Bad Threads on Circumcision

[BigKahuna]

all you do is stubbornly, blindly, defend your points, without actually reading what people say

- Sera posted 3 points worth considering... I countered each of three points... stubbornly, maybe... blindly... definitely not. :P

[Hugh7]

Brandye:

Post reasonable and supportable views and we can agree or disagree.

That is what I try to do.

I am here objecting to the two threads that are filled with nonsense and posted by a group (perhaps of one with different names)

I am a different person from ML and all the others, if that is what you mean.

with a clear agenda.

I have a clear agenda (Is there something wrong with having a clear agenda?): protecting babies (of all sexes) from unnecessary genital reduction surgery. That and the reasons for it are clearly set out at The Intactivism Pages.

It seems incredible to me that Your Resource for Sex Tips and Dating Advice, SexInfo101.com should not consider the removal of a sensitive part of the male sexual anatomy to be a an issue worthy of serious and ongoing debate. I somewhat naively imagined that such a board would have a built in bias against it. (In a parallel world, one can imagine it had never been invented. Anyone proposing it on a board like this would be shouted down with horror.)

The clarity of their anti- agenda is made by the sites and boards where they use exactly the same limited studies, exactly the same words and their attributing their tactics to other known entities at this Board.

It's not quite clear to me what wrongdoing is being alleged here. Normally, to use the same arguments in different forums is called "consistency" and it's a good thing.

I just hope this is not so soon that Hugh and friends return and continue their irrational rants.

Please point out the irrationality of anything I post. Since we are talking about rationality, that should be easy.

Their primary argument was based upon Australia banning automatic circumcision of newborns. That was a political decision recognizing the feelings of the aboriginal population of Australia.

I have never before heard the Aboriginal people mentioned in this connection (Some Aboriginal tribes circumcise, some used to subincise [and that is horriific, quite comparable to anything they do to girls], but I don't know if they still do.) It was not political at all. It is banned in some public hospitals (as it has been in New Zealand since the 1970s) and the Children's Commissioner for Tasmania wants it banned outright. But our primary argument is based on human rights and nobody needs medical qualifications to discuss those.

To read the some of the posts, it sounds like circumcision is disappearing throughout the world. In actual fact, there are more infants circumcised today than in any previous years.

If that is true, it is because of growing birth rates, not increasing circumcision rates. The circumcision rate is falling in the US, Australia and Canada, and it is now so low in the rest of the English speaking world that any increases are just random background noise, not real trends. It is at residual levels in Europe, Scandinavia, Central and South America and much of Asia. People in the US are unaware just how out on a limb that country now is.

There are more mature men seeking circumcision, for a variety of reasons, than ever.

If they are fully informed, that is their absolute right (just as there are more mature men seeking to have their tongues slit). One reason there are more in some parts of the world is simply that more are being left uncircumcised, and they now have that option, which an earlier generation had taken away from them.

The blatant falsehoods and specious research cited on the threads from Hugh7

That is a serious accusation that was never made on the threads themselves or I certainly would have answered it at the time. Please back it up now or withdraw it. What did I say that was false? What research was specious?

I repeatedly asked sera300 to explain what her accusations against me amount to, and she never did. She did some searches on my name (or what she supposes is my name) and found some things I posted elsewhere and others posted by people with the same name (including one who died in 1945!) and somehow this is some kind of case against me, but I still haven't worked out what awful thing I'm supposed to have done, and now

Sera:

Brandye

Search Facebook...you will find much out about the prostitution followed by same rhetoric as the "other" posters. An attempt to support a young males "lifestyle" which is less than ethical.

she seems to be accusing me of something more. I would answer this if I could figure out what it is. She's already confused me with at least two other people, so that's probably the case here too. I don't have a Facebook account.

[Hugh7]

... continued.

Sera

2) Additionally I found According to the BMC Infectious Dieseases (2006):

“Male circumcision, which is routinely practiced in the Middle East, northern and western Africa, and western Asia, was associated with lower rates of certain STIs, HIV and cervical cancer (a proxy for HPV), but not with infections transmitted by non-sexual routes. In general, more male circumcision was strongly associated with lower cervical cancer rates and fewer HIV cases, independent of religion. Furthermore, male circumcision was independently associated with HIV among countries with primarily heterosexual HIV transmission, and not among countries with primarily homosexual or injection drug use HIV transmission [such as the US. My emphasis -Hugh7] These findings all suggest that male circumcision is a true protective factor that reduces the sexual transmission of HIV and possibly HPV, independent of Muslim and Christian religions.”

Without numbers and sources, this is meaningless. HOW MUCH is the reduction, and FROM WHAT, TO WHAT? Circumcision may reduce some rare diseases by some small amount, but that doesn't justify doing it to every baby on the off-chance that he or his partner will be one of the few who are protected.

3)Additional info from another source:

"Background It is uncertain whether male circumcision reduces the risks of penile human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in the man and of cervical cancer in his female partner.

Methods We pooled data on 1913 couples enrolled in one of seven case–control studies of cervical carcinoma in situ and cervical cancer in five countries. Circumcision status was self-reported, and the accuracy of the data was confirmed by physical examination at three study sites. The presence or absence of penile HPV DNA was assessed by a polymerase-chain-reaction assay in 1520 men and yielded a valid result in the case of 1139 men (74.9 percent).

Results Penile HPV was detected in 166 of the 847 uncircumcised men (19.6 percent) and in 16 of the 292 circumcised men (5.5 percent). After adjustment for age at first intercourse, lifetime number of sexual partners, and other potential confounders, circumcised men were less likely than uncircumcised men to have HPV infection (odds ratio, 0.37; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.16 to 0.85). Monogamous women whose male partners had six or more sexual partners and were circumcised had a lower risk of cervical cancer than women whose partners were uncircumcised (adjusted odds ratio, 0.42; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.23 to 0.79). Results were similar in the subgroup of men in whom circumcision was confirmed by medical examination.

Conclusions Male circumcision is associated with a reduced risk of penile HPV infection and, in the case of men with a history of multiple sexual partners, a reduced risk of cervical cancer in their current female partners. "

Cited NEJM

This is the Castellsagué et al. meta-analysis of seven studies in five countries which I pull apart in detail here. Basically, they pooled the data from the different countries, none of which achieved significance separately, and because almost all men are circumcised in the Philippines and hardly any in the other countries, and HPV is rarer in the Philippines, lo and behold, a correlation appeared. When you tease out the difference between the expected and the actual number of cases, their whole case rests on
* 1 circumcised man in Brazil who didn't have HPV
* 1 circumcised man in Colombia who didn't have HPV
* 3 circumcised men in Spain who didn't have HPV
* nobody in Thailand, and
* 1 intact man in the Philippines who did have HPV.
- a total of SIX men.

1)"higher prevalence of infection in uncircumcised men than in circumcised men (19.6% vs. 5.5%)" p.9-11. ...

Cited CDC in conjunction with Dept of Health & Human Services.

That is not a citation. A citation is something that I (or anyone) can use to find their way back to the source so that they can analyse it for themselves. What kind of "infection" are they talking about, over what period of time? Humans get all kinds of "infections" all the time, and most of them clear up by themselves. What are those percentages? How big is the sample? One pro-circumcision fanatic says "Recurrent UTIs occur in 19% of uncircumcised boys, but in none of the circumcised.” (Morris, B, Why Circumcision is a biomedical imperative for the 21st Century, BioEssays 29:11, 1151 - that's a citation.) but it turns out he's referring to FIVE boys out of 26 (and it's really out of about 34,500 - see the details here.) Is that 19.6% like Morris's 19%? Who knows?

Why circumcise a woman? What is the benefit?

Since you ask, Stallings et al. seemed to find less HIV in women who had been "circumcised", but I'd be the first to agree that that's no reason to go cutting all babies.

Being "cut" is not mandatory.

When a baby is held down and cut, his choice is taken away. That is where human rights come in. This is not like vaccination (which takes nothing away), not like "other decisions parents must make" not like the umbilical cord (which will fall off by itself, has no nerves, and has finished serving its function.)

the garbage I have removed is frankly gross.

We never hear this kind of thing outside circumcising cultures. Clearly a culture of circumcision creates a culture of ignorance about the intact anatomy.

Same with elderly women who wreak of urine.

Yet we never think of cutting baby girls.

Ever see the pain a teen or older man has? That is traumatic! If I were a man, I doubt I would do it as an adult. I would hate my parents for not doing it at 2 days old.

But only if it had to be done later. That occurs in less than 1% of cases lifelong in non-circumcising cultures. (The lifetime risk of being circumcised in Finland is one in 8,333.)

We have to follow parental informed consent.

(sera's emphasis). Doctors and nurses may conscientiously object to procedures. Nurses of St Vincents, Santa Fe, won the right to conscientiously object to take part in infant circumcision.

It's a blast when the spouse has some fun on the side, lies, and then you are sick and loose a child.
TOO bad his penis did not fall off! And there was a time these people were ethical.

Sera seems to be writing from personal experience here. If so, I'm sorry to hear it.

A single vivid instance is a poor basis for a policy. Vast numbers of men are faithful. Vast numbers of women stay healthy. As I've repeatedly emphasised in my "irrational rants", you need to know the Number Needed to Treat (and the Number Needed to Harm) According to the American Cancer Society, one woman in 117 gets cervical cancer. If (as someone claimed with no citation) circumcision reduces the risk of cervical cancer by 20%, that's 585 babies circumcised to prevent one case, decades later. The cost and time of all those circumcisions would be better spent preventing more cases of cervical cancer more directly.

Hardngood:

I can only add, that I was "cut" at two days old and it took me a year before I could walk again!!

You could walk at two days? Wow!

Clevername

If your cut, you are, if you're not then you are not.

No, if you are cut it is because someone decided to cut you. Those decisions are still being made today, about other babies. That is what the debate is about. If sera's name is a reference to "che sera sera" I have to disagree: what will be depends to a large extent on what we decide will be.

they are having surgery beneficial to their health.

The benefits are trivial or bogus, and the surgery may well be harmful to their health.

Maybe even gives the girl more stimulation during sex?

Or maybe less. It's a moving part, after all, not unlike a built-in French tickler.

Brandye isnt bashing anti circ groups...she is bashing the ones who are like the peta demonstrators who dump paint on fur clothing.

The most direct action any Intactivist has ever taken is, someone stole a Circumstraint(TM) from a hospital.

[rdan05]

Any parent who does not question surgery & procedures on a child, allows them to be random needs their brains examined. I am an uncircumcised man. As a Urologist, there are reasons in the US, non-religious, and I did search facebook since I have followed this thread and the others. All appear to have the same philosophy, Hugh7, changed his profile many times. Now also stating he is a MIT Professor & a spinner of numbers & statistics. What a coincidence.

[Hugh7]

Originally Posted by rdan05

Any parent who does not question surgery & procedures on a child, allows them to be random needs their brains examined. I am an uncircumcised man. As a Urologist, there are reasons in the US, non-religious,

Reasons (for cutting part of the genitals off healthy babies) that don't apply in other countries? How's that? What reasons?

and I did search facebook since I have followed this thread and the others. All appear to have the same philosophy, Hugh7, changed his profile many times. Now also stating he is a MIT Professor & a spinner of numbers & statistics. What a coincidence.

WHAAA? Look, if you're going to make accusations like that, please provide references and links (or at least quotes) so that I can find out what the heck you're talking about. "MIT Professor"??? ("Anthropologist"???) This is crazy stuff. I still don't have a Facebook account (I even tried to log into Facebook and clicked that I'd lost my password, just to make sure, and they replied automatically that they'd never heard of me - just as I thought.) And "a spinner of numbers & statistics"? I think what I do is take the spin out, bring the statistics back to reality.

If others have the same philosophy as me, and may even be quoting me without attribution, there's a good reason for that. It's because I try very hard to use reason and logic, and to write simply and clearly.

If people would answer what I say, instead of attacking me personally, we might exchange some useful information here.

[CleverName]

Originally Posted by BigKahuna

#1) As stated, cutting off a foot is an excellent way of preventing athlete's foot... does this make it an effective way of dealing with the problem? Also.. think about how many more stds could be avoided if even more of the penis was cut off!!! Better yet, lets castrate all men... that way they can't sexually contract an std or infect others!

- Null point.

In a circumcision, you do not cut off the penis, just the foreskin. So comparing it to cutting off someones foot would be inaccurate. You can still use your penis when its circumsized, but you can not use your foot if its cut off.

It would be more like cutting off the calice on the bottom of the foot, as if you were trying to make it healthier. (not saying that works, lol. Just giving an example)

[rdan05]

Originally Posted by andremara

Bad debate style shouldn't bar anyone regardless of their stance. I should hope we don't live in a dictatorship. Full disclosure: I advocate against cutting any body parts from unconsenting minors. As a cut male, I have studied this topic with the goal of informing the public through writing and speaking about the harms I believe it has caused me. I am in process on a book about this, and believe with a little accurate education, people can understand more clearly the range of issues relevant here: physical, ethical, legal, psychological and societal. It has far-reaching impacts that, while understood by a broad and diverse base, have not been clearly discussed. It is my belief that the two primary obstacles we have are some lingering sexual unease in public discourse and an intractable medical profession whose bias has effectively blunted their capacity for cogent thought on the matter; only secondarily is the issue of money obtained through cutting in that profession pertinent to their reasons for desiring status quo. Financial incentive, however may be driving the larger pushes on the part of the immense corporations whose pro-cutting stance benefits their bottom line, as infant foreskins are extremely valuable for generating new skin as well as other grown biologics.
Overall I suggest we elevate the debate, and that both sides do their reading. For me, it has been about 15 years, and I find I am still learning, primarily through symposia materials, doctors, psychologists, and not through mass media.

Sometimes the truth is not a clean geometry, lying equidistant between two points. Sometimes truth lies clearly outside such equations.

Andre Maranhao
Aston, PA
June 2008

I do give you credit for drawing upon personal experience, this is essential to discuss the topic--you are stating your opinion through personal stance.

Medically, not much is made financially for circumcision's since one must round regardless. Additionally I agree there are two sides to each issue and when presented well; individuals can do what is in the best interest of the "owner". I am a Urologist, non-cut, Jewish upbringing, parents made a choice against their religious beliefs. Given my age, now it is a mute point for myself. I was fortunate to have rudimentary issues with disease personally yet in this day and age, I can see why one would wish to have such done; disease is an epidemic, proportionally.

Those who compare amputations of a foot for prevention of Athlete's feet are drawing a very strange analogy. There is no comparison.

Wish you well with your writings and lectures. I would have interest in your personal experiences and attend such lectures. What the public misses is for every medication, vaccination, procedure, surgery, "life experiences", there is always a negative and positive outcome. The degree can not be guaranteed--such as fill an individual with Septra DS for a UTI, there can be negative results and deaths secondary to allergy's. Give women a hormonal birth control, and there are risks associated such as death.

[rdan05]

Originally Posted by Hugh7

Reasons (for cutting part of the genitals off healthy babies) that don't apply in other countries? How's that? What reasons?

WHAAA? Look, if you're going to make accusations like that, please provide references and links (or at least quotes) so that I can find out what the heck you're talking about. "MIT Professor"??? ("Anthropologist"???) This is crazy stuff. I still don't have a Facebook account (I even tried to log into Facebook and clicked that I'd lost my password, just to make sure, and they replied automatically that they'd never heard of me - just as I thought.) And "a spinner of numbers & statistics"? I think what I do is take the spin out, bring the statistics back to reality.

If others have the same philosophy as me, and may even be quoting me without attribution, there's a good reason for that. It's because I try very hard to use reason and logic, and to write simply and clearly.

If people would answer what I say, instead of attacking me personally, we might exchange some useful information here.

Hugh Young is well known on Facebook the profile now changed to MIT Professor. The previous Hugh Young, cited in your original link to "information" spoke the same as the link to publishing. Was very easy to trace to Face book since the same words you originally used were also stated there. Perhaps you lost your password, my secretary & Administrative Assistant found it in a few minutes. Since the profile does not exist, as originally stated, might be difficult to post any link since it was changed. There were two H.Y.'s with the same verbiage. The Anthropologist is really a former zoo keeper who speaks your exact words. That is odd. No personal attack just fact finding. Why do you take such a defensive approach to research? This is just sound and rational since the poster on Face book has the same exact terms as yourself, it's logical. Create a profile and take a look, even a secretary could create anything he wished. He printed the documents for me to review.

The US has regulations and ethical boards, what is done elsewhere is barbaric based on the geography.

Any individual can create a cause applying numerical spinning. Also know as "Spin Doctors", for clarification not to be confused with a MD's, most associated with Politicians and Attorneys.

Nothing "personal" here, mere observations.

[rdan05]

Originally Posted by Hugh7

Reasons (for cutting part of the genitals off healthy babies) that don't apply in other countries? How's that? What reasons?

WHAAA? Look, if you're going to make accusations like that, please provide references and links (or at least quotes) so that I can find out what the heck you're talking about. "MIT Professor"??? ("Anthropologist"???) This is crazy stuff. I still don't have a Facebook account (I even tried to log into Facebook and clicked that I'd lost my password, just to make sure, and they replied automatically that they'd never heard of me - just as I thought.) And "a spinner of numbers & statistics"? I think what I do is take the spin out, bring the statistics back to reality.

If others have the same philosophy as me, and may even be quoting me without attribution, there's a good reason for that. It's because I try very hard to use reason and logic, and to write simply and clearly.

If people would answer what I say, instead of attacking me personally, we might exchange some useful information here.

I assume you have a complex. That is very clear.

[rdan05]

Hugh:

Do you know Professors of Academics can put in an exert in a search mode to see if their students are quoting another individuals work stating it is their own idea?

Perhaps this is why "Hugh" has changed his profile so often on Face book. Have to provide legitimacy for your cause. From male seeking a "lifestyle" of donations for services and adding/deleting a new profile. Any individual can search this site (FB).

The previous one posted a picture of a young man about 17 or so, now deleted with an upload of a male with his female friend. Meanwhile, another profile with the same name, no picture included, stating he is a MIT Professor. This is a certain way to circumvent plagiarism. Yes, Stating an Anthropologist, background research demonstrated a "zoo-keeper".

Conversely, there is another poster on this site who is an Undergrad student, Mathematics major, who is completing his "study" at MIT.

Furthermore, I do notice when one is present of the "bunch" of new comers one disappears. That person shall remain nameless since he backs off controversy yet creates more of he same verbiage while posting under additional names. Or he uses the "primary source" to promulgate his need to study without cost.

No source of debate or attack just logic.

I believe MLUK has some validity and others jump on the ban wagon through promoting sale of such writings of ML to promulgate a cause. This may in fact stop or ensure US citizenship through sponsorship.

Hugh7: You believe what? Decline in circumcision and the US is failing? Don't judge a system you have no medical background in; view the STD rates in the US from the CDC and their application of stats.

I view one point of view--your "groups" not an unbiased opinion of both. Yet you discredit the US?

All studies have degrees of "margins of error" discuss them so individuals can be enlightened--Research & Study' Methods.

Meanwhile you discredit other's who demonstrate opposition to your cause yet fail to seek and cite both sides. A true fully printed article shows both. On this site? Not worth my time due to other work. Sera is also working on a PhD and does not have time to fill your nonsense. As stated previously go through Med School and testify in the US before the Government. State your case for non-circumcision based on other Country's factual information. As stated this is not a parental site. The original posters had legitimate questions as adults, as you and your groups state a teen can make an informed decision, which is been addressed. They had medical issues and sought information, not hijackers.