Polls

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






Man, I'm such a cheeky bastard :D

Cheers kong!

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 MOS 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?

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.

....woooooooooowwwwwwww.....

:D

Very good post...

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 MOS 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.