Doctors Group: AAP conflict of interest hampers honest circumcision policy

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by GenitalIntegrityNow, Jun 4, 2008.

  1. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Well, my wife (for some reason) didn't want to breast feed. And I didn't want my boys looking like freaks and getting infections.
    I'm acknowledging reality and trying to provide some degree of protection should my son ever go bareback when he shouldn't. As a bonus, it will also prevent him from looking like a freak. So, win-win!
    Violent? Horrendous? Give me a break. I've had a circumcision myself (as a baby) and have absolutely no memory of it. I've seen my three sons get circumcised and they barely even cried. Children cry more when I put eyedrops in their eyes then any of my boys did during circumcision. Is that procedure barbaric and horrendous?
    And having airbags in your car doesn't mean you shouldn't wear your seatbelt. Do you also advocate not having airbags since they don't provide absolute protection?
    Unbelievable that in this day and age someone on the other side of the world should try to tell me what to do with my son's penis!
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. GenitalIntegrityNow Registered Member

    Messages:
    39
    Do you know how you look disparaging the appearance of normal male anatomy, enjoyed by the vast majority of men on earth?
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2008
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    So you did it for cosmetic reasons and the supposed protection against infection was just a bonus? Yes?

    So tell us, have you also had your daughter(s) circumcised, seeing that UTI's are more common in baby girls than boys? After all, if you want to protect your male children from a rare infection, that is easily treated if they do get it, by lopping off a part of their still developing penis, surely you have applied the same standard for any daughter's you might have had? Yes?

    Don't you think your son and yourself should have decided for yourself when you were at the age of consent whether to have your and their foreskin removed? That's the thing. I am not calling for a ban on circumcision. I am saying it should be up to the individual males whether they wish to get one or not and not have the procedure forced upon them, usually without any form of pain relief due to the dangers of anesthetics in newborns, or insufficient pain relief once the procedure is well underway. Shouldn't males have control over their own genitals? Why deny male children that right?

    Yes, it is violent and it is horrendous. Children die as a result of circumcisions and any complications that may arise from it. Children can also go into shock and suffer extreme pain during circumcisions. I would advise you to actually read up on studies completed in regards to how a child reacts during a circumcision. For example, I read one study which found that many boys do not cry because they actually go into shock from the pain. Here is another describing the kind of pain newborns are allowed to suffer because their parents think their genitals should look cosmetically similar to everyone else:

    Circumcision is a surgical procedure that involves forcefully separating the foreskin from the glans and then cutting it off. It is typically accomplished with a special clamp device ( see Fig. 2 ). Over a dozen studies confirm the extreme pain of circumcision. It has been described as “among the most painful [procedures] performed in neonatal medicine.”( 2) In one study, researchers concluded that the pain was “severe and persistent.”( 3) Increases in heart rate of 55 beats per minute have been recorded, about a 50 percent increase over the baseline.( 4) After circumcision, the level of blood cortisol increased by a factor of three to four times the level prior to circumcision.( 5) Investigators reported, “This level of pain would not be tolerated by older patients.”( 6)

    Circumcision pain is described in this research study by Howard Stang and his colleagues from the Department of Pediatrics, Group Health Inc., and the University of Minnesota Institute of Child Development: “There is no doubt that circumcisions are painful for the baby. Indeed, circumcision has become a model for the analysis of pain and stress responses in the newborn.” They report that the infant will “cry vigorously, tremble, and in some cases become mildly cyanotic [having blueness or lividness of the skin, caused by a deficiency of oxygen] because of prolonged crying.”( 7)

    According to adult listeners in one study, the infant’s response during circumcision included a cry that changed with the level of pain being experienced. The most invasive part of the procedure caused the longest crying. These cries were high pitched and were judged most urgent.( 8) A subsequent study confirmed that cries with higher pitch were perceived to be more distressing and urgent.( 9) Excessive crying can itself cause harm. In a rare case, an infant cried vehemently for about ninety minutes and ruptured his stomach.( 10) Using a pacifier during circumcision reduced crying but did not affect hormonal pain response.( 11) Therefore, while crying may be absent, other body signals demonstrate that pain is always present during circumcision.


    (Source)

    There have also been studies that have found that baby boys actually have a more acute pain response if they have been circumcised.. in that they remember the pain up to 6 months later or more.(Source)

    As I said, shouldn't males be the ones to decide whether their penis is circumcised? At least when they are older, they can be completely put under instead of a local that is barely efficient in blocking the pain since it does not go deep enough.

    Just because you don't remember it now does not mean it is good to willingly allow a newborn to suffer that much for cosmetic reasons so that he looks just like daddy and not like what you consider to be a "freak".

    How would you react if parents started removing their daughter's breast tissue as soon as it appears because it might protect them against breast cancer? After all, prevention is better than a cure, no? Circumcision is akin to that kind of reaction. Neither of my son's are circumcised. Nor is my husband. There was a risk that my eldest might have had to be circumcised at birth because they thought his foreskin looked too tight and that he might not be able to pee, but he peed all over the midwife and the urologist who had been called down to the birth suite. Their penises to me look normal. Do you know why? Because they are natural. Untouched and they haven't been forced to undergo a painful and yes, violent procedure, to appease the demigods of cosmetics.

    If they want to be circumcised when they grow up, that decision will be entirely their own. But neither my husband or myself are willing to take away a vital part of their sexual organs for some aesthetic reasoning that is, to me anyway, totally invalid and selfish.

    No, what is unbelievable is that you took it upon yourself to decide for your son that he did not need or want his foreskin. I am hoping that the medical authorities start refusing to perform circumcisions unless it is only for a medical reason on newborns or children without their consent. It's not for me to tell you what to do with your son's penis. It should have been for your son to decide for themselves. And that is what I don't understand in this debate. Why take the choice away from the child? Look at people like spidergoat and Simon, both of whom were circumcised as children and who are angry they were not given a say in the matter. They are not alone in that sentiment. There are thousands upon thousands of men who feel the same way.

    All I am saying is that it should be up to the individual to decide for themselves when they are old enough.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    bells what do you think of the laws in australia regarding it?
    For background circumsision is treated EXACTLY the same way as a breast enlargement (as a matter of goverment policy i mean) in that the goverment has refused to alow it to be done in public hospitals (for non medical reasons) as a savings measure on the health system yet hasnt criminalised it. FGM on the other hand has such strict laws that concenting adult women couldnt even get a percing if they wanted to and its illegal to resew a women after birth so that she is the same as she was pre birth if thats her cultural belifes


    What do YOU think of the double standeds?
     
  8. lepustimidus Banned Banned

    Messages:
    979
    If you feel that a dick with a foreskin looks ugly, fair enough. But you can't claim that something which every male is born with looks 'freaky', because freaky implies 'out of the ordinary'.
     
  9. lepustimidus Banned Banned

    Messages:
    979
    madan:
    So it's OK to rape some drugged up chick, because she will have absolutely no memory of the rape.
     
  10. Koalama Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    50
    I see these post a lot on gaia. I made a text file just for it.

    Circumcision: Position Paper on Neonatal Circumcision. American Academy of Family Physicians (2007). Retrieved on 2007-01-30.

    An examinination of 7 circumcised and 6 uncircumcised males found no difference in keratinization of the glans penis.
    Szabo & Short. How does male circumcision protect against HIV infection?. BMJ 2000;320:1592-1594 ( 10 June )

    Bleustein et al. (2003) tested the sensitivity of the glans penis, and found no difference between circumcised and uncircumcised men.
    Effects of Circumcision on Male Penile Sensitivity. Clifford B. Bleustein, Haftan Eckholdt, Joseph C. Arezzo and Arnold Melman.

    This confirmed the earlier Masters and Johnson study.
    Masters WH, Johnson VE (1966) Human Sexual Response. Boston: Little, Brown & Co, 189–91

    Bleustein later followed up with a larger study, with the same finding.
    Bleustein CB, Fogarty JD, Eckholdt H, Arezzo JC, Melman A (2005 Apr) Effect of neonatal circumcision on penile neurologic sensation


    It is not mutilation. Mutilation is never done with good intentions. Circimusison is done with good intentions.

    There are benifits.

    1 Many older men, who have bladder or prostate gland problems, also develop difficulties with their foreskins due to their surgeon's handling, cleaning, and using instruments. Some of these patients will need circumcising. Afterwards it is often astonishing to find some who have never ever seen their glans (knob) exposed before!

    2 Some older men develop cancer of the penis - about 1 in 1000 - fairly rare, but tragic if you or your son are in that small statistic. Infant circumcision gives almost 100% protection, and young adult circumcision also gives a large degree of protection.

    3 Cancer of the cervix in women is due to the Human Papilloma Virus. It thrives under and on the foreskin from where it can be transmitted during intercourse. An article in the British Medical Journal in April 2002 suggested that at least 20% of cancer of the cervix would be avoided if all men were circumcised. Surely that alone makes it worth doing?

    4 Protection against HIV and AIDS. Another British Medical Journal article in May 2000 suggested that circumcised men are 8 times less likely to contract the HIV virus. (It is very important here to say that the risk is still far too high and that condoms and safe sex must be used - this applies also to preventing cancer of the cervix in women who have several partners.)

    A BBC television programme in November 2000 showed two Ugandan tribes across the valley from one another. One practised circumcision and had very little AIDS, whereas, it was common in the other tribe, who then also started circumcising. This programme showed how the infection thrived in the lining of the foreskin, making it much easier to pass on.

    5 As with HIV, so some protection exists against other sexually transmitted infections. Accordingly, if a condom splits or comes off, there is some protection for the couple. However, the only safe sex is to stick to one partner or abstain.

    6 Lots of men, and their partners, prefer the appearance of their penis after circumcision, It is odour-free, it feels cleaner, and they enjoy better sex. Awareness of a good body image is a very important factor in building self confidence.

    7 Balanitis is an unpleasant, often recurring, inflammation of the glans. It is quite common and can be prevented by circumcision.

    8 Urinary tract infections sometimes occur in babies and can be quite serious. Circumcision in infancy makes it 10 times less likely.

    The above info comes from Dr David Hawker, a GP.
     
  11. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    I would have thought my feelings on the matter were clear enough Asguard.

    Is there a double standard? Yes. Should it exist? No.
     
  12. Koalama Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    50
    Aw and to think he had to get his umbilical cord sniped too. :bawl:
     
  13. Koalama Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    50
    strawman alert
     
  14. Koalama Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    50
    Mod Note

    Please provide a link to this wall of text. Otherwise it will be removed. Thank you.


    -----------------------------------------------------

    Anti - Circumcision Lobby Groups

    There are several of these and their membership is drawn from a wide spectrum of society. They got started in the late60s/early 70s after an article by a Dr Foley in a lay alternative magazine, Fact, in 1966. One of the largest is 'NOCIRC', founded in 1979 by Marilyn Milos, in San Rafael, California, with 100 branches having now been spawned worldwide. These minority lobby groups use distortions, anecdotes and testimonials to try to influence professional and legislative bodies and the public.

    They attempt to intimidate doctors, even mounting lawsuits that are inevitably thrown out of court. It has even been suggested that anti-circumcision groups should really be regarded as a cult devoted to worship of the foreskin - the parallels are obvious to any observer.

    Essential tenets of the cult are that the foreskin is infallible and must be strongly defended. Nature makes no mistakes; therefore all parts of the body are perfect in design. Hence newborn circumcision is inherently wrong.

    Moreover, they falsely assert that it is equivalent to female genital mutilation and is a violation of human rights. Unlike science, which is based on a utilitarian, meta-ethical analysis, the arguments of the anti-circs start from a deontological (moral absolutionist) position, thus prohibiting any compromise.

    Any research that disagrees with their position is deemed flawed. References to support their claims are deceptive and they use statistical games to discredit good peer-reviewed scientific studies. They also claim that doctors who carry out circumcision do so as part of an "industry" with profit as the only motive. Another claim, contrary to scientific data, is that circumcised men are sexually and psychologically damaged and don't realize it or are in denial.

    Those who are successfully duped into believing that any sexual problems they might have stem from their circumcision are advised to contact the anti-circ groups, thus perpetuating the cult and increasing its membership.

    This is not to say that all claims made by anti-circ groups are invalid. Rather, given the cult-like devotion of anti-circ groups to their cause, any claims made by anti-circ groups should be thoroughly verified by independently examining the empirical research findings. As the scientific evidence documenting benefits has mounted, the campaigning by such groups has become more vitriolic.

    They have become increasingly desperate and outrageous as the medical literature has documented the benefits. To say that circumcision is equivalent to female genital mutilation is really saying that it is the same as cutting off the penis! This is clearly absurd. The American people are becoming more and more informed about new medical findings and are responding accordingly. The efforts of NOCIRC are proving increasingly futile in the USA.

    One only has to do a search on the World Wide Web to read the statements from this group and others like it and any intelligent person can quickly make up their own mind about the quality of their material and the message they are trying to promulgate.

    Some of these people mean well and some are intelligent, but lack a broad perspective. Others have more sinister motives (see below). Dr Schoen also noted that when Chairman of the Task Force his committee was bombarded with inaccurate and misleading communications from these groups.

    The Symposia they hold comprise entirely anti-circ activists, except when Dr Wiswell attended a few years ago, and only their anti-circ material is presented. At the international NOCIRC conference in 2000 in Sydney there were in fact very few participants, reflecting the minority they constitute, and they were largely ignored by the news media they clamoured for the attention of.

    Nevertheless these few people try to make a big noise to be heard over the consensus of medical opinion and common sense.

    Deceptively, the name of one of these organizations, "Doctors Opposing Circumcision", conveys an impression of authority, but in reality membership of this group includes only ONE doctor! - George Denniston, MD, who has co-published with George Hill (no degree), the most vocal representative of this tiny group in Seattle. From what I have been told the mindset and motivation of at least one of the members could have sinister overtones. Beware of this group and their deceit.

    In Australia, the president of the local branch of NOCIRC is a Sydney pediatrician, George Williams. I have debated him before medical audiences on two occasions and have found no substance to anything he has had to say. He and I were invited to a be interviewed by Kerri-Ann Kennerly live on Australia's major mid-morning TV show in 2004, but he pulled out at the last minute, so a replacement had to be found to argue the "anti" position.

    The fill-in was a doctor who is a regular medical commentator on TV. Despite this, his arguments lacked substance, compared with the case I presented based on medical scientific evidence. Interestingly, every person I spoke to while waiting to appear (from the producer, make-up artist and a musical promoter interviewed earlier) had their horror stories about men and boys in their lives (husband, children) who were not circumcised, but had to be later for medical reasons after much anguish and suffering.

    The following is a statement from a member of NOCIRC. I give great credit to the honesty and insight of a Californian member of NOCIRC who emailed me to say: *** "I've come to learn I can't trust [NOCIRC] when it comes to this subject. I think they are causing a tremendous degree of psychological harm with their campaign and I've suffered a lot from their nonsense." *** (For more of this man's messages click on "Other" in "Testimonials from Men" in the contents at the beginning of this website.)

    The anti-circ groups have an array of "literature" and, to try to portray themselves as being credible, even "publish" their own 'journal', named 'Circumcision', an electronic publication that appears only on the internet. The articles included are not subjected to unbiased peer review.

    The purpose appears to be more a political one rather than scientific. The 'journal' resembles a propaganda vehicle and might more accurately be titled 'Anti-circumcision'. The Editor of this 'journal', Robert Van Howe is an outspoken critic of circumcision. His writings appear superficially convincing to the naive.

    However, in a discussion piece [A-1] he "distorts, misquotes, and misrepresents the bulk of the literature he claims support his opinions" and even misconstrues his own published findings (on balanitis) [A-2]. His application of logic and naive statistical analysis in an article he wrote attempting to discredit the data on lower AIDS rates in circumcised populations [A-3] has been severely criticized on scientific grounds [A-4], and that publication has now fallen into disrepute.

    Another paper in 2005 on HIV/AIDS [A-5] is quite dishonest. His statement that the support for circumcision is based on 'observation (sic) studies' is false, since his follows the conference report and then the publication by Auvert et al. of findings from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that is by definition experimental. If his paper was written prior to release of the Auvert results, his reference to the 'two' ongoing RCTs is evidence of incompetence, since the number of RCTs is well known to be three.

    The word 'ongoing' is a hint that he was aware. He states that "the literature was analysed with careful attention to historical perspective'. This is perplexing, as one would have thought a medical and/or health-promotion perspective would be far more appropriate.

    Far from his statement of "unknown complication rate" this is well documented (as having a low rate). His 'permanent injury to the penis" is nonsense, as it contradicts all research studies and is speculative at best. Van Howe"s mentioning 'human rights violations' is predictable (and wrong), and his statement "the potential for veiled colonialism' is such rubbish, given that circumcision probably started in Africa!

    All in all, the sort of tripe one is used to seeing from Van Howe, but a paper that just perhaps he might have finally dug his own grave with, owing to his blatant dishonesty and desire for propaganda at the expense of truth. He is not a biostatistician, yet in several of his publications he purportedly uses sophisticated statistics to support his findings.

    Unfortunately for readers he uses them incorrectly, although does a good job fooling his readers into thinking he is doing the statistics correctly, which is not the case (personal communication from Dr Tom Wiswell).

    His paper attempting to discredit the unequivocal findings on urinary tract infections [A-6] is similarly flawed and had been reviewed by at least 5 other medical journals, which rejected it. Similarly, Van Howe"s "cost-utility analysis of neonatal circumcision" [A-7] is limited, erroneous and biased [A-8].

    Van Howe calls himself a consultant on circumcision to the American Academy of Pediatrics, a claim denied by the Academy. Interestingly, in his small town in Wisconsin he reports a circumcision rate of 92%. Obviously his impact on the population there appears opposite to what he would like to see.

    Another "hero" of the anti movement is Paul Fleiss, a pharmacist and osteopath who obtained an MD without going to medical school as a result of legislation passed in California in 1962 that for a brief time allowed an osteopath to convert their degree to an MD. Fleiss moved from Detroit to take advantage of this by becoming a pediatrician.

    The anti-circ. movement quote Dr Fleiss and his writings extensively. Nevertheless, his scientific credibility has always been weak. However, his integrity has also fallen by the wayside owing to involvement in illegal activities, namely laundering the business proceeds of his infamous daughter, Heidi Fleiss, the Hollywood madam who provided prostitutes to celebrities.

    In 1995 the Los Angeles Times reported "Last week Fleiss' father, Dr Paul Fleiss, pleaded guilty to three felony counts of conspiring with his daughter to defraud the Internal Revenue Service by hiding her income over three years and making false statements to federal banks. Fleiss, 61, a prominent pediatrician, is expected to be sentenced to four to 10 months jail and be fined $50,000.

    His sentencing is set for September". In the end Fleiss received a suspended sentence as part of a plea bargain for giving evidence in the case. A long article was published on Fleiss by the Los Angeles Times" Sunday April 9 issue in 1995. In it his involvement in holistic health care and breastfeeding is described.

    In one of several malpractice complaints "the parents contend that Fleiss was so insistent that they breast feed their infant, despite the mother's difficulty in producing milk, that the child eventually became dehydrated and went into hypertensive cardiac arrest.

    The baby ended up losing a kidney ..." "In [another] case, a Burbank couple charged that Fleiss had been too lax when their 3-year-old developed a fever. The doctor, they said, told them it was nothing to worry about. Then the child suffered a seizure resulting in irreversible brain damage".

    The reader can make their own mind up about these and other representatives of the anti-circ movement. There are nevertheless some who are probably well-meaning, but misled. Interestingly, in early 2001 the TV program "60 Minutes" in Australia did a story on circumcision [A-9]. As well as an interview with Dr Terry Russell in Brisbane, and visuals of him doing a circumcision in his clinic, a lot of air time was given to anti-circ figures in Australia.

    The audience response was overwhelmingly negative towards these people, who, according to extensive viewer responses, appeared to come across as "freaks". It would appear that "60 Minutes" did what they do best in providing enough rope for the interviewee to "hang themselves". Similarly, a group of these Californian anti-circ extremists (from NOCIRC) were recorded philosophizing about circumcision while gathered around the home outdoor entertainment area in a TV documentary by the BBC on circumcision in the prevention of AIDS [A-10].

    When I played the tape of this, kindly provided by the BBC, to ~200 of my year 2 medical students raucous laughter broke out during this part of the program. Indeed, from other accounts, when the anti-circ activists are given air-time on TV the public perception of them is unfavorable. The reader might imagine the psychological state of a person who is so fanatically dedicated to the preservation of a piece of skin at the end of the penis, defending it by all means possible in the face of enormous evidence that is contradictory to their view.

    In a newspaper column in 2005 in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Mike Seatte rubbishes NOCIRC for a roadside billboard they had erected in Oakland, CA. He interviewed Milos and to her claim that her 3 circumcised sons had lost the most sensitive part of their anatomy he retorted "most men will tell you that if their genitalia were any more sensitive, it would cry during Meryl Streep movies. But that doesn't stop the folks behind nocirc.org." [A-11].

    In a follow-up article he further ridiculed the anti-circ lobby, saying "Passionate, driven and convinced they've been wronged in some irreparable way, many of these readers found circumcision to be among society's great injustices, right up there alongside slavery, ethnic discrimination and reality TV ... The group is so aggrieved, it has launched marches on the nation's capital and initiated letter-writing campaigns to politicians and medical officials.

    Representatives of the group's radical faction even sent me a device that assists circumcised men in "reclaiming their mutilated foreskins," the description of which you really don't want to read on a full stomach. While I admire their commitment, it seems somebody's throwing the baby out with the post-op bath water here.

    Lamenting the loss of parts we discarded as children, whether it be baby teeth, appendixes or even tonsils, is not only misguided, it's downright silly. The anti-circumcision forces claim sex for men is infinitely better for those not subject to the operation, and that millions of us are mentally scarred by the procedure, but who is to say? Did ice cream really taste better before our tonsils came out? Would life be more fulfilling without ever having a haircut? Who cares?

    These thin attempts to claim victimhood at the hands of some grand conspiracy sound sad and confused, considering how many genuinely afflicted people - those suffering from war wounds, terminal diseases and physical handicaps - get along without this sort of organized whining. What's worse, while waxing self-righteous about a few millimeters of lost manhood, these guys are forgetting what the opposite sex have to say about the matter. An informal poll of women provoked one response when asked their opinion of uncircumcised men: "Yuck". I think that just about says it all." [A-12].

    A psychopathology term that fits the anti-circ"s sexual obsession with the prepuce is called "partialism" and is found in the American Psychiatric Association"s Diagnostic & Statistical Manual 4th Revision (better known as the "DSM-IV"). It is located under "Paraphilia not Otherwise Specified" in the sexual and gender Identity Disorders Section. The ICD-9 code for Paraphilia NOS is 302.9. The diagnosis is made for paraphilia if "the behavior, sexual urges, or fantasies cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning". The definition of partialism is "exclusive focus on part of the body".

    The anti-circ organizations are a magnet for pedophiles, whose preference is for the uncircumcised appearance of a boy"s penis since this arouses in their twisted minds an image of untouched innocence. Such sexual predators then set about robbing the boy of this innocence.

    A brief discussion of pedophilia appears in an account of a man with a strong foreskin fetish [A-13]. Some have been arrested, with one report [A-14] stating "Paul J. Zimmer, founder of a anti-circumcision group called The Newborn Rights Society, was caught in the act of fondling an eleven-year-old boy. Zimmer was baby-sitting the boy and had brought him to the [nudist] camp without the mother's knowledge.

    This time police were called. Also suspected of sexually abusing that boy were James Joseph O'Boyle and Robert J. Schumann. It turned out that Zimmer had been abusing the boy sexually and psychologically for years. He was charged with "involuntary deviate sexual intercourse," "indecent assault," "sexual abuse of children and corruption of minors" and later pleaded guilty to "endangering the welfare of a child."

    "A subsequent report [A-15] stated that "the 11-year-old alleged victim told police he didn't want to testify. ... the boy was "scared, and had trouble remembering some incidents." ... after more than an hour's consultation with the ... boys and his parents, they decided to withdraw the charges against Paul Zimmer, 42 Coventryville Road and Robert J Schumann, Clarksburg, N.J. The blond-haired boy sat in the back of the tiny courtroom flanked by his parents. He fidgeted in his chair, kicking his feet.

    The boy's father sat with his arms crossed tightly as the decision was announced. The two suspects were charged with sexually assaulting the boy in separate incidents in mid-June during a weekend outing at the Sunny Rest Lodge Nudist Camp in Franklin Township near Palmerton.

    Zimmer, a family friend hired to tutor the boy, said he was given permission by the boy's parents to take the juvenile to the nudist camp for the weekend. Zimmer [was charged] with involuntary, deviate sexual intercourse; indecent assault; and corruption of minors for allegedly molesting the boy on June 16 and 17. Schumann was charged with molesting the boy at the camp on June 17.

    After Judge Steigerwalt dismissed the charges, Schumann turned to Zimmer and said he wanted nothing to do with him or his organization The Newborn Rights Society, a group opposed to circumcision. "This is it," he said. "I'm out of your group, understand? I'm out." .... Zimmer said he was pleased with the outcome of the case. "Obviously I'm happy about it, he said." Besides this I have allegations have been conveyed to me about other spokesmen of the anti-circ cause, apparently backed up by evidence.

    I wonder how some of the "do-gooders" in some of these anti-circ organizations would feel knowing that some of their fellow members may be pedophiles? A high profile US case has involved allegations that concern boys of Hispanic (uncircumcised) ethnicity.

    The Asian Tsunami of 2004 was reported to have caused an influx of pedophiles to Thailand (a mostly uncircumcised population) where many children were orphaned by the disaster. In 2004 a number of arrests were made in Australia for pedophile related activities involving pornographic images of children.

    Interestingly, one of these individuals was a pediatrician from Brisbane. Most pediatricians are well-intentioned. However, clearly this specialty would attract male medical graduates with a sexual predilection for children.

    In contrast, the circumcised penis makes it appear more adult, with its exposed glans. As an example of this, when the English (uncircumcised) colonized Australia in 1788 they set up camp and explored Sydney Harbour.

    Noticing a group of (naked) aboriginal men on the shores of one part as they sailed past they commented on their "manly" appearance, referring to the circumcised state of their penises. They therefore named this area "Manly", which is today a well-known suburb of the greater Sydney metropolitan area.

    I am grateful to a colleague in the USA for the following: "The figures in the USA that show circumcision is 90% for non-Hispanic whites and Blacks must be a bit shocking for the NOCIRC people.

    The problem with an advocacy based on a fixed construct system (e.g., "the foreskin is nature's inerrant product, ergo circumcision is abhorrent and must be stopped") is that one tends to be locked into a psychic box. Imagine holding a set position for years, a good portion of one's life dedicated to that cause, only to find out the effort had little effect.

    Moreover, there is the nagging thought "you are wrong in your beliefs". Hostility is often the result. George Kelly, a phenomenological psychologist whom I am currently studying, defines hostility as the "continued effort to extort validational evidence in favor of a type of social prediction which has already proven itself a failure" [A-16].

    Further explaining this, psychologists Bannister & Fransella [A-17] state: "There are times when, if his/her construct system is to be preserved, a person simply cannot afford to be wrong.

    If s/he acknowledges that some of his/her expectations are ill-founded, this might involve the modification or abandonment of the constructions on which those expectations were based. If, in turn, these constructions are central to the whole of his/her system, s/he might well be faced with chaos, having no alternative way of viewing his/her situation.

    In such a situation the person is likely to become hostile, to extort evidence, to bully people behaving in ways which confirm his/her predictions, to cook the information, to refuse to recognize the ultimate significance of what is happening".

    For each of these criteria one can easily find examples from the anti-circ world, a world that seems to be increasingly hostile: A good reason why one should select a utilitarian meta-ethical viewpoint in which one's construct system is modifiable by a change in the net evidence. Put more simply: its important to remain objective!.

    There are also groups such as 'NORM' (National Organization of Restoring Men) that promote procedures to reverse circumcision, by, for example, stretching the loose skin on the shaft of the retracted penis or the use of surgery.

    This has led to genital mutilation [A-18]. Claimed benefits of 'increased sensitivity' in reality appear to be a result of the friction of the foreskin, whether intact or newly created, on the moist or sweaty glans and undersurface of the prepuce in the unaroused state and would obviously in the 're-uncircumcised' penis have nothing to do with an increase in touch receptors.

    Indeed, nerves tend not to regenerate. Moreover, the sensitivity during sexual intercourse is in fact identical, according to men circumcised as adults. In the first detailed professional analysis of psychiatric aspects eight patients seeking prepuce restoration were studied and several psychological disorders were noted [A-19].

    These included narcissistic and exhibitionistic body image, depressions, major defects in early mothering, and ego pathology. These men had a preoccupation with their absent foreskin and represented a subgroup within the homosexual community [A-19]. Subsequently some "skin-stretchers" can now be found amongst heterosexuals, representing 10% of the 1,200 members of one 'uncirc.' organization (cf. 80% homosexual and 10% bisexual), with 65% uncircumcised, 30% circumcised, and 5% partially circumcised.

    Although many were happy with the result (thus justifying to themselves the decision to undertake this ordeal), others disliked their new genital status, even choosing to undergo re-circumcision [A-20]. The practice was promoted by James Bigelow who claims men mourn their lost foreskin.

    The foreskin is an absolute requirement for a mutual masturbation practice amongst homosexual men known as "docking", in which the penis is placed under the foreskin of the male partner.

    As mentioned in the section on AIDS, this practice, in contrast to common belief amongst many gay men, represents unsafe sex, exposing as it does the vulnerable inner lining of the foreskin to infected semen. If HIV is present in such semen it can then infect the partner via this route. An academic college at another university sent me booklet advertising X-rated videos in which he circled one in the gay section entitled "Craving Foreskin"!

    There are other homosexual men who are pro-circ, no doubt in part because of the superior esthetics of the circumcised penis.

    Dr Yehuda Nir, a psychoanalyst who was head of child psychiatry at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Hospital says he has never observed "circumcision trauma", stating "The only thing men are concerned about with regard to the penis is its size".



    References:

    A-1. Van Howe RS. Circumcision and infectious diseases revisited. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1998; 17: 1-6

    A-2. Wiswell TE. Circumcision and infectious diseases: Opinion pieces and the need to critically review citations. submitted

    A-3. Van Howe RS. Circumcision and HIV infection: review of the literature and meta-analysis. Int J STD AIDS 1999; 10: 8-16

    A-4. Moses S, Nagelkerke NJD, Blanchard JF. Analysis of the scientific literature on male circumcision and risk for HIV infection. Int J STD AIDS 1999; 10: 626-8

    A-5. Van Howe RS, Svoboda JS, Hodges FM. HIV infection and circumcision: cutting through the hyperbole. J R Soc Health. 2005; 125: 259-65.

    A-6. Van Howe RS. Effect of confounding in the association between circumcision status and urinary tract infections. J Infect 2005; 51: 59-68

    A-7. Van Howe RS. A cost-utility analysis of neonatal circumcision. Med Decis Making 2004; 24: 584-601

    A-8. Gray DT. Neonatal circumcision: Coast-effective preventative measure or "the unkindest cut of all"? Med Decis making 2004; 24: 688-692

    A-9. "60 Minutes" TV program screened in Jan 2001. http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/01_stories/2000_1-_08/story_247.asp

    A-10. BBC2 Television. The Valley of Life or Death. Broadcast in UK on 16 Nov 2000. For transcript see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/horizon/valley_hiv_transcript.shtml

    A-11. Seatte M. Billboards warn against circumcising newborns. Jan 4, 2005 http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/columnists/seate/s_289690.htm l

    A-12. Seatte M. Here"s a topic that"s a cut above the rest. Jan 11, 2005. http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/columnists/s_291999.html

    A-13. Khan MM. Foreskin fetishism and its relation to ego pathology in a male homosexual. Int J Psychoanal. 1965; 46: 64-80. http://www.circs.org/library/khan/

    A-14. Craft N. Busting Mr Short Eyes. In: On The Issues: The Progressive Woman's Quarterly. Winter 1995. http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/Wanner.html

    A-15. Child molestation charges against pedophile nudist dropped
    The Mercury, Aug 7, 1984. http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/Schumann2.html

    A-16. Kelly GA. The Psychology of Personal Constructs, Vols 1 & 2. Norton: New York, 1955.

    A-17. Bannister D, Fransella F. Inquiring Man: The Theory of Personal Constructs. Penguin: New York, 1971

    A-18. Walter G, Streimer J. Genital self-mutilation: attempted foreskin reconstruction. Brit J Psychiat 1990; 156: 125-7

    A-19. Mohl PC, Adams R, Grier DM, Sheley KA. Prepuce restoration seekers: Psychiatric aspects. Arch Sexual Behav 1981; 10: 383-93

    A-20. Schultheiss D, Truss MC, Stief CG, Jonas U. Uncircumcision: a historical review of preputial restoration. Plast Reconst Surg 1998; 101: 1990-8
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 6, 2008
  15. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Now I've seen everything. Do they bomb circumcision clinics too?
     
  16. Koalama Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    50
    I know they threaten the doctors. I wouldn't put it past them. I have to find that video of the guy whining over his foreskin. He was so obsessive it was shocking.
     
  17. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Have you asked spidergoat?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. GenitalIntegrityNow Registered Member

    Messages:
    39
    Aquaria89, who authored that anti-anti-circumcision document?
     
  19. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Can you please provide a link to the text you just posted?

    Thank you.

    Now onto the points you found:

    So none of these men have ever had an erection before their visit to the doctor?

    Because an uncircumcised penis and a circumcised penis does not that different when they are erect. Having seen both, I can assure you, they look pretty much the same.

    Had you actually read some of the links provided in this thread and done some research on the matter, you would have realised that cancer of the penis is one of the rarest forms of cancers. The figure is actually around 1 in 100,000. And no, infant circumcision does not give 100% protection against penile cancer. Circumcised males also do get penile cancer. Because sometimes the cancer appears up the penis shaft and other times it appears in the area surrounding the foreskin.

    20%? So to avoid a 20% chance, all males should be circumcised? The American Cancer Society does not agree with you or the findings in this letter you have copied and pasted:

    The American Cancer Society does not consider routine circumcision to be a valid or effective measure to prevent such [genital] cancers. 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."

    (Source)

    This point speaks for itself. The use of condoms would reduce the transmission of AIDS a lot more than a circumcised penis ever could.

    Again, circumcision is not protection against AIDS. A condom is a hell of a lot more effective. And you have also not realised the fact that without the foreskin to moisturise the penile gland, abrasion can occur, opening the woman and the male to risk of contracting an STD and HIV. Research has also found that the incidence of chlamydia is also higher in circumcised males than uncircumcised males as a result.

    The study has also failed to take note of the sexual and drug use, as well as medical safety of those who have contracted the disease in the tribe itself.

    This has been covered at length in this thread. I would suggest you read back through it.

    Enjoy better sex? The foreskin is virtually a resevoir of nerve endings, creating more stimulation for the male. It also moisturises the penis during sex. As for the cleanliness factor, uncircumcised males usually know how to clean their penis. So instead of actually washing one self properly, the easy route is seen to be to lop off a vital part of a baby boy's penis? Right..

    Quite common?

    Balanitis is a common condition affecting 11% of adult men seen in urology clinics and 3% of children.
    International

    Balanitis may occur in up to 3% of uncircumcised males worldwide.


    (Source)


    It can be prevented with proper hygiene. Something that all males should make a priority, regardless of the existence or non-existence of their foreskin.

    As has been pointed out several times in this thread, UTI is quite rare and breastfeeding the child has a higher chance of decreasing its occurrence than circumcision would. It also occurs more often in baby girls. Are you going to advocate the circumcision of baby girls as well?

    And UTI is easily treated as well as prevented, again with proper hygiene and simply breastfeeding the child in the early days after birth.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------

    Mod Note

    I would strongly advise you to stop trolling this thread. As it stands your trolling and flaming posts have been removed. Consider this a warning. I would also advise you to provide links to the text you have posted in this thread.

     
  20. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Give me a freaking break. Circumcision is anti sex. The Jews started it, and God knows the Bible (and by extension the Quran) is full of hang-ups about sex. A modern, clean human being need not worry about any damaging effects of having extra skin and nerve endings on your dick. Reconstruction is a joke, it's not possible. Circumcision is just like female genital mutilation, they don't cut out the vagina, they just remove the most sensitive part, so sexual pleasure is no longer a factor in your life. Sex is good, the clitorus is good, and the foreskin is good. Doctors like to make a buck, I'm sure that's a factor too.
     
  21. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Actually circumcision predates the Jews. The Egyptians did it too, both male and female.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2008
  22. Koalama Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    50
  23. GenitalIntegrityNow Registered Member

    Messages:
    39
    Aquaria89,

    Shouldn't you stick with the evidence, instead of personally attacking people who support a Genital Integrity Policy? There simply is not evidence that neonatal circumcision provides potential benefits in excess of the risks (all the medical associations agree with this), and there are ethical concerns in addition.
     

Share This Page