Polls

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.

TomdW said:

Those of you that are cut have my sympathy if you want it.

Click to expand...

Yes, thank you, consolation is appriciated.

Peace
Pri

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?

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?

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.

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.

Oops! Just realized I forgot to insult you. Must be slipping in my old age. Next time, okay?

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

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?

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....

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. MOS 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