Ree: Why do parents keep doing this?

"Briar Rabbit" wrote in message
...
karen hill wrote:

"Tori M." wrote in message
...

Wouldn't it be wiser just not allow this surgery as a parents choice
unless there was a pre-existing condition that made it necessary?
Parents cannot choose any other unnecessary surgery for their child,
so why should circumcision be any different?

Of coarse you can. I have the option of having my daughters accessory
thumb
removed and that would be totaly unnecessary. The extra thumb does not
effect her hand control or anything. if nothing else I guess you could
make
the arguement that the extra nail on her hand makes it more likely that
she
could scratch herself.


Please don't be stupid. An extra thumb is not normal. A foreskin is
normal. See the difference? I never said abnormalaties like cleft
palate or hypospadias should not be fixed.


I WOULD have had this removed if we could have done it before she turned
1.
As time went on every dr suggested a later and later age and by the time
she
can have it done I would rather just let her make up her own mind about
this
one. She is now 2 1/2 and would hate to do anything to make her hand
unusable for any amount of time..


Of course you did the right thing. A foreskin is normal, an extra
thumb, a cleft palate or any other medical condition should be
treated. A healthy foreskin should not be removed.

Yes and why bother with shots? After all there is no current medical
requirement at the time of the shots.

This is a time-honored red herring.

Vaccinations are not the same as removing healthy, normal tissue from the
body for non-medical reasons. Please address the subject at hand, and
please refrain from calling it a 'scab'. It is not a scab. Scabs are formed
when the body is healing from an injury.

--angela

Chotii wrote:
"Briar Rabbit" wrote in message
...

karen hill wrote:


"Tori M." wrote in message
...


Wouldn't it be wiser just not allow this surgery as a parents choice
unless there was a pre-existing condition that made it necessary?
Parents cannot choose any other unnecessary surgery for their child,
so why should circumcision be any different?

Of coarse you can. I have the option of having my daughters accessory
thumb
removed and that would be totaly unnecessary. The extra thumb does not
effect her hand control or anything. if nothing else I guess you could
make
the arguement that the extra nail on her hand makes it more likely that
she
could scratch herself.


Please don't be stupid. An extra thumb is not normal. A foreskin is
normal. See the difference? I never said abnormalaties like cleft
palate or hypospadias should not be fixed.



I WOULD have had this removed if we could have done it before she turned
1.
As time went on every dr suggested a later and later age and by the time
she
can have it done I would rather just let her make up her own mind about
this
one. She is now 2 1/2 and would hate to do anything to make her hand
unusable for any amount of time..


Of course you did the right thing. A foreskin is normal, an extra
thumb, a cleft palate or any other medical condition should be
treated. A healthy foreskin should not be removed.


Yes and why bother with shots? After all there is no current medical
requirement at the time of the shots.


This is a time-honored red herring.



What you are trying to avoid is the principle involved.

The principle is the same for vaccinations as it is for circumcision. It
reduces some future risk. I would say that there is a far greater impact
on the individual through tampering with his "natural" immune system
that through liberating a male from that hideous appendage.

It therefore follows that given the skin freak commitment to all things
"natural" that a fundamental contradiction is evident then they rant and
rave about the foreskin yet say naught about the preservation of the
natural human immune system.

But then very few really believed that they cared for anything other
than the foreskin anyways.

Jake Waskett wrote:

karen hill wrote:


No. From what I understand, it is to protect children from
unnecessary surgery. In an adult male, it seems obvious that the
foreskin is sexualized because it is on a sexual organ, in the same
way a clitoral hood is.


Far from it. I'm a gay man, and I can tell you that, while I've *heard* of
the foreskin being sexually responsive, I've never seen it in real life.



Well you see Jake it works like this with the skin freaks. They read
some crap on a skin freak web site and then become true believers and
are instantly qualified to cite chapter and verse about the glories of
the "golden prepuce". You see that sad and stupid Karen would probably
declare that a freckle found on some penis must be "sexualized" (what
ever that may mean). They are desperately sad and pathetic people. They
need help from professionally qualified people.

karen hill wrote:

) wrote in message om...



They (scab scavengers) have been
studied in detail by the medical profession, and the overwhelming
majority of them are comprised of homosexual foreskin fetishists,
mental defectives, and anti-Semites.


Of course you are making that up. Please cite where this study can be
found?






Restoration Seekers


==========================

Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 10, No.4, 1981

Prepuce Restoration Seekers: Psychiatric Aspects

Paul C. Mohl, M.D.I,2 , Russel Adams, Ph.D.,3 Donald M. Greer,
M.D.,4 and Kathy A. Sheley, Ph.D.


A new subgroup of patients within the homosexual community has been
identified who are characterized by preoccupation, with their absent
foreskins. They associate their circumcised status with a sense of
incompleteness, anger over a lack of choice, and their sense of
masculinity.' Four patients who sought surgical reconstruction are
reported. None were Jewish or psychotic. All tolerated surgery well.
Preliminary etiologic hypotheses are advanced, emphasizing
psychodynamic and imprinting possibilities.

KEY WORDS: circumcision; uncircumcision; foreskin; homosexuality;
prepuce reconstruction.

INTRODUCTION

A distinct subgroup within the homosexual community characterized by
an erotic attachment to and/or preoccupation with the foreskin has
recently come to our attention. This resulted when circumcised
members of this subgroup requested surgical reconstruction of their
foreskins.

The existence of three separate organizations and publications
devoted to the concerns of these individuals demonstrates that these
individuals represent an authentic, definable group. The
organizations are involved in political action such as lobbying against
neonatal circumcision, information dispensing, and social and cultural
activities. The publications include a quarterly newsletter, a
membership directory, and a pornographic magazine. One of the
organizations reports 1200 members, 80% homosexual, 10% bisexual,
and 10% heterosexual, with 65% uncircumcised, 30% circumcised, and 5%
"partially" circumcised. Age range is primarily young adult to early
middle age with every state and several foreign countries
represented (U.S.A. Newsletter, 1976). Our patients and the newsletter
suggest that many of these individuals have been in touch with
physicians in an attempt to obtain reconstruction. A few have obtained
surgical reconstructions of their foreskins, although most report
hostile, amused or anxious responses from physicians (U.S.A. Newsletter,
1974).

Despite this evidence of prior contact with physicians, there are no
reports in the literature describing these patients. Prior surgical
reports have emphasized techniques applied to congenital
deformities, traumatic injury, and transsexuals (Goldin, 1975; DeSouza,
1976; Manchanda et al., 1967; Noe et al., 1974). Psychiatric
descriptions of patients who have sought "uncircumcision" have
emphasized Jews seeking' to disguise their identities during times of
political and cultural crises (Tushnet, 1965; Schneider, 1976; Levin,
1976). There is one report describing the surgical technique used to
reconstruct the foreskin of a patient who sought this for psychological
reasons and is reported to have recovered from his emotional discomfort
following surgery (Penn, 1963). Another patient, probably psychotic,
killed his surgeon following a similar procedure.6 Most of our
colleagues assumed that these patients must be psychotic when we
initially discussed the subject. None of our patients has been
Jewish or psychotic, nor has any had preputial or penile disease or trauma.

None bear any resemblance to transsexuals. These patients have a
personally motivated obsession to obtain a new foreskin, an
obsession sufficiently strong that these patients are willing to undergo
an acknowledged experimental procedure of uncertain outcome bearing
risk of permanent disfigurement.6 This rumor was confirmed by the Duke
University Information Service.

CASE REPORTS

Case # 1

Mr. A is a successful 36-year-old schoolteacher from a large
southwestern city. When he first presented he was so guarded and
hostile he seemed paranoid. He viewed physicians as cruel and sadistic,
convincing mothers to have their sons circumcised and then refusing
later remedy. He was especially angry that he had had no choice in
the matter of his own circumcision. He had contacted 20 physicians with
his request prior to being referred to us. The patient had been
concerned about his absent foreskin throughout his life and related
this to longstanding identity problems. He complained of lifelong
excruciating pain at the tip of his penis, which he attributed to
his circumcised status. He also held his circumcised status responsible
for his sexual difficulties with women, whom he' saw ,as less
sensitive than men, and for his decision to avoid physical education
during high school. He reported always feeling "yukky" about himself
and his body, having been overweight most of his life, frequently
depressed, and having obtained rhinoplasty and hair transplants in
the past. At one time, he wondered if he was a transsexual, but he
reported having satisfactorily come to terms with his homosexuality.
He described his father as an uncircumcised authoritarian,
domineering, aloof military man and his mother, an "army brat"
herself, `as more understanding and closer to the patient. However,
he viewed them as "the most married people I know" so that there was
little room for a child in their lives. He felt they preferred his
younger sister to him. Currently, the patient reported a number of
satisfying friendships, satisfaction with work and hobbies, but
current difficulty with his first long-term intimate homosexual
relationship. His prior pattern had been to have several ongoing
sexual relationships. Once the patient perceived the open and honest
stance of the surgeon, much of his suspiciousness and hostility
abated. Since he was able to accept the risks of surgery, appreciate
the uncertainties of outcome, and establish a solid collaborative
relationship, the surgery was performed. His father was supportive
during the operations, frequently bringing Mr. A for his
postoperative visits. Mr. A subsequently sought psychotherapy from the
evaluating psychologist,which continued for seven months, weekly, and
was focused on "here-and-now" issues of trust. Three years after
surgery, he reports no further pain, no further depressions,
satisfaction with his body, and increasingly gratifying interpersonal
relationships, though he has decided not to seek a sustained, intimate
sexual relationship at this time. He attributes his greater
self-satisfaction to the surgery and his improved interpersonal
relationships to the psychotherapy.

Case # 2

Mr. B was a very anxious bisexual man of 42 from the Midwest. He had
a Masters Degree in Library Science but spent his time in travel and
study, working off and on as a gardener, model, and at other odd
jobs He had been in Jungian therapies for 10 years. He had been
concerned about being "cut" as long as" he could remember, recalling his
childhood fascination with a baby's "natural state." He felt that
sex was better with uncut partners and sought out such persons. He
described the uncircumcised phallus as more beautiful, more
pleasing, and more masculine and felt uncircumcision was related to
greater creativity. He viewed circumcision as a barbaric mutilation. He
described much concern with his identity and body image, recently
having changed his name and feeling that a circumcised phallus made
his body inconsistent with his soul. He worked part-time as a nude
model. Mr. B was raised in the South in a Victorian atmosphere, the
eldest of four children. His father was a photographer whom the
patient viewed as hyper-religious, but bigoted and hypocritical. He
was constantly critical and emotionally cold. Every time the patient
attempted to communicate with him, their relationship seemed to
deteriorate. The father considered sex dirty, and the patient
recalled discussions about sex in the father's unlit darkroom. He had
thought his father had been circumcised, but is now unsure. He viewed
his mother as devoting her entire life to preventing her temperamental
husband from becoming upset. Mr. B was partly raised by a paternal
grandmother in whose bed he slept until early adolescence. He
described both female figures as "enveloping" him. He recalls no
close peer relations during childhood or adolescence, describing himself
as "painfully shy." His first homosexual experience occurred during
college with a partner who first checked to ensure that Mr. B had
been circumcised. The patient, at age 30, was seduced by a woman whom he
subsequently married for five years. During that time, he had rare
homosexual contacts. He reported no current intimate relationships,
nor did he report any close friends. He did make references to
friends in the past but described most relationships in terms of their
physical and/or sensual qualities. He reported frequent depressions
in the past. He was preoccupied with his own internal experiences and
had great difficulty communicating them effectively, frequently
blocking.

His thought processes were highly intellectual and eccentric, though
he displayed no loose associations. His eye contact and rapport with
the interviewer were distant. He was extremely anxious during the
initial part of the interview, with vague answers alternating with
clear direct responses. As the interview continued, he seemed to
settle down, and his cognition became more appropriate and
controlled.

Despite our concerns about this patient's impoverished object
relationships, difficulty managing anxiety, and eccentric thought
processes, his ability to comprehend and accept the nature of the
surgery led us to proceed. Postoperatively, he experienced some
significant complications which resolved over time. Using telephone
contact with the surgeon, he was able to tolerate the complications
well. Now, two years after surgery, he reports that he is doing
well, satisfied with the outcome, and' psychologically about as before.

Case #3

Mr. C is a 52-year-old homosexual interior designer from a large
northeastern city who completed two years of college and three years
of night school. He could recall being preoccupied with his
circumcised status for as long as he could remember, especially
feeling strange and different from his uncircumcised father and
childhood peers. As a child, he had thought he was born different
from his father and other males. He wondered, as a child, if this made
him more effeminate. He expressed anger at having been circumcised
without his permission. He described circumcised males as "society
oriented, pretentious, and condescending." He felt that he wanted a
foreskin "for myself,"' seeing it as more aesthetic and pleasing. He
also looked forward to using it in sexual foreplay. He reported past
associations of uncircumcision with sexual prowess and masculinity
but felt he had resolved those issues. " Mr. C was born and raised in a
large Midwestern city. His earliest memory is from around age 3,
when he was at a vacation cottage surrounded by several male adult
family members staring at his penis saying "he's too young to have one"
(presumably an erection). At age 5, he was caught "playing doctor"
by his father, who directly threatened castration as punishment. His
father was a general contractor who was uncircumcised. The patient
reported a "terrible relationship" with him and saw him as rigid and
distant. He saw his mother as warmer but very anxious, using the
patient to calm herself. He is on good terms with his 5years-older
sister but has never been able to discuss his feelings with any
family member. At age 10, he had his first homosexual experience with a
neighborhood boy who was "verrry uncircumcised." During high school
he dated girls, and during an army stint he engaged in group
heterosexual activities with Pacific Island natives. He consulted a
psychiatrist for two months in his late 20s due to emotional turmoil
associated with an unhappy love affair. He has had four prior cosmetic
plastic surgical procedures (including acne removal, hair transplant,
face lift, and blepharoplasty). He had sought foreskin reconstruction
unsuccessfully from several plastic surgeons. The patient reported
having several gratifying sexual partners, one nonsexual lover, and
several close friends. He finds his work gratifying, although he had
wanted to be an architect. When initially evaluated, the patient was
extremely anxious and ambivalent about the surgery. He was
preoccupied with a foreskin making him more "macho" and increasing his
sexual pleasure, feelings he knew fo be unrealistic. He elected not to
have the procedure. Six months later he returned, less anxious, less
ambivalent, and more realistic in his expectations. He established
excellent rapport, was very open during both psychiatric interviews,
and clearly had above-average intelligence. He tolerated the surgery
well, including some anxiety-provoking and very painful testicular
swelling due to epididymitis, which responded to treatment. He has
continued in his well-established, gratifying lifestyle and is
pleased with the result of surgery one year postoperatively.

Case #4

Mr. D is a 45-year-old bisexual, self-employed architect who lives
alone in a rural area of the Pacific Northwest. He had undergone 18
prior procedures to restore his foreskin by another plastic surgeon
who became reluctant to perform additional surgeries. The patient
consulted us due to continued dissatisfaction with the results. He
seemed to be seeking a perfect phallus. He recalled being
preoccupied with his absent foreskin since age 5 or 6, when his parents
slapped him for asking any questions about his body. He feels that had
they explained circumcision to him at that time he would not have
focused all his feelings of insecurity and inadequacy on his absent
foreskin.

He sees the phallus as the outward sign of his masculinity, which
is, in turn, the most important part of his self. He expressed anger at
the absence of choice in his circumcision and a feeling of
incompleteness without a foreskin. Mr. D was born in the Southeast,
the only child of a rigid Victorian woman and an alcoholic man. He
was to have been the "cement" of their troubled marriage but became,
instead, the "burden." The patient's father was circumcised, though
the patient was unaware of this until he was 36 and insisted on
viewing his father's naked body for the first time prior to burial.
The father was preoccupied with his own masculinity, collected guns,
enjoyed scaring people, turned hugs into painful experiences, and
verbally abused the patient. The mother imposed rigid rules and
tried to obtain her emotional needs from the patient, leaving him
feeling inadequate. The patient's first homosexual experience occurred
when he was 5, and he continued with these contacts through latency. In
high school and college, the patient dated women and almost married
twice under pressure from his mother. In his mid-20s, he acknowledged
his primary homosexual orientation. He was by then a successful
architect and sculptor. He saw a psychoanalyst for two years in his
early 30s due to recurrent feelings of depression and inadequacy. This
therapy was very helpful to him, although he was disappointed in its
failure to affect his foreskin preoccupation. He felt that his analyst
was unable to listen objectively when he discussed his foreskin
obsession.

Subsequently, he was able to establish a 4-year-long intimate
relationship, the abrupt ending of which precipitated his move to
the West Coast. At that time he "rediscovered women." His current
relationships consist of homosexual "one night stands," an episodic
heterosexual relationship, and several close friends who live in a
city two hours away by car. He finds a committed relationship best
for him but has been unable to establish one, thus far. The patient
describes himself as vain about his body, enjoying exhibiting it at
nude beaches, baths, and gymnasiums. He has had a blepharoplasty in
addition to the 18 foreskin procedures. He related in an open,
intellectual manner, yet" there was a sense of guarded rage and
tension. He acknowledged difficulty with his hostility. Due to the
patient's perfectionist hopes and his unwillingness to allow contact
with his prior surgeon, an impasse was reached, and we refused to
contemplate any further procedures.

DISCUSSION

All four of these patients (and four others we have evaluated) were
seen not in psychoanalytic psychotherapy but in pre-surgical
diagnostic consultation. Thus, we did not obtain the kind of
anamnesis and fantasy material which would lend itself to confident
psychodynamic exegesis. Further, the material we do have must be
addressed in terms of the individual dynamics and as potentially
descriptive of a large group of patients and potential patients.

Finally, the issue of our use of surgical intervention must be
considered. Certain themes emerge from the four case histories.
First, all of our patients were currently or had in the past been
exclusively homosexual. All had family constellations frequently
reported with homosexuality: a Victorian attitude toward sexuality, a
distant father, and an emotionally intrusive mother. Second, all four of
our patients reported a lifelong concern about circumcision, starting
with early childhood recollections. Concern with the status of their
father's penis was also prominent. Lifelong concern with identity
and body image was another consistent finding. Body image was associated
with both narcissistic and exhibitionistic issues. Third,
depressions were a common experience for all four patients, some
apparently lifelong, others more episodic. Psychotherapy had been
helpful to three of the four patients, though the preoccupation with the
foreskin remained unaffected. Fourth, three issues were regularly
associated with the foreskin: a sense of incompleteness when it was
absent, an association of masculinity with the foreskin, and anger
related to the absence of choice and control in the decision. Fifth,
previous approaches to physicians had been consistently painful, this
exacerbating the anger. On the other hand, these patients showed a
diversity in their patterns of interpersonal relationships,
preferred coping mechanisms, and personality patterns. Mr. A was
diagnosed as a narcissistic personality with paranoid trends prior to
treatment and obsessive compulsive with narcissistic traits following
psychotherapy.

Mr. B appeared to be a well-treated schizotypal personality. Mr. C
was diagnosed as mildly obsessive compulsive, and Mr. D was thought to
be severely obsessive compulsive, with narcissistic traits. In spite of
the degree of psychopathology noted, they all tolerated the
procedures well. The three we ,have operated on report satisfaction with
their treatment. In attempting to understand these phenomena, several
hypotheses come to mind. In these patients, for some reason,
conflicts at every developmental level have been condensed or displaced
onto the absent foreskin. The sense of incompleteness, difficulties in
interpersonal relationships, and identity concerns suggest primitive
object relationship issues; the rage over the absence of choice
suggests anal conflicts; and the masculinity concerns suggest
phallic issues. Two reported cases may be of help here. Khan (1965)
described a patient with a foreskin fetish. This fetish was found to be
a defense against severe latent ego pathology. The state of excitement
in which the patient sought another's foreskin was seen as a panicky
state in which symbiotic fusion with the breast/mother was
symbolized by the' penis/foreskin. This patient also experienced
feelings of humiliation and rage following completion of his fetishistic
acts.

This was understood as a sadomasochistic mechanism. Another relevant
case was reported by Nunberg (1947). In this case, a man developed
symptoms in response to the circumcision of his infant son. This was
eventually related to the patient's identification of his penis with
his primitive infant self, and his foreskin with his enveloping
mother/vagina. Circumcision was seen as a symbolic separation from
mother. Our patients are somewhat different from these two cases,
being preoccupied with their own foreskins. The patient who
preferred uncircumcised partners did not seem to be fetishistic in his
preoccupation. None of our patients reported sadomasochistic
activities or fantasies, although we suspected some in Mr. D's case.
Mr. A and Mr. B expressed strong feelings about the role of
physicians and/or society in neonatal circumcision. These feelings were
expressed in terms of the barbarity and cruel mutilation involved in
circumcising a helpless infant. Similar feelings were echoed by many
writers in the pages of the USA Newsletter. Support for the foreskin
as fetishistic object comes also from the pages of the USA
Newsletter, where many writers describe a variety of practices in which
them foreskin appears to be central object of sexual activity. Practices
for manipulating, stimulating, and decorating the prepuce are
glowingly described. Most of our patients, however, described these
practices as bizarre and dissociated themselves from those they saw
as excessive or extreme in their prepuce preoccupation. Our patients
do, however, report some material which lends support to the foreskin as
primitive mother and/or self-symbol hypothesis. They all spoke of
the foreskin with a sensual warmth and reverence. All spontaneously
described themselves as feeling "incomplete" without one. Mr. A and
Mr. B spoke of feeling empty. All patients described feelings of
loneliness, depression, and inadequacy at some points in their
lives.

All reported lifelong identity concerns. Mr. Band Mr. D overtly
articulated the connection between their identity concerns and
foreskin preoccupations. The feelings of incompleteness and deep
warmth toward the foreskin are also reported frequently in the USA
Newsletter. To summarize these psychodynamic observations, these
patients all experienced major defects in early mothering, leading
to self and object relations pathology. Two report clear early memories
of events which focused their attention on the absent foreskin. The
other two recall a lifelong concern but appear to have repressed
similar early experiences. Thus, there is strong likelihood that
this symptom is connected to and, perhaps, defends against severe ego
pathology. Of concern, however, is the resistance of the symptom to
psychotherapeutic intervention, even when the self and object
relations pathology seemed to improve. All our patients continue to
view their concern as normal, natural, and non-symptomatic. We are
hoping to identify one of these patients who has undergone, or would
like to undergo, a thorough psychoanalysis. Money et al. (1957)
emphasized the issue of imprinting in sexual identity. This
hypothesis, closely related to primitive object relationship issues,
suggests that there is a failure to form an adequate mother-infant
bond, which may lead to failure in establishing any clear definition
of one's body and self. Then, depending on later experience, this
deficit may be focused in a variety of ways (transsexualism,
paraphilias, etc.). The imprinting hypothesis suggests a biological
fixedness to these disorders which the psychodynamic hypotheses do
not. One rationale for treating these patients with surgery rather
than psychotherapy is the imprinting paradigm. The resistance of our
patients to psychotherapy tends to support this, although further
clinical research is necessary.

Although we obviously favor consideration of surgical restoration,
we do not advocate it for all such cases. We have now seen a total of
eight patients but have operated on only four. We have refused
surgery to those who" had unrealistic expectations or who displayed
overt, untreated psychiatric symptoms. We recommended extensive
psychiatric treatment to three before reconsideration of surgical
intervention.

We emphasize to these patients, as we emphasize to all candidates for
reconstructive surgery, that the surgery will not affect their
conflicts, anxieties, or interpersonal relationships, that it will
only make their bodies more as they wish. The ethical issues are no
different than for any other cosmetic procedure. There is high risk
of psychological sequellae in any patient with unrealistic, conscious
or unconscious wishes or hopes with respect to the surgery, and it
would be inappropriate to offer this procedure to such a patient or to
one lacking the ego strength or support system necessary to cope with
the frustrations and anxieties of a multistage procedure. It would also
be inappropriate to withhold reconstruction from a patient who met the
above criteria but had other psychological problems. Many physicians
have great difficulty dealing with these patients, generally
reacting with anger, amusement, rejection, or assumptions that the
patients are psychotic. The source of these countertransference
reactions is not clear. Intellectually, the request is similar to a
request for augmentation mammoplasty. Both are requests for change to
bring the body into compliance with a self body image. The operation is
more difficult than mammoplasty but is not mutilating like transsexual
surgery, which is far more accepted. We are not the first
professionals to encounter such patients; however, prior clinicians
have been reluctant to report these cases even when they were
willing to proceed with the surgery! We were not immune to
countertransference feelings, but our curiosity overcame our initial
feelings of shock and horror. Our curiosity led to empathy for the
discomfort felt by these patients, discomfort largely relieved by the
foreskin restoration in the four we accepted for surgery. Whether these
patients represent a new diagnostic entity or an unusual symptom that
may be related to a variety of personality or neurotic psychopathology
is unanswered at the present time. They tolerate and respond to surgical
restoration of their foreskins despite the presence of other
psychopathology and postoperative complications. Their body image
preoccupations have been unresponsive to conventional psychotherapy
despite benefit in other areas. Further research will be necessary to
confirm these preliminary observations.

Department of Psychiatry, University of Texas Health Science Center
at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas 78284. 2Psychosomatic
Consultation/Liaison Section, Psychiatry Service, Audie Murphy
Veterans Administration Medical Center, San Antonio, Texas 78284.
JDepartment of Behavioral Science, University of Oklahoma Health
Science Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73190. `Department of
Surgery and Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University
of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas
78284.

`Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Health
Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas 78284.

383 0004-0002/81/0800-0383803.00/0 @ 1981 Plenum Publishing Corporation

B Hanash, K. A., Furlow, W. L., Utz, D. C. and Harrison, E. G., Jr.:
Carcinoma of the penis: a clinico. pathologic study. J. Ural., 104:
291. 1970. 9 Ekstrom, T. and Edsmyr, F.: Cancer of the penis: a
clinical study of 229 cases. Acta Chir. Scand., 115: 25. 1958. . 10
Editorial: Routine circumcision. J.A.M.A., 185: 780, 1963. 6
Hardner, G. J., Bhanalaph, T., Murphy, G. P., Albert, D. J. and Moore,
R. H.: Carcinoma of the penis: analysis of therapy in 100 consecutive
cases.
J. Ural., 108: 428, 1972. 7 Riveros, M. and Gorostiaga, R.: Cancer
of the penis. Arch, Surg., 85: 377, 1962.

"karen hill" wrote in message
om...
"Tori M." wrote in message
...
Wouldn't it be wiser just not allow this surgery as a parents choice
unless there was a pre-existing condition that made it necessary?
Parents cannot choose any other unnecessary surgery for their child,
so why should circumcision be any different?

Of coarse you can. I have the option of having my daughters accessory
thumb
removed and that would be totaly unnecessary. The extra thumb does not
effect her hand control or anything. if nothing else I guess you could
make
the arguement that the extra nail on her hand makes it more likely that
she
could scratch herself.

Please don't be stupid. An extra thumb is not normal. A foreskin is
normal. See the difference? I never said abnormalaties like cleft
palate or hypospadias should not be fixed.
You said "unnecesary" not "normal" While the extra thumb is not normal for
me it is all she has ever known. Since no one glued it on to her at birth
and it does not get in the way of things why have it removed? The point was
that we can have drs proform surgery that will affect our children.. surely
you are not saying that my sons forskin is somehow better then my daughters
extra thumb? After all one is a flap of skin.. the other is a limb with a
bone and a nail.

Tori

--
Bonnie 3/20/02
Xavier due 10/17/04

"Briar Rabbit" wrote in message
...
Chotii wrote:
"Briar Rabbit" wrote in message
...

karen hill wrote:


"Tori M." wrote in message
...


Wouldn't it be wiser just not allow this surgery as a parents choice
unless there was a pre-existing condition that made it necessary?
Parents cannot choose any other unnecessary surgery for their child,
so why should circumcision be any different?

Of coarse you can. I have the option of having my daughters accessory
thumb
removed and that would be totaly unnecessary. The extra thumb does not
effect her hand control or anything. if nothing else I guess you could
make
the arguement that the extra nail on her hand makes it more likely that
she
could scratch herself.


Please don't be stupid. An extra thumb is not normal. A foreskin is
normal. See the difference? I never said abnormalaties like cleft
palate or hypospadias should not be fixed.



I WOULD have had this removed if we could have done it before she
turned 1.
As time went on every dr suggested a later and later age and by the
time she
can have it done I would rather just let her make up her own mind about
this
one. She is now 2 1/2 and would hate to do anything to make her hand
unusable for any amount of time..


Of course you did the right thing. A foreskin is normal, an extra
thumb, a cleft palate or any other medical condition should be
treated. A healthy foreskin should not be removed.


Yes and why bother with shots? After all there is no current medical
requirement at the time of the shots.


This is a time-honored red herring.



What you are trying to avoid is the principle involved.

The principle is the same for vaccinations as it is for circumcision. It
reduces some future risk. I would say that there is a far greater impact
on the individual through tampering with his "natural" immune system that
through liberating a male from that hideous appendage.

Are you incapable of discussing an unnecessary surgical procedure without
using adjectives like 'hideous' and derogatory phrases such as 'skin freak'?
I'd like to see you try. Just once. One post, please, where you address
issues without tossing in a few gratuitous epithets.

It therefore follows that given the skin freak commitment to all things
"natural" that a fundamental contradiction is evident then they rant and
rave about the foreskin yet say naught about the preservation of the
natural human immune system.

I think you will find a great many people who are not only in favor of
leaving little boys intact unless medically necessary, but are also wary of
vaccinations for the unintended impact they may have on a child.

I have no idea why you insist on referring to parents who wish to spare
their boy children unnecessary surgery as 'skin freaks'.

My husband was all for having a boy child cut, until, among other things, we
had a girl child who required multiple surgeries (heart, stomach). After
that, he agreed with me: no surgeries unless medically necessary.
Personally, I consider this respectful of the child.

--angela

Hi,

Sorry to barge in and not taking a stand, I think that these may be of
interest to you:

http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/faq39.html

http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/journal31.html

Definition of narcissist:

http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/npdglance.html

http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/1.html

Take care.

Sam

"Tori M." ) writes:
and it does not get in the way of things why have it removed? The point was
that we can have drs proform surgery that will affect our children.. surely
you are not saying that my sons forskin is somehow better then my daughters
extra thumb? After all one is a flap of skin.. the other is a limb with a
bone and a nail.

How interesting -- an extra thumb! I hope she decides to
keep it. Can she move it? Can she use it for anything?

Suppose a parent decided to remove their baby's normal
finger for some reason: maybe they think 4 fingers on a
hand are all a person needs. Would you think that would
be fine? I see a definite distinction between removing
extra parts that other people don't have, and removing
normal parts.
--
Cathy

"Catherine Woodgold" wrote in message
...

"Tori M." ) writes:
and it does not get in the way of things why have it removed? The point
was
that we can have drs proform surgery that will affect our children..
surely
you are not saying that my sons forskin is somehow better then my
daughters
extra thumb? After all one is a flap of skin.. the other is a limb with
a
bone and a nail.

How interesting -- an extra thumb! I hope she decides to
keep it. Can she move it? Can she use it for anything?
She can not move it independantly of the *normal* thumb on that hand. My
point was that if I chose to remove that thumb while it is not *normal* it
still has nerve endings and feeling. To her it is no more differant then my
hand. If it had been able to be removed before she was a year old I would
have had it removed so her hand looked normal. Turns out that the operation
to remove it would have been a complicated one for her little hand. The drs
reccomended differant ages for removal all saying that they see no reason to
remove it in the first place.

Suppose a parent decided to remove their baby's normal
finger for some reason: maybe they think 4 fingers on a
hand are all a person needs. Would you think that would
be fine?

Nope.

I see a definite distinction between removing
extra parts that other people don't have, and removing
normal parts.
If the extra parts are in anyway a risk then I am all for removing them. If
Bonnies extra thumb interfered with her ability to use her left hand I would
have it removed no questions asked. I dont see having a child get an
operation just to look like everyone else.

Tori

--
Bonnie 3/20/02
Xavier due 10/17/04

Jake Waskett wrote in message .uk...
Dan wrote:

On the contrary, it is the wiser pro-intact folks who study the
insanity of medical profession in detail.

But Dan, didn't you recently argue that your position was that of the major
medical organisations? How can you turn around and say the opposite?

You must be confusing me with someone else. Generally, that's not my style.