A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » Pregnancy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Why do parents keep doing this?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 15th 04, 05:16 PM
Briar Rabbit
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

nooneimportant wrote:

My experience is that those who promote the foreskin are shocking liars.



Sensible you say? To "be" one of the minority just to be so?

Are you also going to support those who want to legalize sex with
children ... they are also in the minority.



Are you also going to support those who believe that domestic rape is
not a crime ... they are also in the minority.

Or are you going to just jump to support those who support the foreskin
for wild psychosexual reasons?



Ok... now that is just the off the wall response that i find eerily typical.
Somehow linking someones desire for intactness to pedaresty and rape.....



What did you suggest in your original post?

That people should should side with the minority. Not for any reason
other that they are the minority.

I just exposed how absolutely stupid such an attitude is ... and to
think you thought you were being cute and clever?

Are you really this stupid or just feeling defensive about your hideousness?



  #12  
Old August 15th 04, 05:17 PM
Briar Rabbit
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Igor van den Hoven wrote:

Briar Rabbit wrote in message ...


Sensible you say? To "be" one of the minority just to be so?



Actually, circumcised men are a minority worldwide. Freaky, isn't it?



Did you read his post? Did you understand the context?
  #13  
Old August 15th 04, 05:27 PM
Briar Rabbit
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Igor van den Hoven wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote in message .uk...


The foreskin, of course, is broadly speaking a fold of skin, under which is
a warm, moist environment. The fold traps dead cells, urine, sweat, and -
significantly - bacteria. Of course, the warm, moist environment is the
perfect breeding ground for bacteria, and so they multiply, contributing to
the foul smell of smegma as they do.



Honestly, you should promote female circumcision instead, because men
have an easier time cleaning their warm, and moist environment, than
women, who happen to produce smegma as well.



If you were heterosexual you would be aware that the problem odour which
some women have a problem dealing with is vaginal. That means it comes
from within and is useually caused by some infection or other. Women
seem to have no problem in dealing with the external elements of their
genitals, so why do men?
  #15  
Old August 15th 04, 05:51 PM
Briar Rabbit
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Sarah Vaughan wrote:

In message , Briar Rabbit



My experience is that those who promote the foreskin are shocking liars.



In what way?



There is a general rule that if you scratch a little at the surface of
what they say you will 10 to one open up a can of worms. Just watch how
this thread develops.



Sensible you say? To "be" one of the minority just to be so?



No. To be one of the uncircumcised, regardless of whether that's the
minority or the majority, because it avoids unnecessary harm and
discomfort.



Harm? What harm would that be?

The discomfort of the post circumcision period is minor and should not
be exaggerated ... unless you have an agenda?





I don't know, as I haven't heard the wild psychosexual reasons. Of
course, I've heard from several men who support keeping the foreskin
because sex is more pleasurable with a foreskin, but making sex more
pleasurable doesn't strike me as a wild reason.




These several men? They were circumcised as adults and now are able to
make a valid comparison? If that is the group (you are talking about)
then the findings are the opposite of what you claim. You are not
deliberately trying to deceive people are you?

Read this one for starters then:

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

Conference Abstract number: TuPeB4648

Adult male circumcision in Kenya: safety and patient satisfaction

C J O Opeya1, B O Ayieko1, A Kawango1, M O Onyango1, S Moses2, R C
Bailey3, J O Ndinya-Achola4, J N Krieger5
1UNIM Project, Kisumu, Kenya; 2University of Manitoba, Winipeg,
Canada; 3University of Illinois, Chicago, United States; 4University
of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya; 5University of Washington, Seattle, United
States


Background: There is growing interest in male circumcision as a method
of reducing HIV transmission. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of
male circumcision (MC) to reduce HIV incidence is underway in Kenya.
If MC is found to be efficacious in reducing HIV incidence, then the
rates and severity of complications must still be weighed against
benefits of the procedure. We report frequency of adverse events (AEs)
and satisfaction resulting from circumcisions performed during the
initial phase of the RCT.


Methods: Healthy, 18-24 year-old, consenting men are randomized to
circumcision and control arms. Those in the circumcision arm undergo
surgery using local anesthesia (maximum 15 ml 2% lidocaine). They are
followed up at 3, 8, 30, and 90 days post operatively, or whenever
they need to return to the clinic.


Results: Among the first 380 circumcisions, there were
14procedure-related AEs (3.6%) from 13 participants: 4 bleeding; 3
post-operative site infections; 3 other infections; and 4 other
complications. Nine AEs (2.4%) were definitely related, 3 probably
related and 2 possibly related to the surgery. All were mild or
moderate and resolved within hours or several days of detection. Most
AEs occurred in the first 3 months of the study. At 30 days
post-surgery, 99.3% of men reported being very satisfied and 0.7%
somewhat satisfied with circumcision. None were dissatisfied. Men
reported returning to work after a median of 3 days (range 0-21) and
to general activities after a median of 1 day (0-3 days). All sexual
partners who were aware of the man's new circumcision status were very
satisfied with the results.


Conclusions: Circumcisions can be performed safely in this setting
with no serious or lasting complications and with high levels of
patient satisfaction. Lessons learned from this trial will be useful
if MC is to be introduced widely as an intervention.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unasha...rc/message/419
  #16  
Old August 15th 04, 06:39 PM
Chotii
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Briar Rabbit" wrote in message
...
Sarah Vaughan wrote:



No. To be one of the uncircumcised, regardless of whether that's the
minority or the majority, because it avoids unnecessary harm and
discomfort.



Harm? What harm would that be?

The discomfort of the post circumcision period is minor and should not be
exaggerated ... unless you have an agenda?


No more than your own, sir. In the study you quote, please note that the
participants were consenting adults who chose to have surgeries. Their
post-surgical discomfort was within tolerable ranges, and they were pleased
with their choice. Presumably, there were also men who chose not to have the
surgery, and remained intact.

If post-surgical discomfort is minor, then why should not consenting adults
choose it if they wish?

It seems to me that the dissatisfaction of that minority who now, having
been altered at birth, discover they must go to years(!) of effort in order
to re-create a facsimile of what other men take for granted....matters. It
matters to *them*. And neither you nor I may tell them that they should just
be happy with what they don't have, because they're not. Conversely, for all
the millions of men who are perfectly happy with their altered state, we
must accept that they are happy.

It is not our place, as a society, to decide that all men will or should be
happy being altered, and that the few who won't be are irrelevent - and
anyway, even if they are unhappy, they shouldn't be and there's something
wrong with them - and cut all male infants anyway. The cost to those who
will be unhappy afterward is too high. To those who wish to be altered
later, as you say......the discomfort is minor and should not be
exaggerated.

--angela


  #17  
Old August 15th 04, 09:09 PM
nooneimportant
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Chotii" wrote in message
.. .

"Briar Rabbit" wrote in message
...
Sarah Vaughan wrote:



No. To be one of the uncircumcised, regardless of whether that's the
minority or the majority, because it avoids unnecessary harm and
discomfort.



Harm? What harm would that be?

The discomfort of the post circumcision period is minor and should not

be
exaggerated ... unless you have an agenda?


No more than your own, sir. In the study you quote, please note that the
participants were consenting adults who chose to have surgeries. Their
post-surgical discomfort was within tolerable ranges, and they were

pleased
with their choice. Presumably, there were also men who chose not to have

the
surgery, and remained intact.

If post-surgical discomfort is minor, then why should not consenting

adults
choose it if they wish?

It seems to me that the dissatisfaction of that minority who now, having
been altered at birth, discover they must go to years(!) of effort in

order
to re-create a facsimile of what other men take for granted....matters. It
matters to *them*. And neither you nor I may tell them that they should

just
be happy with what they don't have, because they're not. Conversely, for

all
the millions of men who are perfectly happy with their altered state, we
must accept that they are happy.

It is not our place, as a society, to decide that all men will or should

be
happy being altered, and that the few who won't be are irrelevent - and
anyway, even if they are unhappy, they shouldn't be and there's something
wrong with them - and cut all male infants anyway. The cost to those who
will be unhappy afterward is too high. To those who wish to be altered
later, as you say......the discomfort is minor and should not be
exaggerated.

--angela



I agree 100%, to follow up on the post-surgical discomfort, and as you
stated in your post, the participants of the study were all men who
willingly choose to have their foreskin amputated. Now then lets take a
group of 100 intact men, randomly chosen and FORCE THEM to undergo
circumcision, even if they don't want it. And you will have a very high
rate of dissatisfaction and postoperative pain. Take a round the house
example. You decide to paint your house bright green, so you either hire
someone to do it, or go get the paint/supplies and do it yourself. Chances
are you will be happy with the result, because you underwent the project
KNOWING it was what you wanted to do. Now lets say that your neighborhood
association came along and told you that you must paint your house hot pink,
now lets assume that you HATE hot pink. Chances are you will NOT like the
results even tho you didn't have to do a thing. So whats the difference
between the two scenarios.... In one case someone did the research and made
a choice to proceed, in the other case it was a forced change that was not
wanted. Circumcision is the same. If someone dislikes being intact and
wants to be circ'd they will most likely be pleased with the result (unless
there are complications!). If someone likes being intact but is forced to
cut, i bet they won't like it at all, even if its "painless". I have a
wonderful idea... LETS FORCE EVERYONE TO CUT OFF THEIR EARLOBES... I bet you
won't like that, I won't like it for that matter, even tho it has very
little (if any) function i bet you don't want to part with it. Now lets
assume that you don't like your earlobes, and want to cut them off yourself,
then i bet you'd be happy with the results after surgery.

Another example of skewed statistics to meet an agenda.

(did you know that dihydrogen monoxide is found in 100% of all people that
die from cancer?)


  #18  
Old August 15th 04, 09:33 PM
Briar Rabbit
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Chotii wrote:

"Briar Rabbit" wrote in message
...

Sarah Vaughan wrote:




No. To be one of the uncircumcised, regardless of whether that's the
minority or the majority, because it avoids unnecessary harm and
discomfort.



Harm? What harm would that be?

The discomfort of the post circumcision period is minor and should not be
exaggerated ... unless you have an agenda?



No more than your own, sir. In the study you quote, please note that the
participants were consenting adults who chose to have surgeries. Their
post-surgical discomfort was within tolerable ranges, and they were pleased
with their choice. Presumably, there were also men who chose not to have the
surgery, and remained intact.



There were two issues. One related to post surgical discomfort and the
second (and unrelated) was about adults being happy or unhappy about
being circumcised. Why did you choose to fuse the two together?

You state that (from the study I posted) the "post-surgical discomfort
was within tolerable ranges". Where did you get that from? The study did
not refer to this aspect at all. Why do you choose to misrepresent the
study?


If post-surgical discomfort is minor, then why should not consenting adults
choose it if they wish?


Try that again in English please.


It seems to me that the dissatisfaction of that minority who now, having
been altered at birth, discover they must go to years(!) of effort in order
to re-create a facsimile of what other men take for granted....matters. It
matters to *them*. And neither you nor I may tell them that they should just
be happy with what they don't have, because they're not. Conversely, for all
the millions of men who are perfectly happy with their altered state, we
must accept that they are happy.



Oh ... you mean those sad and pathetic creatures called "tuggers" who
hang weights from their penises to stretch themselves some skin?

Here is a study into the psychosexual pathology behind the practice of
foreskin restoration.

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

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.

  #19  
Old August 15th 04, 09:47 PM
Briar Rabbit
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

nooneimportant wrote:

"Chotii" wrote in message
.. .

"Briar Rabbit" wrote in message
...

Sarah Vaughan wrote:



No. To be one of the uncircumcised, regardless of whether that's the
minority or the majority, because it avoids unnecessary harm and
discomfort.



Harm? What harm would that be?

The discomfort of the post circumcision period is minor and should not


be

exaggerated ... unless you have an agenda?


No more than your own, sir. In the study you quote, please note that the
participants were consenting adults who chose to have surgeries. Their
post-surgical discomfort was within tolerable ranges, and they were


pleased

with their choice. Presumably, there were also men who chose not to have


the

surgery, and remained intact.

If post-surgical discomfort is minor, then why should not consenting


adults

choose it if they wish?

It seems to me that the dissatisfaction of that minority who now, having
been altered at birth, discover they must go to years(!) of effort in


order

to re-create a facsimile of what other men take for granted....matters. It
matters to *them*. And neither you nor I may tell them that they should


just

be happy with what they don't have, because they're not. Conversely, for


all

the millions of men who are perfectly happy with their altered state, we
must accept that they are happy.

It is not our place, as a society, to decide that all men will or should


be

happy being altered, and that the few who won't be are irrelevent - and
anyway, even if they are unhappy, they shouldn't be and there's something
wrong with them - and cut all male infants anyway. The cost to those who
will be unhappy afterward is too high. To those who wish to be altered
later, as you say......the discomfort is minor and should not be
exaggerated.

--angela




I agree 100%, to follow up on the post-surgical discomfort, and as you
stated in your post, the participants of the study were all men who
willingly choose to have their foreskin amputated.


But you miss the point dear skin freak. If as you skin freaks state that
an uncircumcised man would rather die than willingly submit to
circumcision why would these men have lined up to be liberated from that
hideous appendage?

And I notice that you choose to ignore the following: "All sexual
partners who were aware of the man's new circumcision status were very
satisfied with the results."

Now why would this be? You skin freaks have been trying to sell a crock
that women prefer a foreskinned man. What drives you skin freaks to be
such shocking liars?

  #20  
Old August 15th 04, 09:59 PM
Chotii
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

"Briar Rabbit" wrote in message
...

Sarah Vaughan wrote:




No. To be one of the uncircumcised, regardless of whether that's the
minority or the majority, because it avoids unnecessary harm and
discomfort.



Harm? What harm would that be?

The discomfort of the post circumcision period is minor and should not be
exaggerated ... unless you have an agenda?



No more than your own, sir. In the study you quote, please note that the
participants were consenting adults who chose to have surgeries. Their
post-surgical discomfort was within tolerable ranges, and they were
pleased with their choice. Presumably, there were also men who chose not
to have the surgery, and remained intact.



There were two issues. One related to post surgical discomfort and the
second (and unrelated) was about adults being happy or unhappy about being
circumcised. Why did you choose to fuse the two together?


You, sir, have fused them. You imply that the pain from circumcision is so
minor as to be irrelevent, and that any man who is unhappy with having been
altered is somehow wrong in the head. You have fused them by saying the one
is irrelevent, and the second is an indication of some mental abberation.

You state that (from the study I posted) the "post-surgical discomfort was
within tolerable ranges". Where did you get that from? The study did not
refer to this aspect at all. Why do you choose to misrepresent the study?


Excuse me. I conflated your comment that the pain is minimal, with the study
finding that adverse effects were "mild or
moderate and resolved within hours or several days of detection".

If post-surgical discomfort is minor, then why should not consenting
adults choose it if they wish?


Try that again in English please.


If post-surgical discomfort is so minor, then why can it not be left to
consenting adults to choose, or not choose, as they see fit? The amount of
pain is negligible, and brief, and should have no impact on said informed,
consenting adult who chooses it.


It seems to me that the dissatisfaction of that minority who now, having
been altered at birth, discover they must go to years(!) of effort in
order to re-create a facsimile of what other men take for
granted....matters. It matters to *them*. And neither you nor I may tell
them that they should just be happy with what they don't have, because
they're not. Conversely, for all the millions of men who are perfectly
happy with their altered state, we must accept that they are happy.



Oh ... you mean those sad and pathetic creatures called "tuggers" who hang
weights from their penises to stretch themselves some skin?

Here is a study into the psychosexual pathology behind the practice of
foreskin restoration.


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.


Perhaps you missed the part where the researchers' "curiosity led to empathy
for the discomfort felt by these patients, discomfort (with body image)
largely relieved by the foreskin restoration".

It appears to me that these men have benefitted from having their bodies
"restored". Why exactly is this a problem? Why is it "pathetic" for tuggers
to alter their bodies to match their body image? Do you have the same
reaction to women who seek breast augmentation, rhinoplasty, or any other
body alteration?

The simple fact is, any consenting adult male can choose to alter his body
by circumcision, and *you* clearly think this is a fine thing. But let a man
attempt to alter his (already altered) body by tugging, surgery, or other
means, and you think he's pathetic.

You are inconsistent. And you lack the empathy that the researchers confess
to having felt.

And by the way, a study of four men doesn't convince me that ALL men seeking
foreskin restoration are suffering identical "issues". It does tell me
something about those men. That's all.

--angela


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Basic Rights of Foster Parents [email protected] Foster Parents 5 December 20th 03 03:37 PM
Kids should work. ChrisScaife Spanking 16 December 7th 03 05:27 AM
Kids should work. ChrisScaife Foster Parents 16 December 7th 03 05:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.