Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dr Rick · 08-13-2002, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tronvillain:
I know from experience that I would be extremely uncomfortable without a foreskin.

This should be interesting: Tell us, what "personal experiences" have you had without your foreskin?

Rick

echoes · 08-13-2002, 10:19 AM

I've done a bit of reading on this in the past, and it's my understanding that while uncircumcized males are at slightly higher risks for certain infections, etc., decent personal hygiene should usually diminish that. So parents, if your leave your baby boy intact, just pay a little attention to Mr. Happy, ok? And when he's older, just make sure that he showers at least once in awhile.

I read one article that said that while uncircumcized males have a slightly higher risk of penile cancer, that is offset by the deaths resulting from complications in the circumcision procedure (due to blood loss). Apparently, it can be a very bloody affair, and besides, I always thought that rule #1 of penis ownership is to keep sharp objects AWAY.

Circumcision is becoming less and less popular in the US, at least last I checked. The medical community has gone back and forth on this issue.

I wonder what kind of a psychological effect circumcision has. That would make for an interesting study.

[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: echoes ]

Dr Rick · 08-13-2002, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by echoes:
I read one article that said that while uncircumcized males have a slightly higher risk of penile cancer, that is offset by the deaths resulting from complications in the circumcision procedure (due to blood loss).

Big deal; I can top that one: I once read that Elvis was an alien from another planet.

Quote:

The medical community has gone back and forth on this issue.

Actually, the medical community is ambivalent about the procedure with some members very much for it, others vigorously opposed, and the vast majority of us wondering why such a small thing has become such a large issue for some people.

There are some benefits and some risks associated with circumcision, and both are minimal for most men (though the AIDS epidemic may change the balance in areas where HIV is endemic); at issue is 1) does the first outweighs the last?, 2) if so, under what circumstances?, and 3) how many times can the same issue be discussed in circles on the II discussion boards?

Quote:

I wonder what kind of a psychological effect circumcision has. That would make for an interesting study.

It's been looked-at: no difference has been found between the psyches of uncircumcised versus circumcised men except, perhaps, that a very small minority in the former seems obsessively focused on its foreskins, and a very small minority in the latter seems pathologically pre-occupied with the unhooded glans.

Rick

[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]

One of the last sane · 08-13-2002, 04:52 PM

Wasn't there a study that showed that baby boys who had been circumcized were much more reactive to all kinds of pain for some months afterward?

2tadpoles · 08-13-2002, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rbochnermd:
Actually, the medical community is ambivalent about the procedure with some members very much for it, others vigorously opposed, and the vast majority of us wondering why such a small thing has become such a large issue for some people.

I personally feel that removing a part of someone's else's body for no good reason is not a "small thing."

echoes · 08-13-2002, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rbochnermd:
Big deal; I can top that one: I once read that Elvis was an alien from another planet.

Ha ha ha.

Look at this letter from the <a href="http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/acs/" target="_blank">American Cancer Society</a>. "Fatalities caused by circumcision accidents may approximate the mortality rate from penile cancer." Then again, they may not. Either way the point is, circumcision is generally no longer considered a viable method for preventing cancer, while it once was. And also, circumcision can infact be very counterproductive.

Quote:

Originally posted by rbochnermd:
Actually, the medical community is ambivalent about the procedure with some members very much for it, others vigorously opposed, and the vast majority of us wondering why such a small thing has become such a large issue for some people.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up.

Quote:

Originally posted by rbochnermd:
It's been looked-at: no difference has been found between the psyches of uncircumcised versus circumcised men except, perhaps, that a very small minority in the former seems obsessively focused on its foreskins, and a very small minority in the latter seems pathologically pre-occupied with the unhooded glans.

Darn, I was hoping for some dramatic differences, and a very Freudian explanation!

[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: echoes ]

[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: echoes ]

Orestes · 08-13-2002, 05:24 PM

Quote:

I wonder what kind of a psychological effect circumcision has. That would make for an interesting study.

Well, in cultures that still practice ritual circumcision, it has a major effect.

From 'The Hero with a Thousand Faces':

Quote:

The archetypal nightmare of the ogre father is made actual in the ordeals of primitive initiation. The boys of the Australian Murngin tribe, as we have seen, are first frightened and sent running to their mothers. The Great Father Snake is calling for their foreskins. This places the women in the role of protectress. A prodigious horn is blown, named Yurlunggur, which is supposed to be the call of the Great Father Snake, who has emerged from his hole. When the men come for the boys, the women grab up spears and pretend not only to fight but also to wail and cry, because the little fellows are going to be taken away and "eaten." The men's triangular dancing ground is the body of the Great Father Snake. There the boys are shown, during many nights, numerous dances symbolical of the various totem ancestors, and are taught the myths that explain the existing order of the world. Also, they are sent on a long journey to neighboring distant clans, imititative of the mythological wanderings of the phallic ancestors. In this way, "within" the Great Father Snake as it were, they are introduced to an interesting new object that compensates for their loss of the mother; and the male phallus, instead of the female breast, is made the central point of te imagination.

The culminating instruction of the long series of rites is the release of the boy's own hero-penis from the protection of its foreskin, through the frightening and painful attack upon it of the circumciser. Among the Arunta, for example, the sound of the bull-roarers is heard from all sides when the moment has arrived for this decisive break from the past. It is night, and in the weird light of the fire suddenly appear the circumciser and his assistant. The noise of the bull-roarers is the voice of the great demon of the ceremony, and the pair of operators are its apparition. With their beards thrust into their mouths, signifying anger, their legs widely extended, and their arms stretched forward, the two men standing perfectly still, the actual operator in front, holding in his right hand the small flint knife with which the operation is to be conducted, and his assistant pressing close up behind him, so that the two bodies are in contact with eachother. Then a man approaches through the firelight, balancing a shield on his head and at the same time snapping the thumb and first finger of each hand. The bull-roarers are making a tremendous din, which can be heard by the women and children in their distant camp. The man with the shield on his head goes down on one knee just a little in front of the operator, and immediately one of the boys is lifted from the ground by a number of his uncles, who carry him feet foremost and place him on the shield, while in deep, loud tones a chant is thundered forth by all the men. The operation is swiftly performed, the fearsome figures retire immediately from the lighted area, and the boy, in a more or less dazed condition, is attended to, and congratulated by the men to whose estate he has now just arrived. "You have done well," they say; "you did not cry out."

The native Australian mythologies teach that the first initiation rites were carried out in such a way that all the young men were killed. The ritual is thus shown to be, among other things, a dramatized expression of the Oedipal aggresion of the elder generation; and the circumcision, a mitigated castration. But the rites also provide for the cannibal, patricidal impulse of the younger, rising group of males, and at the same time reveal the benign self-giving aspect of the archetypal father; for during the long period of symbolical instruction, there is a time when the initiates are forced to live only on the fresh-drawn blood of the older men. "The natives," we are told, " are particularly interested in the Christian communion rite, and having heard about it from missionaries they compare it to the blood-drinking rituals of their own."

Dr Rick · 08-13-2002, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogsmoocher:
I personally feel that removing a part of someone's else's body for no good reason is not a "small thing."

First of all, this is the s'posed to be the humor forum, so reference to "small thing" in a thread about penises is not necessarily meant to be taken literally...

Secondly, the concept "that removing a part of someone's else's body for no good reason is not a 'small thing.'" is not personal, nor is it humorous, nor is it profound; the proper question to address the issue if you really want to be serious and objective is: "do the reasons for removing the foreskin outweigh the risks of leaving it in place, or is it vice versa?"

Third, as the link in the post below illustrates, you have no good reason to use the term "no good reason."

Rick

[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]

Dr Rick · 08-13-2002, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by echoes:
Ha ha ha. Look at this letter from the American Cancer Society. "Fatalities caused by circumcision accidents may approximate the mortality rate from penile cancer." Then again, they may not. Either way the point is, circumcision is generally no longer considered a viable method for preventing cancer, while it once was. And also, circumcision can infact be very counterproductive.

The link provided is not to the American Cancer Society Web Site, which has neither an official pro nor con position on circumcision, but to an article citing an 8 year-old letter.

Here's something a little more up-to-date on some of the benefits of circumcision and cancer prevention that actually is on the <a href="http://www.cancer.org/eprise/main/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_New_Study_Shows_Benefit_of_Male_Circumcis ion" target="_blank">Amercian Cancer Society web site</a>

Studies and articles published within the past 36 months have convincingly shown that neonatal circumcision is associated with a several fold decrease in the risk of penile carcinomas, and a lesser but significantly decreased risk of cervical carcinomas. Whether or not these risk reductions along with the decreased risks of infectious diseases justifies routine neonatal circumcison is still a matter of debate.

Rick

[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]

GunnerJ · 08-14-2002, 05:47 AM

I sure wish I could release my hero-penis...

08-13-2002, 10:19 AM	#52
echoes Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: PUERTO RICO Posts: 750	I've done a bit of reading on this in the past, and it's my understanding that while uncircumcized males are at slightly higher risks for certain infections, etc., decent personal hygiene should usually diminish that. So parents, if your leave your baby boy intact, just pay a little attention to Mr. Happy, ok? And when he's older, just make sure that he showers at least once in awhile. I read one article that said that while uncircumcized males have a slightly higher risk of penile cancer, that is offset by the deaths resulting from complications in the circumcision procedure (due to blood loss). Apparently, it can be a very bloody affair, and besides, I always thought that rule #1 of penis ownership is to keep sharp objects AWAY. Circumcision is becoming less and less popular in the US, at least last I checked. The medical community has gone back and forth on this issue. I wonder what kind of a psychological effect circumcision has. That would make for an interesting study. [ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: echoes ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-13-2002, 04:52 PM	#54
One of the last sane Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: hereabouts Posts: 734	Wasn't there a study that showed that baby boys who had been circumcized were much more reactive to all kinds of pain for some months afterward?

08-14-2002, 05:47 AM	#60
GunnerJ Banned Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: a place where i can list whatever location i want Posts: 4,871	I sure wish I could release my hero-penis...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.