3 Zones of Penile Skin, by John A. Erickson
Those who have awareness about the senselessness of
their circumcisions and who know about the harm done to
them from "infant circumcision" (the sexual, physical,
medical, emotional, psychological, and self-esteem forms
of harm directly stemming from this shameful,
contraindicated and nature-insulting operation inflicted in
infancy) should request a harm documentation form from
NOHARMM found at this Web site:
http://www.eskimo.com/%7Egburlin/noharmm/
[NOHARMM, the National Organization to Halt the Abuse
and Routine Mutilation of Males, POB 460795, San
Francisco, CA 94146; phone/FAX: 415-826-9351]
"Fear, pain, crippling, disfigurement and humiliation
are the classic ways to break the human spirit.
Circumcision includes them all."
- a circumcised (i. e. sexually mutilated)
American man
Stan, confronting male sexual mutilation - "infant circumcision" - in
the US
[If you wish to send me email, be sure to remove the " * " found
in front of my email address.]
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood.
- Marie Curie [Madame Curie], 1867-1934,
chemist/physicist, born Marja Sklodowska
in Poland; freethinker; married physicist
Pierre Curie; Nobel Prize won for
physics (1903) and for chemistry (1911);
isolated, described and named the radioactive
elements radium and polonium (named after
her native land)
Carla
Stan wrote:
>
> NO FORESKIN
>
> [A man recalls his thoughts and feelings as a child over
> 60 years ago when he realized that part of his penis had
> been cut off. Distilled by John A. Erickson from
> correspondence with a man in Texas. Published in the Fall
> 1986 issue (#6) of FQ (Foreskin Quarterly).]
[entire story snipped]
Foreskin Quarterly? BBBWWWAAAAHHHHAAAAAHHHHHAAAA!!!!
Does this person write for a living? If so, he should be rich. There's
a real lack of good fiction out there.
John Pritchard
Many questions remain unanswered.
If the kid had been a natural (foreskin) shorty, would he have been
similiarly traumatized? By providing both longies and shorties, nature can
be cruelly unfair.
And what about belly-buttons? Was he an inney or an outey? Was this, too,
traumatic for him?
Was the steam shovel man caught and if so, is he out of jail yet?
Has the 60-year old man seen a shrink?
Paul
jpri...@escape.ca (John Pritchard) wrote:
>In article <332847...@itis.com>, *eme...@itis.com wrote:
>Many questions remain unanswered.
>If the kid had been a natural (foreskin) shorty, would he have been
>similiarly traumatized? By providing both longies and shorties, nature can
>be cruelly unfair.
He wouldn't have had a scar so he would not have been traumatized.
>And what about belly-buttons? Was he an inney or an outey? Was this, too,
>traumatic for him?
Does it matter? Is this traumatic for everyone?
>Was the steam shovel man caught and if so, is he out of jail yet?
A strange comment.
>Has the 60-year old man seen a shrink?
Does he need to see one? Perhaps you should.
Paul
Lani Hostetler
yon...@dmv.com wrote:
>
> On 24 Mar 1997 00:09:26 GMT, Carol Kennon
> <Carol_...@somasf.unm.edu> wrote:
>
> >Maybe we should worry about children in Bosnia, pollution, poverty here
> >in America. For all of you who mourn your foreskin, GET A LIFE.
>
> I totally agree with you 100%
*****I third that emotion!! Of all the problems we face in America and
some of you can't get passed your genitals....what a self-pitying
group, some of you are.
Carol Kennon
yon...@dmv.com
>Maybe we should worry about children in Bosnia, pollution, poverty here
>in America. For all of you who mourn your foreskin, GET A LIFE.
I totally agree with you 100%
Lori E. Tripp
Carol Kennon wrote:
>
> Maybe we should worry about children in Bosnia, pollution, poverty here
> in America. For all of you who mourn your foreskin, GET A LIFE.
It's about time someone told it like it is!!!!!
Lori T.
RandyP4563
It figures a bunch of insensitive women would have the loudest opinions.
Let them start cutting something off of you at birth and then let's see
what you have to say!
Bitches, each and every one of you.
EH Scholl
Uh - some of us females care (but prefer to lurk)
Personally I wonder why these women take the time to find this
newsgroup and post to it when they could be giving an hour in a local
soup kitchen or something.
To word your reply a little more politely - to all those women out
there, do you consider it somewhat barbaric that there are cultures in
Africa and the Middle East that remove the inner labia, or sometimes the
clitoris, of female infants? I do. So why is it not barbaric to remove
the foreskin of a male infant?
EH Scholl
mercial.email
I feel sorry for those who mourn their dead children, too. Last week
in Oregon, little Justice Michael Foster died as a consequence of his
circumcision.
There are lots of circumcision-related deaths in the US every year
(by some estimates, hundreds). There is not a single national medical
association that endorses circumcision. 85% of the world's men enjoy
being whole, natural and intact.
To those who complain about the unconsented loss of 50% of the skin and
mucosal tissue on their penis, you say, "Get a life".
Justice can't. He's dead.
g.
>FOSTER - Justice Michael Foster, infant son of Corie and Raleigh
>Foster of Cottage Grove, died March 16. A graveside service will be
>at 11 a.m. today at Fir Grove Cemetery, Cottage Grove. Smith-Lund-
>Mills Funeral Chapel, Cottage Grove, in charge of arrangements.
--
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
PER US CODE 47.227, UNSOLICITED E-MAIL ADS WILL BE BILLED $500/ITEM
Geoffrey T. Falk <g...@math.rochester.edu> http://www.cirp.org/~gtf/
Ken R
>
> Carol Kennon wrote:
> >
> > Maybe we should worry about children in Bosnia, pollution, poverty here
> > in America. For all of you who mourn your foreskin, GET A LIFE.
>
>
> It's about time someone told it like it is!!!!!
>
> Lori T.
Lori, Lani, yonder & Carol,
I for one am very glad that circumcised men who are unhappy about being
circumcised speak up against it. Otherwise, I'd have no idea of the
horrible cruelty inflicted on helpless infants for no good cause. Not
too long ago I myself thought it was an awful thing to cut away part of
a little girls genitals but it had never occured to me that we do the
same to little boys here. Thanks to those who speak up, I can now work
to protect children. Most mothers-to-be vehemently refuse to have their
sons circumcised if they have witnessed this gruesome, sadistic
"procedure."
Ken Ragge
ke...@cris.com
Lori E. Tripp
It is not gruesome. Have you ever been to one at a Jewish home? Then
you'd know.
Lori T.
Lori E. Tripp
Geoffrey T. Falk wrote:
>
> In article <33365D...@idt.net>, Lori E. Tripp <ltri...@idt.net> wrote:
> >Carol Kennon wrote:
> >>
> >> Maybe we should worry about children in Bosnia, pollution, poverty here
> >> in America. For all of you who mourn your foreskin, GET A LIFE.
> >
> >
> >It's about time someone told it like it is!!!!!
> >
> > Lori T.
>
> in Oregon, little Justice Michael Foster died as a consequence of his
> circumcision.
>
> There are lots of circumcision-related deaths in the US every year
> (by some estimates, hundreds). There is not a single national medical
> association that endorses circumcision. 85% of the world's men enjoy
> being whole, natural and intact.
>
> To those who complain about the unconsented loss of 50% of the skin and
> mucosal tissue on their penis, you say, "Get a life".
>
> Justice can't. He's dead.
>
> g.
>
Obviously, it was not done by a competant doc. If it was, he wouldn't
have died.Plus, it is a custom of the Jews. If you don't agree with it,
don't do it! Plus, uncircumcised penises are ugly.
Lori T.
Grace Boockholdt
In article 18...@ix.netcom.com, Lani Hostetler <skh...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
}>
}> >Maybe we should worry about children in Bosnia, pollution, poverty here
}> >in America. For all of you who mourn your foreskin, GET A LIFE.
}>
}
}
} some of you can't get passed your genitals....what a self-pitying
} group, some of you are.
So...I suppose YOU wouldn't feel upset if your
genitals were snipped at birth, eh, Lani? EVERYone
should be upset that freedom of choice has been
usurped from an innocent baby.
Grace Boockholdt ***Disclaimer: The views expressed hereinabove are
mine alone and not necessarily those of my employer. Fragile: Do not
bend, fold, spindle or mutilate. May be hazardous to your health. Not
recommended for children. Do not purchase if seal has been tampered
with. May be too intense for some viewers. Batteries not included.
For recreational use. An equal opportunity employer. Some settling of
contents may occur during shipping. Use only as directed. No other
warranty expressed or implied. No postage necessary if mailed in the
United States. Substantial penalty for early withdrawal. Slightly
higher in California. Keep away from fire or flame. Any rebroadcast,
reproduction, or other use of this game without the express written
consent of Major League Baseball is prohibited. Please keep your hands
and arms inside the car while ride is in motion. One size fits all. Any
resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
Contestants have been briefed before the show. Do not write below this
line.*** :)
Carol Kennon
As a pediatrician I am acutely aware of the circ issue. I don't do the
procedure and would now advise against it if asked. Please counsel and
educate if you feel strongly against it. You should not use cheap hype to
make a point, however. Babies are routinely given anesthesia now in
many US hospitals and the awareness level of the pain inflicted is pretty
high. We will cont. to improve pain control. I have watched many circs
and as medical procedures go, this is not close to as horrible as you
depict. As a parent I think you should chose the person who performs the
circ carefully and it can go smoothly.
I have also seen complications which require circumcision at a subsequent
point. The data are mixed, but some studies show evidence that circs can
benefit males. This is not some evil conspiracy so please try to remain
objective, you will make a better case.
My primary objection which I raised in my first posting is that men who
still live for their long-gone foreskins might benefit from broadening
their horizons. They would probably enjoy life more once they lost their
victim status.
Jacob D. Goldstein
Ken R wrote:
> I for one am very glad that circumcised men who are unhappy about being
> circumcised speak up against it. Otherwise, I'd have no idea of the
> horrible cruelty inflicted on helpless infants for no good cause. Not
> too long ago I myself thought it was an awful thing to cut away part of
> a little girls genitals but it had never occured to me that we do the
> same to little boys here. Thanks to those who speak up, I can now work
> to protect children. Most mothers-to-be vehemently refuse to have their
> sons circumcised if they have witnessed this gruesome, sadistic
> "procedure."
Hello, Ken.
-- Jake --
Jacob D. Goldstein
jac...@sprintmail.com
Ken R
Carol Kennon wrote:
>
> As a pediatrician I am acutely aware of the circ issue. I don't do the
> procedure and would now advise against it if asked. Please counsel and
> educate if you feel strongly against it. You should not use cheap hype to
> make a point, however. Babies are routinely given anesthesia now in
> many US hospitals and the awareness level of the pain inflicted is pretty
> high.
In many US hospitals they use no anesthesia. Even with the use of a
local anesthetic there is limited pain control. Recently, a study
confirmed that even with anesthetic circumcised infants have,
apparently, a permanently altered sensitivity to pain. They feel pain
more intensely.
> We will cont. to improve pain control. I have watched many circs
> and as medical procedures go, this is not close to as horrible as you
> depict.
An infant certainly doesn't cry if it goes into shock. There certainly
is research that suggests that infants feel pain even more intensely
than adults. Is it then not "sadistic and gruesome" to cut away part of
an adult's genitals with or without anesthetic against their will?
> As a parent I think you should chose the person who performs the
> circ carefully and it can go smoothly.
> I have also seen complications which require circumcision at a subsequent
> point.
What complications that can't be dealt with by less invasive methods?
What percentage of these complications are from forcing back the
foreskin (like forcing open a newborn kittens eyes) before nature
intends?
> The data are mixed, but some studies show evidence that circs can
> benefit males.
Do you mean lower incidence of cancer, etc? The logic in this is
incomprehensible to me. Of course, if a body part is removed, it will
cause no health problems. If a baby girls breasts are removed at birth,
she will have the benefit of never getting breast cancer.
> This is not some evil conspiracy so please try to remain
> objective, you will make a better case.
Where do you get "evil conspiracy" out of what I posted?
> My primary objection which I raised in my first posting is that men who
> still live for their long-gone foreskins might benefit from broadening
> their horizons. They would probably enjoy life more once they lost their
> victim status.
But following this logic (to use a more extreme example) should Elie
Wiesenthal "get a life"? Should he stop "whining and complaining" about
something that happened over 50 years ago? He might "enjoy life more"
but of course he shouldn't. He is doing a service by not shutting out
and denying his pain and putting it to good use. If the people who have
been "victimized" in _any_ matter (e.g. war, poverty, rascism, female
circumcision, etc.) don't speak out, who is going to? Where does change
then come from? Should we all just run about thinking "happy thoughts"
regardless of what is going on about us?
Ken Ragge
ke...@cris.com
Charlie
On Mon, 24 Mar 1997 21:01:21 -0500, "Lori E. Tripp" <ltri...@idt.net>
wrote:
>Geoffrey T. Falk wrote:
>>
>> In article <33365D...@idt.net>, Lori E. Tripp <ltri...@idt.net> wrote:
>> >Carol Kennon wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Maybe we should worry about children in Bosnia, pollution, poverty here
>> >> in America. For all of you who mourn your foreskin, GET A LIFE.
>> >
>> >
>> >It's about time someone told it like it is!!!!!
>> >
>> > Lori T.
>>
>> I feel sorry for those who mourn their dead children, too. Last week
>> in Oregon, little Justice Michael Foster died as a consequence of his
>> circumcision.
>>
>> There are lots of circumcision-related deaths in the US every year
>> (by some estimates, hundreds). There is not a single national medical
>> association that endorses circumcision. 85% of the world's men enjoy
>> being whole, natural and intact.
>>
>> To those who complain about the unconsented loss of 50% of the skin and
>> mucosal tissue on their penis, you say, "Get a life".
>>
>> Justice can't. He's dead.
>>
>> g.
>>
>
>Obviously, it was not done by a competant doc. If it was, he wouldn't
>have died.Plus, it is a custom of the Jews. If you don't agree with it,
>don't do it! Plus, uncircumcised penises are ugly.
>
> Lori T.
I agree with Lori. I can't understand these guys that get hung up on
circumcision and their foreskins. Seems like they have a mental block
or got froze in time. Sooo many other more important things in the
world to think or if you must worry about. Right on Lori.
Charlie
Carol Kennon
I would really like references on the hundreds of babies who die each
year from circumcisions. I am a pediatrician, in fact I specialize in
newborns. I want to reiterate that I am not an advocate of the procedure.
I advise against it. We're on the same side there, so PLEASE spare me the
melodramatic hype. Again if we could only talk like rational people who
are capable of objective thought, we could make so much more progress.
The people who can educate and crusade in a thoughtful manner are
persuasive. Those who must subscribe to the conspiracy theories (all
parents who have chosen circs, and MDs who have performed them are
evil...), and those who wallow in their victim status ("I am not a whole
man, I have been violated, I'm going to make it a priortity to have my
foreskin back) might benefit from some venturing into the big,
complicated, wonderful world of ours.
John A. Stanley
In article <3335F7...@ix.netcom.com>,
Lani Hostetler <skh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>yon...@dmv.com wrote:
>>
>> On 24 Mar 1997 00:09:26 GMT, Carol Kennon
>>
>> >Maybe we should worry about children in Bosnia, pollution, poverty here
>> >in America. For all of you who mourn your foreskin, GET A LIFE.
>>
>
>
>*****I third that emotion!! Of all the problems we face in America and
> some of you can't get passed your genitals....what a self-pitying
> group, some of you are.
It's amazing how some people trivialize child abuse. THAT'S pitiful.
--
John A. Stanley jsta...@gate.net
"Hey! You got your razor in my wager!"
Parachute Woman
Don Morgan wrote:
>
> On 25 Mar 1997 04:22:36 GMT, Carol Kennon
> <Carol_...@somasf.unm.edu> wrote:
> >I have also seen complications which require circumcision at a subsequent
> >point.
>
> DId they truly require circumcision? Were there no possible
> alternatives? My own viewpoint is that in the U.S. we are so
> inclined toward circumcision that alternatives are not often
> considered to the same extent that they would be, say, in Europe.
Any operation that has to be done on the penis, for whatever reason,
generally includes removal of the foreskin. I have a friend (English)
who is very anti-circumcision, but his son was circumcised (when living
in France) due to a condition he had when very young requiring penile
surgery. So yes, there are times when circumcision is required.
There is also a condition (whose name i don't remember - begins with a
'p') where the foreskin is too tight and cannot retract. In this case
foreskin removal is also indicated, rather than constriction of the
penis.
Parachute Woman
Lori E. Tripp wrote:
>
> Obviously, it was not done by a competant doc. If it was, he wouldn't
> have died.Plus, it is a custom of the Jews. If you don't agree with it,
> don't do it! Plus, uncircumcised penises are ugly.
>
> Lori T.
Obviously the parents didn't know the doctor was incompetent.
I, personally, am against circumcision if done just out of habit. If
done for medical or religious reasons I can understand it better. If
done because "everyone else is doing it", I don't really understand.
As for uncircumcised penises being ugly, that's truely a "Beauty is in
the eye of the beholder" stiuation. I like the looks of a penis,
circumcised or not. In my experience, I like the feel of an
uncircumcised one better... (and I really hope my Mom or anyone who
knows my Mom isn't reading this!)
Parachute Woman
Ken R wrote:
>
> Carol Kennon wrote:
>
> > The data are mixed, but some studies show evidence that circs can
> > benefit males.
>
> Do you mean lower incidence of cancer, etc? The logic in this is
> incomprehensible to me. Of course, if a body part is removed, it will
> cause no health problems. If a baby girls breasts are removed at birth,
> she will have the benefit of never getting breast cancer.
>
I just want to address this one part of your post. Studies have also
indicated an increase in incidence of cervical cancer in women whose
partners are uncircumcised. There are also higher incidences of urinary
tract infections in infants with foreskins and studies have been done
suggesting that it is 'easier' to contract some STDs with a foreskin
than without.
Just some information to consider.... not looking to start an argument,
just looking to inform.
Stan
Charlie wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Mar 1997 21:01:21 -0500, "Lori E. Tripp" <ltri...@idt.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Geoffrey T. Falk wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <33365D...@idt.net>, Lori E. Tripp <ltri...@idt.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Maybe we should worry about children in Bosnia, pollution, poverty here
> >> >> in America. For all of you who mourn your foreskin, GET A LIFE.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Lori T.
> >>
> >> I feel sorry for those who mourn their dead children, too. Last week
> >> in Oregon, little Justice Michael Foster died as a consequence of his
> >> circumcision.
> >>
> >> There are lots of circumcision-related deaths in the US every year
> >> (by some estimates, hundreds). There is not a single national medical
> >> association that endorses circumcision. 85% of the world's men enjoy
> >> being whole, natural and intact.
> >>
> >> To those who complain about the unconsented loss of 50% of the skin and
> >> mucosal tissue on their penis, you say, "Get a life".
> >>
> >> Justice can't. He's dead.
> >>
> >> g.
> >>
> >
> >have died.Plus, it is a custom of the Jews. If you don't agree with it,
> >don't do it! Plus, uncircumcised penises are ugly.
> >
> > Lori T.
>
> circumcision and their foreskins. Seems like they have a mental block
> or got froze in time. Sooo many other more important things in the
> world to think or if you must worry about. Right on Lori.
>
> Charlie
What follows is dedicated to sexually mutilated ("circumcised") Charlie
who, with his partial, man-made, man-damaged, desexualized penis
bestowed/inflicted on him probably by another sexually mutilated man,
was never allowed to have a normal, natural, intact penis (which,
incidentally, is found on 85% of the world's males but not on about 90%
of US born - therefore sexually mutilated - males).
INFANT CIRCUMCISION: CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY
It's time someone said it, loud and clear: that infant
circumcision -- including so-called "religious" infant
circumcision -- is an atrocity and a fraud; that it's a
brutal, perverse, outrageous violation of a helpless human
being's right to his own body; that it's child sexual abuse
in its most vicious, most destructive, most cunningly
disguised form; that it literally censors a child's life --
*kills* part of the child -- even if he never realizes it,
because it severs him from a uniquely specialized, uniquely
sensitive means of perceiving, experiencing, sharing and
enjoying his existence; that the reasons given to justify it
are myths and lies; that it's the ugliest, saddest, most
sickening scandal in the history of medicine and an infamy to
societies that tolerate it and to institutions that sanctify
it; and that anyone involved even remotely with cutting,
tearing, crushing or burning off the foreskins of babies --
or anyone else by force, coercion or deceit -- is as guilty
of causing human suffering as the monsters of Auschwitz and
in the name of humanity should be exposed, confronted,
stopped, and *imprisoned*.
Regardless of anyone's "reason" for circumcising a baby,
the fact remains that infant circumcision is foreskin
amputation by force -- the deliberate, irreversible
destruction of a healthy, normal, irreplaceable part of
someone else's body -- living, protective, erogenous tissue
that is rightfully his and that he instinctively wants to
keep intact -- at a time in his life when he can't understand
what is being done to him -- or why -- and can't speak for or
protect himself.
Infant circumcision is, in other words, human vivisection
-- legalized, institutionalized, sanctified *human
vivisection*.
Reason and persuasion will not deter those who, driven by
the compulsion to destroy what they secretly envy but can
never have, and desperate to make their own tortured partial
penises seem normal -- and for who knows what other godawful
reasons -- persist so relentlessly in defending, promoting,
misrepresenting and performing this crippling, disfiguring
mutilation.
The birthright of males -- *all* males -- to keep all of
the penis they are born with must therefore be secured *by
law*.
John A. Erickson
29 July 1996
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MUTILATING OTHERS
Some Observations from the Front
by Frederick Hodges
While all other relics of the 19th century surgical
quackery, i. e. blood-letting, trephining, routine
tonsillectomy, routine appendectomy, adenoidectomy,
clitoredectomy, have silently disappeared, the persistence of
routine prepucectomy [prepuce- the male and female foreskin;
prepucectomy then the correct term for circumcision] remains
an enigma. Clearly, the answer to this enigma lies in the
fact that the organ in question is the penis, that most
powerful symbol of male self-identity and self-esteem. The
circumcised male’s irrational demand for all other males to
undergo a similar surgical penile reduction is an indication
of the intensely complex anxieties penile alterations create
in the male psyche. Significantly, only circumcised men
display feelings of hostility and loathing towards the
prepuce, and describe it as a dangerous threat to health.
Although such psychological neuroses may be endemic to all
levels of American society, there exist many effective
solutions to this problem.
Parental requests to alter permanently the genitals of
their children are most often based on myths, erroneous
science, and common societal sex-negative attitudes. Parental
attitudes of discomfort towards the natural genitalia of
their newborn sons are also indicative of serious sexual and
psychological disturbances. Sexual repression,
rationalizations, emotional insulation, avoidance of
cognitive dissonance, feelings of competitiveness towards the
child on the part of fathers, and transference to the child
of anxieties and fears over nonconformity have been commonly
noted. The psychological need to deny that the prepuce is
part of the penis and the need to deny that its amputation
has negative sexual consequences, or indeed the belief that
amputation has positive sexual consequences is testimony to
the seriousness of this problem. Clearly, the surgery is not
performed on the child’s behalf but is paradoxically
performed to alleviate the sexual and social anxieties of the
parents or the attending physician.
Undoubtedly the person in need of medical attention is
not the child, but the parents. The reasonable prescription
in this case is for a qualified psychiatrist for the parents,
not a surgeon for the child. To this aim, Woodmansey made the
following sound recommendation in a letter to the British
Medical Journal:
"Something must be done to help the parents who show
such an irrational need... Consider asking a colleague whose
job is to help people with their emotional problems to try to
discover and alleviate the parents’ underlying difficulties,
which not only impel them to demand this operation but which,
if not adequately dealt with, may perpetuate difficulties in
the parent-child relationship with the risk of later
psychiatric illness in the child... This important kind of
work can and should be undertaken by the medical social
workers in a general or children’s hospital, provided that
they receive suitable psychiatric support." [Woodmansey, A.
C. Circumcision. British Medical Journal, 1965; 2:419]
As for physicians, one must ask what sort of person
would actually choose to make his living sticking knives into
the sexual organs of babies. One can hypothesize that a
severe form of psychotic dementia can result from
circumcision which impels the victim in later life to
repeatedly re-enact his own mutilation upon others. He
assumes the role of the perpetrator. This role reversal can
be a type of psychological defense mechanism whereby the
victim identifies with the perpetrator and his cause in order
to rationalize the crime. He moves from a position of
powerless victimization to an illusion of empowerment. It can
also be a type of revenge by proxy. It can also be another
form of defense mechanism whereby the victim diminishes the
pain and personal identity of his victimhood by ensuring that
as many others as possible suffer the same mutilation.
Victims of severe childhood physical abuse grow up to be
child beaters themselves as adults. Are we not seeing the
same psychological patterning in circumcisers? Is it not
conceivable that some psychotic circumcision victims have
deliberately maneuvered themselves into positions and careers
where they can have access to children’s genitals so that
they feed their psychotic compulsions? In the case of this
particular psychotic compulsion, there is a socially
acceptable arena for this compulsion to be acted out. There
is no socially acceptable arena for the beating of children
and those who do so are liable to punishment if caught.
Circumcisers have no fear of being caught. They get paid to
harm children. Some of the more demented circumcisers present
themselves as medical experts and claim to be acting in the
best interest of their victims. Many charge that they are
being persecuted when sane individuals question circumcision.
Thus, they insure that the enacting of their psychotic
compulsion remains socially acceptable. Most psychotic
circumcision victims, however, are content simply to
circumcise, to play out their compulsion. They stay quiet
just so long as they have access to a fresh supply of babies
to mutilate.
To paraphase John A. Erickson, It is not circumcision,
but circumcisers that need studying.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
INFANT CIRCUMCISION: THE PERFECT CRIME
--From a letter to John A. Erickson from a man in Arizona
"I have always despised being circumcised. Sometimes I
can barely function at work. I think about suicide. Words
cannot describe the rage I feel toward the pervert who did
this to me. There’s something deranged about anyone who
persists in circumcising babies after being confronted with
the facts. I recently saw the movie Schindler’s List, and
it struck me that these are the same butchers who were
murdering Jews in Nazi Germany. I think that every society
has these ‘closet sadists’ who emerge only when societal
constraints are removed. They have now found their niche
as contemporary doctors who circumcise. For a brief moment
they are God, with total control over another’s sexuality.
It’s the perfect crime. Sanctioned by unsuspecting,
misinformed parents, the hospital, and an ignorant society,
they hide under the guise of a respected medical profession.
And the consequences only appear years later when they are
long gone and their trail cold. Some doctors really don’t
know any better, and when told about the gravity of their
actions, stop. But some just keep on cutting. There’s
something really frightening about the Finks and Wiswells
and Gelbaums of our society. You’re right-- it’s not
circumcision that needs to be studied; it’s circumcisers."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Charlie, John M. Foley, MD wrote in his famous 1966 paper "The Unkindest
Cut" [FACT] that there is no greater monument to the stupidity and
gullibility of the American public than circumcision.
Educate yourself about this shameful, violent, senseless,
nature-insulting and damaging/destructive anti-human practice presented
as and posing as medicine. Routine infant circumcision is male sexual
mutilation, a crime against humanity.
Here are the 12 known functions of the male foreskin:
1 Erotic pleasure via the ridged band and Meissner's corpuscles
2 Protects the thin-skinned glans against injury
3 Prevents the glans from becoming keratinised (i. e.
essentially calloused), and keeps it soft and moist
4 Stores pheromones, natural lubricants
[Not only stores pheromones, but releases them into the air
as the foreskin is retracted. An alert intact man has noticed
how intact men often quickly retract their foreskin and slip
it back into place over the glans. You can often smell the
released scent in the air after they do this. This could be a
kind of "territorial marking" and/or advertising of sexual
presence and/or seducing mechanism to arouse the female,
another male, or even the male himself.]
5 In infancy, protects the urethra against contamination, meatal
stenosis, UTIs
6 Creates a visual signal of sexual arousal: the glans first covered
and then revealed as erection occurs
7 Supplies skin to cover the shaft in erection and prevent tightness
8 Acts as a rolling bearing in intercourse and masturbation
9 Prevents dyspareunia (painful intercourse)
10 Stimulates partner's genitalia
11 Pigmented, it protects the unpigmented glans against sunburn
12 Vascular, it protects the less vascular glans against frostbite
[One function of the foreskin is to help spread and distribute
the clear, slippery, viscous Cowper's fluid over the glans,
facilitating penetration and enhancing masturbation.]
Here are tip-top Web sources of info on the problem of "infant
circumcision", on the physical/mechanical functioning of the normal,
natural intact penis and on the lifelong harm and damage from "infant
circumcision":
http://www.cirp.org/CIRP/library/anatomy/garcia/
What exactly is circumcision and what is it not?
http://www.cirp.org/CIRP/pages/anat/
Anatomy of the Penis and Mechanics of Intercourse: an
illustrated guide
http://net.indra.com/~shredder/intact/anatomy/index.html
Anatomy of the Intact Penis
http://users.aol.com/ks21107l1/3zones.htm
The 3 Zones of Penile Skin, by John A. Erickson
http://www.nocirc.org/
The National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers
http://www.eskimo.com/%7Egburlin/noharmm/
NOHARMM, the National Organization to Halt the
Abuse and Routine Mutilation of Males
http://www.cirp.org/CIRP/
Circumcision Information and Resource Page
[award-winning site having the most comprehensive
information of all aspects of the problem of "infant
circumcision"; includes full-text medical papers]
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~gcd/DOC/
D.O.C. (Doctors Opposing Circumcision)
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~gcd/DOC/foreskin.html
Foreskin curriculum: for anyone studying the
healing arts
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~gcd/DOC/end.html
The End of Circumcision in America
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~gcd/CIRCUMCISION/
Circumcision, the first peer reviewed online journal
http://www.cirp.org/CIRP/library/ethics/milos-macris/
Circumcision: A Medical or a Human Rights Issue?,
by M. Milos & Donna Macris
http://www.cirp.org/nrc/
Nurses for the Rights of the Child
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.gepps.com/circ.htm
Circumcision Facts-Online (Glenn Epps)
http://www.gepps.com/inform.htm
Effects of Circumcision (Glenn Epps)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.cirp.org/CIRP/library/anatomy/taylor/
The Prepuce: Specialized Mucosa of the Penis and
Its Loss to Circumcision [British Journal of Urology,
Feb. 1996]
http://www.cirp.org/CIRP/library/general/gairdner/
The Fate of the Foreskin, D. Gairdner, MD, BMJ, 12/49
http://www.cirp.org/CIRP/library/general/oster/
Further Fate of the Foreskin, Jacob Oster, MD
http://www.cirp.org/CIRP/hotlist.html
Other WWW Resources
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.fathermag.com/circ/jews-circ.html
The Historical Role of Jews in the American Medical
View of Circumcision
http://www.fathermag.com/circ/med-quot.html
Penile Reduction Surgery: Quotes from the Medical
Profession
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.tde.com/~derrickt/restore.html
Derrick Townsend's Foreskin Restoration Web Page
Stan, hoping that you will educate yourselves, become shocked and
disgusted with "infant circumcision" and then begin educating others and
speaking out against this atrocity and fraud, this perversion and vile
practice inflicted on the helpless.
Jacob D. Goldstein
Don Morgan wrote:
> And in many it is not routine to administer anaesthesia for
> circs. I know personally of only two recent circumcisions (an
> in-law's child and a friend's child) and neither was done with
> anaesthesia. In one case the doctor is alleged to have said, "The
> shot hurts as much as the circ."
In reference to the above, I recently saw the following article in the
popular press:
Reuters
02/26/97 USA: ANALGESIA IN INFANTS IS INDUCED WITH SUGAR WATER.
By Larkin, Marilynn.
Sugar water and suckling can reduce sensitivity to persistent
pain and "may provide new clinical approaches for engaging
endogenous analgesic mechanisms in infants following tissue
injury and inflammation", say researchers from the University of
Maryland Dental School (Baltimore, USA).
Ronald Dubner and colleagues tested the effects of sugar water
and suckling on responses to heat and pressure in 10-day-old
rats with inflamed forepaws. 5-10 minutes of suckling combined
with 3 minutes of sugar water given by mouth doubled the baby
rats' forepaw tolerance to pain and significantly reduced the
amount of fos protein expressed in the upper spinal column. But
the treatment did not reduce hindpaw pain or the amount of fos
in the lower spinal column (Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1997; 94:
1471-75). This suggests, Dubner says, "that the parts of the
central nervous system controlling upper and lower extremities
mature at different rates", which could have implications for
development of pain control strategies for infants. For now, he
says, sugar and suckling can be used "to reduce the need or
doses of drugs" in surgery or procedures such as taking a blood
sample.
The study confirms what Kenneth Bromberg, professor of
paediatrics, and Leonard Glass, head of paediatrics, of the SUNY
Health Science Center (Brooklyn, New York, USA) have seen
clinically for years. "Giving very sweet wine to an infant
during a circumcision ceremony does seem to alleviate pain,
probably due to the combination of sugar, suckling, and a little
alcohol", says Bromberg. "So now we know it's not all in our
head-something really is happening peripherally." And Glass adds
that "regardless of the mechanism, sugar water seems to be an
effective and inexpensive comforting agent".
Ken R
Parachute Woman wrote:
>
> Don Morgan wrote:
> >
> > On 25 Mar 1997 04:22:36 GMT, Carol Kennon
> > <Carol_...@somasf.unm.edu> wrote:
>
> > >I have also seen complications which require circumcision at a subsequent
> > >point.
> >
> > DId they truly require circumcision? Were there no possible
> > alternatives? My own viewpoint is that in the U.S. we are so
> > inclined toward circumcision that alternatives are not often
> > considered to the same extent that they would be, say, in Europe.
>
> Any operation that has to be done on the penis, for whatever reason,
> generally includes removal of the foreskin.
Is there a reason for this?
> I have a friend (English)
> who is very anti-circumcision, but his son was circumcised (when living
> in France) due to a condition he had when very young requiring penile
> surgery. So yes, there are times when circumcision is required.
>
> There is also a condition (whose name i don't remember - begins with a
> 'p') where the foreskin is too tight and cannot retract. In this case
> foreskin removal is also indicated, rather than constriction of the
> penis.
The condition is called phimosis and _can not_ exist in a young boy
because the foreskin is normally not separated from the glans at birth
and only separates later in life. Moreover, it is often caused by
ignorant pediatricians who don't have a foreskin and don't understand
how harmful it is to force retraction.
Moreover, it seems rather odd that this is the only part of the human
body whose first line of treatment for _anything_ is amputation.
Ken Ragge
ke...@cris.com
Ken R
Parachute Woman wrote:
>
> Ken R wrote:
> >
> > Carol Kennon wrote:
>
> >
> > > The data are mixed, but some studies show evidence that circs can
> > > benefit males.
> >
> > Do you mean lower incidence of cancer, etc? The logic in this is
> > incomprehensible to me. Of course, if a body part is removed, it will
> > cause no health problems. If a baby girls breasts are removed at birth,
> > she will have the benefit of never getting breast cancer.
> >
>
> I just want to address this one part of your post. Studies have also
> indicated an increase in incidence of cervical cancer in women whose
> partners are uncircumcised.
In February, 1996, the American Cancer Society stated in a letter to the
American Academy of Pediatrics:
"The American Cancer Society does not consider routine circumcision
to
be a valid or effective measure to prevent such cancers [penile
and
cervical].
"Research suggesting a pattern in the circumcision status of
partners of women with cervical cancer is methodologically flawed,
outdated and has
not been taken seriously in the medical community for decades."
> There are also higher incidences of urinary
> tract infections in infants with foreskins
and there have been studies done which show _lower_ incidence of urinary
tract infections in infants with foreskins. An important point in some
of the studies showing higher incidence of UTI's in uncircumcised boys
is that the foreskin being forcibly retracted (like tearing open a
kittens eyes at birth). Where the pediatrician has done this, of course
infection is more likely.
> and studies have been done
> suggesting that it is 'easier' to contract some STDs with a foreskin
> than without.
>
And it is 'easier' to contract some STDs without a foreskin than with
one.
> Just some information to consider.... not looking to start an argument,
> just looking to inform.
I'm curious, since a little girl who had her breasts removed at birth
would have 0% chance of breast cancer, would you say "some studies show
evidence that breast removal can benefit females. (As a preventative, of
course).
Ken Ragge
ke...@cris.com
Ken R
Jacob,
I am rather dubious of this since all along, doctors who perform
circumcision have for years been saying that babies aren't developed
enough to feel pain, that cutting off part of the penis doesn't hurt.
Now that there are scientific studies (as if any mother who accidently
pricked their baby with a safety pin needed them) that prove that they
feel pain and perhaps more intensely than adults.
It seems to me that attitudes of those circumcised to circumcision are
very similar to the attitudes of many of those beaten as children to
child-beating. "It was for my own good. The Bible says..."
Ken Ragge
ke...@cris.com
Parachute Woman
Ken R wrote:
>
> Parachute Woman wrote:
> >
> > Don Morgan wrote:
> > >
> > > On 25 Mar 1997 04:22:36 GMT, Carol Kennon
> > > <Carol_...@somasf.unm.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > >I have also seen complications which require circumcision at a subsequent
> > > >point.
> > >
> > > DId they truly require circumcision? Were there no possible
> > > alternatives? My own viewpoint is that in the U.S. we are so
> > > inclined toward circumcision that alternatives are not often
> > > considered to the same extent that they would be, say, in Europe.
> >
> > Any operation that has to be done on the penis, for whatever reason,
> > generally includes removal of the foreskin.
>
> Is there a reason for this?
I assume to more easily get to the area that need surgery. I'm not a
surgeon so I don't know the details... maybe a Dr. on this list does?
>
> > I have a friend (English)
> > who is very anti-circumcision, but his son was circumcised (when living
> > in France) due to a condition he had when very young requiring penile
> > surgery. So yes, there are times when circumcision is required.
> >
> > There is also a condition (whose name i don't remember - begins with a
> > 'p') where the foreskin is too tight and cannot retract. In this case
> > foreskin removal is also indicated, rather than constriction of the
> > penis.
>
> The condition is called phimosis and _can not_ exist in a young boy
> because the foreskin is normally not separated from the glans at birth
> and only separates later in life. Moreover, it is often caused by
> ignorant pediatricians who don't have a foreskin and don't understand
> how harmful it is to force retraction.
>
The young boy did not have phimosis - he had another condition. I was
just saying that phimosis may be another reason, medically, for foreskin
removal. I do not know what condition his son had, but I am sure (from
his attitudes on circumcision) that circumcision was indeed needed.
I also have no idea how phimosis might occur - nor did I indicate any
way. Whether by a Dr (or a mother bathing the child) or just thru
biology of the boy in question... its still a condition. I am not
placing blame anywhere - I'm just attempting to inform.
> Moreover, it seems rather odd that this is the only part of the human
> body whose first line of treatment for _anything_ is amputation.
>
I'm trying to think of a way to word this....
I cannot think of another body part that may obstruct clear access to
another body part that is not essential to the body. (I mean essential
as in lungs may obstruct access to the heart and lungs are essential to
the body...) Off the top of my head I can't think of any.... so off the
top of my head I can't think of any other cases like this...
I do have to say that I feel like this is some sort of attack on what I
said - albeit a very mild one. I have stated before I am
anti-circumcision. I was just trying to point out that indeed there are
times when it is medically indicated to have a foreskin removal. Just
as there are times when, medically speaking, other parts of the body
should be removed... like kidneys and lungs and prostates etc.
> Ken Ragge
> ke...@cris.com
drainer
do any girls like guys who aren't circumcised?
Ken R
Parachute Woman wrote:
>
> > Moreover, it seems rather odd that this is the only part of the human
> > body whose first line of treatment for _anything_ is amputation.
> >
>
> I'm trying to think of a way to word this....
> I cannot think of another body part that may obstruct clear access to
> another body part that is not essential to the body. (I mean essential
> as in lungs may obstruct access to the heart and lungs are essential to
> the body...) Off the top of my head I can't think of any.... so off the
> top of my head I can't think of any other cases like this...
>
> I do have to say that I feel like this is some sort of attack on what I
> said - albeit a very mild one.
I would hope disagreement, maybe, attack no.
> I have stated before I am
> anti-circumcision. I was just trying to point out that indeed there are
> times when it is medically indicated to have a foreskin removal. Just
> as there are times when, medically speaking, other parts of the body
> should be removed... like kidneys and lungs and prostates etc.
>
Without doubt. It seems to me that it is more the norm to amputate the
foreskin rather than treat it. I suspect this has much more to do with
culture and "repetition compulsion" than anything actually medical. In
non-circumcising cultures, amputation of the foresking is, as the
amputation of most any other part of the body in our culture, a last
resort.
Ken Ragge
ke...@cris.com
Grace Boockholdt
In article 75...@I.made.yer.mom.com, drainer <dra...@I.made.yer.mom.com> writes:
}do any girls like guys who aren't circumcised?
Well, since 85% of the males on the *planet* are
intact, I'd say there are a lot of females who like
males who are intact. As for The Great Cut Society
of America...we're "used" to the cut variety---but,
since the circ rates are dropping, more and more
lucky females will be able to experience sex the
way nature intended. And there have been several
women who have posted on the net already who have
said that intact was far better.
Parachute Woman
Ken R wrote:
>
> Parachute Woman wrote:
> >
> > I do have to say that I feel like this is some sort of attack on what I
> > said - albeit a very mild one.
>
> I would hope disagreement, maybe, attack no.
Ok - I prefer disagreements =) =)
>
> > I have stated before I am
> > anti-circumcision. I was just trying to point out that indeed there are
> > times when it is medically indicated to have a foreskin removal. Just
> > as there are times when, medically speaking, other parts of the body
> > should be removed... like kidneys and lungs and prostates etc.
> >
>
> Without doubt. It seems to me that it is more the norm to amputate the
> foreskin rather than treat it. I suspect this has much more to do with
> culture and "repetition compulsion" than anything actually medical. In
> non-circumcising cultures, amputation of the foresking is, as the
> amputation of most any other part of the body in our culture, a last
> resort.
>
Well, as I said, the one time I personally know of of having a foreskin
removed to correct a penile problem in a person it was done in southern
France - hardly a circumcising culture. And the father of the boy is the
man who first made me realize how barbaric routine circumcision is. I'm
sure it wouldn't have been done if it weren't necessary.
Like I've said, I'm just telling the facts as I know them.... which
include that at times it is medically indicated that the foreskin should
be removed.
> Ken Ragge
> ke...@cris.com
Woz
On Sun, 23 Mar 1997 21:40:25 -0600, Lani Hostetler
<skh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>yon...@dmv.com wrote:
>>
>> On 24 Mar 1997 00:09:26 GMT, Carol Kennon
>> <Carol_...@somasf.unm.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >Maybe we should worry about children in Bosnia, pollution, poverty here
>> >in America. For all of you who mourn your foreskin, GET A LIFE.
>>
>> I totally agree with you 100%
>
>
>*****I third that emotion!! Of all the problems we face in America and
> some of you can't get passed your genitals....what a self-pitying
> group, some of you are.
Ok, well what if we cut the hood off your clit? Would you mind?
SAlley1790
Gender has nothing to do about whether we care about the horrors of
circumcision. Education and enlightenment, on the other hand, makes all
the difference in the world.
Remember that most women that do not oppose or who support circumcision
are also in a deep state of denial themselves because all of the men cut
and in very deep denial themselves!
Educate everyone you know, and do not allow fear of how they may respond
deter you. It is a "moral imperative" if you will.
Chris
SAlley1790
Paul
This condition does not require circing as it - the foreskin can be
stretched to eliminate the condition. Try to get your facts straight.
Paul
Parachute Woman <sch...@ipass.net> wrote:
>Don Morgan wrote:
>>
>> On 25 Mar 1997 04:22:36 GMT, Carol Kennon
>> <Carol_...@somasf.unm.edu> wrote:
>> >I have also seen complications which require circumcision at a subsequent
>> >point.
>>
>> DId they truly require circumcision? Were there no possible
>> alternatives? My own viewpoint is that in the U.S. we are so
>> inclined toward circumcision that alternatives are not often
>> considered to the same extent that they would be, say, in Europe.
>Any operation that has to be done on the penis, for whatever reason,
>generally includes removal of the foreskin. I have a friend (English)
Paul
Parachute Woman,
Your data is out-of-date. I am amazed that you have not read any of
the more recent studies.
The studies you quote are all ignored by knowledgeable researchers as
being untrustworthy. They were flawed and biased from the start and
totally useless.
In fact I think the most recent studies indicated jsut the opposite of
what you are quoting, and the implications that STD's are more common
in uncirced men were based on a study done in Kenya where hygiene is
poor to begin with, multiple sex partners are common for both men and
women and AIDS is a hetrosexual disease.
Paul
Parachute Woman <sch...@ipass.net> wrote:
>Ken R wrote:
>>
>> Carol Kennon wrote:
>>
>> > The data are mixed, but some studies show evidence that circs can
>> > benefit males.
>>
>> Do you mean lower incidence of cancer, etc? The logic in this is
>> incomprehensible to me. Of course, if a body part is removed, it will
>> cause no health problems. If a baby girls breasts are removed at birth,
>> she will have the benefit of never getting breast cancer.
>>
>I just want to address this one part of your post. Studies have also
>indicated an increase in incidence of cervical cancer in women whose
>partners are uncircumcised. There are also higher incidences of urinary
>tract infections in infants with foreskins and studies have been done
>suggesting that it is 'easier' to contract some STDs with a foreskin
>than without.
>Just some information to consider.... not looking to start an argument,
>just looking to inform.
Grace Boockholdt
The anti-circ'ers have no quibble about *medically indicated*
circumcisions. We are against *routine infant* circumcision,
when it is performed merely because the infant was born
MALE. IF all non-invasive remedies fail to address any
problem with the foreskin, and circumcision is recommended,
of *course*, it should be done. Otherwise, it should be left
to the decision of the *person* who owns the body part...
the INDIVIDUAL!
Paul
Parachute Woman <sch...@ipass.net> wrote:
>Ken R wrote:
>>
>> Parachute Woman wrote:
>> >
>> > Don Morgan wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On 25 Mar 1997 04:22:36 GMT, Carol Kennon
>> > > <Carol_...@somasf.unm.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> > > >I have also seen complications which require circumcision at a subsequent
>> > > >point.
>> > >
>> > > DId they truly require circumcision? Were there no possible
>> > > alternatives? My own viewpoint is that in the U.S. we are so
>> > > inclined toward circumcision that alternatives are not often
>> > > considered to the same extent that they would be, say, in Europe.
>> >
>> > Any operation that has to be done on the penis, for whatever reason,
>> > generally includes removal of the foreskin.
>>
>> Is there a reason for this?
>I assume to more easily get to the area that need surgery. I'm not a
>surgeon so I don't know the details... maybe a Dr. on this list does?
It's mostly because doctors are not trained in the alternatives. In
fact in 4 years of medical school, 1 year of internship, and up to 5
years of residency less than one day is spent on the foreskin. Most
doctors are only trainded to do circumcisions - they are not trained
on any of the alternatives.
Paul
>>
>> > I have a friend (English)
>> > who is very anti-circumcision, but his son was circumcised (when living
>> > in France) due to a condition he had when very young requiring penile
>> > surgery. So yes, there are times when circumcision is required.
>> >
>> > There is also a condition (whose name i don't remember - begins with a
>> > 'p') where the foreskin is too tight and cannot retract. In this case
>> > foreskin removal is also indicated, rather than constriction of the
>> > penis.
>>
>> The condition is called phimosis and _can not_ exist in a young boy
>> because the foreskin is normally not separated from the glans at birth
>> and only separates later in life. Moreover, it is often caused by
>> ignorant pediatricians who don't have a foreskin and don't understand
>> how harmful it is to force retraction.
>>
>The young boy did not have phimosis - he had another condition. I was
>just saying that phimosis may be another reason, medically, for foreskin
>removal. I do not know what condition his son had, but I am sure (from
>his attitudes on circumcision) that circumcision was indeed needed.
>I also have no idea how phimosis might occur - nor did I indicate any
>way. Whether by a Dr (or a mother bathing the child) or just thru
>biology of the boy in question... its still a condition. I am not
>placing blame anywhere - I'm just attempting to inform.
>> Moreover, it seems rather odd that this is the only part of the human
>> body whose first line of treatment for _anything_ is amputation.
>>
>I'm trying to think of a way to word this....
>I cannot think of another body part that may obstruct clear access to
>another body part that is not essential to the body. (I mean essential
>as in lungs may obstruct access to the heart and lungs are essential to
>the body...) Off the top of my head I can't think of any.... so off the
>top of my head I can't think of any other cases like this...
>I do have to say that I feel like this is some sort of attack on what I
>said - albeit a very mild one. I have stated before I am
>anti-circumcision. I was just trying to point out that indeed there are
>times when it is medically indicated to have a foreskin removal. Just
>as there are times when, medically speaking, other parts of the body
>should be removed... like kidneys and lungs and prostates etc.
>> Ken Ragge
>> ke...@cris.com
D. C. Sessions
Ken R wrote:
> Moreover, it seems rather odd that this is the only part of the human
> body whose first line of treatment for _anything_ is amputation.
If it were, it might be; but as it isn't, it's not.
--
D. C. & M. V. Sessions
sess...@primenet.com
http://www.primenet.com/~sessions under construction
D. C. Sessions
Don't expect a response. It's like Zarbob's $1,000,000,000 figure;
launched, challenged, challenge ignored, resurrected after delay.
John Pritchard
In article <3339ccdc...@news.nas.com>, mDonM...@nas.com (Don
Morgan) wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Mar 1997 19:37:55 -0500, Parachute Woman
> <sch...@ipass.net> wrote:
>
> >Don Morgan wrote:
> >>
> >> On 25 Mar 1997 04:22:36 GMT, Carol Kennon
> >> <Carol_...@somasf.unm.edu> wrote:
> >
major deletion
>
> In most European countries, but especially the Scandinavian
> countries, many alternatives are employed. Very few men ever get
> circumcised in the Scandinavian countries.
Articles posted a number of times on these newsgroups suggest that the
rate of circumcision in Scandinavia, in Finland at least, is similar to
the rate of later circumcision for non-neocircs in North American.
snipped
>
> Don
>
Paul
mDonM...@nas.com (Don Morgan) wrote:
>On Thu, 27 Mar 1997 23:37:03 GMT, cog...@concentric.net (Paul)
>wrote:
>[deletion]
>>It's mostly because doctors are not trained in the alternatives. In
>>fact in 4 years of medical school, 1 year of internship, and up to 5
>>years of residency less than one day is spent on the foreskin. Most
>>doctors are only trainded to do circumcisions - they are not trained
>>on any of the alternatives.
>>
>>Paul
>Paul makes a good point.
>I have a minor nitpick, however, and that is that some doctors
>actually don't get any real training even on circumcision before
>they do the first one. I have heard first hand from one doctor
>how he and a fellow student were handed one Plastibell device
>each and one baby each and told to do a circumcision. They read
>the instructions that came with the device and proceeded using
>the instructions. That was the extent of their training.
Excellent bit of nitpicking. I should have rewritten my comments to
more closely follow your line of thought. Since my wife's sister's
husband is a doctor I know that what you say is correct. Please accept
my apologies for a poorly written comment.
Paul
>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
Parachute Woman
Grace Boockholdt wrote:
[snip]
> The anti-circ'ers have no quibble about *medically indicated*
> circumcisions. We are against *routine infant* circumcision,
> when it is performed merely because the infant was born
> MALE. IF all non-invasive remedies fail to address any
> problem with the foreskin, and circumcision is recommended,
> of *course*, it should be done. Otherwise, it should be left
> to the decision of the *person* who owns the body part...
> the INDIVIDUAL!
Ditto! As I like to tell people - ask any 16 year old in-tact boy if,
now that he is older and more able to make decisions for himself, he
would like his foreskin removed.
I betcha there would be a resounding NO! given as an answer.
That, to me, is proof enough its wrong.
Ken R
D. C. Sessions wrote:
>
> Ken R wrote:
>
> > Moreover, it seems rather odd that this is the only part of the human
> > body whose first line of treatment for _anything_ is amputation.
>
> If it were, it might be; but as it isn't, it's not.
>
> D. C. & M. V. Sessions
> sess...@primenet.com
> http://www.primenet.com/~sessions under construction
How so?
D. C. Sessions
Ken R wrote:
> D. C. Sessions wrote:
> > Ken R wrote:
> > > Moreover, it seems rather odd that this is the only part of the human
> > > body whose first line of treatment for _anything_ is amputation.
> >
> > If it were, it might be; but as it isn't, it's not.
> How so?
One might have hoped for more consideration of the
possibilities, but to name just one example there are
moles. Lots of them circumcised every day, based on
nothing more than color and shape. Sure, they are
almost always totally harmless, and the removal leaves
a scar, and there are alternative methods that can
determine whether they are actually dangerous, etc.
Still, they just get whacked.
Paul
Good Question, I also would like to see the answer.
Paul
Ken R <ke...@cris.com> wrote:
>D. C. Sessions wrote:
>>
>> Ken R wrote:
>>
>> > Moreover, it seems rather odd that this is the only part of the human
>> > body whose first line of treatment for _anything_ is amputation.
>>
>> If it were, it might be; but as it isn't, it's not.
>>
>> --
>> D. C. & M. V. Sessions
>> sess...@primenet.com
>> http://www.primenet.com/~sessions under construction
>How so?
LMiller
On 28 Mar 1997 18:02:03 -0700, "D. C. Sessions"
<sess...@primenet.com> wrote:
>Ken R wrote:
>> D. C. Sessions wrote:
>> > Ken R wrote:
>
>> > > Moreover, it seems rather odd that this is the only part of the human
>> > > body whose first line of treatment for _anything_ is amputation.
>> >
Technically speaking, it isn't amputation. Amputation involves
severing a limb. Since it is skin only, it is avulsion, which is the
removal of skin.
Lauré
All opinions welcome, even oposing opinions.
So many interests, so little time.
Ken R
D. C. Sessions wrote:
>
> Ken R wrote:
> > D. C. Sessions wrote:
> > > Ken R wrote:
>
> > > > Moreover, it seems rather odd that this is the only part of the human
> > > > body whose first line of treatment for _anything_ is amputation.
> > >
>
>
> One might have hoped for more consideration of the
> possibilities, but to name just one example there are
> moles. Lots of them circumcised every day, based on
> nothing more than color and shape. Sure, they are
> almost always totally harmless, and the removal leaves
> a scar, and there are alternative methods that can
> determine whether they are actually dangerous, etc.
>
> Still, they just get whacked.
>
D.C.,
How can you compare a normal, healthy, functional part of the genitalia
with a mole? What functions do moles serve?
Ken Ragge
ke...@cris.com
Lori E. Tripp
Ira Gladnick wrote:
>
> > >Obviously, it was not done by a competant doc. If it was, he wouldn't
> > >have died.Plus, it is a custom of the Jews. If you don't agree with it,
> > >don't do it!
>
> Lori,
>
> Would you say the same about female genital mutilation ("It's a custom
> of many
> African and Islamic cultures. If you don't agree with it, don't do
> it!")?
LFemale mutilation deprives woman of orgasm. Circumcision does not.
Lori T.
Parachute Woman
#1. A lot of African and Islamic cultures remove the clit hood and the
inner labia (as well as sewing the vagina closed at times) - not all do
radical clitorectomies. Does that make it more analogous? Now - does
that make it better?
#2. Women can have vaginal orgasms, even with a desensitized clit.
#3. Circumcision radically decreases sensitivity of the glans, the area
of the penis that is supposed to be most sensitive and the 'driving
force' for orgasm. Circumcision removes the main nerve-endings in the
penis involved in orgasm and causes desensitization of others (in the
glans)
I read a web page today - took me a little while, but I learned a few
new things about male anatomy. Namely, I never knew there was no skin
on the glans of a penis, that it was a mucosal membrane (like the inside
of the lip, nose, eyelid, vagina....) It *looks like* there is skin on
it in circumcised penises (penii? ;^) ) because of a callous that
builds up from rubbing and chafing.
Speaking as a woman, I picture a male circumcision as feeling like it
might feel if my outer labia were completely removed to have my
sensitive inner labia and clit hood constantly exposed and rubbing
against whatever I am wearing. Any woman who thinks this sounds
pleasant or who can't imagine a callus building up and reduced sexual
sensitivity is built differently than the women I know.
I recommend:
http://net.indra.com/~shredder/intact/anatomy/index.html
specifically for more information similar to this.
I recommend:
http://www.tde.com/~derrickt/restore.html
In general for information about penises, cut, uncut, and why a man
might be interested in restoration.
Also, off the first recommendation, is a very good diary kept during a
restoration. As a female there were things I didn't realize regarding
senstation that I have a better understanding of now.
PLEASE don't visit these sites if you're just going to hassle these
guys. They have taken time and energy to build a very well-done,
sensitive, **educational** pages. We want to keep people like this
around!
LMiller
On Sat, 29 Mar 1997 17:22:17 GMT, Que...@mail.infoave.net (LMiller)
wrote:
>On 28 Mar 1997 18:02:03 -0700, "D. C. Sessions"
><sess...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
>>Ken R wrote:
>>> D. C. Sessions wrote:
>>> > Ken R wrote:
>>
>>> > > Moreover, it seems rather odd that this is the only part of the human
>>> > > body whose first line of treatment for _anything_ is amputation.
>>> >
>
>Technically speaking, it isn't amputation. Amputation involves
>severing a limb. Since it is skin only, it is avulsion, which is the
>removal of skin.
>
Clarifying(sp) my own post. According to EMT class, books, etc.,
amputation involves the bone, avulsion is soft tissue only. The
question came up in class about whether it would be amputation or
avulsion in the case of losing the penis. It was said that
technically it was an avulsion, although most men would argue the
point with you. BTW the instructor was a man and those were his words
paraphrased.
D. C. Sessions
Ken R wrote:
>
> D. C. Sessions wrote:
> >
> > Ken R wrote:
> > > D. C. Sessions wrote:
> > > > Ken R wrote:
> >
> > > > > Moreover, it seems rather odd that this is the only part of the human
> > > > > body whose first line of treatment for _anything_ is amputation.
> > > >
> >
> > > How so?
> >
> > One might have hoped for more consideration of the
> > possibilities, but to name just one example there are
> > moles. Lots of them circumcised every day, based on
> > nothing more than color and shape. Sure, they are
> > almost always totally harmless, and the removal leaves
> > a scar, and there are alternative methods that can
> > determine whether they are actually dangerous, etc.
> >
> > Still, they just get whacked.
> >
>
> D.C.,
>
> How can you compare a normal, healthy, functional part of the genitalia
> with a mole? What functions do moles serve?
The statement was "this is the only part of the human
body whose first line of treatment for _anything_ is
amputation." Moles are, at last report, part of the
human body.
If someone wishes to resurrect last year's exchange
wrt the nature of 'function' (whether it is inherent
or ascribed) please refer to the DejaNews archives
first so we can skip over the remedial philosophy.
Carol Kennon
I wanted to respond to a few of Ken's questions before I formally depart:
1) Anesthesia - Just as you have your cause, one of mine is pain control
in pediatrics. It has been a major focus of my interest and I have
established some new guidelines for my hospital. All babies where I work
get anesthesia for circ. I can't speak for places that don't use it.
Circs done after a dorsal nerve block appear to be well-accepted. I
cannot deny that these don't always work. This to me implies need for
improved technology, not abandoning the whole procedure. A topical cream
EMLA may have efficacy. It's being studied. The last thing I want is for
an infant to suffer, and I have not claimed to be a big proponent of
circs. Just open minded.
2) Medical problems treated by circumcision: I must admit, I am not an
expert on circumcision. At least I'm honest here as opposed to some on
this newgroup who impersonate physicians and attempt to answer serious
questions in a biased and often erroneous way. I was amazed by the
biases I had about modern obstetrics until I saw the whole picture.
I have cared for children who have severe balanitis and phimosis which
prohibited urination. I'm all for the idea of alternative medical
techniques which would spare the foreskin. but I'd want to see some
randomized trials first. We are conservative in medicine, but we find
that we practice the best medicine this way. Patients look to us to be
completely objective, to know all the facts, and to prescribe the
treatment which studies, experience, and history have taught us are
effective. We also must keep an open mind about new approaches, but we
have to be careful. The inflammation caused by balanitis can be awfully
intense and my guess (again, no expert) is that it could cause scarring
and later problems. It can be recurrent. And yes, phimosis can happen in
young males after about 4 yr. Frankly I and most other physicians (there
are weirdos in every job) only want to do what's best. I have no, repeat
no interest in depriving a male of foreskin. I also would hate to see
males have a future of problems because the right treatment was not
offered at the right time. I hope you can understand this. The impression
I get from you is that you probably will. Others in the newsgroup, I
question.
2. Conspiracy - Ken I didn't think anything you wrote implied anything
other than sincere concern and interest. I was referring to people who
just have refer to the procedure as mutilation, child abuse, etc. These
are not nice terms, they are certainly not appropriate, they don't
reflect honest consideration of the whole picture, they insult
well-meaning physicians who are trying to figure out the best treatments,
they are insulting to religious groups, they are hysterical and way out
of line. Frankly words like that are so ridiculous as to invalidate the
whole message of the speaker.
3. Victims - I have great sympathy for men who have had complications
from a circ. I never meant to imply that I didn't, and I apologize if I
came across that way. I do think that there is a subset of men who had no
or mild complications who seem to harp on some injustice that some
unknown enemy did to them. They band together and support the notion that
they were violated by this monster. My parents put me thru several
unneceessary surgeries incl. a tonsilectomy. My tonsil may have helped me
fight infections. So far I haven't searched out a support group to
agrieve this attrocity and mutilation. I guess I also see a lot of
tragedy in my job. I spend most of my time helping people deal with
horribly unfair blows that life has dealt. Maybe my perspective is skewed
and any problem someone has justifies insulting and outrageous behavior.
I don't agree and I think going thru life bitter is a waste of a life.
Ken, I sincerely hope I answered a few of your questions. Please continue
to ask good questions. We in medicine are listening, but please approach
us in a reasonable manner (as you have).
Paul
I agree with Ken. I can't imagine how you can compare a mole with the
foreskin. This is very screwy logic, it seems.
Paul
Ken R <ke...@cris.com> wrote:
>D. C. Sessions wrote:
>>
>> Ken R wrote:
>> > D. C. Sessions wrote:
>> > > Ken R wrote:
>>
>> > > > Moreover, it seems rather odd that this is the only part of the human
>> > > > body whose first line of treatment for _anything_ is amputation.
>> > >
>> > > If it were, it might be; but as it isn't, it's not.
>>
>> > How so?
>>
>> One might have hoped for more consideration of the
>> possibilities, but to name just one example there are
>> moles. Lots of them circumcised every day, based on
>> nothing more than color and shape. Sure, they are
>> almost always totally harmless, and the removal leaves
>> a scar, and there are alternative methods that can
>> determine whether they are actually dangerous, etc.
>>
>> Still, they just get whacked.
>>
>D.C.,
>How can you compare a normal, healthy, functional part of the genitalia
>with a mole? What functions do moles serve?
>Ken Ragge
>ke...@cris.com
bgkk...@pacbell.net
Lori E. Tripp wrote:
>
> Ira Gladnick wrote:
> >
> > > >Obviously, it was not done by a competant doc. If it was, he wouldn't
> > > >have died.Plus, it is a custom of the Jews. If you don't agree with it,
> > > >don't do it!
> >
> > Lori,
> >
> > Would you say the same about female genital mutilation ("It's a custom
> > of many
> > African and Islamic cultures. If you don't agree with it, don't do
> > it!")?
>
> LFemale mutilation deprives woman of orgasm. Circumcision does not.
Not according to the *majority* of the
women who have endured the procedure...even
the most severe of forms. They claim that
they enjoy sex "just fine". Furthermore,
there are forms of FGM that are analogous
to that which is done to the male: Clitoral
hood exicision only. Since YOU think that
it is so trivial...I suppose YOU wouldn't
mind at all if that *sensitive* part of you
was snipped off?
Grace Boockholdt
Fear the Wrath of...
On Wed, 26 Mar 1997, drainer wrote:
> do any girls like guys who aren't circumcised?
>
>
I'll admit... I don't like UNcircumcised.
Paul
Men who have been circumcised as adults talk about
how much they miss the sensitivity and sensations that they had prior
to their circing. They wouldn't have recognized this if they had been
circed as an infant. How can these women possibly know what they are
missing
.
Grace Boockholdt
Since 85% of the males on the planet are
intact, you are in the minority. Also...there
have been quite a number of women who have
responded to that question on the net who
prefer the intact. You haven't stated whether you
have *actually* been with an intact male. For
all we on the net know, you're just saying "I don't
like uncircumcised" based on not knowing and
*thinking* you wouldn't like it because you've only
been with circ'd. Both males and females have
even stated "Uncirc'd is ugly" based soley on the
premise that they malign that with which they are not
familiar. So...unless you state you have actually
been with an intact male...and what you don't like
about it...your statement is meaningless.
Lani Hostetler
*****I have been with both--and frankly, I like the circ. ones better.
IMHO, the non-circs remind me of a little worm. EEEKS!! At the time, I
did not know the man I was dating was NOT circ. and it was very
unattractive to me, when I found out. During sex, there was no
difference than a circ man, yet I admit feeling uncomfortable. I do
think that 85% is quite high and want to know your source of info.
Unless you did a personal interview with EVERY male on earth, I highly
doubt your sources. I just want to say that, yes I have been with
both--and just by being with a non-circ did NOT change my mind--just
confirmed it.
Grace Boockholdt
In article 14...@ix.netcom.com, Lani Hostetler <skh...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
}Grace Boockholdt wrote:
}>
}> In article 100...@eve.speakeasy.org, "Fear the Wrath of..." <leh...@speakeasy.org> writes:
}> }On Wed, 26 Mar 1997, drainer wrote:
}> }
}> }> do any girls like guys who aren't circumcised?
}> }>
}> }>
}> }I'll admit... I don't like UNcircumcised.
}>
}> Since 85% of the males on the planet are
}> intact, you are in the minority. Also...there
}> have been quite a number of women who have
}> responded to that question on the net who
}> prefer the intact. You haven't stated whether you
}> have *actually* been with an intact male. For
}> all we on the net know, you're just saying "I don't
}> like uncircumcised" based on not knowing and
}> *thinking* you wouldn't like it because you've only
}> been with circ'd. Both males and females have
}> even stated "Uncirc'd is ugly" based soley on the
}> premise that they malign that with which they are not
}> familiar. So...unless you state you have actually
}> been with an intact male...and what you don't like
}> about it...your statement is meaningless.
}*****I have been with both--and frankly, I like the circ. ones better.
}IMHO, the non-circs remind me of a little worm. EEEKS!!
And the males in countries that practice
female circumcision must have loads of
crap to say about what your genitals look
like. :)
}At the time, I
}did not know the man I was dating was NOT circ. and it was very
}unattractive to me, when I found out. During sex, there was no
}difference than a circ man, yet I admit feeling uncomfortable. I do
}think that 85% is quite high and want to know your source of info.
As of now, U.S. is the only remaining country that
practices MGM *routinely*. Therefore, the circ
rates globally are dropping. The circ rates even in
the U.S. are dropping as well, and the west coast
rates of *intact* male infants are now more than
the circ'd ones.
Statistics are produced by the National Health Statistics Service of
the National Institutes of Health. This is an agency the United States
Government so these are official government statistics.
Most recent available year I have is 1993. They are compiled for four
regions and the US as a whole. Western 11 states region is now 64.5%
intact in 1993. Midwest is lowest at 26% intact. Average for entire US is
40.5% intact.
}Unless you did a personal interview with EVERY male on earth, I highly
}doubt your sources.
There is more to the world than good ol'
U.S.of A. Canada, Australia and the UK
have stopped routinely circ'ing. The rest
of the world never got on that band wagon.
}I just want to say that, yes I have been with
}both--and just by being with a non-circ did NOT change my mind--just
}confirmed it.
And many other women have been with both
and LOVE the intact. At any rate, the ONLY
preference that really counts is the *males'*.
It's up to HIM whether or not he should be
circ'd.
Ira Gladnick
> Female mutilation deprives woman of orgasm. Circumcision does not.
>
Actually, that's not 100% clear.
Consider the following, from the Female Genital Mutilation Research
Homepage
(http://www.hollyfeld.org/fgm/intro/fgmintro.html):
The term FGM covers three main varieties of genital mutilation:
1) "Sunna" circumcision: Consists of the removal of the prepuce and/or
the tip of
the clitoris. Sunna in Arabic means "tradition".
2) Clitoridectomy (also referred to as excision): Consists of the
removal of the
entire clitoris (both prepuce and glans), and the removal of the
adjacent labia.
3) Infibulation:(also referred to as pharaonic circumcision) This most
extreme
form, consists of the removal of the clitoris, the adjacent labia
(majora and
minora), and the joining of the scraped sides of the vulva across
the vagina,
where they are secured with thorns or sewn with catgut or thread.
It would seem like a reasonable guess that the Sunna variety of FGM
would not
completely deprive a woman of orgasmic potential. But it's my
understanding that
even this variety of FGM, which appears to be quite similar to male
circumcision, is now illegal in the US.
But even granting for argument's sake that your that your statement is
correct, the
fact nevertheless remains that male circumcision *does* lead to reduced
erogenous sensation.
Consider the following, from the writings of the Jewish medieval
philospher and physician Moses Maimonides ("The Guide of the Perplexed",
Part III, ch. 49
http://www.cirp.org/CIRP/library/cultural/maimonides/):
With regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my
opinion, the
wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a
weakening of the
organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the
organ be in as
quiet a state as possible.
...The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of
circumcision.
None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the
individual is
harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but
violent
concupiscience and lust that goes beyond what is needed are
diminished.
The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement
and
sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable...
The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: "It
is hard for
a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse
to separate
from him." In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for
circumcision.
Who first began to perform this act, if not Abraham who was
celebrated for his
chastity...
In the United States at the turn of the century, this anti-erogenous
effect lead to an apperent widespread promotion of circumcision as a
means for suppressing the
desire to masturbate in young males. Many (grotesque) examples from the
literature of the period can be found at
http://www.cirp.org/CIRP/pages/whycirc.html.
In addition, there is the personal experience of thousands (millions?)
of circumicised men who feel that they have been harmed by this
procedure.
Given all this, wouldn't it seem reasonable to let male children reach a
mature age where they can decide for *themselves* whether to have their
foreskins amputated?
Jacob D. Goldstein
Grace Boockholdt wrote:
> In article 100...@eve.speakeasy.org, "Fear the Wrath of..." <leh...@speakeasy.org> writes:
> }On Wed, 26 Mar 1997, drainer wrote:
> }
> }> do any girls like guys who aren't circumcised?
> }>
> }>
> }I'll admit... I don't like UNcircumcised.
>
> Since 85% of the males on the planet are
> intact, you are in the minority. [snip...snip...snip]
Ms. Boockholdt,
Hold on! Stop to think! Don't rush! Try to keep your anti-circ
zeal under control! Does the above figure have anything to do with
what women would prefer if they had a choice?
-- Jake --
--
Jacob D. Goldstein
ja...@acm.org
Ken R
LMiller wrote:
>
> On Sat, 29 Mar 1997 17:22:17 GMT, Que...@mail.infoave.net (LMiller)
> wrote:
>
> >On 28 Mar 1997 18:02:03 -0700, "D. C. Sessions"
> >
> >>Ken R wrote:
> >>> D. C. Sessions wrote:
> >>> > Ken R wrote:
> >>
> >>> > > Moreover, it seems rather odd that this is the only part of the human
> >>> > > body whose first line of treatment for _anything_ is amputation.
> >>> >
> >
> >severing a limb. Since it is skin only, it is avulsion, which is the
> >removal of skin.
> >
> Clarifying(sp) my own post. According to EMT class, books, etc.,
> amputation involves the bone, avulsion is soft tissue only. The
> question came up in class about whether it would be amputation or
> avulsion in the case of losing the penis. It was said that
> technically it was an avulsion, although most men would argue the
> point with you. BTW the instructor was a man and those were his words
> paraphrased.
>
> Lauré
>
> All opinions welcome, even oposing opinions.
>
> So many interests, so little time.
Lauré,
I'm curious, if the discussion was about the removal of the clitoris
from healthy baby girls, would you consider whether it was refered to as
amputation or ablation of any real relevance or significance?
Ken Ragge
ke...@cris.com
Ken R
D. C. Sessions wrote:
>
> Carol Kennon wrote:
> >
> > I would really like references on the hundreds of babies who die each
> > year from circumcisions.
--- (snip) ---
>
> Don't expect a response. It's like Zarbob's $1,000,000,000 figure;
> launched, challenged, challenge ignored, resurrected after delay.
>
> --
> D. C. & M. V. Sessions
> sess...@primenet.com
> http://www.primenet.com/~sessions under construction
I'm curious as to whether the statistics are even available. In the
recent death from complications of circumcision, the press reported the
death being from liver failure (which was the complication). With the
recent reporting of the case of the boy whose penis was destroyed as a
circumcision complication and later was castrated to "fix" the problem,
it was reported to be the result of complications of surgery for a
"fused foreskin."
Whether the accurate number is hundreds or only dozens, what is the
difference when we are talking about unnecessary, painful surgery that
has no clearcut medical benefit and causes a lifetime loss of sexual
pleasure?
Ken Ragge,
ke...@cris.com
John Erickson
>Grace Boockholdt wrote:
>Ms. Boockholdt,
*****
FALLACY OF THE CIRCUMCISION MYSTIQUE
The fallacy of the circumcision mystique is that the
foreskin -- uniquely specialized, uniquely sensitive,
uniquely functional erogenous tissue -- is demonized as
abnormal, dangerous, and harmful; and circumcision -- which
literally censors a male's life by irreversibly destroying
that tissue -- is extolled as normal, safe, and beneficial.
One can only wonder about the effects of such a
misrepresentation over several generations on an entire
nation -- much less on a single human life.
John A. Erickson
qs...@datasync.com
*****
Stan
Parachute Woman wrote:
> #3. Circumcision radically decreases sensitivity of the glans, the area
> of the penis that is supposed to be most sensitive and the 'driving
> force' for orgasm. Circumcision removes the main nerve-endings in the
> penis involved in orgasm and causes desensitization of others (in the
> glans)
>
The male foreskin and the glans are a team that should not be broken up
in life, certainly not broken up in a baby boy or older boy for
non-medical reasons. Americans love team sports and team work yet they
are not aware of this important team - of foreskin and glans - so
carelessly and easily lost to the majority of men and to the majority
(60%) of today's US born infant boys.
> I read a web page today - took me a little while, but I learned a few
> new things about male anatomy. Namely, I never knew there was no skin
> on the glans of a penis, that it was a mucosal membrane (like the inside
> of the lip, nose, eyelid, vagina....) It *looks like* there is skin on
> it in circumcised penises (penii? ;^) ) because of a callous that
> builds up from rubbing and chafing.
By the time the early to mid 40's comes along in his life, there is no
sensitivity left in the glans of a man who was forced to undergo routine
infant circumcision sexual mutilation. If that man has no frenulum
(since it was completely sliced off in the sexual mutilation in infancy)
then it can be difficult to reach orgasm and ejaculation: sexual
crippling is the result. [I am not referring to the ability to produce
an erection, but this impotence (erectile dysfunction, as it is now
called in medicine) may occur in some sexual cripples due to the sadness
over the change and loss of sexual pleasure and due to certain
psychological/emotional adverse effects that directly stem from the
mutilation of the baby's or young boy's penis.] [The frenulum is one of
the 2 primary neurological triggers for ejaculation.]
"Sharing the awareness that the human penis
is designed correctly the way it normally
comes into the world: with its foreskin
intact; that a male’s possession of his own
penis - including his foreskin - is his
inviolable birthright; and that a child’s
chances for health and happiness throughout
his life are greater - by far - if he is
allowed to keep all of the penis he is born with."
- John A. Erickson [educator, researcher, human
rights activist]
Stan, confronting the problem of male sexual mutilation - "infant
circumcision" - in the US
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood.
- Marie Curie [Madame Curie], 1867-1934,
chemist/physicist, born Marja Sklodowska
in Poland; freethinker; married physicist
Pierre Curie; Nobel Prize won for
physics (1903) and for chemistry (1911);
isolated, described and named the radioactive
elements radium and polonium (named after
her native land)
Ken R
D. C. Sessions wrote:
>
> Ken R wrote:
> >
> > D. C. Sessions wrote:
> > >
> > > Ken R wrote:
> > > > D. C. Sessions wrote:
> > > > > Ken R wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > Moreover, it seems rather odd that this is the only part of the human
> > > > > > body whose first line of treatment for _anything_ is amputation.
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > How so?
> > >
> > > One might have hoped for more consideration of the
> > > possibilities, but to name just one example there are
> > > moles. Lots of them circumcised every day, based on
> > > nothing more than color and shape. Sure, they are
> > > almost always totally harmless, and the removal leaves
> > > a scar, and there are alternative methods that can
> > > determine whether they are actually dangerous, etc.
> > >
> > > Still, they just get whacked.
> > >
> >
> > D.C.,
> >
> > How can you compare a normal, healthy, functional part of the genitalia
> > with a mole? What functions do moles serve?
>
> body whose first line of treatment for _anything_ is
> human body.
>
> If someone wishes to resurrect last year's exchange
> wrt the nature of 'function' (whether it is inherent
> or ascribed) please refer to the DejaNews archives
> first so we can skip over the remedial philosophy.
>
D. C.,
Would you also compare the foresking with a wart? Or surgical removal of
the eyelid with a mole?
Ken Ragge
ke...@cris.com
http://www.primenet.com/~sessions under construction
******************************************************
Grace Boockholdt
In article C...@sprintmail.com, "Jacob D. Goldstein" <jac...@sprintmail.com> writes:
}Grace Boockholdt wrote:
}
}> In article 100...@eve.speakeasy.org, "Fear the Wrath of..." <leh...@speakeasy.org> writes:
}> }On Wed, 26 Mar 1997, drainer wrote:
}> }
}> }> do any girls like guys who aren't circumcised?
}> }>
}> }>
}> }I'll admit... I don't like UNcircumcised.
}>
}> Since 85% of the males on the planet are
}> intact, you are in the minority. [snip...snip...snip]
}
}Ms. Boockholdt,
}
}Hold on! Stop to think! Don't rush! Try to keep your anti-circ
}zeal under control!
And why don't you try to keep your religious
zeal under control. Never mind the "stop and
think" part...blind faith and blind action already
precludes that.
}Does the above figure have anything to do with
}what women would prefer if they had a choice?
Other women who HAVE been with both intact
and cut have also given the preference of intact.
Furthermore, the *choice* belongs to the male.
IF *HE* wishes to be circ'd, up to him to decide.
And...to extend your (il)logic, if males "preferred"
a "choice" of an intact female or one with clitoral
hood and labia excised, (after all...intact women
produce smegma and smell "down there") I'll wager
not one American woman would que up for the
surgery.
Hugh Young
In <5hk2df$7...@lynx.unm.edu> Carol Kennon <Carol_...@somasf.unm.edu>
wrote:
>Circs done after a dorsal nerve block appear to be well-accepted. I
>cannot deny that these don't always work. This to me implies need for
>improved technology, not abandoning the whole procedure.
But when the procedure is unnecessary, this adds weight to the case against
it.
> A topical cream
>EMLA may have efficacy. It's being studied. The last thing I want is for
>an infant to suffer,
The Taddio et al. study in the March 1 Lancet showed that even with EMLA, the
later reaction to pain was greater than in the controls.
> At least I'm honest here as opposed to some on
>this newgroup who impersonate physicians
Some of us have studied the issue more than many physicians. (I posted a
message from a Dr a day or two ago about how his medical school was actively
hostile toward teaching *anything* about the structure or function of the
foreskin - only about cutting it off.)
>I have cared for children who have severe balanitis and phimosis which
>prohibited urination.
And perhaps some of these can only be treated by circumcision, but those few
(a small subset of a small subset) are then used as justification for
circumcising every male baby in sight.
> I'm all for the idea of alternative medical
>techniques which would spare the foreskin. but I'd want to see some
>randomized trials first.
Of course. Yet routine infant circumcision was introduced without any random
trials, or indeed any trials at all.
> We are conservative in medicine, but we find
>that we practice the best medicine this way. Patients look to us to be
>completely objective, to know all the facts, and to prescribe the
>treatment which studies, experience, and history have taught us are
>effective.
One way to convince us this is true would be to speak out against those of
your number who advocate routine infant circumcision, which isn't a
"treatment" for anything.
>The inflammation caused by balanitis can be awfully
>intense and my guess (again, no expert) is that it could cause scarring
>and later problems. It can be recurrent. And yes, phimosis can happen in
>young males after about 4 yr.
Okay, but these are rare complaints.
>I was referring to people who
>just have refer to the procedure as mutilation, child abuse, etc.
I avoid these terms because they carry an unnecessary emotional freight.
> These
>are not nice terms, they are certainly not appropriate, they don't
>reflect honest consideration of the whole picture, they insult
>well-meaning physicians who are trying to figure out the best treatments,
>they are insulting to religious groups, they are hysterical and way out
>of line. Frankly words like that are so ridiculous as to invalidate the
>whole message of the speaker.
Yet according to the strict definitions of the terms they are accurate.
>3. Victims - I have great sympathy for men who have had complications
>from a circ. I never meant to imply that I didn't, and I apologize if I
>came across that way. I do think that there is a subset of men who had no
>or mild complications who seem to harp on some injustice that some
>unknown enemy did to them.
How "mild" need the complications be before they should not complain -
especially when they had part of their penes cut off for no good reason at
all? Isn't that injustice? We are talking about impairments to men's sex
lives here.
How is it that "the last thing [you] want is for an infant to suffer," but
you don't mind adult men suffering?
> My parents put me thru several
>unneceessary surgeries incl. a tonsilectomy. My tonsil may have helped me
>fight infections. So far I haven't searched out a support group to
>agrieve this attrocity and mutilation.
Are you saying that all bodily organs have the same significance? (Would you
say the same about an unnecessary mastectomy, for example?) Why do you
think routine child tonsillectomy was abandoned without a squeak while the
battle still rages over routine infant circumcision (in the US)? Do you think
it is a coincidence that this operation is performed/perpetrated on the sex
organs?
> I guess I also see a lot of
>tragedy in my job. I spend most of my time helping people deal with
>horribly unfair blows that life has dealt.
Sure, but circumcision is never an accident.
> Maybe my perspective is skewed
>and any problem someone has justifies insulting and outrageous behavior.
Cutting parts of the penes off healthy babies is insulting and outrageous
behaviour. What is its justification?
>I don't agree and I think going thru life bitter is a waste of a life.
Which is why it is therapeutic (but not wholly curative) for men unhappy
about being circumcised to restore their foreskins. But it would be better if
the routine operation were abandoned so that such men are not produced.
>Ken, I sincerely hope I answered a few of your questions. Please continue
>to ask good questions. We in medicine are listening, but please approach
>us in a reasonable manner (as you have).
Do I detect just a trace of the patronising tone that helps to make many of
us suspicious of the pretensions of the medical profession?
--
Hugh Young, Pukerua Bay, Nuclear-free Aotearoa / NEW ZEALAND
"Just don't let go of the vine." - Johnny Weismuller
Parachute Woman
Stan wrote:
> By the time the early to mid 40's comes along in his life, there is no
> sensitivity left in the glans of a man who was forced to undergo
> routine infant circumcision sexual mutilation. If that man has no
> frenulum (since it was completely sliced off in the sexual mutilation > in infancy) then it can be difficult to reach orgasm and ejaculation: > sexual crippling is the result. [I am not referring to the ability to > produce an erection, but this impotence (erectile dysfunction, as it
> is now called in medicine) may occur in some sexual cripples due to
> the sadness over the change and loss of sexual pleasure and due to
> certain psychological/emotional adverse effects that directly stem
> from the mutilation of the baby's or young boy's penis.] [The frenulum > is one of the 2 primary neurological triggers for ejaculation.]
I must take exception to what you've written here. It may be true in
*some* cases, but it is certainly not the rule, just as it is not the
rule that women who undergo genetial mutilation cannot orgasm. While I
am not a man, I know from lovers of mine that men 40+ (and 50+ etc) who
have been circumcised still have enough sensitivity to reach orgasm and
ejaculation.
While I think it is wrong to circumcise just out of "habit" and hope to
educate and be educated, I also think it is wrong to spread
disinformation about the effects of circumcision. This information,
that loss of sensitivity is total in circumcised men, is not true.
Granted there are indications that sensitivity is decreased... but not
lost, and sexual function is not lost purely due to a 'successful'
routine circumcision.
If it were we wouldn't have pleanty of circumcised men in their 40s and
50s fathering children. That alone is proof.
Jacob D. Goldstein
In article <5hgrul$2...@chronicle.concentric.net> cog...@concentric.net (Paul) writes:
> mDonM...@nas.com (Don Morgan) wrote:
>> [deletion]
>> I have a minor nitpick, however, and that is that some doctors
>> actually don't get any real training even on circumcision before
>> they do the first one. I have heard first hand from one doctor
>> how he and a fellow student were handed one Plastibell device
>> each and one baby each and told to do a circumcision. They read
>> the instructions that came with the device and proceeded using
>> the instructions. That was the extent of their training.
> Excellent bit of nitpicking. I should have rewritten my comments to
> more closely follow your line of thought. Since my wife's sister's
> husband is a doctor I know that what you say is correct. Please accept
> my apologies for a poorly written comment.
Dear reader,
This is excellent advice. If you have decided to circumcise
your son, make sure that the surgeon or mohel who does it is the best
you can find. Don't assume that just because you are in a hospital
"they" know what they are doing. Don't wait for the last minute. Ask
for recommendations before you give birth.
-- Jake --
Elizabeth R. Upton
Stan (eme...@itis.com) wrote:
[snipped]
: By the time the early to mid 40's comes along in his life, there is no
: sensitivity left in the glans of a man who was forced to undergo routine
: infant circumcision sexual mutilation. If that man has no frenulum
: (since it was completely sliced off in the sexual mutilation in infancy)
: then it can be difficult to reach orgasm and ejaculation: sexual
: crippling is the result. [more snipped]
Your claim that circumcision causes sexual disfunction is specifically
contradicted by information in a new report published today (4/2/97) in
the Journal of the American Medical Association. Here is the pertinent
paragraph (quoted from The New York Times, emphases mine):
"The study also found that circumcised men were *less likely* to
experience sexual disfunction, like loss of interest in sex. That
difference was seen in men of all ages, but it was *most striking* among
men 45 to 59 years old. The incidence of sexual dysfunction reported in
this group was *40 percent* among the *circumcised* men and *58 percent*
among the *uncircumsised*. Here, too, Dr. Laumann said, any stigma linked
to being uncircumcised may be a factor."
Note at the end that the doctor who prepared the report (Dr. Edward O.
Laumann, the lead author of the study and the chairman of the sociology
department at the University of Chicago) is suggesting that sexual
dysfunction among the uncircumcised (greater than half!) might be
attributable to their being uncircumcised.
The study as a whole is not in favor of circumcision, by the way (the
Times' headline was "Study Adds to Doubts About Circumcision"), and it
specifically points to the *lack* of a link between circumcision and
avoidance of sexually transmitted diseases.
All in all, an interesting article on what seems to be an interesting
report. Thought you all would like to hear about it.
--Elizabeth
--
Elizabeth Randell Upton
NEW EMAIL ADDRESS: eup...@email.unc.edu
TERRY R.
Elizabeth R. Upton <eup...@email.unc.edu> wrote in article
<5hugpd$mnd$1...@newz.oit.unc.edu>...
> Stan (eme...@itis.com) wrote:
>
> [snipped]
>
> : By the time the early to mid 40's comes along in his life, there is no
> : sensitivity left in the glans of a man who was forced to undergo
routine
> : infant circumcision sexual mutilation. If that man has no frenulum
> : (since it was completely sliced off in the sexual mutilation in
infancy)
> : then it can be difficult to reach orgasm and ejaculation: sexual
> : crippling is the result. [more snipped]
>
Well at 43 and without my " helmet " my sex life had never been better,,,,
but that has nothing to do with my not having a foreskin,,,,but with having
a second wife who is 12 years younger *LOL* ( The statement above is
rubbish )
Grace Boockholdt
In article b...@chronicle.concentric.net, cog...@concentric.net (Paul) writes:
} Men who have been circumcised as adults talk about
}how much they miss the sensitivity and sensations that they had prior
}to their circing. They wouldn't have recognized this if they had been
}circed as an infant. How can these women possibly know what they are
}missing
First of all, I am not a proponent of FGM.
I am stating that these women claim to enjoy
orgasms "just fine" (just like millions of circ'd
at birth males say--you might want to address
your question to them as well). Circ'd-at-birth
males cannot possibley know what they're missing
either....and yet this procedure persists. Interesting,
isn't it?
Parachute Woman
WHERE was the study done? you mention U of C - could it be that the
*uncircumcised* men have some sort of dysfunction because, being
American, society "expects" them to be circumcised, and its entirely a
"beauty in the eye of the beholder" thing?
I think I'll go to the library tomorrow and look up the actual article.
Talk about the people who are upset because they are circumcised abounds
on this list - no talk is given to the societal impact of those few who
were uncircumcised in America when the majority of boys were. (Tho
being uncircumcised is more easily reversed than the latter...)
Elizabeth R. Upton wrote:
>
> Stan (eme...@itis.com) wrote:
>
> [snipped]
>
> : By the time the early to mid 40's comes along in his life, there is no
> : sensitivity left in the glans of a man who was forced to undergo routine
> : infant circumcision sexual mutilation. If that man has no frenulum
> : (since it was completely sliced off in the sexual mutilation in infancy)
> : then it can be difficult to reach orgasm and ejaculation: sexual
> : crippling is the result. [more snipped]
>
Peggy Winkel
@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu> <333D9E...@idt.net> <333DB9...@ipass.net> <3341B0...@itis.com> <5hugpd$mnd$1...@newz.oit.unc.edu> <01bc3fb1$da0a4a40$2e131fc4@default>
Organization: The Inland Northwest Community Access Network
Distribution:
:TERRY R. (tr...@iafrica.com) wrote:
:
: Elizabeth R. Upton <eup...@email.unc.edu> wrote in article
: <5hugpd$mnd$1...@newz.oit.unc.edu>...
: > Stan (eme...@itis.com) wrote:
: >
: > [snipped]
: >
: > : By the time the early to mid 40's comes along in his life, there is no
: > : sensitivity left in the glans of a man who was forced to undergo
: routine
: > : infant circumcision sexual mutilation. If that man has no frenulum
: > : (since it was completely sliced off in the sexual mutilation in
: infancy)
: > : then it can be difficult to reach orgasm and ejaculation: sexual
: > : crippling is the result. [more snipped]
: >
:
: Well at 43 and without my " helmet " my sex life had never been better,,,,
: but that has nothing to do with my not having a foreskin,,,,but with having
: a second wife who is 12 years younger *LOL* ( The statement above is
: rubbish )
:
Terry.........Gosh, what are the implications of your experience?
Which statement is rubbish? Are younger women or second wives/
new wives the answer to desensitization due to circumcision?
Does your first ex-wife find her sexual experience enhanced
no longer being married to you/experiencing anew also? Is your
experience universal to circumsized men?
Curious.........
Peggy
--
Grace Boockholdt
In article 7...@lynx.unm.edu, Carol Kennon <Carol_...@somasf.unm.edu> writes:
}I wanted to respond to a few of Ken's questions before I formally depart:
}
}1) Anesthesia - Just as you have your cause, one of mine is pain control
}in pediatrics. It has been a major focus of my interest and I have
}established some new guidelines for my hospital. All babies where I work
}get anesthesia for circ. I can't speak for places that don't use it.
}cannot deny that these don't always work. This to me implies need for
}circs. Just open minded.
Whether or not this operation can be done
with better pain control is not the point.
The fact that this procedure is an UNnecessary
"medical" procedure, makes it UNethical for
a doctor to perform it inasmuch as there is
nothing *medically* wrong with the foreskin
at birth that warrants intervention of ANY kind
whatsoever.
Elizabeth R. Upton
Parachute Woman (sch...@ipass.net) wrote:
: WHERE was the study done? you mention U of C
From the New York Times:
"...The latest findings came from a nationally representative sample of
1,410 men 18 to 59 years old, interviewed in person in 1992 as part of the
National Health and Social Life survey by researchers at the University of
Chicago."
It seems from the article that the survey covered all sorts of health
issues, including circumcision, rather than being a survey focussed only
on circumcision. However, the study published today in the Journal of the
American Medical Association analyzed just the responses that had to do
with circumcision.
: - could it be that the
: *uncircumcised* men have some sort of dysfunction because, being
: American, society "expects" them to be circumcised, and its entirely a
: "beauty in the eye of the beholder" thing?
That's exactly what the author of the JAMA article seems to be suggesting.
I guess it's a "grass is always greener on the other side of the fence"
kind of situation -- men who are unhappy and circumcised can see their
circumcision as causing their sexual dysfunction, while men who are
unhappy and *un*circumcised can see their *not* being circumcised as the
cause of *their* sexual dysfunction. All we can really conclude is that
it seems to be a subjective thing.
Hugh Young
Dr Thomas Wiswell's incredible reation to the JAMA study has contributed
number 120, bringing the total to 170:
170 Circumstitions (Reasons Given for Circumcising a Male):
The variety of reasons given for male genital cutting (and the weirdness of
many of them) is amazing. List them all together and your mind will boggle:
1 Because he just should be
2 Because it only seems natural
3 Because NOT circumsizing your child is just...well WARPED!
4 Because the coin his father tossed came down heads/tails
5 Because the foreskin is there
6 Because only a homosexual with a foreskin fetish could object
7 Because of custom
8 Because it is a good and proper thing to do
9 Because his mother had an episiotomy ("I was cut, why shouldn't he
be?")
10 Because his mother suffered much greater pain during childbirth /
Because the father "just didn't want to argue with her after she'd
been through all that suffering."
11 Because it's just part of being born / Because all males are
circumcised
12 Because it's a law
13 Because the doctor "circed all babys, for their own good" / Because
the doctor just did it
14 Because circumcision is insignificant compared to the truly important
issues that come with raising a child
15 Because the foreskin is a mistake of nature
16 Because his mother had never seen an intact penis and thought it was
deformed
17 Because they have a device to do it, so it must be okay
18 Because the opposition to it is too shrill / To spite its opponents
19 To spite his father
20 Because his gay uncle recommended against it
21 Because if he isn't circumcised at birth he won't want to be
circumcised later
22 To prevent any discussion about it later
23 Because it saves him from the embarassment of having to ask for it
24 Because infant circumcision is much less complicated, painful, and
heals faster than adult circumcision.
25 Because it will have to be done sooner or later
26 Because a friend of a friend of a... "had to be" circumcised later in
life.
27 Because it is hospital policy
28 Because "they just do it automatically" / when his mother said
"What's circumcision?" they said, "Don't worry dear, we'll look after
it."
29 Because it's covered by Medicare / National Health / Social Security
/ Health Insurance
30 Because doctors make money from it
31 To provide practice for house-surgeons (interns)
32 Because doctors know best
33 Because it is rooted in our culture
34 Because it is culturally significant / Because it is culturally
necessary
35 Because it is a routine procedure in his parents' country of origin
36 Because everybody else is doing it
37 Because his mother's friends kept asking why he wasn't (he was, but
didn't look it, so it was done again)
38 Because (in San Diego) only the Mexicans don't do it
39 Because it is a status symbol: "If you ain't circumcised, you ain't
shit."
40 Because it is an act of the civilized world
41 To prepare him to receive tribal secrets (Australia) / priestly
secrets (ancient Egypt)
42 To enable him to reincarnate (Australia)
43 To enable him to communicate with the spirits of his ancestors
(Xhosa)
44 To separate him from his mother (Xhosa)
45 To ward off evil (Xhosa - and who else?)
46 To cement mutual respect among those circumcised (Herero of Namibia)
47 To give him status among his father's Xhosa labourers
48 To keep a bargain Abraham made with G*d (Genesis 17, 10-27)
49 Because he's heir to the British throne and Queen Victoria believed
they were descended from King David
50 Because he belongs to the Spanish royal family
51 Because he belongs to the upper class
52 Because he's an orphan
53 Because he's disabled
54 Because he's to be adopted
55 Because I kind of think it is "American"... in the early years of
this great nation,
we took pride in BEING DIFFERENT thon ether nations (sic)
56 To make him look different from outsiders
57 To remind him of anti-semitic persecution
58 To prevent another Holocaust (he's a gentile: circumcising gentiles
will hide Jews)
59 To bond him with his community
60 To educate him in his parent's faith
61 To ensure a share for him in the world to come
62 To draw down the Divine light, bring down the soul of holiness into
the body, reveal the Jew's inherent connection to G-d
63 Because Jews do it and they are so clean
64 "So that he will be rich as a Jew" - a Peruvian mother
65 Because Jesus was circumcised (Luke 2, 21)
66 Because it is required by the Catholic church
67 Because he (a Navajo) was placed during the school term with Mormons
68 Because Mohammed was "born circumcised"
69 Because it is required by Islam
70 Because it is required by his stepfather's insurance policy
71 Because women's magazines advise it
72 Because "a boy should look like his brother"
73 For variety (leaving brother/s intact)
74 To make him look different from his twin brother
75 Because "a boy should look like his father" / 'like father like son'
76 Because everyone in our family is circumsised
77 To make him look like his mother's father
78 To make him look like his master / Because his master ordered it
79 To make him look like his peers
80 To protect him from being teased / "To prevent "locker-room syndrome"
/ Because his mother heard of an intact boy in a locker-room being
called "flappy".
81 To prevent "psychological trauma due to castration anxiety"!
82 "No pain, no gain"
83 "Trim the twig to strengthen the limb" / Because plants require
pruning for growth
84 Because it does him a favour
85 To provide skin for cloning for grafts
86 To provide material for cosmetics
87 To use for testing cosmetics for irritation
88 To make his penis cleaner / "For hygienic purposes" / Because "no son
of mine is gonna have a doggy dick."
89 Because it's too much trouble for his mother to clean
90 Because his mother thought that cleaning him was too much like
masturbating him
91 To make his genitals odourless
92 To make his penis look nicer
93 Because it exposes the most beautiful part
94 Because an uncircumcised penis looks funny
95 Because uncircumcised penises look like a piece of meat
96 Because it makes it uniformly pink
97 Because his foreskin is "excessively long"
98 To prevent excessive crying
99 To prevent/cure yeast infections
100 To prevent/cure balanitis
101 To prevent/cure phimosis / "tight skin" / Because it wouldn't retract
at birth
102 To prevent/cure paraphimosis
103 To prevent Urinary Tract Infection
104 To prevent infant epididymitis (infection of the sperm-storage
tubules behind the testes)
105 To prevent rupture
106 To prevent boils
107 To help him cope with chicken pox
108 Because he hadn't urinated 18 hours after birth (He had.)
109 To stop him dribbling when he pees / sprinkling on the toilet seat /
prevent difficulty with micturation in childhood
110 To treat headaches / arthritic hips / hydrocephaly / kleptomania
111-119 To cure about 100 ailments including asthma, alcoholism, epilepsy,
rectal prolapse, kidney disease, gout, leprosy, plague and
tuberculosis ( = 9 reasons)
120 To prevent high blood pressure
121 To confer "societal health benefits"
122 Because "there wouldn't have had any place for my penis to grow"
123 To protect him from getting stuck in a zipper
124 To extract him from a zipper
125 To prevent masturbation
126 To punish him for masturbating
127 To punish him for going AWOL / trying to escape from prison
128 To punish him for stealing a Circumstraint (tm)
129 To punish him for catching an STD
130 To prevent STDs
131 To prevent HIV
133 To protect him from irritation when fighting in the desert
134 To initiate him when crossing the Equator
135 To make him fit for military service
136 To promote military discipline
137 Because it is "a requirement for admission to the armed forces / the
US Marines / As a requirement of joining the Coast Guard, because the
foreskin is a "health problem" (1984)
138 Because he's in prison
139 To prevent him from concealing/transporting drugs under his foreskin
140 To frighten his enemies
141 To give him the appearance of permanent arousal
141 To weaken him ready for slaughter (Genesis 32, 14-25)
142 To make a / real / American / man of him
143 To pass as a Muslim [Sir Richard Burton]
144 To pass as a Jew (in kibbutzim)
145 Because he has been captured by Muslims
146 In case he is captured by Muslims (the British surgeon would take
more care, 1661)
147 In order to be allowed to live in Saudi Arabia
148 So that other members of the circumcision club can watch and
masturbate
149 Because the foreskin's purpose is to facilitate rape
150 To remove the female element from him
151 To prepare him for marriage
152 Because his partner demands it / To make him attractive to his
partner
153 Because his mother and her friends prefer circumcised men for sexual
pleasure
154 Because women don't like performing oral sex on intact men
155 To demonstrate the circumcisor's prowess as a warrior
156 To use his foreskin for a dowry (1 Sam 18, 24-47)
157 To make his penis bigger
158 To avoid tearing in tight situations / Because it is better for
overall comfort when you have a stiff erection
159 To prevent pain in intercourse (Herero of Namibia)
160 To enhance his sexual performance / prevent premature ejaculation
161 Because it enhances sensitivity
162 Because it reduces sensitivity
163 To reduce his sexual performance (Maimonides)
164 To prevent infertility / ensure fertility
165 To prevent cervical cancer in his partner/s.
166 To prevent penile cancer
167 To prevent urinary obstruction in his old age
168 To prepare his corpse for the study of male anatomy
169 To allow him to enter Heaven (Jewish folklore: Abraham takes the
foreskins off good gentiles and puts them on bad Jews, whom he sends
down to Sheol)
170 "The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of
circumcision." - Maimonides
and For no reason at all
And this doesn't include the underlying reasons - to show him who's in charge
and what they think about his sexuality.
John Pritchard
> D. C. Sessions wrote:
> > Ken R wrote:
> > > D. C. Sessions wrote:
Would you compare the removal of the foreskin with the removal of an eyelid?
P.S. Achenbach
To anyone:
I think someone should start a circumcision newsgroup. This topic takes
up so much of this newsgroup, it should have a space of it's own.
Please do not reply, just consider this.
Parachute Woman
Please note the newsgroups you sent this message to. It includes
alt.circumcision.
Carol Kennon
I am sympathetic to the idea of a special circumcision NG location. One
was attempted alt.circumcision but many readers can't access it. I agree
with circ posters who say that you can quickly bypass all posts you don't
like/care about, etc. I and others are trying to make this thread more
friendly, since the anti-social nature of much of the postings is the
basis for many complaints. The subject is of interest to enough people
that it shouldn't be shunned from newsgroups where it has relevance.
I wanted to respond to a few recent postings:
1) A question was raised about mortality statistics on circs and how they
might be registered. The possibility was raised that deaths from circs
are under-reported because only the primary cause of death is listed in
the mortality registries. Death certificates list primary, secondary, and
underlying causes of death. If a patient develops liver failure from a
circ complication, this would be recognized as a death related to
circumcision. If the circ were a remote event in the chain, a link might
not be recognized, but if the connection were remote enough, perhaps the
circ should not be listed as the underlying cause. People who keep such
statistics are good at their job and try hard to correlate mortality with
true cause.
In addition, if dozens of neonatal circ related deaths were occuring each
year, I would not be in the dark about it. Iatrogenic infant deaths are a
very big deal to us in neonatology.
The second point I wanted to raise is about possible benefits to neonatal
circ. There aren't very many and I repeat I am not a proponent of this
procedure. But some zealots on this topic like to post that all proposed
benefits have been disproven. Well I have discussed this topic with a lot
of colleagues in medicine: neonatologists, pediatric infectious disease
specialists, urologists, pediatricians who hate circs but nonetheless do
them very well, and all agree that prevention of urinary tract infection
in the male infant may well be a benefit. Obviously some of you have made
up your minds like concrete, and frankly I'd just as soon not discuss
this subject with these zealots (what is the point after all) I'm not
into masochism this year, thanks anyway. Urinary tract infection is not
simple or benign in a neonate (significant mobidity accompanies it) and
most risks of neonatal circs don't compare to neonatal sepsis from UTIs.
I think more studies need to be done and I don't now think that
preventive surgery is justified in this situation. But don't believe that
there are no benefits now or will never be any benefits which we discover
as time goes on. An open mind is pretty nice.
Carol Kennon, MD
Paul
Ms. Kennon,
Yes, an open mind would be nice, but I don't see any indication that
you have one. Your's seems quite closed, it is obvious you are
defending a way of life that you don't want to change.
Have you read the recent research comparing circed infants with
non-circed infants? I think the study was done in the Chicago area.
The interesting thing about the data was that the circed infants had
more cases of all of the problems than did the non-circed infants.
I would be interested to hear your rationalization of this study. I am
sure your first argument will be that "it's only one study, it really
doesn't mean anything".
I will apologize now if you find my post offensive but in reading your
posts I find that you do a lot of rationalization and you seem to
refuse to admit that anything could possibly be done differently than
you think it should be done. I would like to remind you that coffins
are dug up quite regularly for autopsies that correct the mistakes
made, deliberate or pure accident. I don't doubt that your
statisticians correctly record what they are given as a cause of death
but was that the true cause of the death or the problems leading up to
death?
As you say an open mind would be nice.
Paul
Carol Kennon
Hugh, I'm starting to realize (I don't know what took me so long) that
posting here is a waste of time. I either communicate with people like
you who have made up their minds, people who don't really care about the
subject, and people who want all of us to go away. I wanted to respond to
a few of your points and thank you for remaining civil despite some of
our differences.
1) Procedure unnecessary - If this were as clear as you would deem it,
there would not be a debate. Unfortunately, for you and often for me,
many people in our country (pretty solid, intelligent people) think it is
a necessary procedure. I know you like to find fault with physicians but
I don't know too many who advocate routine circs. Parents often insist on
having the procedure done. When an issue appears black and white, as this
one obviously does to you, I'm sure it's hard to understand those who
disagree with you. I have been quite righteous in my opinions often, too.
But in truth we are not thought police and other people have the right to
decide things for themselves. Some issues are quite clear, breaking a
child's arm for example. The circ issue is not as clear to me. Finding
fault with me for that is your right but it appears to be an easy way
out. Harder is to try to understand someone with opinions different from
your own. Many people on the net become pretty dictatorial when
confronted with differences of opinion. You have summed up all the
evidence and concluded that neonatal circs are unnecessary, and you are
entitled to that opinion. I will not try to dissuade you. The American
Acad of Pediatrics has recommended that I explain the risks and benefits
of circ to parents. If they perceived no benefits, they would not
recommend discussing them. I cannot say to parents "well Hugh wants you
to know..." Many physicians believe that prevention of UTIs may be a real
benefit. I feel obligated to tell parents about this and I do say it is
only a POSSIBLE benefit. I also have to tell them that circs done in the
first week are less complicated (less bleeding,etc) then when done later.
I also tell them about the risks and the reasons why I personally don't
think it's a good idea. Usually it doesn't matter, parents have decided
long before the baby is born.
There is a moderated parent discussion group on circs on the web. I was
reading thru that. Parents who want circs bring up subjects like the
ridicule of uncirc'd boys. To them this is a real concern and they swear
it happens and it's cruel. Your crowd loves to dismiss this issue (along
with other issues) but to the parents it's not easily dismissed.
2) "some of us have studied the issue more than physicians" I believe you
and I think it's great that you are working hard toward your cause. But
in truth you haven't seen this issue thru the perspective of physicians
who care for these problems. To give advice without a medical background
is your right but your perspective is limited. Your research is often
quite biased and your prejudice when giving advice is obvious. You also
don't have to be accountable, as I do, for the advice given. If I'm not
completely honest with parents, they will blame me for it. If you think
my job can be done better by someone like you, please try it.
3) The anger and righteousness of comments from the anti-circ crowd
implies that there is some horrible conspiracy of violent people in
society who are trying to hurt males. Who comprises this conspiracy?
Parents? The ones I talk to are thrilled with their newborn, couldn't
love anything more. Are they the evil ones? Physicians? Most of my
colleagues in pediatrics and OB really dislike doing circs and many try
to talk parents out of them. Are they the enemy? Am I the enemy because
I'm in the profession or because I try to remain objective? I mean you
post that it is valid to view circs as child abuse and mutilation. If
others disagree with you, are they just horribly misguided?
4) Men are victims just because they were circumcised - Some men, perhaps
many believe this, others are happy with their status. I don't have to
apologize to anyone, I had nothing to do with the circ status of adult
men in our society. If men want to feel that they are as unfortunate as
anyone else who has suffered any tragedy because of their foreskin, fine
I will not deny them their infinite right to feel any way they want. I
never said I want adult men to suffer, this is patently absurd. I have no
evidence whatsoever that uncomplicated circs lead to sexual dysfunction.
I've got to get out of this business of communicating on the net. It
really is frustrating and futile. Sorry if I'm patronizing. Instead I
will just stop communicating. Sincerely, Carol Kennon, MD
bgkk...@pacbell.net
Carol Kennon wrote:
> 1) Procedure unnecessary - If this were as clear as you would deem it,
> there would not be a debate.
A healthy infant male is born with
a healthy foreskin. Cosmetic surgery
IS UNnecessary. Surgery performed on
a *healthy* body part is unethical if
not consented to by the *patient*.
> Unfortunately, for you and often for me,
> many people in our country (pretty solid, intelligent people) think it is
> a necessary procedure.
In order for the procedure to be "necessary",
it has to be performed to save the body part
OR the life of the patient. If the patient
is merely born a healthy male...NO medical
intervention is "necessary".
> I know you like to find fault with physicians but
> I don't know too many who advocate routine circs. Parents often insist on
> having the procedure done.
If a parent "insists" upon having an
infant's tonsils removed at birth, what
physician in his right mind would perform it?
> When an issue appears black and white, as this
> one obviously does to you, I'm sure it's hard to understand those who
> disagree with you. I have been quite righteous in my opinions often, too.
> But in truth we are not thought police and other people have the right to
> decide things for themselves.
Bingo. And the individual male has a right
to decide for HIMself what kind of penis he
has.
> Many physicians believe that prevention of UTIs may be a real
> benefit.
Since toddler girls contract UTIs at a
higher rate than intact boys, why aren't
these same physicians "protecting" these
girls by advocating clitoral hood and
labial excision for all girls at birth?
> I feel obligated to tell parents about this and I do say it is
> only a POSSIBLE benefit.
Do you also advocate female circumcision
as described above as a "possible" benefit
as well?
> I also have to tell them that circs done in the
> first week are less complicated (less bleeding,etc) then when done later.
Could very well be for infant females, too,
yet this is not advocated even though toddler
girls contract UTIs more frequently than intact
male toddlers. Women also contract far more
infections in their genitals than intact males...
so why NOT advocate female circ's?
> I also tell them about the risks and the reasons why I personally don't
> think it's a good idea. Usually it doesn't matter, parents have decided
> long before the baby is born.
Which is why we are trying to educate the
parents that this procedure is UNnecessary.
> There is a moderated parent discussion group on circs on the web. I was
> reading thru that. Parents who want circs bring up subjects like the
> ridicule of uncirc'd boys. To them this is a real concern and they swear
> it happens and it's cruel. Your crowd loves to dismiss this issue (along
> with other issues) but to the parents it's not easily dismissed.
Ms. Kennon, the circ rates are DROPPING *nation-wide*.
If any parent is concerned about the "locker-room" syndrome,
it will soon be about the cut boys...not the intact boys.
> 3) The anger and righteousness of comments from the anti-circ crowd
> implies that there is some horrible conspiracy of violent people in
> society who are trying to hurt males. Who comprises this conspiracy?
> Parents? The ones I talk to are thrilled with their newborn, couldn't
> love anything more. Are they the evil ones? Physicians? Most of my
> colleagues in pediatrics and OB really dislike doing circs and many try
> to talk parents out of them. Are they the enemy? Am I the enemy because
> I'm in the profession or because I try to remain objective? I mean you
> post that it is valid to view circs as child abuse and mutilation. If
> others disagree with you, are they just horribly misguided?
If the procedure was done to an adult without
his consent, even if it were to "possibly" prevent
disease...or so he could look like his father...if
he didn't consent to it, it would be a crime. That
it is done to an infant for the same reasons is just
as ludicrous.
> 4) Men are victims just because they were circumcised - Some men, perhaps
> many believe this, others are happy with their status. I don't have to
> apologize to anyone, I had nothing to do with the circ status of adult
> men in our society.
If you continue to perform routine infant
circs, you are usurping the right of the
individual to decide for himself. You may
not have been responsible for the circ status
of adult men in out society...but you are contributing
to it by perpetuating it. You say you are basically
against it. If you perform it on the insistence of
the parent and not the patient, you are performing
an unethical procedure.
> If men want to feel that they are as unfortunate as
> anyone else who has suffered any tragedy because of their foreskin, fine
> I will not deny them their infinite right to feel any way they want. I
> never said I want adult men to suffer, this is patently absurd. I have no
> evidence whatsoever that uncomplicated circs lead to sexual dysfunction.
The sexual function of the *foreskin* is *destroyed*.
Therefore, AN aspect of sexual function has been destroyed.
A person born without sight knows nothing different and can
lead a perfectly normal and fruitful life. That doesn't mean
that all we should all lose our sight at birth.
Grace Boockholdt
Hugh Young
In <5i41dl$o...@lynx.unm.edu> Carol Kennon <Carol_...@somasf.unm.edu>
wrote:
>I am sympathetic to the idea of a special circumcision NG location. One
>was attempted alt.circumcision
I am responding on alt.circumcision.
> but many readers can't access it.
>1) A question was raised about mortality statistics on circs and how they
>might be registered. The possibility was raised that deaths from circs
>are under-reported because only the primary cause of death is listed in
>the mortality registries. Death certificates list primary, secondary, and
>underlying causes of death. If a patient develops liver failure from a
>circ complication, this would be recognized as a death related to
>circumcision. If the circ were a remote event in the chain, a link might
>not be recognized, but if the connection were remote enough, perhaps the
>circ should not be listed as the underlying cause. People who keep such
>statistics are good at their job and try hard to correlate mortality with
>true cause.
>In addition, if dozens of neonatal circ related deaths were occuring each
>year, I would not be in the dark about it. Iatrogenic infant deaths are a
>very big deal to us in neonatology.
So how many babies in the US die each year as a result, direct or indirect,
of being circumcised?
>The second point I wanted to raise is about possible benefits to neonatal
>circ. There aren't very many and I repeat I am not a proponent of this
>procedure. But some zealots on this topic like to post that all proposed
>benefits have been disproven. Well I have discussed this topic with a lot
>of colleagues in medicine: neonatologists, pediatric infectious disease
>specialists, urologists, pediatricians who hate circs but nonetheless do
>them very well, and all agree that prevention of urinary tract infection
>in the male infant may well be a benefit.
And what do they do with the information that:
1. four times as many females as males suffer from UTIs, which are of course
never prevented by surgery?
2. the rate of UTIs is very low, somewhere about 1% in males, so 99% of
circumcised boys gain no benefit from it?
3. circumcision is only partially effective, so a further fraction of a
percent of circumcised boys fail to benefit from it, leaving only a fraction
of a percent of circumcised boys who would otherwise get UTI?
4. the risk of UTIs after the first month falls nearly to zero, but the
effects of circumcision continue for the rest of the boy's and man's life?
5. one of the main studies of UTIs, Thomas Wiswell's, though claiming to
encompass a huge sample, was seriously flawed in its diagnosis of UTIs?
6. higher rates of UTIs among uncircumcised babies may be not causal at all,
but an artifact of premature babies being a) catheterised and b) left intact?
> Obviously some of you have made
>up your minds like concrete, and frankly I'd just as soon not discuss
>this subject with these zealots (what is the point after all) I'm not
>into masochism this year, thanks anyway.
Argument ad hominem.
> Urinary tract infection is not
>simple or benign in a neonate (significant mobidity accompanies it) and
>most risks of neonatal circs don't compare to neonatal sepsis from UTIs.
>I think more studies need to be done and I don't now think that
>preventive surgery is justified in this situation. But don't believe that
>there are no benefits now or will never be any benefits which we discover
>as time goes on.
Or we may discover harm (from cutting part of the sexual anatomy off, harm
seems more likely on the face of it) as time goes on. Last year Taylor
published his study of the structure of the foreskin, indicating what is
lost. This year, Taddio et al. published their Lancet study of the pain of
circumcision, showing that *even with anaesthetic* the effects last for
months. The latest study, in JAMA, shows no benefits, but men who report
being circumcised also reporting slightly more STDs, and markedly more
masturbation and oral and anal sex. Are those benefits? (Or perhaps reporting
or statistical artifacts?)
I recently posted 170 "reasons" given for circumcision. Thomas Wiswell
recently said it prevents high blood pressure. He earlier said it prevents
gallstones. I am at the moment chasing up a Nigerian belief that it enables
the sun to shine. Claimed "benefits" must be running out soon - but I suppose
they are limited only by the human imagination.
> An open mind is pretty nice.
(an oldie but a goodie:) ...but not so open your brains fall out.
>Carol Kennon, MD
--
Hugh Young, Pukerua Bay, Nuclear-free Aotearoa / NEW ZEALAND
#158 Welcome to Earth. Do not leave your vehicle.
Me
Hello all -
I just wanted to say ON THE GROUP (I just sent mail to Carol asking her
not to leave...) that I am getting tired of Carol bashing. I've had a
similar problem on this group as well.
Carol (and I) has stated that she is ANTI-CIRCUMCISION. She *agrees*
with you, guys. No need to bash on her or tell her she doesn't have an
open mind - if she didn't have an open mid she'd blindly follow what the
US culture did as routine - she'd be pro-circumcision.
What I see her doing in reporting some of the reasons *some* may choose
to circumcise their infants and such is she is trying to *inform*,
trying to get people to understand one another, whether she (or anyone
else) agrees with them or not. Disagreement is ok, but it can be done
without accusations.
One statistic I'd *love* to see is the percentage of a random sample of
American men who've never really given much thought to their penile
status one way or another. I honestly think most don't... they just try
to enjoy what they've got.
Again - I am ANTI-CIRCUMCISION - so call me names if you want, but know
I agree with most of you here on alt.circumcision.
I'm just on this newsgroup to get *informed* (I have two brothers who
are starting to think about children and I want to sit down with them
and their eventually pregnant wives and discuss this issue) I'm not
here for name-calling or breast-bashing. I think most people on this
list are probably in the same position - here to inform and get
informed. That implies, to me, an open mind - and to me an open mind
means listening to BOTH sides (or al three or four or whatever) of an
issue. Especially a sensitive issue like this.
Betsy
Someone wrote: (and I'm only picking this as a general example of
things I see happening on alt.circumcision....)
D.C. Sessions
Ken R wrote:
> D. C. Sessions wrote:
> > Ken R wrote:
> > > D. C. Sessions wrote:
> > > > Ken R wrote:
> > > > > D. C. Sessions wrote:
> > > > > > Ken R wrote:
> > > > > > > Moreover, it seems rather odd that this is the only part of the human
> > > > > > > body whose first line of treatment for _anything_ is amputation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If it were, it might be; but as it isn't, it's not.
> > > >
> > > > > How so?
> > > >
> > > > One might have hoped for more consideration of the
> > > > possibilities, but to name just one example there are
> > > > moles. Lots of them circumcised every day, based on
> > > > nothing more than color and shape. Sure, they are
> > > > almost always totally harmless, and the removal leaves
> > > > a scar, and there are alternative methods that can
> > > > determine whether they are actually dangerous, etc.
> > > >
> > > > Still, they just get whacked.
> > > How can you compare a normal, healthy, functional part of the genitalia
> > > with a mole? What functions do moles serve?
> >
> > The statement was "this is the only part of the human
> > body whose first line of treatment for _anything_ is
> > amputation." Moles are, at last report, part of the
> > human body.
> >
> > If someone wishes to resurrect last year's exchange
> > wrt the nature of 'function' (whether it is inherent
> > or ascribed) please refer to the DejaNews archives
> > first so we can skip over the remedial philosophy.
> Would you also compare the foresking with a wart? Or surgical removal of
> the eyelid with a mole?
You'll have to ask the person who originally made the comparison.
(From the references, someone posting as "Ken R")
--
D. C. Sessions
dc.se...@tempe.vlsi.com
Carol Kennon
I want to thank Don and the woman (I'm sorry I forgot your name) for
being kind. This whole circ discussion has been emotionally trying for
me. I dread logging on because of the flames I get. I log off in tears
often. You guys may not realize it, but there is a lot of hostility here.
When I first started my communication, I was hoping to learn about your
point of view, to have pleasant interchanges, and to bring back to my
medical colleagues what I learned. I was truly reaching out. To those who
refer to me as Ms. Kennon, you can certainly call me whatever you like
because I'm not big into the Dr. Kennon thing. But the intentional
disrespect is very hurtful. I regret this interchange because I didn't
get what I was looking for and I did get a lot of insults and righteous
lecturing. It has left me feeling pretty dispirited.
In response to a few postings: I just don't see the connection between
male and female circumcision. Everyone I talk to doesn't see it either.
We have to accept the reality that male circumcision has a long
precedent. It's presence is a reality and all the ranting and raving
about it won't make it go away. Female circs are not a reality here in
this country. I'm glad female circs aren't routinely done and I wish
male ones weren't either. The connection between female circ and UTI has
never and I bet will never be tested. That of male circ and UTI has been
tested repeatedly and the vast majority of studies find a significant
relationship between uncirc and UTI. I'm sorry, I didn't do the study but
the data are there and they can't be dismissed by the argument that girls
aren't circumcised. To some a 10 fold risk is a big deal, again your
lectures won't change their minds. UTIs in the neonatal period are not a
small deal by any means.
I don't do circs,never have, never want to.
Grace your constant lecturing is so hard to take. The reality is that
many, probably a large majority of people, in this country have no
ethical problem with neonatal circs. Your repetition of dictatorial
chants (UNnecessary, Unethical) stirs anger, defensiveness, and certainly
is not the pleasant interchange I had hoped for. You have a distinct edge
of superiority and act like things that are fact in your mind are
unequivocal for everyone. Sorry, it's definitely not like that. Many
parents feel like they are doing their sons a favor. Your disdain
probably won't change minds.
The rate of circs has dropped some but some statistics I read say that
70-80% of white males are still being circ'd. There is still a lot of
potential for ridicule in the direction of circ'd done to non-circ and
parents definitely speak of it as a reality. Some say their sons are
angry at them for not having it done as newborns. Just arrogantly stating
that this is a non-issue doesn't make it go away.
As for why doctors who don't like circs do them anyway. The issue is not
black and white in their minds. They have seen UTIs and complications of
uncirc'd. They have had heart to heart talks with parents. They report
that parents cry because they feel so strongly that it is good for their
son. With the hostility of the anti-circ groups towards doctors, they
aren't getting enough friendly information from the other side. An ENT
doctor I talked to said she had both her sons circ'd because she
witnesses complications of not being circ'd as an infant and she hated
the older child circs she assisted with in the OR. She said they were
much higher risk. I can just hear some of you now with your flippant
comments but this is reality for her. She has no ethical problems
whatsoever with neo circs.
I am receptive. Every day I have to make decisions for neonates (not circ
ones) The ethics of these decisions are very bothersome because I don't
know what the baby wants, I can't. Babies in our society are dependent on
their parents to make many decisions for them. The reality is circ is
available, parents often desire them strongly, and many parents feel them
to be in the best interest of their sons. I don't see what many of you do
as education. It appears to me like condescending lecturing. Some of the
arguments, like links to female circumcision, are viewed as "off the
wall".
By reaching out, I obviously set myself up to be the target for much hate
and hostility toward the medical profession. I was not prepared for the
responses I got. I go back to my job feeling worse off for the
experience.
Carol Kennon, MD
chris mesterharm
Carol Kennon <Carol_...@somasf.unm.edu> writes:
>To some a 10 fold risk is a big deal, again your lectures won't change
>their minds. UTIs in the neonatal period are not a small deal by any
>means.
What are the risks of UTIs in terms of mortality or permanent damage,
and what are the rates of UTIs in uncircumcised and circumcised boys.
>She hated the older child circs she assisted with in the OR. She said
>they were much higher risk.
Why are they done, and why are they much higher risk?
>Some of the arguments, like links to female circumcision, are viewed
>as "off the wall".
Why? I've seen some convincing arguments along this line. Clearly
the analogy between female and male circumcision can be made, yet one
procedure is acceptable and the other is not. I think it could be
useful to look into the reasons.
Many people have contradictory viewpoints within their minds, and it
is very effective to give examples to help resolve the differences.
This can be a difficult process, because it can cause a major
reorganization of ideas, but in the long run it is beneficial.
>By reaching out, I obviously set myself up to be the target for much
>hate and hostility toward the medical profession. I was not prepared
>for the responses I got. I go back to my job feeling worse off for the
>experience.
It is hard to put yourself in the middle of the camp. You get
attacked by extremest from both sides and get limited support from
either side.
Chris
Jacob D. Goldstein
Parachute Woman wrote:
> BTW - I do find it interesting that there is a ZERO incidence of penile
> cancer in circumcised men, and a non-zero incidence in non-circ'd....
> meaning there is a definate link between having a foreskin and getting
> penile cancer.
Betsy,
This is not entirely correct. Circumcision does not prevent penile
cancer. Among circumcised men, the rate of incidence of penile cancer
in the US appears to increase with the age at which circumcision is
performed, but even neonatal circumcision does not prevent penile
cancer. Figures from 30 to 5000 are quoted for the ratio of the
incidence rates of penile cancer among uncircumcised and circumcised
men.
> It is also true that the foreskin is a great place for "pathogenic
> organisms multiplying in the warm moist environment under the prepuce",
> and that links have been shown that there are higher incidents of STDs
> in men with foreskins.
The recent AMA study contradicts this last statement. Its abstract
states that "We find no significant differences between circumcised
and uncircumcised men in their likelihood of contracting sexually
transmitted diseases."
I haven't seen the article, but I suspect that there were not enough
participants to obtain significant results for individual STDs, and
that the results reported are for all STDs combined. In other words,
the study may have attached the same weight to cases of Herpes,
Chyamidla, Gonorrhea, Syphilis, and HIV. There are no good a priori
reasons for suspecting that the presence or absence of the foreskin
affects contraction of all STDs in the same manner.
Other studies have shown links between circumcision status and specific
STDs supporting your statement.
-- Jake --
kyra
HAHAHHAHAHAH
I think we should also start a cat.tox.paranoid.pregnancy newsgroup there
is FAR too much talk about that...
Kyra
P.S. Achenbach <Drs.psa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<334554...@worldnet.att.net>...
Parachute Woman
chris mesterharm wrote:
>
> Carol Kennon <Carol_...@somasf.unm.edu> writes:
>
> >To some a 10 fold risk is a big deal, again your lectures won't change
> >their minds. UTIs in the neonatal period are not a small deal by any
> >means.
>
> What are the risks of UTIs in terms of mortality or permanent damage,
> and what are the rates of UTIs in uncircumcised and circumcised boys.
>
Dr Edgar Schoen, Chairman of the Task Force on Circumcision of the
American Academy of Pediatrics, has stated that the
benefits of routine circumcision of newborns as a preventative health
measure far exceed the risks of the procedure [48] . During
the period 1985-92 there was an increase in the frequency of postnewborn
circumcision and during that time Schoen points out
that the association of lack of circumcision and urinary tract infection
has moved from ‘suggestive’ to ‘conclusive’ [48] . At the
same time associations with other infectious agents, including HIV, have
been demonstrated. In fact he goes on to say that
‘Current newborn circumcision may be considered a preventative health
measure analogous to immunization in that side
effects and complications are immediate and usually minor, but benefits
accrue for a lifetime’ [48] .
48.Schoen EJ. Circumcision updated–implicated? Pediatrics 1993; 92:
860-1
(1993 is pretty recent...)
This page continues to site rates of infection, and points out that UTIs
can easily turn to kidney infections (it's happened to me, a female, at
age 23, and it is PAINFUL!) and possible systemic infections.
("The complications of UTI that can lead to death are: kidney failure,
meningitis and infection of bone marrow.")
The whole page is heavy with citations if you want to read the original
papers, rather than the summaries presented here.
> >She hated the older child circs she assisted with in the OR. She said
> >they were much higher risk.
>
> Why are they done, and why are they much higher risk?
>
Again from the same page:
The demand for circumcision later in childhood has increased, but, with
age, problems, such as anaesthetic risk, are higher.
> >Some of the arguments, like links to female circumcision, are viewed
> >as "off the wall".
>
> Why? I've seen some convincing arguments along this line. Clearly
> the analogy between female and male circumcision can be made, yet one
> procedure is acceptable and the other is not. I think it could be
> useful to look into the reasons.
>
Actually, on this one I agree with what was written on this page... and
also with what Carol says.
First of all the anaolgy is hard to make because part of what people are
trying to do (myself included, despite the info cited on this
pro-circumcision page...) is change habits already in place. Female
circumcision is not an already in-place habit in the US culture.
Therefore one needs not argue about it here in the US (or rather, argue
against it).... so in a way the point is moot - most people *don't* see
the analogy.
But also, as says on the page mentioned above:
For example they have compared circumcision with female genital
mutilation, which is equivalent to cutting off the penis.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not the foreskin - the penis!
> Many people have contradictory viewpoints within their minds, and it
> is very effective to give examples to help resolve the differences.
> This can be a difficult process, because it can cause a major
> reorganization of ideas, but in the long run it is beneficial.
>
Just lots of hard work, at times made harder by people who are militant
about their anti-circumcision stance. For instance, I'm sure I'll get
some messages because I am advocating reading a pro-circ. page on the
web, and perhaps some of the papers cited. I am still anti-circ.... I
only recommend we should all be well-informed, which includes reading
the views that don't mesh with ours. "Open-mindedness" means listening
to the other side and accepting it as a valid opinion. Not necessarily
*agreeing* - but at least listening and considering.
> >By reaching out, I obviously set myself up to be the target for much
> >hate and hostility toward the medical profession. I was not prepared
> >for the responses I got. I go back to my job feeling worse off for the
> >experience.
>
> It is hard to put yourself in the middle of the camp. You get
> attacked by extremest from both sides and get limited support from
> either side.
>
But I'm glad you've done it, Dr. Kennon. And I will continue to do it
too. I want to education, not indoctorinate.
> Chris
BTW - I do find it interesting that there is a ZERO incidence of penile
cancer in circumcised men, and a non-zero incidence in non-circ'd....
meaning there is a definate link between having a foreskin and getting
penile cancer.
It is also true that the foreskin is a great place for "pathogenic
organisms multiplying in the warm moist environment under the prepuce",
and that links have been shown that there are higher incidents of STDs
in men with foreskins.
This information *all* coming from someone who still feels it would take
an *awful* lot before she would chop off 36% of her own son's penile
tissue... But like I said, I think its important to be informed and to
inform, on ALL sides of the issue...
Flame away if you feel you must.
Betsy
Parachute Woman
Jacob D. Goldstein wrote:
>
> Parachute Woman wrote:
>
> > BTW - I do find it interesting that there is a ZERO incidence of
> > penile cancer in circumcised men, and a non-zero incidence in
> >non-circ'd.... meaning there is a definate link between having a > > foreskin and getting penile cancer.
>
>
> This is not entirely correct. Circumcision does not prevent penile
> in the US appears to increase with the age at which circumcision is
> performed, but even neonatal circumcision does not prevent penile
> cancer. Figures from 30 to 5000 are quoted for the ratio of the
> incidence rates of penile cancer among uncircumcised and circumcised
> men.
>
more realistic. (That is the 3:50 ratio)
I never meant to say circumcision *prevented* penile cancer, just that
there was a statistical association. But it sounds as though the
incidence is not "statistically zero" in cir'd men as I had read. I
guess next time I have some free time in the library I should look up
some more papers. =)
> > It is also true that the foreskin is a great place for "pathogenic
> > organisms multiplying in the warm moist environment under the
> > prepuce", and that links have been shown that there are higher
> > incidents of STDs in men with foreskins.
>
> The recent AMA study contradicts this last statement. Its abstract
> states that "We find no significant differences between circumcised
> and uncircumcised men in their likelihood of contracting sexually
> transmitted diseases."
>
> I haven't seen the article, but I suspect that there were not enough
> participants to obtain significant results for individual STDs, and
> that the results reported are for all STDs combined. In other words,
> the study may have attached the same weight to cases of Herpes,
> Chyamidla, Gonorrhea, Syphilis, and HIV. There are no good a priori
> reasons for suspecting that the presence or absence of the foreskin
> affects contraction of all STDs in the same manner.
>
> Other studies have shown links between circumcision status and
> specific STDs supporting your statement.
>
Yup - last I heard there are still a lot of conflicting reports about
the STD thing. From my viewpoint (what I know of biology and such) I
can definately see perhaps a higher incidence of bacterial infection.
This one I'm still not decided on...
But this all brings up re-inforcement that the decision is not all
cut-and-dried. One thing I did like is the idea that many people see
circumcision as preventative medicine, much like vaccination (and as
someone pointe dout tonsilectomies...)
Again- I may not agree.... but I find I also have an amazing ability to
see many side of stories...
> -- Jake --
Thanks Jake for your reply. =) This is the sort of discussion I'm
looking for here =)
Betsy
Hugh Young
(Through an accident of geography, Don Morgan's reply to this arrived here
before it did, but for clarity I am replying only to the original.)
In <5i8hg1$4...@lynx.unm.edu> Carol Kennon <Carol_...@somasf.unm.edu>
wrote:
>Hugh, I'm starting to realize (I don't know what took me so long) that
>posting here is a waste of time. I either communicate with people like
>you who have made up their minds,
You think *I've* made up my mind? Wait till you get a post from Z*rd*z on the
one hand, or Gw*n A. *r*l on the other!
> people who don't really care about the
>subject, and people who want all of us to go away.
But don't forget the lurkers.
> I wanted to respond to
>a few of your points and thank you for remaining civil despite some of
>our differences.
You're welcome.
>1) Procedure unnecessary - If this were as clear as you would deem it,
>there would not be a debate.
Some day this will be equally clear to everybody. Once there was a debate
about slavery, which as I recall grew quite heated in your country. Later
there was a debate about whether women should have the vote. This one is just
taking a little longer.
> Unfortunately, for you and often for me,
>many people in our country (pretty solid, intelligent people) think it is
>a necessary procedure.
And in 1850, say, " " " " " slavery / keeping women from voting " " " " .
> I know you like to find fault with physicians but
>I don't know too many who advocate routine circs. Parents often insist on
>having the procedure done. When an issue appears black and white, as this
>one obviously does to you, I'm sure it's hard to understand those who
>disagree with you.
I understand them all right. All my life I have been hearing why circumcision
was "necessary" and all my life the reasons have never held together. Don't
you notice something a little odd, a little ... compulsive, about those
parents who "insist" on having it done? Does anyone insist on any other
procedure with quite the same intensity?
> I have been quite righteous in my opinions often, too.
>But in truth we are not thought police and other people have the right to
>decide things for themselves. Some issues are quite clear, breaking a
>child's arm for example. The circ issue is not as clear to me.
No, it is not 100% clear even to me - only about 99 44/100 % clear. What is
clear is that all those medical justifications that sound so convincing were
brought in *after* circumcision had become customary and the doctors
recommending it were themselves cut and had an unstated interest.
>You have summed up all the
>evidence and concluded that neonatal circs are unnecessary, and you are
>entitled to that opinion. I will not try to dissuade you.
Not only unnecessary, but a breach of the child's human rights and property
rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Internationl
Convention on the Rights of the Child and medical ethics. If you doubt this,
see if you can distinguish it from (the milder forms of) female genital
mutilation.
> The American
>Acad of Pediatrics has recommended that I explain the risks and benefits
>of circ to parents.
This implies that you know them all. Yet the literature is vast.*
> If they perceived no benefits, they would not
>recommend discussing them.
An article in JAMA based on a large survey has concluded that there are no
net benefits.
> I cannot say to parents "well Hugh wants you
>to know..."
Of course not, there is much more authoritative documenation than me.* Are
you suggesting that your statements here should be answered only by fellow
doctors, or what?
> Many physicians believe that prevention of UTIs may be a real
>benefit. I feel obligated to tell parents about this and I do say it is
>only a POSSIBLE benefit.
See also my more recent message.
> I also have to tell them that circs done in the
>first week are less complicated (less bleeding,etc) then when done later.
How true is this? Bigger penes must be easier to cut accurately. And if it
doesn't need to be done at all, this is not a consideration. This reminds me
so much of innumerable hustles: "Buy now while stocks last!" "Only a few days
at this low, low price!"
>I also tell them about the risks and the reasons why I personally don't
>think it's a good idea. Usually it doesn't matter, parents have decided
>long before the baby is born.
And their "reasoning" is often no better than "No son of mine is going to
have a doggy dick" or "A boy should look like his father."
>There is a moderated parent discussion group on circs on the web. I was
>reading thru that. Parents who want circs bring up subjects like the
>ridicule of uncirc'd boys. To them this is a real concern and they swear
>it happens and it's cruel. Your crowd loves to dismiss this issue (along
>with other issues) but to the parents it's not easily dismissed.
I don't dismiss it for a moment. I WAS teased. That's what made me think
about the issue at all. But I saw that the better solution by far was not to
cut the minority, but to stop cutting the majority. Fortunately the New
Zealand medical profession has pretty much taken that line without my help,
and now it would be the parents wanting to cut who should worry about "locker
room syndrome". I have never heard a word about any such thing, though. (I
really feel for any cut kid who is teased, because unlike me he doesn't have
the consolation that he has something the others don't - on the contrary.)
>To give advice without a medical background
>is your right but your perspective is limited. Your research is often
>quite biased and your prejudice when giving advice is obvious. You also
>don't have to be accountable, as I do, for the advice given.
How are physicians who advised to circumcise and had unwelcome sequelae being
held accountable?
What guarantee is there that a physician is well-informed and his/her advice
is without prejudice? There are enough examples of circumcision being taken
as the norm, and parents who want to leave their children intact being
browbeaten, to suggest that there are none.
> If I'm not
>completely honest with parents, they will blame me for it. If you think
>my job can be done better by someone like you, please try it.
That line was first used on me by a school teacher when I was 7. It was cheap
then and it is cheap now.
>3) The anger and righteousness of comments from the anti-circ crowd
>implies that there is some horrible conspiracy of violent people in
>society who are trying to hurt males. Who comprises this conspiracy?
I have never suggested there was a conspiracy, only a zeitgeist - which is
worse in some ways, because you can't pin it down.
>Parents? The ones I talk to are thrilled with their newborn, couldn't
>love anything more. Are they the evil ones? Physicians? Most of my
>colleagues in pediatrics and OB really dislike doing circs and many try
>to talk parents out of them.
So who's twisting their arms? What do they say when parents of a little girl
"insist" on FGM?
>Are they the enemy? Am I the enemy because
>I'm in the profession or because I try to remain objective? I mean you
>post that it is valid to view circs as child abuse and mutilation. If
>others disagree with you, are they just horribly misguided?
Let's say horribly ill-informed. How do you regard people who do not think
Female Genital [Modification] is mutilation?
>4) Men are victims just because they were circumcised - Some men, perhaps
>many believe this, others are happy with their status.
And virtually all of the intact men in intact societies are happy with
theirs.
>I don't have to
>apologize to anyone, I had nothing to do with the circ status of adult
>men in our society.
Excuse me? What do you think the babies you cut today, however reluctantly,
will grow up to become? Who do you think is responsible for the "circ" status
of adult men in our society, if not well-meaning physicians like yourself?
> If men want to feel that they are as unfortunate as
>anyone else who has suffered any tragedy because of their foreskin, fine
>I will not deny them their infinite right to feel any way they want. I
>never said I want adult men to suffer, this is patently absurd.
No but if men complain because they were circumcised, you can hardly claim
that the decision to circumcise them and the operation of circumcising them
had *nothing* to do with it. If they are, as you imply, just neurotics who
had to complain about *something*, their neurosis could probably be more
easily treated if it didn't have a clear and irreparable physical basis.
On the other hand, the number of men who claim to suffer because they are
*not* circumcised is miniscule (and infinitesimal in countries where c. is
not the norm) and their remedy is obvious.
> I have no
>evidence whatsoever that uncomplicated circs lead to sexual dysfunction.
Neither have I, not scientific evidence that will stand up, but only because
the requisite studies not been done. Still, the anecdotal evidence is
considerable, including some first-hand.
>I've got to get out of this business of communicating on the net. It
>really is frustrating and futile. Sorry if I'm patronizing. Instead I
>will just stop communicating. Sincerely, Carol Kennon, MD
Well, goodbye then.
*Have you visited
http://www.cirp.org/CIRP/
?
StarStar
Hugh Young wrote: (amongst other things)
(the > >'s are Carol Kennon, the >'s Hugh Young.... )
> > The American
> >Acad of Pediatrics has recommended that I explain the risks and
> > benefits of circ to parents.
> This implies that you know them all. Yet the literature is vast.*
AND very contradictory....
> > If they perceived no benefits, they would not
> >recommend discussing them.
> An article in JAMA based on a large survey has concluded that there
> are no net benefits.
This being one article in the vast amounts of literature
>
> > I also have to tell them that circs done in the
> >first week are less complicated (less bleeding,etc) then when done > >later.
> How true is this? Bigger penes must be easier to cut accurately. And > if it doesn't need to be done at all, this is not a consideration. > This reminds me so much of innumerable hustles: "Buy now while stocks > last!" "Only a few days at this low, low price!"
It is very true. As an infant stitiches are not even needed - circs
done to adults usually involve a stich or two.
As for the "hustle" I think the "hustle" here is one of "If you're going
to do it, do it while there's going to be less pain and shorter healing
time for the child"
>
> >I also tell them about the risks and the reasons why I personally
> > don't think it's a good idea. Usually it doesn't matter, parents > > have decided long before the baby is born.
> And their "reasoning" is often no better than "No son of mine is going
> to have a doggy dick" or "A boy should look like his father."
Reasoning is not the issue - the issue is the final decision. MANY
people feel that "A boy sould look like his father" is a good reason.
Just because you and I don't doesn't make their feelings on the matter
invalid.
> > If I'm not
> >completely honest with parents, they will blame me for it. If you
> > think my job can be done better by someone like you, please try it.
> That line was first used on me by a school teacher when I was 7. It
> was cheap then and it is cheap now.
And here I thought we were starting to be polite. I happen to think it
would be horribly difficult to morally believe one thing and have to go
against my own morals to follow out the moral wishes of another.
But that's me. I wouldn't want this job.
> >Are they the enemy? Am I the enemy because
> >I'm in the profession or because I try to remain objective? I mean
> > you post that it is valid to view circs as child abuse and
> >mutilation. If others disagree with you, are they just horribly > >misguided?
> Let's say horribly ill-informed. How do you regard people who do not
> think Female Genital [Modification] is mutilation?
See now - again that's not fair. Maybe people are VERY well informed
and *still feel that circumcision is a good preventative measure for
certain problems. As you said earlier, there is a VAST amount of
literature... and if you read an assortment of it you will find a VAST
amount of conflicting reports. I think calling people ill-informed when
they disagree with you is an unfair statement to make.
As for FGM... I often wonder if circumcision is brough up as often on
the FGM group as FGM is brought up on alt.circumcision. I'll repeat
what I've said before - in America its a non-issue. We're dealing with
tradition and some people who want to change tradition here... FGM is
not a tradition in the US... so the comparison in many ways is moot.
Especially when talking about informing parents of pros and cons and
what that entails.
> >I don't have to
> >apologize to anyone, I had nothing to do with the circ status of
> >adult men in our society.
> Excuse me? What do you think the babies you cut today, however
> reluctantly, will grow up to become? Who do you think is responsible
> for the "circ" status of adult men in our society, if not well-meaning > physicians like yourself?
I thought Dr. Kennon has said she does not and will not perform
circumcisions herself. She will discuss the issue with parents, but not
perform the surgery... and (I may be wrong here...) I think she said she
never has?
> > I have no
> >evidence whatsoever that uncomplicated circs lead to sexual > >dysfunction.
> Neither have I, not scientific evidence that will stand up, but only
> because the requisite studies not been done. Still, the anecdotal
> evidence is considerable, including some first-hand.
>
However, there is no way to tell if that dysfunction would have occurred
ANYWAY, circumcised or not. The idea that all circumcised men lose
sensitivity by their older years is absurd. If that were true there
would not be the majority of sexually active, healthy men in the US
today.
This whole idea of uncomplicated circumcisions leading to sexual
dysfunction has always baffled me - unless the problem is psychological
due to unhappiness of the man's penile status, there is no way to say
any dysfunction is due to circumcision and would not have happened were
he intact. If its a psychological problem then it is only indirectly
due to the circumcision itself... the problem is of the mind and
emotions, not the physical.
>
> *Have you visited
> http://www.cirp.org/CIRP/
> ?
>
Not yet but I've bookmarked it to read later, when I have more time.
Thanks for the new reference. I hadn't seen this one yet.
Meanwhile, have you read the one I pointed out yesterday that has the
pro-circ information on it? Has scientific reports and citations about
why circumcision is good? Because you should - it will keep you well
informed on BOTH sides of the issue.
Betsy
------------------------------------
Yes, I've changed my identity from Parachute Woman... to another Stones
Song... mainly because of abusive mail I was getting on one
newsgroup....
here you can reply to me at sch...@ipass.net.