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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Briar Rabbit" wrote in message ... 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? Ok... where did i state that? I simply stated that in that study the participants had a CHOICE... how many other intact men had that choice and choose NOT to get cut and participate in that study? The big factor is and always will be CHOICE. I don't have a single problem if someone CHOOSES to get cut, thats their choice, and i'm quite sure they will be happy with it. But taking that choice away and making it a requirement is flat out wrong. Whose body is it? Hideous Appendage is your opinion, and i'm sure many people will agree with you, but the fact of the matter is that its not the ONLY opinion. I for one think pink ties are hideous, but not everyone does. 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." AGAIN these were participants who WILLINGLY got cut. Could it not be possible for the particapants partner to have an opinion of the decision making? How may intact men have satisfied partners? Just cus a man is intact doesn't automagically mean that their partner is NOT satisifed. You are skewing logic here. 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? There you go again, throwing a blanket accusation, you really are good at that you know, been lurking for a long time and thats all i see you do with any skill. I am quite sure that there are women that prefer cut men, and understandably so in a society that is mainly cut, cus its what they are used to. Go to europe, and ask the same question to women who have largely known intact men...... Even here in the States there are women that prefer an intact penis, but many have NEVER EVEN HAD THE CHANCE TO TRY ONE cus they have been systemically removed from our culture, i know that simple statement hurts because it goes against your blanket accusation. GIVE MEN A CHOICE, GIVE WOMEN MORE OPTIONS. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Chotii wrote:
"Briar Rabbit" wrote in message 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. I did not imply anything of the kind. I said: "The discomfort of the post circumcision period is minor and should not be exaggerated." This does not imply anything of the sort you attempt to misrepresent me with. The right treatment, the right analgesics and any post-surgical discomfort is indeed minor. So why are you misrepresenting what I said? 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". I said the discomfort was minor. In the absence of analgesics the pain would be significant. The % of AE's were so low as not to be a factor other than to consider where poverty related poor diets lead to suppressed immune systems and a higher than normal likelihood of infections then an anti-biotic shot should be considered at the time of the procedure or even before. 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. They did choose you silly old goose. They were the first 380 volunteers in a greater study on the protective effect of male circumcision against HIV infection. Now the connection between HIV infection and the foreskin is another horror story. 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. 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". Of course there must be empathy, pity and all the rest. These people are mentally ill, they need help, they need to be cared for, they need to be on medication. 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? I feel the same pity. 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. Yes any male can choose to be circumcised or to hang weights from his penis to get some skin. One can accept that. The question is why do they decide to do it? These questions need to be answered and we may not always like the answers we get. You are inconsistent. And you lack the empathy that the researchers confess to having felt. No I am consistently unsympathetic to these lunatic "tuggers". If they just locked themselves in the attic and hung weights from their penises that would be manageable. They could be placed on the mental health watch register and managed on a case by case basis. It is when then attempt to justify there psycho-sexual pathology by waging war against all circumcision for whatever reason. They then need to be institutionalized and certainly restricted from contact with children. 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. Be careful now. Sarah Vaughan's sample of "several men who support keeping the foreskin" seemed to have passed unchallenged by you. Why was that? Who is being inconsistent now? |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
nooneimportant wrote:
"Briar Rabbit" wrote in message 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? Ok... where did i state that? I simply stated that in that study the participants had a CHOICE... how many other intact men had that choice and choose NOT to get cut and participate in that study? The big factor is and always will be CHOICE. I don't have a single problem if someone CHOOSES to get cut, thats their choice, and i'm quite sure they will be happy with it. But taking that choice away and making it a requirement is flat out wrong. Whose body is it? Hideous Appendage is your opinion, and i'm sure many people will agree with you, but the fact of the matter is that its not the ONLY opinion. I for one think pink ties are hideous, but not everyone does. see separate reply 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." AGAIN these were participants who WILLINGLY got cut. Could it not be possible for the particapants partner to have an opinion of the decision making? How may intact men have satisfied partners? Just cus a man is intact doesn't automagically mean that their partner is NOT satisifed. You are skewing logic here. I am not saying they are automatically unhappy. I would love to know how the deal with the stink though. What you say ... no head? 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? There you go again, throwing a blanket accusation, you really are good at that you know, been lurking for a long time and thats all i see you do with any skill. I am quite sure that there are women that prefer cut men, and understandably so in a society that is mainly cut, cus its what they are used to. Go to europe, and ask the same question to women who have largely known intact men...... Even here in the States there are women that prefer an intact penis, but many have NEVER EVEN HAD THE CHANCE TO TRY ONE cus they have been systemically removed from our culture, i know that simple statement hurts because it goes against your blanket accusation. GIVE MEN A CHOICE, GIVE WOMEN MORE OPTIONS. Yes I know there are women (in the US) who prefer the uncircumcised penis under all and any circumstance. 1% as found by the Williamson survey. They are called skin freaks as they seem to be turned on by the bodily excrement found under the foreskin. I suppose they would be into "rimming" (butt licking) as well. Here is the Williamson survey: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unasha...rc/message/413 =============================== WOMEN'S PREFERENCES FOR PENILE CIRCUMCISION IN SEXUAL PARTNERS Marvel L. Williamson, Ph.D., R.N. Assistant Professor, College of Nursing The University of Iowa Iowa City, IA 52242 Paul S. Williamson, M.D. Associate Professor, College of Medicine The University of Iowa Iowa City, IA Abstract Regardless of pediatricians' attempts to negate routine newborn circumcision, U.S. circumcision rates remain constant. This study hypothesized that, because circumcision is usually a maternal choice and the circumcised penises are perceived by young women as more attractive, most women prefer circumcision for sexual reasons. Of 145 new mothers of sons responding to this survey, 71-83% preferred circumcised penises for each sexual activity listed. Visual appeal and sexual hygiene were predominant reasons for favoring circumcised sexual partners. Even among women having sexual experience only with uncircumcised partners, only half preferred uncircumcised penises for sexual partners. Eighty-nine percent of the sample had had their sons circumcised. This study furthers debate over whether circumcision decisions should be based solely on medical considerations limited to the newborn period. In spite of recent attempt by the American Academy of Pediatrics and other organizations to persuade the public to abandon the practice of routine newborn circumcision (e.g., Thompson, King & Knox, 1975; American Academy of Pediatrics, 1984), new parents have continued to request the procedure at the same high rates (Metcalf, Osborn, & Mariani, 1983). In the United States, approximately 75-90% of newborn males are circumcised, compared to only 10% of Europeans and 20% of males in general worldwide (Jones, 1985; Wallerstein, 1985). One survey of 200 women concerning their maternal attitudes [towards] circumcision revealed that mothers were not giving medically valid reasons for having their sons circumcised, and the authors concluded that health care providers needed to do a better job of educating parents about the medical risks and benefits of the procedure (Lovell & Cox, 1979). Even after other researchers launched extensive programs to inform prospective parents about the lack of "absolute medical indication" for circumcision, no significant change in the rate of newborn circumcisions could be observed in targeted samples (Herrera, Hsu, Salcedo, & Ruiz, 1982; Herrera, Cochran, Herrera, & Wallace, 1983; Land & Policastro, 1983; Rand, Emmons, & Johnson, 1983; Stein, Marx, Taggart, & Bass, 1982). Parents within the United States who do not have their sons circumcised report the main reason is cultural. That is, most are a part of a subgroup, often Hispanic, that traditionally does not circumcise (Ernst, Philip, & Orman, 1987). Only 10% of the subjects who choose to leave their sons uncircumcised cite being convinced on the basis of reading or on physician's advice (Kreuger & Osborn, 1986; Stein et al., 1982). It has been demonstrated that mothers more than fathers usually decide whether to have their sons circumcised (Bean & Egelhoff, 1984; Williamson & Williamson, 1984). Although informed consent for circumcision now includes information on how easy it can be to give proper penile hygiene to an uncircumcised baby, mothers persist in their desire to have their male infants circumcised. This trend is particularly noteworthy within the current financial context in which many third party payers deny coverage for newborn circumcisions (Medical World News, 1986. Review of the Literature and Conceptual Framework Controversy characterized the history of circumcision. Circumcision has existed since the Stone Age for unknown reasons (Jacobs, 1943). In earliest written records documenting its use, religious beliefs required that the male foreskin be removed as an outward display of faith and membership in the group. In some cultures, circumcision signified a boy's entrance into manhood. In whatever setting, the uncircumcised were looked down upon for being pagan or unmasculine. Later, the European elite class made circumcision exclusive privilege in the Victorian era (Jones, 1985). This notion persisted even into the early twentieth century as evidence that a man had been born into a situation where the luxury of circumcision could be afforded. Circumcision has not solely been a status symbol, however. Within certain circumstances it was a necessity. Entire armies found themselves immobilized by balanitis, a painful inflammation under the foreskin due primarily to lack of access to bathing facilities. (King, 1979) Societies that live in arid, sandy environments where water is precious learned long ago about the merits of circumcision. Even today, hygiene can be so difficult within some segments of the health care system, such as in institutions for the elderly or the mentally handicapped where patients may resist personal hygiene care, that circumcision eventually has to be performed to prevent infections or other complications of the foreskin (Harris, 1986). Inadequate penile hygiene, which is more likely in uncircumcised men, is resurfacing again as a predictor of carcinoma of the penis (Jussawalla, Yeole, & Natekar, 1985). After the proclamation by the American Academy of Pediatrics against circumcision, studies have since begun reporting a relationship between uncircumcision and the incidence of urinary tract infection in male children (Ginsburg & McCracken, 1982; Shapiro, 1984; Wiswell et al, 1987). Other complications, especially balanitis, bring about significantly more medical visits for uncircumcised boys than for penile problems in circumcised boys (Herzog & Alverez, 1986). Good hygiene, which itself can be difficult for even the best intentioned parents, does not entirely eliminate these problems (Krueger & Osborn, 1986). It is argued, therefore, that pediatricians have an incomplete perspective in the current debate over whether circumcision for newborns is necessary. Furthermore, medical indications and contradictions aside, insight into the cultural and sexual rationale for why the American public and American women in particular prefer circumcision is missing. Social reasons for circumcision, when conceded at all, are dismissed by medical personnel as being unjustifiable vis-a-vis existing "scientific" proof. In addition, arguments that cite historical fallacies about circumcision fail tests of logic when posing as premises for concluding that circumcision for any reason is wrong (Grossman & Posner, 1984). The debate on medical grounds seems to miss a major portion of the reasoning, though. In the face of the current campaign against circumcision, why is it still requested at such high rates? What motivations do American women have for wanting American males to be circumcised? In a study by Bean and Egelhoff of 277 new mothers of sons, 78% reported favoring circumcision even before becoming pregnant and having to make a conscious choice affecting a son, and 91% ultimately decide to have their newborn son circumcised (1984). Even those woman whose husbands were uncircumcised overwhelmingly opted for circumcision. The reason must seem important enough to woman for them to withstand pressure from physicians and others who oppose circumcision. Brown & Brown go as far as to say that "the circumcision decision of the United States is emerging as a cultural ritual rather than the result of medical misunderstanding among parents" (1987). One idea that has been overlooked is that the penis is a sexual instrument, not just a passageway for urination. For example, circumcision at puberty in nonliterate cultures is in some ways a sexual recognition of the emerging man (Bettelheim, 1954; Money, Cawte, Bianchi, & Nurcombe, 1970; Kitahara, 1976). The permanent exposure of the glans of the penis renders it a sexual tool. Most research conducted previously on the reasons newborn males are circumcised fails to include a reference to the perceived sexual appeal of a circumcised penis over an uncircumcised one. Typical lists of reasons from which the subjects could choose offered only hygiene, religion, father's or sibling's circumcision status, and other traditional explanations. At the most, an "Other" category included in some surveys caught untold thoughts on the perceived advantage of circumcision. Without the inclusion of sexual attitudes toward penis type on such a list, respondents would typically hesitate to spontaneously present sexual rationale favoring circumcision, particularly in reference to a newborn penis. Admitting to sexual desires and preferences is difficult enough for subjects even in straightforward studies. Without the researcher conceding the possibility, it is not likely a mother would volunteer information about her hopes for her son's future sexual attractiveness. It was not until a study on cultural values associated with the decision to circumcise, in which Harris used unstructured interviews, that the sexual overtones of newborn circumcision were explicitly reported (1986). One of her findings was that a circumcised penis has a certain "cosmetic appeal," that in America the exposed glans is more pleasing aesthetically. She concluded that circumcision could be an acceptable practice based on cultural values, and that the health care delivery system could be a more "perceptive cultural broker" with regard to honoring a society's view of beauty. In asking various groups about why circumcision may be indicated, a few surveys have included a response category labeled "cultural," which may have been construed by some subjects to include sexual attitudes. One such study found that significantly more obstetricians than pediatricians believed that the culture was a valid reason for neonatal circumcision (Herrera & Macaraeg, 1984). What the concept of culture means, though, is that to many Americans circumcision seems to be normal because that is what they are accustomed to seeing. This could certainly be true, in that what people are used to is what they prefer. This cultural perspective brings circumcision into a new arena, one in which the rigidity by some health professionals fosters alienation and resistance (Gellis, 1978). Some go so far as to say that opting for circumcision indicates an emotional response that is not based on rational decision making (Brown & Brown, 1987). A study of female preference for certain male body parts showed that 89% of woman students at a southern college preferred pictures of circumcised penises over uncircumcised ones (Wildman, Wildman, Brown & Trice, 1976). This is as close as the literature comes to facing the persistent preference by American women for circumcision, as best displayed by new mothers of male infants. To date, no study has explored the possible sexual motivations behind circumcision, however. It was the purpose of this investigation, therefore, to determine if women, particularly mothers who recently made a decision about circumcision of their newborn sons, do indeed prefer circumcised sexual partners, and if so, for what reasons. This study hypothesized that most American woman prefer circumcised penises in their sexual relations, a factor unrelated to the purported lack of medical indications for the procedure. Methods Women 18 years of age and older who delivered full-term healthy sons within the previous month at a major midwest medical center comprised the targeted sample. Candidates for the study were chosen during a 6-month period based upon their willingness to participate in an earlier study that dealt with who and what influenced their decisions to circumcise or not circumcise their babies. The sample had been randomly selected and 85% made up the group to whom questionnaires were mailed for this study. Of the 269 women who received the questionnaire, 148 returned their forms yielding a response rate of 55%. Three were unusable, yielding a final sample of 145. Due to the explicit sexual nature of the questions, this rate compares favorably to the other research studies investigating such personal sexual issues. Because there had been no previous data collection tool seeking this type of information, it is necessary to first confirm the content validity through its review by several experts. The survey instrument was tested on a pilot group of women who gave subsequent feedback about its clarity and the completeness of the response options available from which to choose. By comparing the outcome of this questionnaire to certain items on the previously conducted study on the group of 269, it was also possible to establish the reliability of the individual subject's responses over a period of time. The survey was highly personal, asking the women about their own sexual experiences with men and about their preferences for circumcised or uncircumcised penises for various sexual activities. No reference was made to the women's decision to circumcise their own sons or not. This survey dealt entirely with adult sexual experiences and preferences in order to distinguish the two issues and allow for correlational tests between their choices as parents and their attitudes as sexual adult women. Each subject had received a thorough review of circumcision at the hospital when deciding about their son's candidacy for the procedure. Each was also shown drawings of both uncircumcised and circumcised penises. It was assumed, therefore, that the subjects knew what circumcision meant and what types of penises their sexual partners had. Lay terminology was used in each question. Prior to implementation of the study, all procedures and tools received approval by a human research subjects' rights board. Confidentiality was guaranteed to the subjects and was maintained throughout the study. Results Most of the newborn sons of mothers in the sample had been circumcised (89%). This percent is similar to the circumcision rate prevailing in the geographic area at the time of data collection. Of the women in the sample, 83.7% were married, 12.8% were single, and 3.5% were separated, divorced, or widowed. By race, 97.9% were Caucasian, 1.4% were black, and 0.7% were Hispanic. Another characteristic consistent with the midwest population generally was religion: 46.1% were Protestant, 21.3% were Catholic, 29.1% claimed no religion, 0.7% were Jewish, and the remaining 2.8% listed other religions. The group was well educated. All but 12.7% had finished high school and 25.3% had at least some higher education. Fourteen percent had finished college. There was a weak correlation between higher education and the choice to circumcise the newborn (rpb = 0.27). In response to the question "With which penis types have you had sexual experience?", 16.5% revealed that they had had sexual contract with both circumcised and uncircumcised men. Only 5.5% had sexual experience exclusively with uncircumcised sexual partners, and the remainder of the sample was sexually experienced only with circumcised men. The responses to "If you could choose anyone for your ideal male sex partner, which circumcision type would you prefer he have for the following activities?" as shown in Table 1. There was a strong correlation between the circumcision status of her newborn son and a woman's ideal male partner's status for the purpose of intercourse (phi = 0.86)m, and a moderate correlation for visual appeal (phi = 0. 50). To investigate any possible relationship between the circumcision status of one's father or brothers and the preferred type of ideal sexual partner, correlational tests were made on those subjects who knew whether these family members were circumcised. No similarities were found that could be attributed to childhood exposed to penises of either type (phi = 0.12 for fathers and 0.06 for brothers). It was interesting to note that 22% of the sample did not know whether their fathers were circumcised and of those who had brothers, 9% did not know whether they were circumcised. TABLE ONE Activity Penis Type Circumcised (%) Uncircumcised (%) Either (%) Sexual Intercourse.......71.............6...............2 3 Looking at to achieve....76.............4...............20 sexual arousal Giving manual............75.............5...............2 0 penile stimulation Giving Fellatio..........83.............2...............1 5 It could be surmised that some women prefer circumcised penises because that is their sole experience in sexual contacts. However, of the group with dual experience (N = 24), two-thirds favored circumcision exclusively and a significantly greater proportion preferred circumcised partners for all the sexual activities listed in Table 1 (p 0.01). Among those women who had sexual experience only with uncircumcised partners (N = 8), their past was more clearly correlated to their preferences. For each of the sexual activities presented, approximately half of this sub-group desired an uncircumcised penis and the other half said that penis type did not matter. Evidently, almost any sexual exposure to a circumcised [penis] swayed women to sexually prefer circumcision. That is only 1% of the entire sample consistently preferred uncircumcised partners for all sexual activities, and those subjects came entirely from the group which had had sexual experience only with uncircumcised penises. When asked "Why do you prefer one penis type over another for sex?", subjects were instructed to mark all options that applied to them. Among those preferring a circumcised penis, the reasons they indicated appeared in the following ranked order from most frequent to least: Stays cleaner (92 %) Looks sexier (90%) Feels nicer to touch (85%) Seems more natural (77%) Smells more pleasant (55%) Stays softer (54%) It was fascinating to find that so many women thought a circumcised penis seemed more natural, probably meaning to them "familiar" within the American cultural context. Among those preferring an uncircumcised penis, most also stated that to them it looked more natural, but no one in the entire study thought that an uncircumcised penis looked sexier. Overall, the factor correlating most strongly with whether the newborn son was circumcised was the subject's favorite penis type for sexual intercourse. There was little or no correlation between the newborn circumcision decision and demographic factors including race, upbringing, or sexual experiences. Conclusions This study clearly support the hypothesis that American women prefer circumcision for sexual reasons. The preference for circumcision does not necessarily come out of ignorance nor from lack of exposure to uncircumcised men. Even when women grow up with uncircumcised fathers and brothers, or have uncircumcised sexual partners, the majority of such a group still prefer circumcised sexual partners. Women state a preference for circumcised penises particularly for sexual activities like fellatio, but also for intercourse, manual stimulation, and visual appeal. They say that this is primarily due to circumcised penises being cleaner and looking sexier. The cleanliness of circumcised penises within the sexual context means something different from cleanliness as a hygiene factor to prevent balanitis and other complications. To a sexual partner, cleanliness is important because the penis tastes, smells, and looks more appealing. Spontaneous sexual activity is more likely to be enjoyable with a man who is circumcised, because bathing efforts last for longer periods of time. For the uncircumcised, washing under the foreskin must be attended to frequently to prevent the accumulation of any smegma, whereas in the circumcised male, the constant exposure or the coronal ring and the glans to air prevents the build up of odors and secretions. Of almost equal importance to cleanliness of the penis for sexual activities is the visual attractiveness of a circumcised penis. What is sexier about a circumcised penis? Perhaps visualizing the glans, the urinary meatus, and the corona without them being hidden under a foreskin is arousing. After all, such is the appearance of an erect penis, and sexual imagery of the erect penis involves exposure of the glans. While the foreskin of an uncircumcised penis can be retracted, the circumcised penis exists in exposed beauty whether flaccid or erect. Furthermore, in some uncircumcised men the foreskin can actually detract from the visual appeal of the penis. American producer of erotic films and publishers of photographic literature are careful, for example, on those rare occasions when uncircumcised models or actors are used, to select penises with foreskins that are smooth and free from extra wrinkled skin. Particularly to the unaccustomed eye, a puckered or wrinkled foreskin can lack sexual appeal. These findings suggest that the decision to have a new-born son circumcised may not be significantly affected by increasing the already rigorous efforts to explain the supposed lack of medical indications. While many mothers may not consciously view their sons as sexual beings, many may opt for circumcision with the belief that the son will be more sexually attractive to his future sexual partners, based on how they themselves feel. Future research can address this issue within a different cultural setting where most males are uncircumcised. Newborn circumcision need no longer be performed without local anesthesia (Kirya & Werthman, 1978; Williamson & Williamson, 1983), silencing the outcry against circumcision as a form of "barbarism" (Foley, 1966). Removal of the foreskin may be viewed as preventive care, not unlike procedures done in other areas of health care (such as the extraction of asymptomatic wisdom teeth). The opponents of circumcision argue in return against the imposition of such a decision without the affected newborn male's consent. In response, those favoring circumcision point out that the many men who later want or need to be circumcised face a major surgical procedure that would have presented only a minor inconvenience if done as an infant. Circumcision has, therefore, now become a much broader issue than one that can be dismissed on such narrow grounds as those proposed by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Not least among the considerations is the worth of sexual preference for male circumcision within the American culture as a valid reason for continuing the practice. References American Academy of Pediatrics (1984). Care of the uncircumcised penis. Elk Grove Village, IL: Author. Bean, G., & Egelhoff, C. (1984) Neonatal Circumcision: When is the decision made? The Journal of Family Practice, 18, 883-887. Bettelheim, B, (1954) Symbolic wounds: Puberty rites and the envious male. New York: Free Press. Brown, M., and Brown C. (1987) Circumcision decision: prominence of social concerns. Pediatrics, 80, 215-219. Ernst, T., Philip, M., & Orman, R. (1987). Neonatal circumcision rates in a multiethnic hospital population. Family Medicine, 19, 227-228. Foley, J, (1966). The practice of medicine - a reevaluation. New York: Materia Medica. Gellis, S. (1978). Circumcision. American Journal of Diseases in Children, 132, 1168-1169. Ginsberg, C., & McCracken, G. (1982). Urinary tract infections in young infants. Pediatrics, 69, 409. Grossman, E., & Posner, N. 1984. The circumcision controversy: An update. Obstetrics and Gynecology Annual, 13, 181-195. Harris, C. (1986). Cultural values and the decision to circumcise. Image: Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 18, 98-104. Herrera, A., Hsu, A., Salcedo, U., & Ruiz, M. (1982)The role of parental information in the incidence of circumcision. Pediatrics, 70, 597-598. Herrera, A., Cochran, B., Herrera, A. & Wallace, B. (1983). Parental information and circumcision in highly motivated couples with higher education. Pediatrics, 71, 233-234. Herrera, A., & Macaraeg, A. (1984) Physicians attitudes toward circumcision. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 145, 825-826. Herzog, L., & Alvarez, S. (1986). The frequency of foreskin problems in uncircumcised children. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 140, 254-256. Jacobs, S. (1943). Ritual circumcision. Urologic and Cutaneous Review, 47, 679. Jones, S. (1985). Infant circumcision: Procedures complications, and indications. Continuing Education, 833-845. Jussawalla, D., Yeole, B. Cancer in Indian Moslems, Cancer, 55, 1149-1158. King, L. (1979) The pros and cons of neonatal circumcision. Surgical Rounds, 2, 29. Kirya, C., & Werthman, M. (1978). Neonatal circumcision and penile dorsal nerve block - a painless procedure. Journal of Pediatrics, 92, 998-1000. Kitahara, M. (1976). A cross-cultural test of the Freudian theory of circumcision. International Journal of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy, 5, 535-546. Kreuger, M. & Osborn, L. (1986). Effects of hygiene among the uncircumcised. The Journal of Family Practice, 22, 353-355. Land, J., & Policastro, A. (1983). Parental Information and circumcision: Another look, Pediatrics, 72, 142-143. Metcalf, T., Osborn, L., & Mariani, E. (1983). Circumcision: A study of current practices. Clinical Pediatrics, 22, 575-579. Money, J., Cawte, J. Bianchi, G., & Nurcombe, B. (1970). Sex training and traditions in Arnhemland. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 43, 383-399. More insurers ending circumcision coverage. (1986). Medical World News, 27, 34. Rand, C., Emmons, C., & Johnson, J. (1983). The effect of an educational intervention on the rate of neonatal circumcision. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 62, 64-68. Shapiro, S. (1984). UTI in uncircumcised infants Report presented at the Symposium on Pediatric Infectious Diseases, University of California, Davis, School of Medicine and the Sacremento Pediatric Society. Stein, M., Marx, M. Taggart, S., & Bass, R. (1982). Routine neonatal circumcision: The gap between contemporary policy and practice Journal of Family Practice, 15, 47-53. Thompson, H., King L., & Knox, E. (1975) Report of the ad hoc task force on circumcision. Pediatrics, 56, 610-611. Wallerstein, E. (1985). Circumcision: The uniquely American medical dilemma. Urologic Clinics of North America, 12, 123-132. Wildman, R., Wildman II, R., Brown, A., & Trice, C. (1976) Note on males' and females' preferences for opposite sex body parts, bust sizes, and bust-revealing clothing. Psychologic Reports, 38, 485-486. Williamson, P., & Williamson, M. (1983). Physiologic stress reduction by a local anesthetic during newborn circumcision. Pediatrics, 76, 36-40. Williamson, P. & Williamson, M. (1984). The circumcision decision: Influences that determine newborn penile status. Unpublished manuscript. Wiswell, T, Enzenauer, R., Holton M., et al. (1987) Declining frequency of circumcision: Implications for changes in the absolute incidence and male to female ratio of urinary tract infections in early infancy. Pediatrics, 79, 338-342. ====================== This papers reference: Williamson, Marvel L., Ph.D., R.N. and Williamson, Paul S., M.D. Women's preference for penile circumcision in sexual partners. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, Vol. 14, No. 2 (Fall/Winter 1988): pp. 8-12. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
nooneimportant wrote:
"Briar Rabbit" wrote in message 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? There you go again, throwing a blanket accusation, you really are good at that you know, been lurking for a long time and thats all i see you do with any skill. I am quite sure that there are women that prefer cut men, and understandably so in a society that is mainly cut, cus its what they are used to. Go to europe, and ask the same question to women who have largely known intact men...... Even here in the States there are women that prefer an intact penis, but many have NEVER EVEN HAD THE CHANCE TO TRY ONE cus they have been systemically removed from our culture, i know that simple statement hurts because it goes against your blanket accusation. GIVE MEN A CHOICE, GIVE WOMEN MORE OPTIONS. Well the poor dears just don't have the option in these traditionally non-circumcising countries. Is it demanded by you skin freakls that expectant parents are sat down and given a balanced set of facts about the pros and cons of circumcision and allowed to make an educated guess? You don't because when it comes to the foreskin you have the very strange view that foreskins must be saved come what may ... and are not going to allow a few facts to get in the way of you grand obsession. Here is an example of what can happen when men in a non traditionally circumcising environment become informed about circumcision. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unasha...rc/message/347 ======================= Male circumcision: an acceptable strategy for HIV prevention in Botswana. Kebaabetswe P, Lockman S, Mogwe S, Mandevu R, Thior I, Essex M, Shapiro RL. The Botswana-Harvard AIDS Institute Partnership, Private Bag BO 320, Bontleng, Gaborone, Botswana. The Botswana Ministry of Health, Private Bag 0038, Gaborone, Botswana. The Harvard School of Public Health, Department of Immunology and Infectious Diseases, 651 Huntington Ave, FXB 401, Boston, MA 02115, USA. The University of Botswana, Private Bag UB 0022, Gaborone, Botswana. Sex Transm Infect. 2003 Jun;79(3):214-219. BACKGROUND: Male circumcision is known to reduce the risk of acquiring HIV, but few studies have been performed to assess its acceptability among either children or adults in sub-Saharan Africa. METHODS: We conducted a cross sectional survey in nine geographically representative locations in Botswana to determine the acceptability of male circumcision in the country, as well as the preferred age and setting for male circumcision. Interviews were conducted using standardised questionnaires both before and after an informational session outlining the risks and benefits of male circumcision. RESULTS: Among 605 people surveyed, the median age was 29 years (range 18-74 years), 52% were male, and 15 ethnicities were represented. Before the informational session, 408 (68%) responded that they would definitely or probably circumcise a male child if circumcision was offered free of charge in a hospital setting; this number increased to 542 (89%) after the informational session. Among 238 uncircumcised men, 145 (61%) stated that they would definitely or probably get circumcised themselves if it were offered free of charge in a hospital setting; this increased to 192 (81%) after the informational session. In a multivariate analysis of all participants, people with children were more likely to favour circumcision than people without children (adjusted odds ratio 1.8, 95% CI 1.0 to 3.4). Most participants (55%) felt that the ideal age for circumcision is before 6 years, and 90% of participants felt that circumcision should be performed in the hospital setting. CONCLUSIONS: Male circumcision appears to be highly acceptable in Botswana. The option for safe circumcision should be made available to parents in Botswana for their male children. Circumcision might also be an acceptable option for adults and adolescents, if its efficacy as an HIV prevention strategy among sexually active people is supported by clinical trials. http://makeashorterlink.com/?N29212925 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Briar Rabbit" wrote in message ... Chotii writes: 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? I feel the same pity. At least you're consistent. Point in your favor. No I am consistently unsympathetic to these lunatic "tuggers". If they just locked themselves in the attic and hung weights from their penises that would be manageable. They could be placed on the mental health watch register and managed on a case by case basis. It is when then attempt to justify there psycho-sexual pathology by waging war against all circumcision for whatever reason. They then need to be institutionalized and certainly restricted from contact with children. Turn that around, sir. If you'd just lock yourself in the attic and enjoy your cut penis, you'd be manageable. You could be placed on the mental health register and managed. It's when your attempt to justify your psycho-sexual pathology by waging war against all uncircumcision for whatever reason.... then you need to be institutionalised and certainly restricted from contact with children. Fair? I didn't figure you'd think so. Of course, your very willingness to label every single man involved in improving his body to conform with his preferred body-image a 'freak' who needs to be on a 'mental health register' says a great deal more about you than it does about them. --angela |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Briar Rabbit wrote in message ...
Susan wrote: In article , Jake Waskett wrote: 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. Aren't we women lucky that WE don't have any folds of skin on our genitals! Soap, not surgery. --Susan What! Soap? You must be crazy. This is what foreskin guru Dr Paul Fleiss has to say on the matter: " Harsh bath soaps can also cause inflammation of the foreskin. Use only the gentlest and purest of soap on your child's tender skin. Resist the temptation to give your child bubble baths, because these are harmful to the skin. Never use soap to wash the inner foreskin because it is mucous membrane just like the inner lining of the eyelid." http://www.nocirc.org/articles/fleiss2.html So what you say now? You need Draino be can even use ordinary soaps ... so how do you control the stink? Briar, you are not dealing with rational minded users! Did you conveniently miss her grave faux pas!?ehehe She claims that women have no foreskin folds! LOL! ie. My last girlfriend had a labia the size of a balloon animal!heheeheh Susan, your labia is comprised of four folds of skin! DOH! Susan should squat over a mirror with Sarah, Angela & Amy - the one-eyed-foreskinned-purple people eaters! LOL! -D, NYC "Circumcision is like a substantial and well-secured annuity; every year of life you draw the benefits. Parents cannot make a better paying investment for their little boys" - DR. P.C. REMONDINO http://www.medicirc.org/meditopics/p...nfo_women.html (Circumcision - A Lifetime Of Medical Benefits - Women's Sexual Penile Preference, Sexual Activity, Psych Effect) |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"nooneimportant" no.spam@me wrote in message news:8qPTc.262597$%_6.243154@attbi_s01...
"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?) I see that we have another great deducer of logic in our midsts! LOL! Earlobes will never result in death or disease. Earlobes compliment the overall appearance of the face. Remove the earlobes, and you are left with a visible deformity. Remove foreskin, and you are left with a perfectly functioning penis - all without the DRECK! A penis that no longer has to feed on circus peanuts!ehe Remember, the head of the penis (not the foreskin) is where the greatest degree of sensation lies. Thus being able to excise sebaceous ridden flesh. BTW, there are millions of uncircumcised men that would rather suffer in silence than to seek out a simple, safe & beneficial circumcision!? Why!? Through no fault of their ignorant & uncaring parents, they now have to endure a procedure that would have once been at its safest. Even so, circumcision has far less complications than any other cosmetic or prophylactic surgery. While every surgery has its fair share of risks, how many can boast "the safest & most common cut?" Only one - circumcision! ie. A BRIS (Jewish circumcision ceremony on the eighth day of life) takes all of 30 seconds. A secular hospital circumcision takes all of 15 minutes. The pain (if any) during routine infant circumcision, is no more painful than being birthed through the womb! I can't think of anything more traumatic for a mother & her newborn than the birthing process, can you?! Yet, I do not see you petitioning procreation!? DOH! Once again, if foreskin grew on fingers and toes, we wouldn't hear a peep out of your foreskin-obsessed ilk. You must be able to train your heathenish mind to view circumcision with sensible eyes. You must be able to disassociate the penis from the foreskin, for they are two separate entities. -D, NYC "The anti-circumcision craze has developed because groups of conservative, sensitive, medically misinformed individuals, some with fanatical emotionalism, have not seen the consequences of a society where males are not circumcised. While medical prophylactic measures are readily accepted by our society, surgical prophylaxis is in danger of being discarded by an overemphasis on the return to the "natural." The intense pain of natural childbirth is seen as a reward while the minor discomfort, if any, of circumcision is magnified beyond reason." - DR.GERALD WEISS http://www.drweiss.org/necesary.html (Neonatal Circumcision Is Necessary - typo in the link) |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
In article , ) wrote:
Briar, you are not dealing with rational minded users! Did you conveniently miss her grave faux pas!?ehehe She claims that women have no foreskin folds! LOL! If such is the case, why did my last girlfriend have a labia the size of a balloon animal!?heheeheh Susan, your labia is comprised of four folds of skin! DOH! Susan should squat over a mirror with Sarah, Angela & Amy - the one-eyed-foreskinned-purple people eaters! LOL! -D, NYC "Circumcision is like a substantial and well-secured annuity; every year of life you draw the benefits. Parents cannot make a better paying investment for their little boys" - DR. P.C. REMONDINO http://www.medicirc.org/meditopics/p...nfo_women.html (Circumcision - A Lifetime Of Medical Benefits - Women's Sexual Penile Preference, Sexual Activity, Psych Effect) Ummm... I think you missed the tongue in my cheek. I thought it was pretty clear I was being facetious. Should I actually WRITE ::eyeroll:: next time? The point is that folds of skin are normal and natural. --Susan Susan, perhaps you should have, because I did not detect an ounce of sarcasm in your response!eheheh Susan, you are comparing apples and oranges. The sexual physiology is not the same! I will tell you what I told another female user on another forum. Even if one were to excise the labia minora/majora, one would still be left with foreskin (clitoris), which unlike the male prepuce, is the epicenter for pleasure. The head of the penis (not the foreskin) is where the greatest degree of sensation lies. In the end, women have no choice but to put up with their own odoriferous emanations. Men have a choice - a simple, safe and beneficial circumcision. The most common cut in all of medicine! One that provides its owner with a virtual self-cleaning penis. You also forget that men are led by their noses. We are the horniest creatures on the planet. As long as we have a warm hole to nestle inside of, we will generally tolerate anything!eh And that "anything" includes the fishy-scented snatch!ehe Women should not have to tolerate our emanations - the same cottage cheese-like fumes that can just as easily be eradicated with one simple & safe snip! Is it quite possible that you have become so accustomed to gnawing on snagle-tooth skin that you simply do not know any better!? Where in the world do you hail from!? I ask because cultural ideology plays an important role in how we perceive circumcision. ie. In Europe, many still being that being circumcised is a sign of being Jewish. The reality is that since Jews comprise a measly 1/4 of 1% of the world's populace, the overwhelming majority of circumcised are Gentiles (non-Jews). While circumcision (as with Kosher) has religious basis, it also has undeniable health benefits. Would it surprise you to learn that 70% of the 5 billion dollars worth of Kosher (cool, clean, fit - free of impurities, contaminants & animal cruelty) sold in the US, is purchased by non-Jews!? It all boils down to common sense & civility! ie. Why should you buy non-Kosher roast beef when you can buy Kosher roast beef!? You may pay four times as much for Kosher meats, but you are ultimately paying for peace of mind. As the saying goes: "Buy Kosher and be safe!" The same rationale applies to circumcision. Better to err on the side of caution than not! There are no health benefits to foreskin! Remember, if foreskin is such a healthy appendage, why does it continually necessitate medical intervention? Circumcision cannot exist without foreskin! -D, NYC "To perfect the world (TIKUN OLAM) is in Jewish thought - the obligation of every human being. Where better to begin by fixing God's goof of foreskin?" http://www.drweiss.org/necesary.htm (Neonatal Circumcision Is Necessary - correct link - htm not html) |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Briar Rabbit wrote in message ...
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? Most men who get circumcised as adults cannot give a valid comparison because they were circumcised for medical reasons, mostly having a non retractable foreskin. Another percentage has a fetish, which can be comparable to what drives other people to have a prince albert piercing, or have their sex altered. Compared to what some people do to their body, their circumcision fetish is rather innocent. And being adults it's their right to do to their body as they please. Ofcourse they will see it as an improvement, it's a dream come true for them. The fact that 99% of the intact adults decide to stay that way should speak for itself. Next there is the time delay for the loss of sensitivity. People have reported they keep losing sensitivy over the year, hence someone who is 25 and circumcised at age 20, will have more sensitivity than someone who is 50, and circumcised at age 20 as well. It's typical that the so called pro-circ 'comparison' sites always use men in their statistics that were circumcised within 1 to 5 years of the survey. 30 Million men in the USA are said to have erectile and impotence problems, most of them are over 50 years old. There are only 34 Million men over 50 in the USA. Starting to see a connection yet? Mainly man over 40 link their 'problems' to their infant circumcision. Viagra sales sky rocket in the USA compared to Europe. For the ignorant, routine infant circumcision is not practiced in Europe. Briar also mainly aims at this 'routine infant circumcision' practice, because it's obviously you have to force this barbaric mutilation on 1 week old babies that cannot defend themselves. Adult men do not part easily with their foreskins, they grow rather attached to it. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Basic Rights of Foster Parents | [email protected] | Foster Parents | 5 | December 20th 03 02:37 PM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Spanking | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Foster Parents | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |