From elastic!exorcist!lethe!geac!herboid!whome!infoshare!news1.toronto.fonorola.net!news1.toronto.istar.net!news.toronto.istar.net!istar.net!imci2!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!thumper1 Mon Dec 25 11:00:26 1995 Xref: elastic misc.kids.health:992 misc.kids.pregnancy:508 sci.med:18182 soc.men:4358 Newsgroups: soc.men,misc.kids.pregnancy,misc.kids.health,sci.med,alt.sex Path: elastic!exorcist!lethe!geac!herboid!whome!infoshare!news1.toronto.fonorola.net!news1.toronto.istar.net!news.toronto.istar.net!istar.net!imci2!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!thumper1 From: thumper1@netcom.com (Tom Stempler) Subject: Re: Circumcision: A Barbaric Practice (by J. Steven Svoboda) Message-ID: Sender: thumper1@netcom6.netcom.com Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82 References: <4a645a$a3q@sulla.cyberstore.ca> <4a8qqu$10q@sulla.cyberstore.ca> <4a9rsu$5l8@ionews.io.org> <4ab9s6$q6r@sulla.cyberstore.ca> <4ad71b$8rt@ionews.io.org> <4aj90m$fr8@sulla.cyberstore.ca> <4b0l1n$sj1@sulla.cyberstore.ca> Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 15:31:45 GMT Lines: 398 mark@gilelect.seanet.com wrote: >As an individual who grew up uncircumcised and was subjected to all the other >kids, circumcised, asking how that thing works, always wondering if they >thought my penis was totaly wierd, and being asked why I don't get that thing >fixed I gave the option of getting circumcised great thought and research. >I also did not enjoy the fact that my foreskin would cover up my glans during >sex on the back (out) stroke there covering all those 'extra' nerves. >I therefore went and got circumcised. Now the inter foreskin that is folded >back and the glans enjoy contact during sex of all kinds. I am a much happier >man. >I just wanted to make it known there a also many men who have discovered that >the circumcised penis is much more enjoyable and erotic to them. >I should note that I had not medical porblems with my foreskin. This is a refreshing change of pace. We don't hear enough of it--someone who has experienced both conditions cut and uncut, who recounts his particular experience and doesn't appear to want to make any decisions for the rest of us. Recently from the "restoration" support group on the net--men who are in various stages of restoring their foreskins. Certain comments were made in the same subject area with a different opinion from that just made. To extract without disclosing names: "A" said: "Personally, I have noticed a marked increased in sensitivity of my glans especially to temperature change. This intensifies the sensation on entry into the vagina for me and I do think I feel more sensation overall. I'm not sure that it's intensified my orgasms... yet. One thing that I noticed though is that I have much more sensation on the 'in' stroke with intercourse, but feel like I feel less on the 'out' stroke as the foreskin is pulled back over my frenulum. Overall, the sensation *is* better, but it was interesting to notice the difference between 'in' and 'out'." And "B" replied: "I noticed the warmth of the skin wrapper immediately. Yes, it does provide the sensations you've described, though on the "out" stroke, I notice some added pleasure from the skin bunching up around the glans. I'm a long way (1-1/2") from having any coverage under those conditions." Without trying to draw any universal conclusion whether one state is better than the other, I just find it of benefit, that the sexual details are finally being openly discussed and compared. One aspect that I haven't heard recently is comparing the positions of the scrotum. Given the same person cut and uncut. In a state of erection where the glans is normally uncovered in both cases, the scrotum and testes would be able to hang lower in the uncut state. This is especially noticed by younger males cut too tightly who complain that the testes ride up too much with an erection and they often feel like there just is not enough skin to have a full erection without discomfort. Seriously, it is a problem, because we do expect psychologically healthy people to reach a certain acceptance of their condition if they can't change it. For example, someone who has had his foot amputated, and is asked if he misses his foot or thinks things were better when he had his foot, will probably (if he is in good psychological health), want to tell you that there are advantages to not having a foot. E.g. he doesn't have to be bothered clipping his toenails, and he spends a lot less money on socks, and gets around pretty well with his prothesis, or whatever, thank-you. The problem comes when these individuals have to make decisions for their children--whether their child should have the same thing done to him. Obviously the more people with their particular amputation around the safer they feel. I suspect some of the hysterical rhetoric on this issue from cut men who are pro-cut is related to that. THE DEBATE I don't trust people who are so sure they are right about something--"cut good uncut bad" For some reason, some people are making the argument that some anti-cut individuals are "unemployed" or "students" and "who are they!" to criticize a hard working doctor just trying to make a buck? " Who is this nobody going around criticizing a noble doctor trying to help his patients." Hmm. Makes you start to wonder. Maybe they have a point. Then you think about it a little and you have to ask yourself--'who is making this argument." Guess what, it's the pro-cut doctor who's making his living at cutting penises. And the anti-cut guy is arguing because he came to believe it's not such a good idea. Hold on a second, most of the anti-cut faction are "Rachael Carson (idealistic environmentalist) types"-- working for a cause they believe in, without an axe to grind. (Personally, I was pro-cut myself up until a few months ago when I found out about "uncircumcising" and read what many call the Foreskin Restoration "Bible"--Jim Bigelow's "The Joy of Uncircumcising'. It also openly and thoroughly discusses the foreskin and circumcision.) The pro-cut forces are beginning to sound more and more hysterical in their tone. What are they so upset about? After all, this IS a topic which really has never been seriously discussed openly in our culture. As the rest of the English speaking world has moved away from circ. England in 1949, the rest have health plans which will no longer cover the procedure, except for emergencies. This country's medical establishment is being put in an unfavorable light by the rest of the world for its contridictory stance on circumcision. The following letter recently appeared in the New York Times: ______________BEGIN ARTICLE_______________ NY Times, 12/19/95, Letters to the Editor, Page A24 Circumcising Babies Meserak Ramsey, an Ethiopian nurse, is leading the battle to eliminate the practice of female genital mutilation both in this country and abroad. (News Article, Dec. 10th) It will be difficult for the United States to influence the international debate on genital mutilation so long as the routine circumcision of baby boys is widely practiced in our hospitals. Although many Americans may feel that male and female circumcision are unrelated, the rest of the world sees the connection. In a canny move, the government of Egypt recently sought to defuse western criticism of female genital mutilation by prescribing that it be performed by doctors, in hospitals and under sanitary conditions. When over one million boys are circumcised here annually, many without anaesthesia and with occasionally fatal results, how can we impugn other peoples' attachment to this ancient rite? Barry Ellsworth New York, December 12th, 1995 __________END OF ARTICLE____________ MEDICAL ISSUES Not that there are respected leaders of the American medical profession here who are anti-RIC (Routine Infant Circumcision). Just to point out a few: Koop is anti-RIC The head of Childrens Hospital in Phila. is very adamantly anti-RIC and well-respected. Dr. Spock has reversed himself and has been anti-RIC for about 10 years. I guess the "smoking gun" or the tobacco industry equivalent of nicotine addiction memos may possibly be the AAP's little "pirouette" on RIC several years ago. It finally, along with the rest of the world came out against RIC in the late 80's and then very quickly reversed itself. The radical anti-foreskin pro-cut forces led by Shoen (Jewish Pediatrician) forces were instrumental in this. I have argued in previous articles that RIC is the equivalent of routinely bobbing infant noses. Just to point out how irresponsible the pro-cut forces have become: Someone in reply to that, tried to suggest that parents DO have "defects" in their "CHILDREN repaired by plastic surgery, and proceeded to change the thread to a discussion of plastic surgery on children. I don't know whether he purposefully misses the point that I believe it would be unethical for a physician to modify the features of his patient, if he believed it would NOT be in the best interests of the child to perform the surgery, just because the parent wants the child that way. If he's talking about 11 and 12 year olds having rhinoplasty's, I have to wonder if he isn't purposefully missing the point. Would he suggest a physician do this to a child who offered objection? Isn't that a little different than cosmetic surgery at the parent's whim, or routinely on an INFANT? Would he condone the amputation of a hand from a child who's parent wanted it because she didn't want him to grow up to become a thief? I don't see a need to belabor this aspect of the issue. What looks more interesting is asking the medical profession why it chooses to turn its back on those who want to "uncircumcise". The alternative these men have if they want medical care is to entice foreign doctors to enter the US to develop practices specializing in the care of the foreskin and foreskin restoration. One can't help but be disappointed in the lack of foresight in the american medical industry. Medical education in the US has essentially ignored the foreskin. Without having physicans with any knowledge of it, is it any wonder that many are a little frightened that they might have to learn how to treat it, and are so anxious to amputate it. At present foreign doctors and other professions will be the only places parents with intact boys will be able to go for expertese on the foreskin. With more intact children, more men will also seek out "uncircumcision." Another problem seems to be that the medical industry is making the argument that parents are insisting that the doctors circumcise and the doctors basically have to go along with what the parents want. This argument would seem on its surface reasonable if we didn't look back and see that it was the medical profession that has convinced parents that circ is the "more prudent option. Not only have they not tried to inform parents of the benefits of not cutting, but they make it very difficult for parents who want to keep their son intact, to do so. Is it any wonder that those parents who are insisting on not cutting their sons are the better educated--the ones who research an issue, and the parents who are still insisting on cutting are generally the poorer and less educated? RELIGIOUS ISSUES Which brings us to the problem with the Jews and circumcision. I don't know his exact words and have nothing against his advances in the pschological areas but when asked about anti-semitism Sigmund Freud said something to the effect that antisemitism could be cured with world-wide circumcision. After World War II, in the post-war era, there was an atmosphere of condemnation of Antisemitism in reaction to what had happened to the Jews at the during wartime. I have recently spoken with several Jewish people who are now opposed to RIC (for everyone). And they believe that it was during this period that RIC in this country became the unquestioned rule. They feel that most Jews here in the US now, if the majority of the gentiles stop cutting, will go along and will not want to be in the minority, in that way, again. Of course, that is speculation. There are a number of very vocal Jews who seem to want to scare other Jews that if they don't cut their sons they will not be consided Jews by others. According to my Jewish contacts, this is a very old tactic, and WAS also used when Jews in the US began to abandon Kosher practices. There were, and still are certain more observant Jews who look down on those who are less observant and will make remarks such as "they are not Jews", to try and coerce a behavior. Without commenting about that attitude, it is interesting to compare the situation with some other religions. Catholics in this country now openly express views about contraception and abortion which are contrary to the Vatican. It's my understanding that although such behavior at one time could have caused excommunication, that is no longer the practice. The Mormons in the last century practiced polygamy in the US until the government banned it. I suppose it could be argued that if they were allowed to continue it (openly, there are some who suggest that some Mormons continue the practice secretively) that non-Mormons might have wanted to do it also. Whether an analogy can or should be drawn to the Jewish position with RIC is something that needs to be considered. Note: The point is that not all Jews circumcise. Even though the most vocal on Usenet make the catch22 "if they don't cut, they can't be Jewish". One of the problems with some Jews' positions on circumcision is their inability to see how they seem to want to have it both ways (keep their cake and eat it too--so to speak). They argue that it is a religious issue and that gentiles have no right to even discuss it with them (and become extremely abusive about this BTW). Yet, the same ones who demand this (here on Usenet) go around proselytizing about the medical advantages of circumcision in an attempt to sabotage the non-religious medical arguments against RIC. I made the suggestion that there is this problem for anti-cut forces who would be willing to leave the religious RIC out of the debate. But when they look at the leader and most vocal force in the pro-cut faction of the medical community, Dr. Shoen, (Jewish Pediatrician, who is not above joking about the issue), how can they. In response to my suggestion that Jews here on Usenet refrain from raising the religious shield until we see an end to the "Shoens", someone again twisted my remarks, absurdly--" I was impugning the integrity of all Jewish dectors that they were unable to separate their religious views from their medical viewpoints." Sounded harsh, almost as if I hit a nerve. This "logician;)" then went on to suggest that Gentile anti-RIC Doctors in turn should NOT refuse to circumcise an infanct because of their "religious?" bias. Right;) However, after observing some of the Jewish debate on this here on Usenet, and looking a little closer at Shoen's position, I begin to wonder whether it really IS possible for Jews who believe in religious circumcision to separate those views from their scientific interpretations of the facts. It is for others to judge for themselves whether it is indeed possible for Jews to do this, or if it even is really fair to them to have to be placed into that difficult position, in what appears to be such an emotional issue, for many of them. Are they able to be rational about this issue? MODERATING PROCEDURES Even though many of the anti Routine Infant Circumcision (RIC) forces would like to see an immediate end to it, I don't think any really believe it's going to end here overnight. Possibly an open discussion about these issues will permit some moderating positions even in the cases where parents are going to cut regardless. A few suggestions come to mind to be considered. 1. Use a plastic surgeon. Although more expensive than a Pediatrician or an OB/GYN, we're talking about your son's genitals here. The medical profession is generally agreed amongst themselves they do the best job. Next come Urologists. 2. Don't make the decision in the pressure of "The New Car Showroom-The Hospital". Take him home and try him out. They'll still be there to do it when you're ready to bring him back. He should be anesthestized if you're at all concerned about the cruelty aspects of the pain. (Current thinking even by the AAP is that infants experience and are affected by pain) And the older he is the less risk of death from anesthesia (often the riskiest aspect of a surgical procedure) 3. Consider the Dorsal Slit Procedure only. He will look circumcised, the glans will be exposed, and all of the hygiene benefits will apply. No tissue is being removed. There are a number of "luckier' men around who think they were circumcised, but received this procedure, and don't understand all the fuss about circ. One would have to suspect that those least likely to notice any problems with their circ are those who had little or no tissue removed. 4. Unless you're a radical jewish rabbi with a viewpoint a la second century AD (afraid that he might someday want to uncircumcise himself and blend in with the INFIDELS), there is no reason to take a lot of skin. Some circumcisions remove as much as 80% of the skin system of the penis. Try to have as little tissue taken as possible. Discuss it ahead of time with the doctor and make sure he understands your feelings. Note: In cases where so much tissue is removed, it's kind of stretching things to argue with the term "mutilation". PARTING THOUGHTS Many of the "Negative Nelly" type replies are too absurd to even dignify with comments. For anyone who takes them seriously, I don't know what to tell you. Then there are the Mr. Duh-duh Gibber-blathers who you hear scratching about everywhere looking for anti-semitism. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln "if you look hard enough for the bad in mankind you surely will find it."(they have nothing to add so they just try to subtract) I have to suspect that most of the angry uptight pro-cut voices seem to be coming from guys who were probably just cut "too tight." It tends to make you just unpleasant to be around. My only advice for them would be to consider uncircumcising themselves to stretch out some of that too-tight skin.:) From what I've heard, some of those Jewish cut jobs are really wicked--even uncircumcising can take quite a few years for one of them--they really have to be serious about it! Tom Stempler P.S. I am beginning to moderate my position on this and one guy has convinced me that circumcision is very good idea in one particular instance. I can think of one "wiener" around just begging to be "skinned". Let's see who can we get to do it. Ah, yes! I know who would be PERFECT to do it for him. We need a rabbi. How about that one up in NY who just settled out of court with the Jewish Russian immigrant boy, for a cool million? He only removed 80% of the kids "head", Maybe this time he'd get it "right" and "decapitate" the "wiener". It sure would be a LOT more pleasant around here for everyone. We might even get back to discussing issues seriously, rather than analyzing sentence structure, and picking apart posts.. Tom Stempler From elastic!exorcist!lethe!geac!herboid!whome!infoshare!news1.toronto.fonorola.net!news1.toronto.istar.net!news.toronto.istar.net!istar.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!thumper1 Mon Dec 25 11:09:12 1995 Xref: elastic misc.health.aids:157 misc.kids.health:998 misc.kids.pregnancy:511 sci.med:18188 Newsgroups: sci.med,misc.kids.health,misc.kids.pregnancy,misc.health.aids Path: elastic!exorcist!lethe!geac!herboid!whome!infoshare!news1.toronto.fonorola.net!news1.toronto.istar.net!news.toronto.istar.net!istar.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!thumper1 From: thumper1@netcom.com (Tom Stempler) Subject: How does male circumcision affect HIV transmission? Message-ID: Sender: thumper1@netcom6.netcom.com Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82 Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 16:51:10 GMT Lines: 100 The following article originally appeared in the September 1994 issue of The Backlash!, Rod Van Mechelen, Publisher, P.O. Box 70525, Bellevue, WA 98007] It raises questions about the transmission of the HIV virus in cases of uncircumcised vs. circumcised male having sexual intercourse. ___________________Begin Article__________________________ The drawing on the cover of your May issue shows a woman saying, "Yes, let's make love. But I'm concerned about AIDS. How do you feel about safe sex?," and the man she's talking to replying, "Hey, don't worry, I've been *circumcised*." It might make just slightly more sense for him to say, "Hey, don't worry, my foreskin is intact." Of all the charges leveled against the human foreskin throughout its long, tortured history, none is more frightening -- and none warrants closer scrutiny -- than the ongoing, well-publicized charge that it predisposes its possessor and his sexual partners to an early, slow, agonizing death -- to infection with the AIDS virus. Why have researchers and the media ignored the opposite, more obvious possibility? Most sexual transmission of the AIDS virus is from the thrusting partner to the receiving partner at ejaculation during vaginal or anal intercourse. A penis with its foreskin intact -- an uncircumcised penis -- can slip in and out of a vagina or rectum non-abrasively inside its own slick sheath of sensitive, self-lubricating, *movable* foreskin. A penis with its foreskin missing -- a dowel-like circumcised penis -- can only scrape in and out. A penis with its foreskin intact requires relatively gentle thrusting -- and less time -- to ejaculate. A circumcised penis -- its head keratinized, desensitized, and dry -- requires rougher, more prolonged thrusting to experience the sensations necessary to trigger ejaculation. (A prostitute who's had intercourse with literally thousands of men told me that intercourse with a circumcised man and intercourse with an uncircumcised man were two entirely different experiences, that she could *always* tell from the feeling alone whether a man was circumcised or uncircumcised, that circumcised men took longer to ejaculate, and that they "have to work at it.") Which -- a penis with its foreskin intact or a penis with its foreskin missing -- is more likely to cause the breaks, tears, micro-fractures, fissures, abrasions, and lacerations in a vagina or rectum through which the AIDS virus in the thrusting partner's semen could enter the receiving partner's bloodstream? And which is more likely to break a condom? The United States has one of the highest male circumcision rates *and* one of the highest HIV infection rates in the world. The Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta (1-800-342- AIDS) reports that as of June 1995, more than 476,000 cases of AIDS and more than 295,000 AIDS-related deaths had been reported in the U.S., and that more than a million Americans -- one in 200 -- were estimated to be infected with the virus. [Date and figures adjusted for June 1995.] *Does* male circumcision contribute to the spread of AIDS? Isn't it time to find out? One more question: If a positive correlation between AIDS and circumcision were in fact established, would it be fully and accurately reported by the media in this country, or, like so many other facts about the foreskin and circumcision, would it be distorted, censored, and suppressed? __________________End of Article_________________________ For information about foreskin restoration (using skin expansion techniques--similar to the idea of Africans who put plates in their lips to grow new tissue), which circumcised men have used and are using to uncircumcise, see: http://www.tde.com/~derrickt/restore.html and http://www.eskimo.com/~gburlin/restore/ Tom Stempler From hampton@netcom.com Sun Feb 11 09:07:10 1996 Xref: elastic misc.kids:2675 misc.kids.pregnancy:616 sci.med:19184 soc.men:8746 talk.politics.medicine:14735 Newsgroups: misc.kids,misc.kids.pregnancy,soc.men,sci.med,talk.politics.medicine Path: elastic!exorcist!lethe!geac!onramp.ca!grumpy.insinc.net!news.bconnex.net!primus.ac.net!imci4!imci5!suck-feed.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!hampton From: hampton@netcom.com (Wayne Hampton) Subject: AB2125 Circumcision == Felony Message-ID: Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 05:27:06 GMT Lines: 52 Sender: hampton@netcom4.netcom.com California Assembly Bill AB2125 which was introduced into the legislature last week would make unnecessary circumcision a felony. Supporters predict no problem for passage of the bill -- because it protects only girls(the least likely victims). Very interesting. If you cut off the clitoral prepuce it's a felony. But if you cut off the healthy prepuce of a penis you get to charge money. Heck, maybe they'll even throw a party! Clearly there is a state interest in protecting helpless children (whoops, I mean girls) from unnecessary, painful and damaging genital surgery. The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from all of this is that boys are simply not human children. It's starting to become clearer now. That's why its OK to hurt boy babies. That's why its OK to remove erogenous tissue from them. That's why a group of demonstrators from NOHARMM (National Organization to Halt the Abuse and Routine Mutilation of Males), burned their birth certificates in Washington DC in the Spring of '94. They knew they weren't considered human. They were not treated as human at birth, so whatever would they need birth certificates for? Heck, baby boys aren't even animals. Circumcision of animals is not permitted by ethical animal research guidelines, but it's perfectly OK to cut unanesthetised boys. That's why it's OK to use them for pain research. And that's why its OK to label products "cruelty free" if they have been tested with foreskin cut off of unanesthetised baby boys. So little boys are obviously not children. (Yet, if you cut them do they not bleed?) So I'll write to the California legislators asking why they are trying to pass a patently unconstitutional law (since it does not provide equal protection for all children (whoops, there I go again thinking that boys are human beings (silly me!))). I'll ask them to change the words girl/female to "child". Don't worry, it will only affect the bill's constitutionality, since as everybody knows, boys are not children. There is NO need for anybody to worry that boys might actually be treated equally. And Lorena Bobbitt proved that there is no cutting you can do to a penis that Amerika could ever consider abusive. So anybody who wants to circumcise, subincise, superincise, flay the entire penis (as they did in Yemen earlier this century), or cut off a testicle (as they did on the island of Ponape), or whatever cutting they'd like to do to edit their little boys... C'mon to Amerika. Nothing like that warrants ANY protection in Amerika. Because WE understand the rights of parents to do such things to their children. Whoops, there I go again! I mean boys. Boys are not children!! Gotta get that through my head! Boys are not human. Boys are not children. There! I think I got it now. From elastic!lethe!geac!onramp.ca!news2.insinc.net!news.iosphere.net!news.supernet.net!news.magicnet.net!nntp.newsfirst.com!nntp.crosslink.net!news.stylus.net!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.mathworks.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!nwnews.wa.com!nwfocus.wa.com!news.nas.com!news Mon Jul 22 07:42:51 1996 Xref: elastic misc.kids:5298 misc.kids.health:4031 misc.kids.pregnancy:2851 sci.med:32880 soc.men:22557 Path: elastic!lethe!geac!onramp.ca!news2.insinc.net!news.iosphere.net!news.supernet.net!news.magicnet.net!nntp.newsfirst.com!nntp.crosslink.net!news.stylus.net!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.mathworks.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!nwnews.wa.com!nwfocus.wa.com!news.nas.com!news From: donmorgan@nas.com (Don Morgan) Newsgroups: soc.men,sci.med,misc.kids.pregnancy,misc.kids.health,alt.sex,misc.kids Subject: Re: Pro-circ delusions (was Re: Pritchard, Sessions vested interest in continuing Routine Circumcision? Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 20:48:03 GMT Organization: Network Access Services, Inc. Lines: 99 Message-ID: <31ebef7d.7871356@news.nas.com> References: <4qvnf8$sqs@news2.delphi.com> <4r91ro$bmk@scooby.beloit.edu> <4ri5p1$fi2@news2.delphi.com> <4roo10$9u8@scooby.beloit.edu> <4rsnmn$2i6@news2.delphi.com> <4s3d2r$aie@scooby.beloit.edu> <4s9n6o$kkm@news2.delphi.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: dialup23.nas.com X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99e/16.227 On 13 Jul 1996 22:48:56 -0400, NICIAS@news.delphi.com (NICIAS@DELPHI.COM) wrote: >We could take a census. There just might be comparable numbers of >disgruntled circ victims and people who would feel threatened by a >ban on circumcision. Yes, we could take a census. If we excluded Jews and Muslims, and considered only so-called medical circumcision, I would put my money on it that there are many more disgruntled victims of circumcision than there are people who would feel threatened by a ban which prohibited circumcision except in cases of medical necessity. Other than those cultures where circumcision is practiced for religious reasons (or as a coming of age ceremony), the rest of the world gets along quite well without it. No reason is seen to routinely remove part of a little boy's penis--except in the U.S. Even counting the mostly circumcised male populations in the U.S., Israel, and the Muslim countries, 85% of the world's males are intact (i.e., "uncircumcised"). The extent of the practice here in the U.S. is seen as curious and perverse by non-Americans, non-Muslims and non-Jews. I have had correspondence from several Brits, for example, who can hardly believe that the U.S., a so-called civilized country, continues the practice, making it the norm, when in every other English-speaking country in the world, circumcision is no longer in favor. The U.S. is absolutely alone in the entire world in continuing the practice of nonreligious circumcision to the extent that it does. Rates are falling, however, and in some areas of the country (e.g., California) circumcision is no longer the norm. It is only a matter of time that nonreligious circumcision will be seen for what it is: a relic of the Victorian mentality which saw masturbation as a practice so harmful that it had to be stopped in any way possible and circumcision as the first step in the cure. The introduction of circumcision in the 19th century was an attempt to prevent what was seen at the time as child sex (self-)abuse. "By about 1880 the individual... might wish[to]... tie, chain, or infibulate sexually active children... to adorn them with grotesque appliances, encase them in plaster, leather, or rubber, to frighten or even castrate them... masturbation insanity was now real enough--it was affecting the medical profession." (B. Berkeley, quoted from _Circumcision: The Painful Dilemma_, by Rosemary Romberg, Bergin & Garvey Publisher, Inc, S. Hadley MA, USA, 1985, ISBN 089789-073-6) Dr. E.J. Spratling, who promoted this surgery by telling his colleagues that "...circumcision is undoubtedly the physician's closest friend and ally..." prescribed in 1895 the method of circumcision as it is practiced in hospitals today. "To obtain the best results one must cut away enough skin and mucous membrane to rather put it on the stretch when erections come later. There must be no play in the skin after the wound has thoroughly healed, but it must fit tightly over the penis, for should there be any play the patient will be found to readily resume his practice not begrudging the time and extra energy required to produce the orgasm... We may not be sure that we have done away with the possibility of masturbation, but we may feel confident that we have limited it to within the danger lines." (E.J. Spratling, MD. Medical Record, Masturbation in the Adult, vol. 48, no. 13, September 28, 1895, pp. 442-443.) Here is an example of what another sexaphobic American doctor had to say about masturbation in 1903: "It (self abuse) lays the foundation for consumption, paralysis and heart disease. It weakens the memory, makes a boy careless, negligent and listless. It even makes many lose their minds; others, when grown, commit suicide.... Don't think it does no harm to your boy because he does not suffer now, for the effects of this vice come on so slowly that the victim is often very near death before you realize that he has done himself harm. It is worthy of note that many eminent physicians now advocate the custom of circumcision..." (Mary R. Melendy, MD, The Ideal Woman - For Maidens, Wives and Mothers, 1903.) "A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment. In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement." (John Harvey Kellogg, M.D., "Treatment for Self-Abuse and its Effects," Plain Fact for Old and Young. Burlington, Iowa: F. Segner & Co. (1888). P. 295)