Subject: Re: Circumcision: A Barbaric Practice (by J. Steven Svoboda)

From: [email-masked] (Tom Stempler)
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 15:31:45 GMT

[email-masked] 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", <darn>

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