Circumcision as abuse

How can it be anything other than abuse? The physical
mutilation, the severe emotional and mental stress the
child is placed under, are all quite clearly a disturbing
form of abuse.

If the child's health/life depended on it, then it would be
understandable.

What would you call it if someone came up to you and
briefly informed you (if they even bothered!) that they
were going to cut a part of you away from yourself? Because
THEY had decided it would be best for you. I cant imagine
what a child must feel as all this is going on, strangers
cutting away at his body, removing a part of who he is,
whilst mummy and/or daddy are standing there watching? How
messed up is that?

That leads to the very good point you raise that this could
well then lead that child to grow up more aggressively as a
form of protection and prevention of that happening again.

Then the emotional issues for later on in life....it's truly
appalling.

Johanne-

On 1 Apr 2004 00:01:08 -0800, [email hidden]
(nahasafeemapetelan) wrote:

[unanesthetized circ]

Who does that ?

Such a person should be shot the very moment.

Regards,

Aribert Deckers
--
*** DER NEUE VEREIN ***

ariplex.comama p0.htmOpen ↗

From the perspective of an observant old grandma...... I've
seen the benefits of circumcision for little boys through
the years. When they are babies it is much easier to keep
them clean. As they aged and

'diseases' more readily.....they were not as physically
'attractive' to females as were circumcised men......and
they were not as 'relaxed and

'unconfident' partners). Likewise, when speaking openly with
uncircumcised

bit 'out of the norm' and wished they'd been circumcised
as babies.

No, I have no 'scientific' data or funded 'study' to
reference. I have never heard of a circumcised male who was
traumatized and wished as an adult that he'd never been
circumcised. Quite the opposite.

Coleah
====================
"Johanne" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

How can it be anything other than abuse? The physical
mutilation, the severe emotional and mental stress the
child is placed under, are all quite clearly a disturbing
form of abuse.

If the child's health/life depended on it, then it would
be understandable.

What would you call it if someone came up to you and
briefly informed you (if they even bothered!) that they
were going to cut a part of you away from yourself?
Because THEY had decided it would be best for you. I cant
imagine what a child must feel as all this is going on,
strangers cutting away at his body, removing a part of who
he is, whilst mummy and/or daddy are standing there
watching? How messed up is that?

That leads to the very good point you raise that this
could well then lead that child to grow up more
aggressively as a form of protection and prevention of
that happening again.

Then the emotional issues for later on in life....it's
truly appalling.

Johanne-

On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 18:30:24 GMT, "Coleah" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

From the perspective of an observant old grandma...... I've
seen the benefits of circumcision for little boys through
the years. When they are babies it is much easier to keep
them clean.

This is probably true.

Quoted message said:

As they aged and

Quoted message said:

'diseases' more readily

I believe that epidemiological evidence suggests that
uncircumcised males are much more likely to get AIDS than
their counterparts.

Quoted message said:

.....they were not as physically 'attractive' to females as
were circumcised men

I suspect that this has more to do with unfamiliarity with
the uncircumcised penis. In Europe where circumcision is
less common I suspect women find the circumcised penis less
attractive.

Quoted message said:

......and they were not as 'relaxed and

Actually circumcision causes desensitization of the penis
which is not

Quoted message said:

Likewise, when speaking openly with uncircumcised

Quoted message said:

bit 'out of the norm' and wished they'd been circumcised
as babies.

I suspect that again this has to do with being different
from the norm in their region.

Quoted message said:

No, I have no 'scientific' data or funded 'study' to
reference. I have never heard of a circumcised male who was
traumatized and wished as an adult that he'd never been
circumcised. Quite the opposite.

That is not true. There are many men who have decreased
sensitivity in their penis that wish they were not
circumcised. This is especially true when they get older
when it is more difficult to get an erection.

Aloha,

Rich

Quoted message said:

-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance

<Rich.@.> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

......and they were not as 'relaxed and

Quoted message said:

Actually circumcision causes desensitization of the penis
which is not

From a woman's perspective 'sensitive penis' are not as
satisfiying for "them" longevity-wise. If a balance is
desired between enjoyment (for the male) and a climatic
ending performance (for the female) a circumcised penis is
perferred by the woman. If on the other hand a man is 'super
sensitive' and his enjoyment thus short-lived he could
experience the same effect with a box of warm liver.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No, I have no 'scientific' data or funded 'study' to
reference. I have never heard of a circumcised male who
was traumatized and wished as an adult that he'd never
been circumcised. Quite the opposite.

That is not true.

As I was speaking strictly for myself and my
experience....it is.

Quoted message said:

There are many men who have decreased sensitivity in their
penis that wish they were not circumcised. This is
especially true when they get older when it is more
difficult to get an erection. Aloha, Rich

This is a new area for me to learn and understand. I have
heard of difficult in older men with getting and maintaining
erections, but thought it was an internal hormonal or
prostrate type condition. Women have discomfort as they get
older which can assist in a general lack of desire

(Bob Dole), but have not taken the opportunity to educate
myself from a

and years ago <g>.)

Thanks for sharing, Rich. I will do some reading for an
expanded point of view.

Coleah

"nahasafeemapetelan" <[email hidden]> wrote
in message In the best situation, the procedure should be
left to the

Quoted message said:

individual to make his own choice after the age of
consent. I'm afraid your wild rhetorical style will doom
your effectiveness, but I wish you the best in your quest.

=======================
I agree 100%! I was talked into having this done by the
hospital personal (and my mother) to my own son back in
the 1960s. To think how he must have suffered.... and all
for nothing!
--
Kim The most amazing BS artists there are:
members.rogers.comindex.htmlOpen ↗
geocities.comQuackery.htmlOpen ↗
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Johanne" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Then the emotional issues for later on in life....it's
truly appalling.

==========================
It is appalling! What's most appalling is how many centuries
this had been going on! It's only now that anyone is asking
questions and wondering what the hell they were doing.....
sickening!
--
Kim Colonics to clean out your stuffed up @$$ Of all the
toxic goodies you do not pass Globs of gunk and the mucus
you store Parasites, flukes and worms galore So take a
colonic so you can pass All these nasties from your
paracitized @$$..... The most amazing BS artists there are:
members.rogers.comindex.htmlOpen ↗
geocities.comQuackery.htmlOpen ↗
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

X-No-Archive: yes

<Rich.@.> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

There can be many reasons but decreased sensitivity is one
of them. Men have a hard (no pun intended) enough time,
when they age, in getting an erection, that any decrease
in sensitivity is going to work against them.

====================
I have a close male friend who is 55 years old. Both he
and his wife

mostly to other reason she finally left him last year. He
was very worried the next women would find him undesirable
because of his erectile dysfunction. I could understand
that. His self-esteem was down the toilet.

Enter a YOUNGER and much thinner, prettier woman than his
wife was. He recently met a 41 year old divorcee who looks
about 30! (I don't know if she had a face lift, or facial
surgery). After a very brief time they became intimate.
Despite his fears he had NO ERECTION PROBLEM with this
younger women!

What does something like this tell us? This is the THIRD man
I've known who suddenly lost his erection problems with a
new partner! Are many of these older men with a problem just
tired of their wives? They don't find then

cause them to function normally again? The other 2 men were
with new women but woman their same age - not younger women.
I wonder if any research has been done on this?
--
Kim Colonics to clean out your stuffed up @$$ Of all the
toxic goodies you do not pass Globs of gunk and the mucus
you store Parasites, flukes and worms galore So take a
colonic so you can pass All these nasties from your
paracitized @$$..... The most amazing BS artists there are:
members.rogers.comindex.htmlOpen ↗
geocities.comQuackery.htmlOpen ↗
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For those who are interested, a link to an archive of the Men's Health
article on circumcision I referred to in an earlier posting:

infocirc.orgMensHlth.htmOpen ↗

Warning: contains photos some may find disturbing.

"Tanya" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

For those who are interested, a link to an archive of the
Men's Health article on circumcision I referred to in an
earlier posting:

infocirc.orgMensHlth.htmOpen ↗

Warning: contains photos some may find disturbing.

From the article...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In 1985, Milos founded NOCIRC. "It's all such an
unspeakable cover-up. The

doctors are in denial, so the hospitals are in denial, so
the parents are intentionally, illegally uninformed.
Circumcision is the worst fraud in American medical
history."<< infocirc.orgMensHlth.htmOpen ↗

NO CIRC Founder Marilyn Milos helped PERPETUATE the fraud!

See Wild circumcision rhetoric of MDs/Israel's history groups.yahoo.comchiroOpen ↗
list/message/2398

"Tanya" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

For those who are interested, a link to an archive of the
Men's Health article on circumcision I referred to in an
earlier posting:

infocirc.orgMensHlth.htmOpen ↗

Warning: contains photos some may find disturbing.

==================================
OMG... that poor helpless infant. :*( They don't even put
something on it to numb the pain.
--
Kim The most amazing BS artists there are:
members.rogers.comindex.htmlOpen ↗
geocities.comQuackery.htmlOpen ↗
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 18:30:24 GMT, "Coleah" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

From the perspective of an observant old grandma...... I've
seen the benefits of circumcision for little boys through
the years. When they are babies it is much easier to keep
them clean.

If you think so, you were doing it wrong. Many doctors did
tell mothers to retract the foreskin and clean under it.
This is wrong and was known to be wrong then. A boys
foreskin should be retracted for cleaning exactly as often
as you would douche a baby girl - Never!!

See familydoctor.orgx2276.xmlOpen ↗
baby%27s_penis_if_I_choose_not_to_have_him_circumcised_

Quoted message said:

As they aged and

Quoted message said:

'diseases' more readily.....they were not as physically
'attractive' to females as were circumcised men......and
they were not as 'relaxed and

There is no proof of this. It is an old wives tale.

...

Quoted message said:

No, I have no 'scientific' data or funded 'study' to
reference. I have never heard of a circumcised male who was
traumatized and wished as an adult that he'd never been
circumcised. Quite the opposite.

You have now heard of a circumcised male who wishes as an
adult that he had never been circumcised. And as a teen
too. The butcher who circumcised me took off so much skin
that as a teen erections were painful. If I could find his
tombstone I would scratch on it "Burning in hell for
circumcising baby boys."

Ma'am, I fear that you are quite ignorant about the subject.
Recommend next time that you do not post.

--
Neal

Note: To contact, unmunge and remove the "@giganews.com"
from the address

nahasafeemapetelan said:

Todd, as a former medical assistant, I agree with you that
infant circumcision is child abuse. I've wondered if that,
along with hormonal differences, of course, is what makes
boys and girls different from each other psychologically.
Maybe even sets males up for aggressive behavior later
because they then have a need to defend themselves by
presenting a good offense. Anyway, those are just my
musings about it. I have watched a baby boy strapped to a
board scream and scream in pain. After witnessing one, I
could not assist my doctor with that procedure ever again.
I think you're right that at least unanesthetized circ
should be considered criminal child abuse. In the best
situation, the procedure should be left to the individual
to make his own choice after the age of consent. I'm
afraid your wild rhetorical style will doom your
effectiveness, but I wish you the best in your quest.

Why don't they just freeze it with that ethyl-chloride [censored]?

nahasafeemapetelan said:

Todd, as a former medical assistant, I agree with you that
infant circumcision is child abuse. I've wondered if that,
along with hormonal differences, of course, is what makes
boys and girls different from each other psychologically.

Note that most psychological studies showing differences in
boys and girls under the age of 4-6 years were performced in
USA while, similar studies in Europe fail to show any
differences. (Differences after the age of 4-6 occur in both
USA and Europe, but by that age it is likely that upbringing
alone could explain those differences).

One intriguing explanation (other than the US knee jerk
response that European research is inferior to US research)
is that male infants in USA are subjected to surgery without
anaesthesia while European male infants are not.

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------000305000600010302090209
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

james T said:

nahasafeemapetelan said:

I think you're right that at least unanesthetized circ
should be considered criminal child abuse.

Why don't they just freeze it with that ethyl-
chloride [censored]?

US medical practice is not to use anaesthesia on children
under 2 years for minor surgery. Until a few years ago no
anaesthesia was used even in the case of major surgery (eg
organ transplants) for infants under 2 years : US doctors
were tought that children under 2 years don't feel pain like
adults and hence the risk of death from anaesthesia was not
justified. Most US doctors only started using anaesthesia
for major surgery when some of the immigrant doctors (who
were universally appalled by US practice) kept careful
records and proved that the mortality rate was twice as high
for major surgery performed without anaesthesia on infants
under 2 yeas.

Of course US doctors continue to perform "minor" surgery on
infants without anaesthesia, since there is no evidence of
higher mortality rates from not using anaesthesia in minor
surgery. One wonders how they reconcile their belief the
infants under 2 years don't feel real pain with the higher
mortality rates in major surgery (where the most likely
explaination is that half the babies were dying from shock
caused by pain).

Note that in adults (who certainly feel pain) major surgery
without anaesthesia (which does happend accidentally or in
emergency room settings) actually has marginally lower
mortality rates, indicating that, if anything, adults are
more capable of handling excruciating pain than infants
under 2 years of age.

--------------000305000600010302090209 Content-Type:
text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01
Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-
Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title> </head> <body text="#000000"
bgcolor="#ffffff"> <br> <br> james T wrote:<br> <blockquote
type="cite" cite="[email hidden]"> <pre
wrap="">nahasafeemapetelan wrote: </pre> <blockquote
type="cite"> <pre wrap=""> I think you're right that at
least unanesthetized circ should be considered criminal
child abuse. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""><!----> Why
don't they just freeze it with that ethyl-chloride
[censored]?</pre> </blockquote> <br> US medical practice is not to
use anaesthesia on children under 2 years for minor surgery.
Until a few years ago no anaesthesia was used even in the
case of major surgery (eg organ transplants) for infants
under 2 years : US doctors were tought that children under 2
years don't feel pain like adults and hence the risk of
death from anaesthesia was not justified. Most US doctors
only started using anaesthesia for major surgery when some
of the immigrant doctors (who were universally appalled by
US practice) kept careful records and proved that the
mortality rate was twice as high for major surgery performed
without anaesthesia on infants under 2 yeas.<br> <br> Of
course US doctors continue to perform "minor" surgery on
infants without anaesthesia, since there is no evidence of
higher mortality rates from not using anaesthesia in minor
surgery. One wonders how they reconcile their belief the
infants under 2 years don't feel real pain with the higher
mortality rates in major surgery (where the most likely
explaination is that half the babies were dying from shock
caused by pain). <br> <br> Note that in adults (who
certainly feel pain) major surgery without anaesthesia
(which does happend accidentally or in emergency room
settings) actually has marginally lower mortality rates,
indicating that, if anything, adults are more capable of
handling excruciating pain than infants under 2 years of
age.<br> </body> </html>

--------------000305000600010302090209--

"Neal" <nealUNDERSCOREsmithATrocketmailDOTcom> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If you think so, you were doing it wrong. Many doctors did
tell mothers to retract the foreskin and clean under it.
This is wrong and was known to be wrong then. A boys
foreskin should be retracted for cleaning exactly as often
as you would douche a baby girl - Never!!

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I didn't mean forcibly
retracting newborns, and you are correct. As a baby boy
developes more care is needed.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

not circumcised tended to pick up 'diseases' more
readily.....they were not as physically 'attractive' to
females as were circumcised men......and they were not as
'relaxed and

Quoted message said:

There is no proof of this. It is an old wives tale.

Hmmmm.....here is some things I found in my brief search.
circinfo.netcircinfo.netOpen ↗

Urinary Tract Infections The association of lack of
circumcision with infections of the urinary tract is
unequivocal. In a study of 14,893 male infants aged < 1 year
who had been delivered during 1996 at Kaiser Permanente
hospitals in Northern California, 86% of the UTIs occurred
in the uncircumcised boys. Incidence during the first year
of life was 2.2% in uncircumcised boys and just 0.22% in
circumcised (odds ratio = 9:1).

Phimosis (inability to retract the foreskin)

Paraphimosis (where the retracted foreskin cannot be brought
back again over the glans)

Zipper injury In uncircumcised boys the foreskin can become
accidentally entrapped in zippers

Elderly men In elderly men, infections and pain from
balanoposthitis, phimosis and paraphimosis are seen and
carers report problems in achieving optimal hygiene in
uncircumcised men.

Bathroom 'splatter' Boys and men who are not circumcised can
be a source of irritation if they do not retract the
foreskin when they urinate, as 'splatter' will occur.

Frenular chordee , results from an unusually thick and often
tight frenulum and prevents the foreskin from fully
retracting, being present in a quarter of all uncircumcised
males [78]. The frenulum then tears during intercourse or
masturbation.

Psychological sequelae Follow-up 5 years later of 117 boys
circumcised for phimosis, balanitis scarring of the prepuce,
or ballooning when urinating found that 95% expressed
complete satisfaction and the only psychological effect was
slight shyness in the school change-room in 9% of boys in
this Swedish study [207, 208]. The study showed that parents
had nothing to fear for their son's psychological well-being
from circumcision.

INFLAMMATORY DERMATOSES Most cases of inflammatory
dermatoses are diagnosed in uncircumcised men. Thus
circumcision is protective

Balanitis: In babies, balanitis is caused by soiled diapers,
playing and sitting in dirty areas, antibiotic therapy, as
well as yeast and other micro-organisms. Balanitis caused by
the group A haemolytic variety of Streptococcus is present
"exclusively in uncircumcised boys".

Posthitis Inflammation of the foreskin is limited to
uncircumcised males. Other disorders include psoriasis,
penile infections, lichen sclerosus, lichen planus,
schorrheic dermatitis, and Zoon balanitis (referred to
above). All patients with Zoon balanitis, bowenoid
papulosis, and nonspecific balanoposthitis were
uncircumcised. Lichen sclerosis is found in 4-19% of all
foreskins [54]. In older patients progressive Lichen
sclerosis or other inflammatory changes lead to phimosis
[14]. For a more extensive account on diseases of the penis
see [57, 110]

In South Australia, a study in 1992 showed that
uncircumcised men had more chlamidia (odds ratio 1.3) and
gonoccocal infections (odds ratio 2.1).

higher syphilis and gonorrhea in uncircumcised men, but no
difference in herpes, chlamidia and non-specific
urethritis (NSU).

Penile Cancer American Cancer Society web page shows 1300
cases annually with 220 fatalities (1997 data). Penile
cancer represents approximately 0.1-1% of all malignancies
in men in the USA and other western countries. penile cancer
occurs almost entirely in uncircumcised men. Neonatal
circumcision virtually abolishes the risk

PROSTRATE CANCER Prostate cancer accounts for 27% of new
cancers in males and 7% of deaths. Uncircumcised men have
twice the incidence of prostate cancer compared with
circumcised, and this cancer is rare amongst Jews

============================================

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No, I have no 'scientific' data or funded 'study' to
reference. I have never heard of a circumcised male who
was traumatized and wished as an adult that he'd never
been circumcised. Quite the opposite.

Quoted message said:

You have now heard of a circumcised male who wishes as an
adult that he had never been circumcised. And as a teen
too. The butcher who circumcised me took off so much skin
that as a teen erections were painful. If I could find his
tombstone I would scratch on it "Burning in hell for
circumcising baby boys."

Have you looked into other possile causes: Painful
erections:
a.. Penis disorder
b.. Peyronie's disease
c.. Priapism

or looked for a' foreskin restoration clinic' to
correct things

Here's an unscientific website with stretching techniques.
eskimo.comuncirc.txtOpen ↗

=================================

Quoted message said:

Ma'am, I fear that you are quite ignorant about the
subject. Recommend next time that you do not post. Neal

Don't fear just because I have never heard your point of
view. And thank you for sharing, Neal. People learn from
other people posting. Terrific results and education can
come out of shaing, observations, experiences and points of
view from lot's of other posters. Thank goodness for
learning, when we are willing to open ourselves up to
different possibilities, rather than cling to the stilted
life of just one. Live in peace.

Coleah

Thank you for posting that link. I started crying while I
saw those pictures and I feel *so* glad I decided not to put
my son through that. He had to have several heel [censored] blood
draws as it was in the hospital and he was clearly upset for
quite a while after each one.

Why put a little baby who doesn't understand pain or
what's going on through a COSMETIC procedure? Especially
without anesthesia. I wonder how many American men would
be willing to go through circumcision without any
painkiller? *shakes head*

If Ian wants a circumsized penis, then he can have it done
when he's 18, along with piercings, tattoos, or any other
body modification he feels the need to get. IMO, it's not my
decision to make.

Another good website to refer people to is
groups.msn.comcircumcision.msnwOpen ↗. It has
numerous articles, including another one with pictures,
although not as compelling as this one was.

- Joanne DS Ian, 5 mos old on 4/6!

"Tanya" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

For those who are interested, a link to an archive of the
Men's Health article on circumcision I referred to in an
earlier posting:

infocirc.orgMensHlth.htmOpen ↗

Warning: contains photos some may find disturbing.

Like many things in today's world....lifestyles, traditions
and practices......are being challenged as now being
abusive, mean spirited, 'unequal' or 'unfair' to some group
or another. Having lived through some pendulum swings
already, I have no doubt that this issue will make a wide
swing as well.

Then years down the road when enough men have gotten penis
cancer, a variety of infections and STD's (passing them on
to partners) the pendulum will swing back again with
lawsuits against the government, doctors and HMO's for
failing to adequately protect the men of America. Perhaps
sons may sue parents for the money to have it done as
adults, shaming them for not doing it for them when they
were infants. (It's kind of like having your tonsils
out....adults have a much harder time with it than children.

In the future, educate your uncircumcised sons of the
importance of hopping

have multiple partners (e-coli is found naturally in
vagina's, but not a pretty thing when transferred to another
vagina via an uncircumcised male who put off cleaning up).
The moist environment in the little hooded monster can grow
all kinds of goodies to provide grief.

Circumcise or not? Six of one......half dozen of the other,
pick your own poison.

Life IS like a box of chocolates, Coleah
=======================
"jjmoreta" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Thank you for posting that link. I started crying while I
saw those pictures and I feel *so* glad I decided not to
put my son through that.

He

Quoted message said:

had to have several heel [censored] blood draws as it was in
the hospital and

he

Quoted message said:

was clearly upset for quite a while after each one.

Why put a little baby who doesn't understand pain or
what's going on

through

Quoted message said:

a COSMETIC procedure? Especially without anesthesia. I
wonder how many American men would be willing to go
through circumcision without any painkiller? *shakes head*

If Ian wants a circumsized penis, then he can have it done
when he's 18, along with piercings, tattoos, or any other
body modification he feels the need to get. IMO, it's not
my decision to make.

Another good website to refer people to is
groups.msn.comcircumcision.msnwOpen ↗. It has
numerous

articles,

Quoted message said:

including another one with pictures, although not as
compelling as this

one

Quoted message said:

was.

- Joanne DS Ian, 5 mos old on 4/6!

"Tanya" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

For those who are interested, a link to an archive of
the Men's Health article on circumcision I referred to
in an earlier posting:

infocirc.orgMensHlth.htmOpen ↗

Warning: contains photos some may find disturbing.

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 20:26:11 GMT, "Coleah" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Neal" <nealUNDERSCOREsmithATrocketmailDOTcom> wrote in
message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If you think so, you were doing it wrong. Many doctors
did tell mothers to retract the foreskin and clean under
it. This is wrong and was known to be wrong then. A boys
foreskin should be retracted for cleaning exactly as
often as you would douche a baby girl - Never!!

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I didn't mean forcibly
retracting newborns, and you are correct. As a baby boy
developes more care is needed.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

not circumcised tended to pick up 'diseases' more
readily.....they were not as physically 'attractive' to
females as were circumcised men......and they were not
as 'relaxed and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There is no proof of this. It is an old wives tale.

Hmmmm.....here is some things I found in my brief search.
circinfo.netcircinfo.netOpen ↗

You certainly went to a very biased site. I can refute
virtually everything they say, but that would be a Verrry
long post.

Let's look at some countervailing facts:

From the 1999 American Academy of Pediatrics

aap.orgre9850.htmlOpen ↗

"SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical
benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data
are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal
circumcision."

Note that those are only potential benefits.

Quoted message said:

Urinary Tract Infections The association of lack of
circumcision with infections of the urinary tract is
unequivocal. In a study of 14,893 male infants aged < 1
year who had been delivered during 1996 at Kaiser
Permanente hospitals in Northern California, 86% of the
UTIs occurred in the uncircumcised boys. Incidence during
the first year of life was 2.2% in uncircumcised boys and
just 0.22% in circumcised (odds ratio = 9:1).

There has only been one prospective study (all the rest were
retrospective, with all the flaws of studies of that type).
That was the Toronto study.
cirp.orgto2Open ↗

"Our estimated relative risk for admission for UTI of 3.7
was similar to that reported by Craig and colleagues13 (4·8,
table 2) but lower than estimates reported by others."

So they reported a UTI rate less than half the rate
generally being reported. And they admit that some of the
boys classified as uncircumcised may have been later
circumcised outside the hospital. They also noted that
circumcision was associated with a higher socioeconomic
status, and it is known that a lower socioeconomic status is
associated with a high incidence of health problems.

From their data, you would have to circumcise 100 boys to
prevent 3.7 UTIs, and then one of the circumcised boys would
get a UTI anyway.

Quoted message said:

Phimosis (inability to retract the foreskin)

Cutting off the finger prevents hangnails, too.

Quoted message said:

Paraphimosis (where the retracted foreskin cannot be
brought back again over the glans)

Is almost always iatrogenic

Quoted message said:

Zipper injury In uncircumcised boys the foreskin can become
accidentally entrapped in zippers

Ha!!! And if they are that careless and are circumcised,
they will catch the glans or shaft skin. Show me a
documented case.

Quoted message said:

Elderly men In elderly men, infections and pain from
balanoposthitis, phimosis and paraphimosis are seen and
carers report problems in achieving optimal hygiene in
uncircumcised men.

Bathroom 'splatter' Boys and men who are not circumcised
can be a source of irritation if they do not retract the
foreskin when they urinate, as 'splatter' will occur.

Old wives tale.

Quoted message said:

Frenular chordee , results from an unusually thick and
often tight frenulum and prevents the foreskin from fully
retracting, being present in a quarter of all uncircumcised
males [78]. The frenulum then tears during intercourse or
masturbation.

Cutting off the finger prevents hangnails, too. ...

Quoted message said:

In South Australia, a study in 1992 showed that
uncircumcised men had more chlamidia (odds ratio 1.3) and
gonoccocal infections (odds ratio 2.1).

Quoted message said:

higher syphilis and gonorrhea in uncircumcised men, but no
difference in herpes, chlamidia and non-specific
urethritis (NSU).

From the American Medical Association ama-assn.org2036Open ↗
2511.html

"Regardless of these findings, behavioral factors are far
more

transmissible diseases than circumcision status, and
circumcision cannot be responsibly viewed as "protecting"
against such infections."

Quoted message said:

Penile Cancer American Cancer Society web page shows 1300
cases annually with 220 fatalities (1997 data). Penile
cancer represents approximately 0.1-1% of all malignancies
in men in the USA and other western countries. penile
cancer occurs almost entirely in uncircumcised men.
Neonatal circumcision virtually abolishes the risk

American Cancer Society: www3.cancer.orgwww3.cancer.orgOpen ↗
load_cont.asp?st=pr&ct=35&language=english

"Circumcision: Whether or not circumcision is a negative
risk factor (if it protects against penile cancer) is a very
controversial issue.

"Circumcision is the removal of a part or all of the
foreskin at birth or later on in life. This practice has
been suggested as conferring some protection against cancer
of the penis by contributing to improved hygiene. However,
the penile cancer risk is low in some uncircumcised
populations, and the practice of circumcision is strongly
associated with socio-ethnic factors which in turn are
associated with lessened risk. The consensus among studies
that have taken these other factors into account is that
circumcision is not of value in preventing cancer of the
penis. It is important that the issue of circumcision not
distract the public's attention from

relations with multiple partners (increasing the likelihood
of human papillomavirus infection) and cigarette smoking."

Quoted message said:

PROSTRATE CANCER Prostate cancer accounts for 27% of new
cancers in males and 7% of deaths. Uncircumcised men have
twice the incidence of prostate cancer compared with
circumcised, and this cancer is rare amongst Jews

Strange. The Urologists don't know about this.

American Cancer Society cancer.orgcOpen ↗
ontent/CRI_2_4_2X_What_are_the_risk_factors_for_prostate_ca-
ncer_36.asp?sitearea=

That page is entitled "What are the Risk Factors for
Prostate Cancer" and circumcision is not mentioned. I think
that if uncircumcised men have twice the prostate cancer
rate of circumcised men someone other than circinfo.net
would have noticed it.

Try to find a less biased site next time. And do a long
search, not a brief one.

--
Neal

Note: To contact, unmunge and remove the "@giganews.com"
from the address