Polls

Kong---a relpy to "A SERIOUS POST BY KONG"

See, this is the Kong I can get with. The thing you said in that post really hit home. Especially the part about withholding infomation. In my line of work, I can actually have charges brought against me if I am not specific about what is (my) opinion and what the law says.

The problem is Kong, sometimes you argue/debate yourself into a corner. You leave yourself in a position that you have defended a point to no return. There will always be devil advocates in anything we believe in. I know it maybe the hardest thing in the world for you, but when Swank or myself or anyone else get you really frustrated, instead of lashing out, go deeper into the post and re-read it. Hell, make yourself "cool off" for 24 hours before you reply. I really have no axe to grind with you Kong, or anyone else in the FR forum for that matter. I pay close attention to what happens in here for my own very specific reasons. I do believe in keeping this sub forum an important part of [words=http://www.mattersofsize.com/join-now.html]MOS[/words]. I do believe there are men who are/will have problems with their circ because of how it was done. This place can help those guys. I also belief that the very basics of skin stretch taught here can help anyone involved in Penis Enlargement. Going over some of my very old post here and at Thunders, I used to consider myself as a "tight" cut person. No more.

Keep being the FR and anti-circ cheerleader. Keep trying to learn and read as much as possible. I know I am trying to read and learn more myself due to some other problems in my life. And, I am sure you and I will tangle again. Just remember, I'm always right! :) And I always try and call it down the middle. ;)

your friendly neighborhood kookyman
 
You all may think I am a little crazy and over-zealous, but consider this. If no one takes a stand and acts a little outrageous and makes a fuss, then nothing will ever get done. The "down the middle" approach is fine if you do not really care and don't want things to change. Just sit on your sofa and nod your head and think, "Yeah, that kinda sucks..." To get things done, tho, you gotta get people to notice. I think I have made alot of men here really think about the issue...and saved a few future little boys from being needlessly tally-whacked. Before he quit the forum out of frustration, Execution asked me why I stuck around, why I bothered, when I caught so much shit about it. Well, in essence, that's why. I want to get some of you guys to think about it a moment before you offer your kids up to the knife. Who, after all, is really benefiting from this institutionalized practice...?
 
You have done that. And Well-done that might add. I count myself as one of those. Every time the wife and I talk about having kids, it comes up now and I have her leaning more and more my way. And yeah, I do at times consider you a little crazy or a fanatic. But I also at times pay very close attention to what you say. The informative, funny, always willing to help Kong is much more preffered than your evil twin. ;)

kook
 
I try to keep him in check, but he's-- so-- strong. He makes me do things...sometimes...say things....urrrgggghhhhh!...hhhhh...hhhhh...
 
Believe me man. I understand the part about keeping "my" evil twin in check. When he takes over, whe boy watch out. Just get me to arguing over why Pete Rose belongs in the HOF or why Seattle Slew was the greatest race horse ever. Or get me debating about how the neo-cons hijacked Reagan's party. Or even worse, let my evil twin just hold or smell one cigarette. Oh man he is strong.......

kook
 
Swank said:
I know it's hard to believe when all you read this stuff about it on the internet (i.e. circumcision makes you suicidal, violent, prone to rape, homosexuality, impotent, depressed, numbs your penis to deadening levels, ect.) but none of these things are really true.
Click to expand...

Swank,

I have to disagree with you on this point. As absurd as these claims sound to you, there are men who fervently believe them to be true - I've talked to some of them online. These individuals feel genuinely persecuted because of, and grievously harmed by, their circumcisions. Yes, it is hard to give credence to some of these ideas, but to dismiss them out of hand is a disservice to the individuals who truly believe them to be truth.

Peace
Pri
 
kong1971 said:
I try to keep him in check, but he's-- so-- strong. He makes me do things...sometimes...say things....urrrgggghhhhh!...hhhhh...hhhhh...
Click to expand...

Do you reckon that Valium might help?

Just kidding!


Seriously, I agree with Kooky that the kill-or-die style of debate that you sometimes allow yourself to get caught up in is not always, um, persuasive.

[Repeat this mantra: invective is not effective]

But, damn, you do get the fireworks going around here! So, you're right, some eggs have to be broken to make an omelet. But, here's some of my useless advice: keep the fire, just make sure you've got enough fuel :)

Peace
Pri
 
Yeah, not to get swank on your case, priap, (cause he always disagrees with me) but I chatted with one man who is considering restoration just last night. He described his penis as being almost totally numb, like a 2 on a 10 scale. I tried to encourage him by letting him know that FR would help to increase his sensitivity, but he was very disheartened. He said he wanted to restore but was held back by the time and effort of restoring and by the fact that, no matter how well he succeeded, he would never get back 100%. I counselled him that the time and effort were worth the reward and that any improvement was better than nothing.

Now, you can look at it from swank's point of view, which is that this man is either a liar or a victim of anti-circ brainwashing-- Or you can look at it from my viewpoint, which is that there are really men out there in need of help from damaging, overtight circumcisions and deserve some aid.

Out of compassion, I always presume the latter. It is too easy to dismiss the suffering of another human being out of cold-heartedness, to push them away from us when we should be pulling them to us. If he is a liar, then all I have done is wasted a little time. If he is truly needful, then hopefully I helped him a little with my encouragement.

I know when I was in the hospital and suffering a great deal of pain, the staff I am most grateful to are the ones who took my complaints seriously and showed compassion. The ones who looked at me like I was an annoying peice of meat and acted like I was a big faker...well, I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire. I'll always be grateful to the nurse who came in and held my hand for a minute while I was howling in pain...and I'll always hate the one who came in and shoved a syringe of dope into my IV without caring one bit how bad it burned.
 
oh, there's plenty of fuel yet...

I may retire when I get the hood completely grown... then I'll leave it up to one of you guys to keep the fire burning.
 
kong1971 said:
oh, there's plenty of fuel yet...

I may retire when I get the hood completely grown... then I'll leave it up to one of you guys to keep the fire burning.
Click to expand...

I meant fuel for the undertaken arguement. I think that you're thinking of piss and vinegar, and no one will argue that you don't have plenty of those rofl






Man, I'm such a cheeky bastard :D

Cheers kong!
 
Last edited:
Swank said:
Iwant8, read the rest of the post, or posts rather as I've commented on it more than once. Individual doctors don't make much money at all from circumcisions, in fact most make NO money at all just by performing them as they're staff doctors, paid on salary, not by the operation. Circumcision takes 15 minutes as I understand it, it's not like they call in a specialist who contracts with the hospital. They bill it and treat it almost like getting a couple of stitches, and the actual procedure isn't much more complicated. It's not some kind of cash cow for the medical industry despite the popular claims.

The other point is, not all doctors are people soley concerned with making as much cash as humanly possible. Believe it or not, many people are in the medical profession for other reasons than just simply making money, and they are entirely ethical. One of the basic tenents of the whole anti-circ thing is that the medical indsutry is an evil monolithic collective of greedy and uncaring doctors who will do anything for a buck. Not the case, and neither is the idea that anybody tries to keep circumcision around just for monetary reasons.

Lots of parents still want it for their kids in the states because of the cultural thing, plain and simple, and the fact is, there is no solid evidence that circumcision really causes a lot of problems for most men. I know it's hard to believe when all you read this stuff about it on the internet (i.e. circumcision makes you suicidal, violent, prone to rape, homosexuality, impotent, depressed, numbs your penis to deadening levels, ect.) but none of these things are really true. Step back for a minute and look at reality, or better yet speak to some doctors about, don't just read all this crap on the internet and make assumptions.

And, it pretty much has been referred to as no less than a conspiracy type situation, like I said, if it's really that big of an issue I'll go back and dig up some quotes. As I recall they pretty much proclaim that circumcision only still exists to make money for doctors. This suggests doctors believe it is harmful, and promote it anyway in order to profit from it, and somehow have some kind of nation-wide covenent to keep this hushed up. That my young friend, is a conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

Yeah, exactly...don't rock the boat. That's all it is.

I don't believe circumcision causes aggression or people to be prone to rape. The only time I ever mentioned aggression with circs was when I said there has to be some kind of connection in the mentality of those leaders of certain countries tend to have an obsession with war and death and a country that would accept circumcision as a good natural thing. It's now customary, but some how I think that customary mutilation is quite along the same mentality that breeds an obsession with inflicting pain. I mean don't ask me to write a dissertation for crying out loud, but I could come up with something if I wanted to. Might take several years to research and write...no what am I talking about it would take several years just to research probably.

I don't have a problem with what Kong says nor do I have a problem with what anyone else says in opposition to Kong's stance. I guess I have failed to comprehend how any of these discussions are relevant in any way to restoring or Penis Enlargement or sex. There aren't going to be any facts nor is there an exit poll like system for determining what women prefer when it comes to cut or uncut. It's ridiculous. It's like the are black cocks bigger than everyone else's thread. Who cares even if you could find out definitively?
 
Iwant8, really, you should speak to a doctor about it. As I said before, several of my family members are MDs, as well as several close friends. Seriously, speak with your physician about the 'cover-up.' Really think about it . . . all the doctors in this country have an unspoken agreement to keep the lid on this, so their hospital employers can make a few more bucks each year . . . some of you guys obviously need to believe in this stuff so I'll let it be, but I think once you have a little more experience out in the world it may seem a little more unlikely to you. Not to say you're a naive kid, but you're really just making a very grand leaping assumption about the medical industry, something soley based on your intuition and unreserached evaluation. In addition to actually speaking to some doctors about your suspicions, you might also take into account that the AAP doesn't even endorse the procedure.

So far as the aggression thing, well, I have no trouble saying that is perfectly ridiculous in my opinion. I've argued it quite a bit, so I won't do it again here as the points have already been made. Once again, I'm not looking to insult anybody here, but it shows a certain drought of understanding about history and human society at large to associate circumcision with violent trends in world history and entire societies. Frankly I'd say it would be damn impressive if somebody could make an academic case that circumcision was even a contributing factor to societal violence. Once again, it's just a leaping conclusion with no meat in the middle. America is violent, and we circumcise, so: violence = circumcision. That's called a leap in logic, as in there's no proof, it's just assumed because the two co-exist. Most people don't consider it butchery or so horrible as the small percentage of activists on the internet, therefore it doesn't indicate a society more permissive of violence. Ahh, I'm making a case, so I'll stop. We can discuss the issue more in another thread perhaps, but really, give it some thought.

So far as these conversations being pertinent to FR and Penis Enlargement and such, well, I'd say damn near 75% of the content on [words=http://www.mattersofsize.com/join-now.html]MOS[/words] isn't really pertinent to whatever forum it's in or Penis Enlargement in general. The conversations do matter to the people in engaging in them, otherwise they wouldn't bother. What I fail to understand is the frequent number of people that wish to inteject themselves in the role of "peacemaker" of some sort, appealing for truce and silence on both sides. The arguments are topical, not just name calling, and they've produced a lot of interesting perspective on both sides. For all those who insist on chipping in your 2 cents of "hey fellas, just get along," you're not the first to come along with that brilliant revelation, nor will you be the last. The conversations really aren't hurting anything, it's just an internet forum, and if you don't care for it, then don't read it or post in the first place. Capiche? So far as polls solving nothing, read the thread, pretty much everybody agrees with that.

Kong, thanks for the kind words, looking forward to getting along better. But, did you say $5 billion annualy for doctors? I know we aren't required to prove any comments anymore, but in the spirit of good faith, where exactly did that number come from? Even if circumcisions were $1000 dollars a pop, which I do not believe they generally are, it would only be on the order of about a billion dollars, and I think even that number is pretty out of control. The only info I could find when I looked it up was on anti-circ sites, and they were all uncited and each seemed to quote different figures, but none seemed to offer a total.

Priapologist, I have to ask, do you believe being circumcised can lead to homosexuality, rape, and suicidal thoughts? I'm trying to respect everybody's feelings on the matter, as some folks do get pretty damn emotional about the topic, but as a grad student do you really buy these arguments? I've never denied that it seems to make the penis less sensitive, appearently much more so for certain individuals, though I believe it's rarely the case that it severely numbs it or that it gets significantly worse over time. Additionaly, do you think it's possible that a lot the negative feelings men associate with their circumcisions would never have entered their minds in the first place if they hadn't read on the internet that circs cause all these problems?
 
Last edited:
Wow, swank, that post was so fair and open-minded I had to check your IP... Just kidding.

You're right, that number was just a guesstimate. I found the number somewhere while surfing, but it wasn't scientifically derived, triple-notated or anything. Like you said, a real number is hard to find on circ revenue. I think Neo said his was going to cost $5000, but I have seen figures for newborn circs at $500 to $1000 or a little more. I seriously do believe a percentage of viagra and lubricant sales can be attributed to circumcision as well, but don't get all outraged, cause I'm just being a little tongue-in-cheek on that. You are right in that its a drop in the bucket comparatively. I just paid $100 for my doctor to walk into the room, tell me I was looking better and take it easy and then set up one last follow-up visit. Like I said, it's probably along the lines of an add-on sale for the maternity dept., but if there is no medical benefits, some slight risk and long-term negative consequences for even a small portion of men who received the procedure as children, why is circumcision not now defunct? I don't believe young parents, in general, give it any thought at all, less request it. If the doc came in and said, "Why do you want us to circ your baby? It has no benefits and a small degree of risk," I believe probably 90% of people would opt to skip the procedure. If you can think of a reason besides the low-risk revenue, I would be interested in hearing it. Like you said, people just don't care, and I don't think there are a great percentage of young moms demanding their children be weinie-whacked while the hospital staff plead with her not to do it! (again, tongue in cheek) Like I said before, momentum not malice, so we have to somehow get the momentum in check.

Nhhh, I'm just rambling really. I just got up and read these interesting posts and had to chip my 2 cents in.
 
I kind of feel like Kong is on to something with the whole "want fries with that idea". Not knowing any better myself, I just don't think it's talked about much when a boy is born...I wouldn't doubt at all if it was just a thrown in comment....like,"ok mom and dad, we have some papers to sign...blah blah blah, circ form blah, blah, blah". I sure hope someone who has had a son born recently can comment further. I also would be interested in any real conversations parents have had with hospital staff on why they should go ahead and do it.

As far as someone's circ causing other mental or emotional problems, I think I could believe that as well to a certain extent...as it pertains to sex. If a guy'c cut is screwed up and he can no longer(or ever) perform, I am sure that would really do a number on him both mentally and emotionally and who knows what else. I just had a problem in the sex area myself and it was something so simple that I am sure it happens to everyone....but I so overreacted and quite honestly it took some big time help from DLD to calm me down. And this was a one time thing. I don't think I would be so quick to say that some circ damage could cause some sort of disturbance elsewhere.

kooky
 
I wouldn't doubt at all if it was just a thrown in comment....like,"ok mom and dad, we have some papers to sign...blah blah blah, circ form blah, blah, blah".

Having two sons, I can say that that is exactly how it was the first time. We just didn't know and just didn't think about it. With my youngest son, I was having some second thoughts. I hadn't yet been exposed to any anti-circ literature or ideas because, well, there was no internet then, but I knew there was something about my own sexuality that wasn't right, so I had a suspicion or a subconcious feeling about it. My wife and I discussed it before the birth, and she was definitely pro-circ, due to some biases instilled in her by her mother, false Christian ideologies and the uncleanliness thing, and she also thought that the boys should "look like their daddy" (pretty common ideas for a woman). I, in fact, told her once or twice that I wouldn't sign any papers, to which she replied smugly that I didn't have to (she's as stubborn as I am). At the hospital, we were still arguing the point, but when I was absent one day, they brought her the papers and she signed them. I returned and, of course, objected, at which point the doctor told me, "Well, it's not really your decision, is it?" in a very snide way. I was young and didn't know what options I had, so I stood at the glass and watched my son be circed in the next room. Haha. I did ask the doctor kind of hopelessly and jokingly not to take off too much, like it was a haircut or something. Sad, I guess, but it is a true story. If I had known then what I know now, I would have been yelling "lawsuit" at the top of my lungs, but it was all kind of subconscious and like a "sneaking suspicion" type thing for me at the time. I was UNEDUCATED about it.

Oh, and just in case you wonder about my boys... well, my oldest and I have discussed it and he seems to be mostly okay, he does have a frenelum and says that he is sensitive enough... my youngest does have a problem. He has a suBathmateerged penis, which the doc says he will grow out of when he hits puberty. If not, it will have to be corrected, I guess. I'm not sure because we haven't crossed that bridge yet. I do not know if it is naturally occuring or a consequence of circumcision. I do know it is not from MY side. I'm tiny at 7.5" compared to my cousins and uncles on my side of the family. My wife's lineage is almost pure Irish and I have heard the old saw about the "Irish curse" when it comes to penis size, so I'm not too sure about the veracity of that. I know it is very distrubing to me to see my son naked and there's no penis there unless you press in the pubic fat, just a hole above his scrotum. If anyone knows more about that I sure would like to hear some info.
 
Whoa, now this is interesting. I do believe there is a procedure I have read about that counters the suBathmateerged penis thing, but I can see how you would be reluctant to go with surgery in the first place. It was also my understanding that a suBathmateerged penis was a naturally occurring problem, but I could be mistaken and the circumcision could have affected it.

So far as the 'add on' theory with circumcisions, it may hold water, but again, it seems to take into account the idea that everybody that works at a hospital is in on this little ruse and they all just want to screw people for every last dime they can by tricking them into unecessary surgery. Think of it like this: most doctors and nurses probably don't spend much time reading about or questioning circumcision, it's a very routine thing for them. They've done thousands of these procedures most likely, and a good deal of the people they see probably just want it hands down no questions, or they've already made up their minds not to get it and make this clear. They're not in the habit of discussing it for any great amount of time with every single new set of parents or mother in the unit because it's routine and not something that weighs greatly on their minds. This is a good deal different than trying to pull the wool over people's eyes just for a little cash. Like I say, if you really insist on believing this, I encourage you to speak to your physician about it, or even go visit an OB/GYN and talk it over. Basically though, everybody is still just assuming that is how things work across the nation. Like I told the other fellow, also consider that the AAP doesn't endorse it and national circumcision rates are dropping. It sounds like people are taking indvidual experience and assumption and carving out an absolute from it.

Also, since we're being all scientific-like, Kong I promise you that there is no genetic predisposed size for Irish lineage. The Irish people are a combination of different European ancestories in the first place, so the odds of there being any kind of uniform penis size from over there is like saying there's some kind of standard American size. So far as your son's condition being related to what you feel is your "smaller" (most people don't consider 7.5" small) lesser size, well think about that for a moment. Your son has a unique condition that is created by some internal mechanism that restrains his penis within the pubic fat pad, not something affecting his overall size (this is how I understand the condition operates, I may be wrong). What you percieve to be your own potentially slightly smaller penis than your realatives and his rare medical condition is not some kind of "stepping stone," so to speak. A less large penis is not a half-way point to a penis that is suffering from a specific affliction so far as I know, at least it makes no sense from a genetic point of view. It would be my guess that if buried penis is something genetically predetermined, the only thing that would necessarily predicate it is another case of buried penis. But perhaps somebody with more expertise could weigh in.

So far as the whole sexual dysfunction thing and circumcision, well, I see the link you guys are making, but just like the doctor thing I don't see any evidence besides intuition. I'm thinking I'd like to know if there is a significantly higher percentage of impotence or sexual problems in the states, the middle east, parts of africa, than in non-circumcisiing nations. Now, I know that no such data probably exists, but the proposition really does beg the question. It's impossible to say for sure, but I just don't think there's much evidence on either side to show how circumcision is really affecting men's sexual health in the long run.
 
Well, I wasn't exactly serious about the "Irish curse" thing. I have a relative that jokes about it alot. I was just wondering if it is just my relative or if there is actually an old saying like that that others here may have heard. For all I know, it could be just a family saying, like my mother always calling people who whine "Crybaby Dorothy's".

I double-triple promise you I do not think there is a medical conspiracy thingie or that there are malicious plots behind circ, only that it is there, it has been there for a long time, and despite the edicts of the AMA, they are in no hurry to discard the practice because it does generate a small, low-risk and steady amount of revenue. That's the extent of my "conspiracy theories". However, in my mind, even taking that into account, it is inexcusable in light that there are needless deaths and complications-- no matter how rare-- and long term negative consequences for some few. Not even going into the issue that it is often performed without informed consent. And the human rights angle of someone altering the body of another at childbirth. I can honestly say that I would not have chose it for myself had I had a choice because of my philosophical outlook on life of being "whole" and "natural" and "how nature and god intended". Those are things I have always believed in, even before internet and anti-circ websites.

You're right in that most evidence is anecdotal and intuitive. That's all we have. Perhaps someday there will be more studies. Until then, we can only opine and whine. Maybe we could dig up some national sales data on viagra and lubricant and some such and draw some correlations, but even that would be anecdotal, I suppose. Sigh...
 
Here's the point I'm trying to mank Swank, When my daughter was born, they explained everything to me and my ex wife. All the pros, cons, what ifs and better nots. even more so after my daughter was born. It got even 10 times worse after she was born and both of her lungs colapsed. They went into absolute minute details of every little thing that could happen. I am assuming most of this was due to liability issues. And I can understand all of that. Yet, it seems the pros and cons are never explained about circ. I don't mean any offense by this Swank but to some degree I agree with Kong. Medical care IS a business after all. You said it yourself some time ago about charging 50 bucks for a tylenol. If they can get mom and dad to sign off on a 15 minute procedure that will run about 300-500(?) dollars, why wouldn't they? Esp since they know if mom and pop have some sort of health care coverage that most likey(no clue here) that said insurance company will pay it no questions asked. And I am sure that the insurance companies are well aware of the non-medical need to circumcise. I don't think there is this huge medical cover-up to milk more dollars. But in most cases I would bet that mom and pop are never made aware of the medical associations that no longer support it.

kooky
 
Some medical insurances cover the expense as a "preventative medical procedure" but more and more it is being dropped as a covered medical expense. Perhaps our insurance companies' greed will save our future generation of young boys more than any amount of medical ethics discussions and lobbying. In states where insurance no longer covers the operation, circ rates are dropping to as low as 50% to 20%, similar to Canada, where the operation is considered an elective cosmetic procedure. The main culprit still seems to be the American midwest, where conservative Christians still believe that Jesus wants us all to have our weiners denuded of all errogenous tissue :D (sorry, that was just a old-fashioned kong dig, no offense intended; I am a midwesterner) I believe the anti-circ crowd would do better appealing to insurance companies than Washington DC.
 
Well, I suppose I feel you guys aren't taking into account one of my main points, that being that the doctors and nurses performing the bulk of circumcisions and the people in the position to influence parents about the operation are simply not making money from the procedure. These people are staffed, i.e. they're paid by salary, not by the snip. I promise you, they're not out to make an extra buck for the hospital or some corporation. I truly understand your suspicions, but please consider my points. You guys really are just assuming this based on limited personal experience. Didn't have it discussed with you does not necessarily equal trying to get you to do it just so some corporation or hospital budget will do a little better that year.

So far as circumcision being a useless thing in the modern world, no argument here. I, obviously, am not sorry my folks had it done for me. Would I choose it for my own kids? I'm not sure, I'd want the mother's input I suppose. I don't really see any great reason for it these days. If I wasn't familiar with the statistics I might hesitate just because I would be afraid of any sort of locker room or female teasing, but I doubt that's a big problem with the lowered rates. As I've mentioned before, I've heard women talk about foreskins in a disgusted manner on several occasions, but I am positive that was just group synergy and that women are far more accepting in the privacy of the bedroom (in other words they were just being women . . .)

I understand the human rights perspective, but that entire arguemnt is predicated on how damaging you think a circ can really be. If it's a cosmetic thing, then the rights issue becomes sketchy as we're not talking about something that really affects quality of life or inflicts undue pain and suffering. If you believe it is really physically detrimental in a good percentage of cases, then it is a rights abuse. Like we've both said, we can't really know the answer to the question, so whether or not it's a trampling of human rights is pretty subjective to the individual. I clearly see where you guys are coming from with that angle, but things are rarely just that cut and dry, and the fact is, parents do have domain over their children. If it came down to deciding whether or not to have other medical procedures that could affect children for life, or really anything else, it's the parent's decision. Circumcision has its own special set of circumstances of course, but it still falls under the sphere of parental oversight, just like anything else would. Doesn't mean it's the best way, but it is the way everything else is handled, so there's no real special malice involved.
 
swank, your own personal feelings are skewing what you think we are suggesting. It's okay, because I suffer the same thing.

Let me assure you that I do not think any member of a hospital staff is purposefully witholding information in order to make the hospital more money. I doubt if there is a memo hanging in the employee lounge of any hospital urging them to get their circ rates higher. I only suggest that the practice is institutionalized and that there is a small degree of "don't rock the boat" as Iwant8 put it, because it does, in fact, bring in a few bucks here and there. I would say, for the most part, all these hospital workers are just as uninterested in the circ debates as your average joe scHydromaxoe -- which is kind a pathetic considering they're the ones DOING it. An interesting experiment to see how a hospital regards this matter would be to print up some anti-circ brochures and take them to the maternity ward and see how the staff reacts to your passing them out.Not the anti-circ rhetoric you're thinking. Just the facts as we know them now. I wonder if they would let you display them prominently or let you talk with some of the expectant parents...? Hmm...

Circumcision is an anachronistic practice. We know it does not cure masturbation and masturbation-induced illnesses. We know it does not prevent any diseases that a washrag and water will prevent. We know that the cancer prevention rate is only equal to if not less than the complication rate. We know women are basically fine with or without (although I believe a natural penis is more comfortable and maybe more enjoyable on some level for the mate, but that's just my opinion) We know there are documented cases of men being psychologically or physically harmed by circ, although the majority is fine with it.

The main problem, as I said, is momentum. Unfortunately, a few of us are going to have to jump in front of it...
 
First, let me address the point about doctors and nurses not profiting from circs. If anyone has wondered why I am in graduate school in my mid-thirties, it is because I had a career before and during obtaining my undergraduate degree. I had a degree-requiring, license-requiring clinical position in several different hospitals over the course of 8.5 years. One of the things that occurred after the Medicare devaluation-of-services that began in the late 1980s and continued through all the time that I worked in the medical establisHydromaxent was the tightening of budgets. One of the effects of that was the profound emphasis of "cost centers" and "revenue centers", i.e. those departments that cost more money than they make and vice versa, respectively. Fortunately, I worked in a revenue center, but most areas in hospitals are cost centers, basic nursing being one of the most expensive. Anyway, I'm rambling, the point is that we were instructed by the bosses to charge for every little thing that we used and every little thing that we did. When the difference between your job getting downsized and keeping it is to add a few more marginially justifiable charges to the patient's billing record, which side are you going to come down on?

The force that keeps anti-circ mentality at a whisper is the institutional demand for revenue, which, in turn, pays the doctor's and nurse's salaries.

Swank said:
Priapologist, I have to ask, do you believe being circumcised can lead to homosexuality, rape, and suicidal thoughts? I'm trying to respect everybody's feelings on the matter, as some folks do get pretty damn emotional about the topic, but as a grad student do you really buy these arguments? I've never denied that it seems to make the penis less sensitive, appearently much more so for certain individuals, though I believe it's rarely the case that it severely numbs it or that it gets significantly worse over time. Additionaly, do you think it's possible that a lot the negative feelings men associate with their circumcisions would never have entered their minds in the first place if they hadn't read on the internet that circs cause all these problems?
Click to expand...

You seem to have pretty good mental health, so I congratulate you on that. However, perhaps because of your good mental health, you appear to lack empathy for people who's life-experience differs from your own. I don't mean that as an insult, it's just that you don't seem to be able to see the world as other people see it.

To answer your question: From a strictly physiological standpoint, only the numb penis and ED (of the points that were raised) can be directly attributed to the actual surgery. However, the rest of those points are all psychological, and how can you, or even a psychologist, question the trigger for someone's suicidal ideation, or why they rape, or why they feel sexual attraction to someone with selfsame genitalia?

I would never presume to insult someone by telling them that they couldn't possibly want to kill themselves over something as "trivial" as a loss of foreskin, because I have no idea how much value that they placed in that foreskin. I was outraged when I discovered everything that I had lost, but I am no longer angry about it because there is no profit in being angry, I can't get that foreskin back, being mad at my mom won't change the fact that it is gone, and the doctor is long dead so I can't change her mind. I chose to no longer think about it.... but not everyone can do that, and also I chose to not impose my perception of the world onto them. To do so would be damned arrogant.

Really though, what I don't understand is why everyone is focusing on the extreme 0.1% of pro-circ and anti-circ points of view. Can't we, the 99.8%, just agree to disagree and get on with making our penises into the shape that best pleases the owner?

Peace
Pri

p.s. as to your last question: I would conjecture that the internet has caused an increase in the dissemination of all sorts of information that was previously arcane and/or privileged. However, at least in my case, I came to the realization of my loss back when the internet was still Arpanet and Prodigy was still being dreamed up. I don't think that the internet has increased discontent about circumcision, just increased organization of like-minded discontented.
 
Last edited:
Swank said:
Iwant8, really, you should speak to a doctor about it. As I said before, several of my family members are MDs, as well as several close friends. Seriously, speak with your physician about the 'cover-up.' Really think about it . . . all the doctors in this country have an unspoken agreement to keep the lid on this, so their hospital employers can make a few more bucks each year . . . some of you guys obviously need to believe in this stuff so I'll let it be, but I think once you have a little more experience out in the world it may seem a little more unlikely to you. Not to say you're a naive kid, but you're really just making a very grand leaping assumption about the medical industry, something soley based on your intuition and unreserached evaluation. In addition to actually speaking to some doctors about your suspicions, you might also take into account that the AAP doesn't even endorse the procedure.

So far as the aggression thing, well, I have no trouble saying that is perfectly ridiculous in my opinion. I've argued it quite a bit, so I won't do it again here as the points have already been made. Once again, I'm not looking to insult anybody here, but it shows a certain drought of understanding about history and human society at large to associate circumcision with violent trends in world history and entire societies. Frankly I'd say it would be damn impressive if somebody could make an academic case that circumcision was even a contributing factor to societal violence. Once again, it's just a leaping conclusion with no meat in the middle. America is violent, and we circumcise, so: violence = circumcision. That's called a leap in logic, as in there's no proof, it's just assumed because the two co-exist. Most people don't consider it butchery or so horrible as the small percentage of activists on the internet, therefore it doesn't indicate a society more permissive of violence. Ahh, I'm making a case, so I'll stop. We can discuss the issue more in another thread perhaps, but really, give it some thought.

So far as these conversations being pertinent to FR and Penis Enlargement and such, well, I'd say damn near 75% of the content on [words=http://www.mattersofsize.com/join-now.html]MOS[/words] isn't really pertinent to whatever forum it's in or Penis Enlargement in general. The conversations do matter to the people in engaging in them, otherwise they wouldn't bother. What I fail to understand is the frequent number of people that wish to inteject themselves in the role of "peacemaker" of some sort, appealing for truce and silence on both sides. The arguments are topical, not just name calling, and they've produced a lot of interesting perspective on both sides. For all those who insist on chipping in your 2 cents of "hey fellas, just get along," you're not the first to come along with that brilliant revelation, nor will you be the last. The conversations really aren't hurting anything, it's just an internet forum, and if you don't care for it, then don't read it or post in the first place. Capiche? So far as polls solving nothing, read the thread, pretty much everybody agrees with that.

Kong, thanks for the kind words, looking forward to getting along better. But, did you say $5 billion annualy for doctors? I know we aren't required to prove any comments anymore, but in the spirit of good faith, where exactly did that number come from? Even if circumcisions were $1000 dollars a pop, which I do not believe they generally are, it would only be on the order of about a billion dollars, and I think even that number is pretty out of control. The only info I could find when I looked it up was on anti-circ sites, and they were all uncited and each seemed to quote different figures, but none seemed to offer a total.

Priapologist, I have to ask, do you believe being circumcised can lead to homosexuality, rape, and suicidal thoughts? I'm trying to respect everybody's feelings on the matter, as some folks do get pretty damn emotional about the topic, but as a grad student do you really buy these arguments? I've never denied that it seems to make the penis less sensitive, appearently much more so for certain individuals, though I believe it's rarely the case that it severely numbs it or that it gets significantly worse over time. Additionaly, do you think it's possible that a lot the negative feelings men associate with their circumcisions would never have entered their minds in the first place if they hadn't read on the internet that circs cause all these problems?
Click to expand...

That's not what I mean. I'm not equating circumcision with violence or a country's leaders tendency to be aggressive or militant with it either. I'm saying it's all connected to something. Some kind of pyschosis is causing this behavior or thought pattern. Seriously, I'm not going to say it again because for some reason people will think it's the explicit acts of mutilation or killing I am referring to. I'm talking about the psychology of it and how a country's leaders tend to spread (and so sociologically speaking as well) these tendencies into the public's behavioral patterns, beliefs, and/or explicit actions. A politician or president or king's decisions or policies affect the public and therefore systemically create or enable a continual state of distrust, disloyalty, or even war among many things.
 
kong1971 said:
swank, your own personal feelings are skewing what you think we are suggesting. It's okay, because I suffer the same thing.

Let me assure you that I do not think any member of a hospital staff is purposefully witholding information in order to make the hospital more money. I doubt if there is a memo hanging in the employee lounge of any hospital urging them to get their circ rates higher. I only suggest that the practice is institutionalized and that there is a small degree of "don't rock the boat" as Iwant8 put it, because it does, in fact, bring in a few bucks here and there. I would say, for the most part, all these hospital workers are just as uninterested in the circ debates as your average joe scHydromaxoe -- which is kind a pathetic considering they're the ones DOING it. An interesting experiment to see how a hospital regards this matter would be to print up some anti-circ brochures and take them to the maternity ward and see how the staff reacts to your passing them out.Not the anti-circ rhetoric you're thinking. Just the facts as we know them now. I wonder if they would let you display them prominently or let you talk with some of the expectant parents...? Hmm...

Circumcision is an anachronistic practice. We know it does not cure masturbation and masturbation-induced illnesses. We know it does not prevent any diseases that a washrag and water will prevent. We know that the cancer prevention rate is only equal to if not less than the complication rate. We know women are basically fine with or without (although I believe a natural penis is more comfortable and maybe more enjoyable on some level for the mate, but that's just my opinion) We know there are documented cases of men being psychologically or physically harmed by circ, although the majority is fine with it.

The main problem, as I said, is momentum. Unfortunately, a few of us are going to have to jump in front of it...
Click to expand...

Well, guys let's think about this. Why quietly dismiss the don't rock the boat theory when Swank you can admit there are no known benefits of a circ today or really in the vast majority of cases anyway. If there is nothing that says there is a point of doing it and I know it and you all recognize this then how can there be doctors out there doing the procedure like it's nothing and just letting the same propaganda go out to the unsuspecting parents?
 
You guys better quit teasing me with all this...agreeing! :D Seriously, I'm not used to it and furthermore, it's making me want to get all "anti-circ" again after trying so hard to be more middle-of-the-road like some folks want me to be.
 
Well, in my opinion this is the best discussion we have had, with so many different points of view and input, in a long time.

I had quite a long drive this evening to go to my daughter's dance recital and thought about his almost the whole time I was driving.

I have for the longest time had the greatest amount of distrust for the medical and insurance industries. It seems they are always looking for ways to milk a few more bucks out of people. It just seems to me that there should be more of the pros and cons when talking to parents about having this done. I would be really, really interested if Kong was to do what he said and bring a bunch of anti-circ info and leave it in a waiting room somewhere or even better to talk to a head nurse in the children's ward about leaving it in the waiting room there.

Very interesting stuff guys!

kooky
 
I think I am going to do it, kooky, just as soon as I get over this spleen crap. I'm not even supposed to ride in a car right now. I am very curious to see how they respond to me coming in with a bunch of anti-circ pamphlets, and will return in a week to see if they are still there. [cue mission impossible music]
 
I figured out that I didn't want to be cut back 19 years ago while masturbating. I looked at it and wondered what it would be like to have everything I should have down there. I was pissed about having scrotal skin covering 2/3 of the underside of my penis and hair where it wasn't supposed to be.

I didn't have a computer or Internet access back then.
 
I am kinda the same. I felt like I was "lacking" something even before the internet came along. When I discovered FR, it wasn't on some rabid anti-circ website. It was on a pumper forum. I was pumping at the time and came across a FR thread and was like "OHHHHHHHHHHH! That's what it is!!!!" To be honest, even the most extreme anti-circ websites do not seem all that "crazy" or "rabid" to me. As far as I have seen, I am probably one of the most obsessed and annoying FR people on the internet...! :D
 
And we're all glad to have you......well......most of us.

BTW. I have read through this thread and have found it to be informative and thought provoking.

I am uncut and feel luckier than ever to be so. Those of you that are cut have my sympathy if you want it.
 
Kong, if you are really going to do it, I would use some that didn't go into all the way out there claims that some make about circumcision. I would only use info that deals with why it is not medically needed. Maybe one that would ask, "What are you paying for?" kind of thing

kooky
 
I'll run the brochure by you guys for opinions before taking it to the maternity ward. I have to go back in 5 weeks for more cat scans on my spleen. I'll try to do it then.
 
Wow, forgot about this for a while. First, in response to the institutional demand for profit keeping circumcisions prominent, this is the best explanation I've heard yet, but hardly comprehensive. I don't know if you perhaps worked on the adminstrative side of things at all in your career, but could you really imagine there being a particular budget break-down that included circumcisions? Granted a hospital or health care group might have some idea about how much revenue it generates, but I think the point is that we either believe hospitals are pushing the operation in an unethical fashion, or we believe that it's just an available service for parents.

I believe it is just that, as nearly half of new parents still wish to circumcise, and I'd bet a good number of them would still go for it even if they were informed that there are no tangible medical benefits. It is my understanding that it is now the trend for insurance companies to regard the procedure the as cosmetic and hence not pay for it, and it I was also told by a physician that doctors have regarded it as cosmetic action for quite a long time. The fact is, many hospitals would essentialy, as you may have already reasoned, lose business to others by not offering the procedure. So is this unethical on the part of hospitals and doctors? Absolutely not, as they consider it an extremely low-risk procedure (and it is), and something done for cosmetic reasons. The overwhelming sentiment that I heard when discussing it was that medical staff that ever really deal with it simply don't give it much consideration and conform to the parent's wishes.

I understand the need for any business entity to maximize revenue, but I'm more than pleased to accept this point as I don't think it essentially changes anything. And besides, we've gone from regarding doctors and the medical industry as an evil, scheming, monolithic machine hell bent on sexually crippling men for a few pennies a year, to suggesting that the medical indsutry doesn't ban circumcision outright because it's mostly harmless and hospitals would lose business by not providing it.

I think the bottom line with this issue is that the whole anti-circ thing is an emotional argument and movement, and like most of these types of things it needs something of a narrative structure, including a villian. So, the ominous medical industry is quickly demonized as the propigators of all these horrible mutilations and the outrage targeted their way. It fits better with the story than suggesting that most people never are bothered by circumcision and happily choose it for children, who in turn aren't bothered by it. Much more exciting is the idea that the masses just haven't been clued in on this anti-circ knowledge, and that those speading the gospel are fighting a an inhumane corporate machine and are privy to the real truth about male sexuality and such.

Now, so far as the circumcison could possibly cause a man to rape, become homosexual, manically depressed, ect. - I won't and will never say that is even possible. The only way I can see it affecting a person's behavior in such an extreme degree is if they were exposed to too much extremist internet propaganda that lead them to believe they were sexually crippled, mentally affected, and should be displaying these types of symptoms. There is absolutely no physiological explanation that I can think of for the removal of a foreskin causing such a wide array of different and abnormal behaviors. Can anybody make a reasonable argument to me substantiating that circumcision can have these effects on a person?

I'll be frank, it's really just some bullshit cooked up by extremist activitst groups that is designed to freak people out and recruit them into the fold. That seems fairly obvious to me. The suggestions of increased masturbation, impotence, propensity for rape, and homosexuality are taken from anti-circ literature, not any type of medical or psychological source. I think it's irresponsible, unprovable, and derogitory (the gay thing? think about it . . .).

Also, I believe that I have read that the peak of anti-circ activism was probably in the alte 70s and early 80s, when it was briefly a national news topic and the letter writing campaigns and newly formed organizations were very active. I often get the sense that many men are excited by the topic because they think they're on the cutting edge of something just beginning to gain speed, but the realative merits, or rather lack of merits, of circumcision has been debated and publicized quite heavily.

The pamphlet thing - I would ask the hosptial what their policy is before just leaving them around and then crying wolf if they disappear immediately. They may have a general rule against outside groups or individuals just distributing unreviewed literature around the hospital regardless of content. And, to be clear here, would the staff then want to whisk the pamphlets away as quickly as possible, as they fear losing their jobs if a few less circumcisions are performed that year? Institutional pressure is real, individual efforts to keep circumcisions happening are not. Think about it a bit . . .
 
Swank,

Given your response, you appear to have some serious issues that are holding you to a strong pro-circ frame of mind. What's up?

Really, why does this bother you so much? You initially said that it was erroneous information that you were railing against, but none of my information was erroneous. You dismiss my experience and knowledge, comport yourself to be a psychological expert, practice history revision, and speak from ignorance.

What about restoration and intactivism threatens you so much?
 
Last edited:
Where in there do I speak against restoration?

My particular dislikes are what I feel to be hasty generalizations and unvalidated information. I think that the claims about the medical industry have been heavily trumped up on this board and in the anti-circ movement in general, and I'm offering my take on it. If you read closely, I don't dismiss your commentary in the slightest, in fact I agree with it. I just believe the actual explanation and reality of what goes on is, as always, more complex than that. There's nothing wrong with attempting to flush out the msot accurate and comprehensive protrayal of an issue.

I don't believe to have any advanced psychological knowledge, but I do believe that I have at least a marginal understanding of the human mind, and I know that anti-circ groups simply manufactured the claims about circumcision making men violent, prone to rape, homosexuality, and all these other things. That is 100% propaganda used to upset people, and I do believe that it's a negative and harmful way to attempt to spread a cause. I've explained all this before in great detail - if you want to check it out, go back and read some threads I've started on the matter.

If you do read, you'll see I'm not so much pro-circ, I'm just not anti-circ. I acknowledge repeatedly that it's useless (even in my last post) and just a leftover cultural thing. I don't believe there is anything but anecodotal evidence that circumcision is nearly as damaging nearly as often as people proclaim on the internet. It's a small, highly outraged group that bases it's knowledge and platform on mostly anecodotal evidence, and most materials and websites I have seen employ very low standards of information. It's just a perspective and opinion priapologist, and we're all debating quite politely for a change, so what's the problem? That I disagree?

I wouldn't say that I totally speak from a position of ignorance. I've probably read as much if not more about the various topics than many people that get on this board. I essentially didn't have an opinion on circumcision until I started reading about it and debating the topic here. I was initially incredulous of claims, stated around here here but pretty much directly imported from anti-circ sites, that circumcision was a basic cause of sexual dysfunction in most men and caused widespread damage in many cases. FR was also announced as a reliabe method to increase the size of your penis, provide greater sexual stimulation to any woman, achieve better erections, ect. Both sets of claims seemed very poorly supported to me, and so I looked into them, thus creating my interest in the entire subject.

What did I say that was revisionist by the way?
 
Last edited:
Swank: I think we all agree that circumcision is an outdated cultural practice with no real medical benefits. You have to acknowledge, however, that there is a great deal of men who do not draw the line there as you do. Considering how much time you invest in combating our "extremist views and unfounded propaganda", it makes me think that you have some psychological investment in debunking the deeper ramifications of circumcision or a serious lack of compassion. How would you respond to that?
 
I'd respond that you're free to think that if you like, but I don't beleive it's the case. My interest in circumcision, as I explained, is only the result of reading and posting on these boards.

Specifically what we've been discussing here are the finer points of the medical industry's role in the continued practice of circumcision and my opinion of hte claims that circumcision causes a variety of abnormal mental and physical conditions.

I have compassion for men who suffer physical problems, but as I've said before, I think that at times these are imagined and come about as the result of erroneous and sometime patently fasle information spread by anti-circ groups. I believe that the proliferation of information that is both unsubstantiated and designed to be alarming and upsetting to men is equally negative and harmful to men as any unecessary cosmetic surgery. But I've explained all this before, in great detail, when asked nearly the exact same question. As always I will refer you to any previous thread where I would have explained in greater detail.

We weren't, however, really discussing any of that up until just now. As the thread has already changed topics several times I'm more than happy to address this particular line of interest (which appears to be, me?), though I hardly see how it informs on my previous comments about the medical industry and such. Has that ceased to be interesting?
 
Swank,

You responded pretty much how I expected you to. I made my post intentionally vague, to see how you would take it. In typical fashion, you took a simple point and wrote a four paragraph treatise on it, which strikes me as obfuscation via saturating content, or just sloppy thinking. You also like to reference back to some previous bulky posts to support your point, rather than answer the question directly or going to find your previous point yourself.

If someone makes a point that you can't outright refute, you adopt a "yeah, but..." approach and drag the discussion out on a tanget. You seem to like to write a lot without actually saying much, and I have the distinct impression from reading back through your posts, that you prefer to post contrary and inflammatory points of view on volatile threads. In my mind, that makes you a troll.

Go find a bridge.
 
Last edited:
Ouch guy. So let me get this straight, you ask me several direct questions, such as:

"Given your response, you appear to have some serious issues that are holding you to a strong pro-circ frame of mind. What's up?"

and

"Really, why does this bother you so much?"

and

"What about restoration and intactivism threatens you so much?"

And I'm not supposed to address them? Your post didn't really have anything to do with the previous line of conversation and essentially just asked me a few things, which I answered as briefly as possible. That's why I attempted to direct you to previous threads - where I've answered all your questions ad infinitum.

Now, I''m sorry that I tried to be polite and respond to your probe there, and consequently failed your custom 'troll test,' but uh, the next time you ask somebody several questions and they attempt to respond to you in a polite and comprehensive fashion, you might want to really think whether that's 'trolling' or not. Terribly clever of you, I must say.

And, as I said before, we were having a rather interesting discussion about several circumcision related topics before the thread got turned into a mild villification of anybody that states a contrary opinion (like me). Why don't you fellows quit worrying about why I post, which I have explained numerous times, and address some of the issue we've been going back and forth on which is far more interesting and appropriate for the forum. If you're bored with that or don't care, then simply let it be.

But as it stands, you really just seem to be instigating a personal exchange with me, which I believe you have expressed a dislike for in the past. What gives?
 
Swank: many of us have a hard time understanding why you are so skeptical of foreskin restoration. Kinda like a rabid sports fan wondering how someone could possibly NOT be a sports fan. I used to think you were just trolling, too, but now I am a little more mellow in my views and I almost enjoy our exchanges at times. Sometimes I think you argue just for the sake of argument, but ultimately it doesn't matter. Your main counter to Priap's post of the medical industry's need for revenue was a weak, "Yeah, but not really..." so that's where his frustration comes in. You can't really debate in an intelligent fashion with "yeah, but not really..." I hope one of these days you'll just take the leap and start restoring. Maybe then you'll understand our viewpoint a little better.
 
Swank,

LOL, I'm sorry man. I was having some sport with you, which I notice you like to do to others. I wasn't villifying you, I like you, I think that you have a great sense of humor. Like I've said elsewhere today, you remind me a lot of me. I'm a Myers-Briggs ENTP:

"ENTPs are usually verbally as well as cerebrally quick, and generally love to argue--both for its own sake, and to show off their often-impressive skills. They tend to have a perverse sense of humor as well, and enjoy playing devil's advocate. They sometimes confuse, even inadvertently hurt, those who don't understand or accept the concept of argument as a sport."

And, I'm something of a troll myself when blatently ignorant and/or dogmatic individuals let their fingers run amok, so I can commisurate with you.

Anyway, that doesn't diminish what I wrote; I just don't normally get that blunt. I really don't think that I need to expand on what I've written, especially since much of this thread has been an exercise in turd polishing.

You and me and Kong need to get together, down a few beers, and talk about pussy or something, instead of arguing about foreskins.

Peace!
Pri
 
Ah, well I apologize then. I guess I still don't understand forum talk well enough, but I thought trolling was a pretty bad deal. I don't take any of this business personally, it's just become somthing of a point of interest for me after investing all this time in reading and writing posts.

I feel like my point was made on the medical industry a litte more articulately than "yeah not really," although that was gist of it. The idea was basically to explain that I don't think it's supportable that there is any kind of unspoken or latent agreement in the medical indsutry to keep circumcision around just for money making, which has been more than just eluded to on many occasions in these forums, and I think we all pretty much agree on that point now.

I do enjoy the perspective I get from debating certain things on the forum, though I feel my opinions are more or less cementing at this point. It's not something I really derive a great deal of pleasure from, but it clearly seems to be worth my time as I keep coming back.

Kong, I'm not criticzing FR here. This is always a real confusion point with you. FR and anti-circ views don't have to go hand in hand, and rarely do I criticize the practice of FR. I have certainly been skeptical of claims that it will increase penis size and other such things that don't seem to be possible or generally acknowledged even by other FR enthusiasts, but I'm all for FR itself if it makes men feel better about themselves. But like I keep saying, we've been through all this.

Pripologist, I took one of those personality tests and scored highest in the extrovert and sensing categories, which I assume correlates with your results. I'm not too hot on that thing though, I scored very poorly in the 'thinking' category, kinda pissed me off! Anyway I think we have the tone of the exchanges all under control now so no more wild west post shootouts should be happening. Plus we're running out of shit to disagree on around here . . .
 
Okay, since I don't want to be a complete dick, I'll answer this post in a manner that isn't 'terribly clever' ;)

Swank said:
Wow, forgot about this for a while. First, in response to the institutional demand for profit keeping circumcisions prominent, this is the best explanation I've heard yet, but hardly comprehensive.
Click to expand...

Thanks! Oh, um, shucks.

Swank said:
I don't know if you perhaps worked on the adminstrative side of things at all in your career...
Click to expand...

Nope.

Swank said:
...but could you really imagine there being a particular budget break-down that included circumcisions?
Click to expand...

Yep, because we had charge codes for every item and procedure that we used/conducted in my field.

Swank said:
Granted a hospital or health care group might have some idea about how much revenue it generates, but I think the point is that we either believe hospitals are pushing the operation in an unethical fashion...
Click to expand...

Not at all. There is no conspiracy, just complacency...

Swank said:
...or we believe that it's just an available service for parents.
Click to expand...

...because of this.

Swank said:
I believe it is just that, as nearly half of new parents still wish to circumcise, and I'd bet a good number of them would still go for it even if they were informed that there are no tangible medical benefits. It is my understanding that it is now the trend for insurance companies to regard the procedure the as cosmetic and hence not pay for it, and it I was also told by a physician that doctors have regarded it as cosmetic action for quite a long time. The fact is, many hospitals would essentialy, as you may have already reasoned, lose business to others by not offering the procedure. So is this unethical on the part of hospitals and doctors? Absolutely not...
Click to expand...

Absolutely not? Even when the U.N. condemns RIC? Even when concerned physicians have formed Doctors Opposed to Circumcision? Even when the American Academy of Pediatrics has revoked support for RIC? Seems the ethics of RIC and those who perform and facilitate it are just a wee bit questionable.

Swank said:
...as they consider it an extremely low-risk procedure (and it is)...
Click to expand...

Yeah, ha, ha, tell that to the parents of the baby boys who've died as a direct result of circumcision.

Swank said:
...and something done for cosmetic reasons. The overwhelming sentiment that I heard when discussing it was that medical staff that ever really deal with it simply don't give it much consideration and conform to the parent's wishes.
Click to expand...

Father: "Say, doc, while you're down there, will you perform a vasectomy on the little guy?"

Doctor: "What? That would be unethical! Only he should be allowed to decide something that serious."

Father: "Wha...? It's only a little bit of tissue."

Swank said:
I understand the need for any business entity to maximize revenue, but I'm more than pleased to accept this point as I don't think it essentially changes anything. And besides, we've gone from regarding doctors and the medical industry as an evil, scheming, monolithic machine hell bent on sexually crippling men for a few pennies a year, to suggesting that the medical indsutry doesn't ban circumcision outright because it's mostly harmless and hospitals would lose business by not providing it.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I don't regard circumcision as "mostly harmless", just business-as-usual for the medical establisHydromaxent (it's not an industry).

Swank said:
I think the bottom line with this issue is that the whole anti-circ thing is an emotional argument and movement, and like most of these types of things it needs something of a narrative structure, including a villian.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? This isn't a course in creative writting; we don't need props to see the hypocracy of RIC.

Swank said:
So, the ominous medical industry is quickly demonized as the propigators of all these horrible mutilations and the outrage targeted their way. It fits better with the story than suggesting that most people never are bothered by circumcision and happily choose it for children, who in turn aren't bothered by it. Much more exciting is the idea that the masses just haven't been clued in on this anti-circ knowledge...
Click to expand...

Welcome to the Matrix, eh?

Swank said:
...and that those speading the gospel are fighting a an inhumane corporate machine and are privy to the real truth about male sexuality and such.

Now, so far as the circumcison could possibly cause a man to rape, become homosexual, manically depressed, ect. - I won't and will never say that is even possible. The only way I can see it affecting a person's behavior in such an extreme degree is if they were exposed to too much extremist internet propaganda that lead them to believe they were sexually crippled, mentally affected, and should be displaying these types of symptoms.
Click to expand...

You are refering to a minority opinion in the restoration community. I don't agree with that PTSD hoo doo, but I won't condemn the people who do since I don't live in their heads... and neither do you.

Swank said:
There is absolutely no physiological explanation that I can think of...
Click to expand...

Are you a psychologist or a psychiatrist? If not, then STFU :P

Swank said:
...for the removal of a foreskin causing such a wide array of different and abnormal behaviors. Can anybody make a reasonable argument to me substantiating that circumcision can have these effects on a person?
Click to expand...

Excuse me! Is there a Doctor of Psychology in the house?

Swank said:
I'll be frank, it's really just some bullshit cooked up by extremist activitst groups that is designed to freak people out and recruit them into the fold. That seems fairly obvious to me.
Click to expand...

Thank you, Doctor Swank, for you're informed assessment.

Swank said:
The suggestions of increased masturbation, impotence, propensity for rape, and homosexuality are taken from anti-circ literature, not any type of medical or psychological source. I think it's irresponsible, unprovable, and derogitory (the gay thing? think about it . . .).
Click to expand...

Really? Not any type of medical or psychological source? Can you prove that? rofl

Swank said:
Also, I believe that I have read that the peak of anti-circ activism was probably in the alte 70s and early 80s, when it was briefly a national news topic and the letter writing campaigns and newly formed organizations were very active. I often get the sense that many men are excited by the topic because they think they're on the cutting edge of something just beginning to gain speed, but the realative merits, or rather lack of merits, of circumcision has been debated and publicized quite heavily.
Click to expand...

This is what I mean by revisionist history. The U.S. health statistics just do not support such a simplistic view of circumcision rates. As for activism: they don't appear to be very quiet these days, but then you heavily qualified your assertions, so your argument isn't very compelling to begin with.

Swank said:
The pamphlet thing - I would ask the hosptial what their policy is before just leaving them around and then crying wolf if they disappear immediately.
Click to expand...

Always a good idea.

Swank said:
They may have a general rule against outside groups or individuals just distributing unreviewed literature around the hospital regardless of content.
Click to expand...

Probably not. The Jehovah's Witnesses leave stuff all the time and it never gets tossed.

Swank said:
And, to be clear here, would the staff then want to whisk the pamphlets away as quickly as possible, as they fear losing their jobs if a few less circumcisions are performed that year?
Click to expand...

Probably not. They're much to busy doing their jobs to worry about pamphlets in the waiting areas. This whole paragraph is where I dinged you for talking out of ignorance; if you've never worked in a hospital.... :P

Swank said:
Institutional pressure is real, individual efforts to keep circumcisions happening are not. Think about it a bit . . .
Click to expand...

I'd really rather not, thanks.

Cheers!
Pri
 
Swank said:
Ah, well I apologize then.
Click to expand...

No need to do that Swank. Hell, I should apologize for being a dick... I won't ;), but I should.

Swank said:
Pripologist, I took one of those personality tests and scored highest in the extrovert and sensing categories, which I assume correlates with your results. I'm not too hot on that thing though, I scored very poorly in the 'thinking' category, kinda pissed me off! Anyway I think we have the tone of the exchanges all under control now so no more wild west post shootouts should be happening. Plus we're running out of shit to disagree on around here . . .
Click to expand...

That means you scored more heavily in the Feeling aspect, not that you can't think... because you obviously can, quite well in fact. Anyway, you're right, we shouldn't be having any more shootouts, although I'm sure that we will find something new to bitch with each other about soon enough :D

Cheers!
Pri
 
These last couple posts give me a feeling of deja vu for some reason...

I just wanted to toss in a couple points.

1) I kinda like the shoot outs. [words=http://www.mattersofsize.com/join-now.html]MOS[/words] has been kinda dead lately, so at least something entertaining is going on.

2) I DO believe hospitals are being unethical. Whether you think they are purposely doing something they know to be harmful for profit, or you think they are just allowing a harmful act to continue because of it revenue, it is still the same vile, money-driven thing. You can polish and put a pretty bow on a turd, swank, but in the end it is still a turd.
 
Priapologist said:
I should apologize for being a dick... I won't ;), but I should.
Click to expand...

Actually, I will. Swank, I am sorry that I cheap-shot you like that. I violated my own principles and behaved badly. Sorry, man.

Pri
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top