If ANY anti-circ'er or anyone else equates routine circumcision with mutilation after this, then you're TRULY a heartless monster
Zac
associated with having a foreskin. All the problems can be prevented by
simple and safe routine circumcision at or near birth.
Now, if anyone thinks denying life-long benefits to all boys isn't
heartless, one would have to guess what is.
And I don't need to lift some outdated propaganda article from a web
site to make the point.
acutm...@yahoo.com
bigoted religious reasons. Also, as doctors make $$$ out of this cruel,
heartless operation operation, they would not be in favour of
discontinuing the practise. Since males are born with foreskins,
circumcision is totally unatural.
Zac
> What a complete lot of garbage. Circumcision is used for some stupid
> bigoted religious reasons.
You must have been reading anti-circumcision propaganda.
> Also, as doctors make $$$ out of this cruel,
> heartless operation operation, they would not be in favour of
> discontinuing the practise.
Of course! Blame the doctors. That's like when George Bush blames the
media in the U.S. that's been largely covering for him, for the bad
results in his Iraq venture.
> Since males are born with foreskins,
> circumcision is totally unatural.
It seems somewhat of a novice argument to assert "natural = good".
We're born with programming for wisdom teeth to come in, and with an
appendix too. But both suck because they usually cause trouble
eventually. "Natural" can suck pretty bad.
I'll choose unnatural since human intervention produces a big
improvement over natural. See, it can be stimulating to actually use
your brain for logic.
Zach Attack!
Zac wrote:
> Imagine forcing all boys to endure all the problems and diseases
> associated with having a foreskin. All the problems can be prevented by
> simple and safe routine circumcision at or near birth.
You assume that all boys will endure problems which is untrue. Most
intact boys will grow up and live healthy and normal lives.
>
> Now, if anyone thinks denying life-long benefits to all boys isn't
> heartless, one would have to guess what is.
What are the benefits you speak of?
>
> And I don't need to lift some outdated propaganda article from a web
> site to make the point.
I certainly would hope not. The internet is a horrible place for
resources.
Husky
diseases associated with having tonsils, adenoids, and an appendix. All
the problems can be prevented by a simple and safe tonsillectomy and
laproscopic appendectomy at or near birth.
Since infants don't feel pain the way adults do, they won't need anesthesia.
And, of course, if anyone thinks denying life-long benefits to all
children isn't heartless, well, you get the picture.
Zac
say your routine circumcision was botched based on a description of a
normal result, and that you think routine circ should be a crime as a
result of what is most likely your own erroneous perception, you would
miss the point of anything preventive:
"BTW, I was one of the many infants born during the fifties who was
routinely circumcised as an infant. The visible adult scar and
tightness
of the resulting skin during arousal indicate that the job was botched.
My personal opinion is that routine circ should be made a crime. "
Husky wrote:
> Imagine forcing all boys (and girls) to endure all the problems and
> diseases associated with having tonsils, adenoids, and an appendix. All
> the problems can be prevented by a simple and safe tonsillectomy and
> laproscopic appendectomy at or near birth.
You think invasive internal surgery is equivalent to a simple external
circumcision? Gee whiz!
> Since infants don't feel pain the way adults do, they won't need anesthesia.
How is this a valid anaolgy? A different way of feeling pain doesn't
negate anesthesia. I don't think anyone ever said that.
> And, of course, if anyone thinks denying life-long benefits to all
> children isn't heartless, well, you get the picture.
Yes, we do. See above.
Taylor
;-) Except when it's pro-circ resources, in which case it suits you
juuuuuuuuuust fine.
winding...@aol.com
Taylor wrote:
>
> ;-) Except when it's pro-circ resources, in which case it suits you
> juuuuuuuuuust fine.
I know this is tough for you to understand, but it doesnt matter where
the information is found.
What matters is the QUALITY of the information:
1. Is it fact, or is it opinion?
2. If it purports to be fact, how good is the science behind it, and
in particular, does it come from published research that has been
reviewed by the scientific community and is published for all the world
to see?
Your contributions consistently show an inability to distinguish fact
from opinion, or to understand how reliable information is gathered,
authenticated, and disseminated.
Celebrity-smitten, Taylor, you spend too much time watching your dopey
TV talk shows where all information has equal validity: "Mrs Lala
McSchmuck here from Butte, Montana, says her home has been invaded by
gigantic spiders from Jupiter, but Professor Alvin Schmartz here from
Princeton University claims that is biologically impossible. So tell
us folks -- what do YOU think?
Zach Attack!
I try my best to not use internet resources. In some cases resources
that are in print are also available online, this is an exception for
all cases. Besides, I wouldn't consider myself "pro-circ."
Zach Attack!
winding...@aol.com wrote:
> Taylor wrote:
> >
> > ;-) Except when it's pro-circ resources, in which case it suits you
> > juuuuuuuuuust fine.
>
> I know this is tough for you to understand, but it doesnt matter where
> the information is found.
In a general sense it doesn't matter, but in a different sense, anyone
who has done any heavy amounts of research knows that Google and other
internet search engines are terrible at providing scholarly and
published articles. Beware internet sources.
>
> What matters is the QUALITY of the information:
>
> 1. Is it fact, or is it opinion?
Opinion can be a valid source, many studies gather just that, opinions
of the population. That's important.
>
> 2. If it purports to be fact, how good is the science behind it, and
> in particular, does it come from published research that has been
> reviewed by the scientific community and is published for all the world
> to see?
>
>
> Your contributions consistently show an inability to distinguish fact
> from opinion, or to understand how reliable information is gathered,
> authenticated, and disseminated.
Asserting one's opinion is a good thing and should be taken into
account, unless that opinion is being passed off as fact.
>
> Celebrity-smitten, Taylor, you spend too much time watching your dopey
> TV talk shows where all information has equal validity: "Mrs Lala
> McSchmuck here from Butte, Montana, says her home has been invaded by
> gigantic spiders from Jupiter, but Professor Alvin Schmartz here from
> Princeton University claims that is biologically impossible. So tell
> us folks -- what do YOU think?
A good scientist wouldn't say it was biologically impossible, but would
ask for proof, if no proof can be presented it doesn't make it untrue,
just makes it untestable and since it is untestable it cannot be proven
or disproven with the scientific methods available.
Jake Waskett
> Zac:
> Imagine actually going out there and doing the research. Were you
> aware that the American Academy of Pediatrics no longer supports
> routine circ?
The AAP never recommended routine circumcision, Nicole. Indeed, prior to
their 1989 statement they were even fairly hostile towards elective
circumcision. Based on the evidence, they then changed towards a more
neutral stance.
> Whether you like it or not, it is
> MUTILATION...especially when performed 'routinely.'
Nope. Look up the definition of the word 'mutilation'. Whether something
is routine or not has nothing to do with it. It is concerned with
destroying a limb or essential part; circumcision is clearly neither.
> Did you know that
> it has been proven that male infants are not as apt to breastfeed
There's only one study, involving circumcisions performed with no
anaesthesia, that supports that hypothesis.
> or
> look at their mother's faces after such a procedure?
No evidence for that.
> I advise parents
> to be physically present if they choose to subject their sons to this
> procedure. They should be forced to watch every step of the mutilation
> of their newborn's fresh young penis so as to be able to fully absorb
> and OWN not only the physical mutilation but the psychic scarring that
> such a procedure will undoubtedly promote... and that they as parents
> allowed. Welcome to the world..now mommy and daddy will disfigure your
> most sacred parts. Do your research Zac and check out the benefits of
> the foreskin when you get the chance...//www.noharmm.org/advantage.htm
Why are you citing a propaganda site that is miles away from the truth?
> Knowledge is power!
Indeed, so what's the good in spreading disinformation?
> Best of luck,
> Nicole
Zac
> Imagine actually going out there and doing the research. Were you
> aware that the American Academy of Pediatrics no longer supports
> routine circ?
no... because they didn't ever recommend it and are not against it now.
yes, do the research. but a prerequisite for research is the ability to
read and understand, which you have some difficulty with, apparently.
> Whether you like it or not, it is MUTILATION
only in YOUR mind
> ...especially when performed 'routinely.'
?????
> Did you know that
> it has been proven that male infants are not as apt to breastfeed or
> look at their mother's faces after such a procedure?
once again, I was not aware of something that has not happened.
> I advise parents ...
you are in no position to do so.
> ... check out the benefits of the foreskin when you get the chance
There are NO benefits of a foreskin.
> www.noharmm.org/advantage.htm
oh, geez!! - another useless anti-circumcision propaganda web site
extolling the virtues of a worthless piece of skin that no one needs.
Zach Attack!
Jake Waskett wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 09:43:54 -0700, Nicole Maendel wrote:
>
> > Zac:
> > Imagine actually going out there and doing the research. Were you
> > aware that the American Academy of Pediatrics no longer supports
> > routine circ?
>
> The AAP never recommended routine circumcision, Nicole. Indeed, prior to
> their 1989 statement they were even fairly hostile towards elective
> circumcision. Based on the evidence, they then changed towards a more
> neutral stance.
>
> > Whether you like it or not, it is
> > MUTILATION...especially when performed 'routinely.'
>
> Nope. Look up the definition of the word 'mutilation'. Whether something
> is routine or not has nothing to do with it. It is concerned with
> destroying a limb or essential part; circumcision is clearly neither.
There are multiple definitions. If someone mutilates a statue or a
piece of artwork, clearly they cannot remove a "limb or essential"
part. Usually mutilate in a general sense is defined as disfiguring
something beyond repair. Circumcision would qualify under this
definition if and only if a person viewed the result of the
circumcision as disfiguring. If they did, it is considered mutilation,
it is a personal opinion, so yes, circumcision can be mutilation.
>
> > Did you know that
> > it has been proven that male infants are not as apt to breastfeed
>
> There's only one study, involving circumcisions performed with no
> anaesthesia, that supports that hypothesis.
>
> > or
> > look at their mother's faces after such a procedure?
>
> No evidence for that.
>
> > I advise parents
> > to be physically present if they choose to subject their sons to this
> > procedure. They should be forced to watch every step of the mutilation
> > of their newborn's fresh young penis so as to be able to fully absorb
> > and OWN not only the physical mutilation but the psychic scarring that
> > such a procedure will undoubtedly promote... and that they as parents
> > allowed. Welcome to the world..now mommy and daddy will disfigure your
> > most sacred parts. Do your research Zac and check out the benefits of
> > the foreskin when you get the chance...//www.noharmm.org/advantage.htm
>
> Why are you citing a propaganda site that is miles away from the truth?
I checked that site out, they do have some valid research. Simply
because the research is contained under that domain doesn't make it any
less valid, I could just as easily locate the research off of a
bookshelf at a library, does that make the library a propaganda
library? I would say no.
Jake Waskett
>> > I advise parents
>> > to be physically present if they choose to subject their sons to this
>> > procedure. They should be forced to watch every step of the mutilation
>> > of their newborn's fresh young penis so as to be able to fully absorb
>> > and OWN not only the physical mutilation but the psychic scarring that
>> > such a procedure will undoubtedly promote... and that they as parents
>> > allowed. Welcome to the world..now mommy and daddy will disfigure your
>> > most sacred parts. Do your research Zac and check out the benefits of
>> > the foreskin when you get the chance...//www.noharmm.org/advantage.htm
>>
>> Why are you citing a propaganda site that is miles away from the truth?
>
> I checked that site out, they do have some valid research. Simply
> because the research is contained under that domain doesn't make it any
> less valid, I could just as easily locate the research off of a
> bookshelf at a library, does that make the library a propaganda
> library? I would say no.
I agree with you: a propaganda site such as that could, theoretically,
contain valid, factual information. As an example, CIRP republish many
papers from peer-reviewed journals that have the same credibility as when
they were originally published. In this particular case, the page is much
like one of CIRP's summary pages: hopelessly biased, misrepresenting or
even contradicting their own sources, and desperately trying to twist the
'facts' to suit their agenda.
I have written a critique of this 'lost list' previously. I'll see if I
can find it.
Zach Attack!
Great, I would love to read it.
Jake Waskett
"1. Full penis length and circumference. The "prepuce" (foreskin)
constitutes 50% or more of the skin system of the penis [1]. If unfolded
and spread flat, the average adult foreskin measures 60-90 square
centimeters (10-14 square inches) [2], or about the size of an index card
[see illustration]."
The cited source contradicts this assertion. It states "the mean surface
area of the prepuce when folded out, was 46.7 cm2"
"The foreskin creates a visibly longer penis,
especially when the foreskin extends beyond the head of the penis. Also,
the double-layered tissue of the foreskin engorges with blood during
erection and creates a visibly and sensually thicker shaft and glans."
The foreskin contains erectile tissue? A novel claim.
"When
the engorged foreskin retracts behind the coronal ridge of the glans, it
often creates a wider and more pronounced "ridge" that many partners find
especially stimulating during penetrative intercourse. The circumcised
penis appears truncated and thinner than a full-sized intact penis."
This claim is entirely unsupported.
"2. Protection. The sleeve of tissue known as the foreskin normally covers
the glans and protects it from abrasion, drying, callusing
(keratinization), and environmental contaminants. The glans is intended by
nature to be a protected internal organ, like the female clitoris [see
illustration]. The effect of an exposed glans and resulting keratinization
on human sexual response has never been studied. Increasing reports by
circumcised men indicate that keratinization causes a loss of sexual
sensation, pleasure and fulfillment [3, 4]."
The cited sources are anecdotal, and cannot establish a link between cause
and effect.
Interestingly, only one study (Szabo and Short, 2000) has ever measured
the level of glans keratinisation in circumcised and uncircumcised men. It
found no difference between them. Three studies (Masters & Johnson, 1966;
Bleustein et al 2003; Bleustein et al 2005) measured glans sensitivity in
circumcised and uncircumcised men, and again found no difference.
"3. Ridged bands. The inner foreskin contains bands of densely innervated,
sexually responsive tissue [1]."
The source is misrepresented somewhat. It described one part of the
inner foreskin as more densely populated with one type of nerve ending
than the rest of the foreskin. It did not attempt to measure sexual
responsiveness at all, though the authors did speculate that it might be
sexually responsive.
"They constitute a primary erogenous zone
of the human penis and are important for realizing the fullness and
intensity of sexual response [5]."
The source cited is an article co-authored by the founder of NOCIRC,
citing no sources and merely expressing the authors' opinions.
"4. Gliding action. The foreskin is the only moving part of the penis.
During any sexual activity, the foreskin and glans work in unison; their
mutual interaction creates a complete sexual response. In heterosexual
intercourse, the non-abrasive gliding of the penis in and out of itself
within the vagina facilitates smooth and pleasurable intercourse for both
partners [Blue_ArrowD096.gif (140 bytes)see illustration]. Without this
gliding action, the corona of the circumcised penis can function as a
one-way valve, dragging vaginal lubricants out into the drying air and
making artificial lubricants essential for non-painful intercourse [6]."
The source cited again merely expresses opinions, dubiously supported by a
survey of female anti-circumcision activists.
"5. Specialized sensory tissue. In addition to the "ridged bands"
mentioned above, thousands of coiled fine-touch receptors (Meissner’s
corpuscles) constitute the most important sensory component of the penis
[1]."
Actually, these Meissner's corpuscles are in the ridged band, and are the
only unusual aspect of it, in terms of its innervation. The claim that
they are the most important sensory component is pure speculation.
"The foreskin contains branches of the dorsal nerve and between
10,000 and 20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings of several types,
which are capable of sensing slight motion and stretch, subtle changes in
temperature, and fine gradations in texture [7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]."
The numbers are not in the sources. No study has documented the number of
nerve endings in the foreskin. Nor, for that matter, has the foreskin's
sensory capabilities been tested in any study.
"6. The frenulum. This is a highly nerve-laden web of tissue that tethers
the inner foreskin to the underside of the glans [see photo]. It is
similar to the frenula found under the tongue, the upper lip and the
clitoral hood (female foreskin). For many intact men, the penile frenulum
is a male "G-spot" that is highly pleasurable when repeatedly stretched
and relaxed during sexual activity [13]. Depending on the surgical method
used, the frenulum is partially to completely destroyed by circumcision.
7. Proper blood flow. The foreskin contains several feet of blood
vessels, including the frenular artery and branches of the dorsal artery.
The loss of this rich vascularization interrupts normal blood flow to the
shaft and glans of the penis, damaging the natural function of the penis
and altering its development [1]."
Nonsense. The blood supply to the foreskin is entirely superficial, being
the extremity of the penile skin system. The glans, being part of the
corpus spongiosum, has a separate blood supply.
"8. Immunological defense. The soft mucosa of the inner foreskin produces
plasma cells, which secrete immunoglobulin antibodies, and antibacterial
and antiviral proteins [7, 14], such as the pathogen-killing enzyme called
lysozyme [15 and Blue_ArrowD096.gif (140 bytes)see explanation]."
Nope. See http://sti.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/74/5/364
"All of
the human mucosa (the linings of the mouth, eyelids, vagina, foreskin and
anus) are the body's first line of defense against disease. This benefit
of the foreskin could be one possible explanation why intact men are at
lower risk of chlamydia and other sexually transmitted diseases [16-21]."
Absolutely shameless. Selection of the few studies that partially support
a claim, while ignoring the vast majority that show the opposite.
"9. Langerhans cells. These specialized epithelial cells are a component
of the immune system and may play a role in protecting the penis from
sexually transmitted infections such as HIV (AIDS) [Blue_ArrowD096.gif
(140 bytes)see explanation and 14-16, 18]."
Ref 14: the authors failed to read their references. See link above.
Ref 15: depends upon the presence of lysozyme. See above.
Ref 16: flawed methodology. See
http://circs.org/library/vanhowe/index.html
In actual fact, the Langerhans cells actually act as target cells for the
HIV virus. See
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/PDF/circumcision.pdf
In terms of the immune system, see the following link and judge for
yourself whether it is more effective with or without the foreskin.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/eletters/81/4/537#1382
"10. Proper lymph flow. The foreskin contains lymphatic vessels, which are
necessary for proper lymph flow and immunological functioning."
Yet somewhat unnecessary when the foreskin is not present.
"11. Estrogen receptors. The foreskin contains estrogen receptors, whose
purpose is not yet fully understood and needs further study [22].
12. Apocrine glands. These glands produce pheromones, nature’s
invisible yet compelling signals to potential sexual partners. The effect
of their absence on human sexual behavior has never been studied [23]."
However, their existence has been studied. They don't exist. See link in
response to point 8.
"13. Sebaceous glands. The oils produced by these glands lubricate and
moisturize the foreskin and glans, so that the two structures function
together smoothly."
See point 12. Same response.
"14. Dartos fascia. This is a smooth muscle sheath that underlies the
scrotum, the entire penis and the tip of the foreskin. It is necessary for
proper temperature regulation of the genitals (causing these structures to
elongate in the heat and shrink in the cold). Approximately half of the
Dartos fascia is destroyed by circumcision [7].
15. Natural texture and coloration of the glans. In the intact penis, the
glans normally appears moist, shiney, and pinkish-red to dark purple.
These visual cues often attract and excite a sexual partner. The glans of
a circumcised penis is dry, rough and often light pink to bluish-gray in
color [see photos]."
It seems that the author is scraping the bottom of the barrel here.
"16. Zero risk of serious infection or surgical injury. Unfortunate boys
who suffer botched circumcisions lose part or all of their penis from
surgical mishap or subsequent infection. They are often "sexually
reassigned" by castration and "transgender surgery." They are relegated to
a life of hormone therapy and are compelled to live their lives as
pseudo-females, the success of which has never been fully assessed [24-46].
17. Zero risk of death from surgery. Every year boy die from the
complications of circumcision, a fact that the American circumcision
industry ignores, obscures, or downplays [29-31].
18. Zero risk of delayed or diminished maternal bonding. Circumcision,
even if anesthesia is used, causes unavoidable operative trauma and
post-operative pain that has been shown to disrupt bonding with the
mother, which in turn interferes with the first developmental task of
every human, that of trust (trust in human contact, in personal safety,
etc) [47-51]."
The sources are remarkably weak for such a sweeping claim.
"19. Electromagnetic "cross-communication." Anecdotal reports suggest
that, without the mucosa of its foreskin, the penis lacks the capacity for
the subtle electromagentic energy transfer that occurs during contact
between two mucous membranes (the vaginal walls and the exposed inner
lining of the foreskin). Such contact contributes to the full experience
of sexual pleasure. These reports deserve further scientific study."
How exactly can you get an anecdotal report of subtle electromagnetic
energy transfer?
"20. The foreskin is necessary for optimal health and well-being of the
male, as well as contributing to fulfillment in his sexual relationships."
Dubious claim, with no sources.
rupertm...@yahoo.com
Zac wrote:
> Imagine forcing all boys to endure all the problems and diseases
> associated with having a foreskin. All the problems can be prevented by
> simple and safe routine circumcision at or near birth.
>
I've never had any problems from having a foreskin. I find it
implausible that there are such enormous benefits to circumcision. I
would like to see some evidence.
I have no problem with someone choosing to be circumcised when they are
old enough to consent. That's a matter of personal preference. Making
the decision for them when they are not old enough to consent is,
however, a violation of human rights. If there were just one man who
preferred to be uncircumcised, that would suffice to make this point.
And that is indubitable.
Zach Attack!
I would have to completely agree with you. But that is just my opinion.
Evidence does suggest that there are benefits to being circumcised in
African countries and other developing nations because of the lack of
education.
xsm...@hotmail.com
Zac wrote:
> Nicole Maendel wrote:
> > Imagine actually going out there and doing the research. Were you
> > aware that the American Academy of Pediatrics no longer supports
> > routine circ?
>
> no... because they didn't ever recommend it and are not against it now.
>
> yes, do the research. but a prerequisite for research is the ability to
> read and understand, which you have some difficulty with, apparently.
>
>
> > Whether you like it or not, it is MUTILATION
>
> only in YOUR mind
>
>
> > ...especially when performed 'routinely.'
>
> ?????
>
>
> > Did you know that
> > it has been proven that male infants are not as apt to breastfeed or
> > look at their mother's faces after such a procedure?
>
> once again, I was not aware of something that has not happened.
>
>
> > I advise parents ...
>
> you are in no position to do so.
>
>
> > ... check out the benefits of the foreskin when you get the chance
>
> There are NO benefits of a foreskin.
There are NO benefits of having nails on your toes either. Toe nails
are there just to become infected and get mycosis. Remove them.
>
>
> > www.noharmm.org/advantage.htm
>
> oh, geez!! - another useless anti-circumcision propaganda web site
> extolling the virtues of a worthless piece of skin that no one needs.
You don't need ears to live. Remove them. You do not need hair, it's
there just so you can get lice. Remove it. You do not need nails on
your toes. Remove them. You need only one lung to live. Remove one of
them. You need only kidney to live. Remove one of them. Why don't you
go to a doctor and pay him to remove every part of your body you don't
need, like your nose, ears, eyelids, nails, etc?
winding...@aol.com
xsm...@hotmail.com wrote:
> You don't need ears to live. Remove them. You do not need hair, it's
> there just so you can get lice. Remove it. You do not need nails on
> your toes. Remove them. You need only one lung to live. Remove one of
> them. You need only kidney to live. Remove one of them. Why don't you
> go to a doctor and pay him to remove every part of your body you don't
> need, like your nose, ears, eyelids, nails, etc?
Your question pretty much answers itself. We (and every other society
past or present) dont pay doctors to remove those body parts because
they are necessary and their removal would also be disfiguring.
These conditions do not apply to the removal of the foreskin, because
cirumcision enhances the functioning, hygiene, health, and appearance
of the penis. That is why so many societies past and present have
enthusiastically removed it. Men get along just fine without a
foreskin. Circumcision is now, and doubtless has always been, the
most common surgical procedure on earth.
I trust this answers your question.