How do uncircumcised men get laid?

Jake Waskett wrote in message ...
Ralph DuBose wrote:

) wrote in message
. com...
* One in 400-900 uncircumcised men will get cancer of the penis.

This number is wildly overstated. Penile cancer in the US is quite
rare for anyone, circed or not. Besides, penile cancer is nearly
always a consequence of human papiloma virus -- just like cervical
cancer in women. Totally preventable by reasonably safe sex, in other
words.

Actually, no. The lifetime risk is generally agreed to be in about that
range (making the risk per man per year much less), and the causes are not
fully understood.


A brief search turned up an incidence of 1:100,000 in Denmark where
circs are almost unheard of. The highest rates seem to be in Java
where the guys are circed. I am really curious to see a source for
that 1:100 figure.
The evidence or HPV involvement in penile cancer is circumstantial
but rather strong. Penile cancer happens to guys with a lot of
unprotected sex with skanky women, just like cervical cancer happens
to women the more exposure they get.
Circs may well provide some protection against stds but there are
other, more reliable ways to provide such protection.


A
quarter of these will die from it and the rest will require at least
partial penile amputation as a result. (In contrast, penile cancer
never occurs or is infinitesimally rare in men circumcised at birth).
(Data from studies in the USA, Denmark and Australia, which are not to
be confused with the often quoted, but misleading, annual incidence
figures of 1 in 100,000).

Please explain. If the average guy lived to be a hundred years old,
the life-time risk would be 1:1000 (If we are talking about annual
incidence of 100,000 )


* Foreskin is associated with balanitis (inflammation of the glans),
posthitis (inflammation of the foreskin), phimosis (inability to
retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (constriction of the penis by a
tight foreskin). Up to 18% of uncircumcised boys will develop one of
these by 8 years of age,

Maybe in sub-saharan africa. Not so in Sweden.

It's probably more common in hot countries, true.


* Foreskin is the biggest risk factor for heterosexually-acquired AIDS
virus infection in men.

Hetero sexual AIDS is still an african thing.

Actually, that's not so much the case these days. In the UK at least,
heterosexuals have now overtaken homosexuals in terms of new HIV cases. I
suspect the pattern is replicated in much of the developed world.

Sorting out the risk factors for HIV transmission has gotten a lot
of study. It has been complicated from the start by the tendency of
known risks to come as a package -- STDs, iv drug use, multiple
partners, poverty, living in a ****-hole country, etc. Generally
speaking, a culture only bothers with something like circs if it is
committed to the well being of its kids. Kids who are lucky enough to
have the community notice and care that they were born can be expected
to be healthier, for all sorts of reasons.
I am not feeling very idealogical about this issue. I merely
respond here because I sense a weak argument drifting by -- like a
big, slow, easy target.

Xyzzy wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote in message
...
Xyzzy wrote:

Joshua P. Hill wrote in message
. ..

I'm all in favor of perversity, but its practice
should be limited to consenting adults.

If an adult feels that part of his genitalia
doesn't belong, so he cuts it off--that's neurotic.

Doesn't belong? Well, it depends. In rare cases, feeling that a part of
the body is "wrong"

It's not rare at all for parents, in USAmerica, to feel that part of
their baby doesn't belong to him, so they have it cut off. BDD by
proxy.

You obviously don't understand BDD, Xyzzy.


can be a symptom of Body Dysmorphic Disorder (though not
the only symptom, and not by itself sufficient to determine that). I
guess you could say that's a kind of neurosis, using the term loosely.


But, removing part [of] his child's genitalia
is neurotic and cruel. And irreversible.

You're right in the last point, incomprehensible in the first.

But in what
way is it cruel to give a child the best start in life?

Begging the question.

Ralph DuBose wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote in message
...
Ralph DuBose wrote:

) wrote in message
. com...
* One in 400-900 uncircumcised men will get cancer of the penis.

This number is wildly overstated. Penile cancer in the US is quite
rare for anyone, circed or not. Besides, penile cancer is nearly
always a consequence of human papiloma virus -- just like cervical
cancer in women. Totally preventable by reasonably safe sex, in other
words.

Actually, no. The lifetime risk is generally agreed to be in about that
range (making the risk per man per year much less), and the causes are
not fully understood.


A brief search turned up an incidence of 1:100,000 in Denmark where
circs are almost unheard of.

That's a risk per man per year. It's equivalent to a lifetime risk of about
1 in 1400 (assuming a 70-year lifespan).

The highest rates seem to be in Java
where the guys are circed. I am really curious to see a source for
that 1:100 figure.

Darrin didn't say 1 in 100, so it's unreasonable to expect it. He said 1 in
400 to 900.

The evidence or HPV involvement in penile cancer is circumstantial
but rather strong. Penile cancer happens to guys with a lot of
unprotected sex with skanky women, just like cervical cancer happens
to women the more exposure they get.

There may be an increase in risk, but it's deceptive to claim that the risk
is *only* due to HPV.

Circs may well provide some protection against stds but there are
other, more reliable ways to provide such protection.

So logically, then, the risk is reduced further by circ *and* the other
ways.



A
quarter of these will die from it and the rest will require at least
partial penile amputation as a result. (In contrast, penile cancer
never occurs or is infinitesimally rare in men circumcised at birth).
(Data from studies in the USA, Denmark and Australia, which are not to
be confused with the often quoted, but misleading, annual incidence
figures of 1 in 100,000).

Please explain. If the average guy lived to be a hundred years old,
the life-time risk would be 1:1000 (If we are talking about annual
incidence of 100,000 )

Correct. Or, making a more reasonable assumption, about 1 in 1400 - about
one third the risk Darrin gave (1/400). But is it 1/100000 for
uncircumcised males? For circumcised males? For males living in Denmark?
America?



* Foreskin is associated with balanitis (inflammation of the glans),
posthitis (inflammation of the foreskin), phimosis (inability to
retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (constriction of the penis by a
tight foreskin). Up to 18% of uncircumcised boys will develop one of
these by 8 years of age,

Maybe in sub-saharan africa. Not so in Sweden.

It's probably more common in hot countries, true.


* Foreskin is the biggest risk factor for heterosexually-acquired AIDS
virus infection in men.

Hetero sexual AIDS is still an african thing.

Actually, that's not so much the case these days. In the UK at least,
heterosexuals have now overtaken homosexuals in terms of new HIV cases. I
suspect the pattern is replicated in much of the developed world.

Sorting out the risk factors for HIV transmission has gotten a lot
of study. It has been complicated from the start by the tendency of
known risks to come as a package -- STDs, iv drug use, multiple
partners, poverty, living in a ****-hole country, etc. Generally
speaking, a culture only bothers with something like circs if it is
committed to the well being of its kids. Kids who are lucky enough to
have the community notice and care that they were born can be expected
to be healthier, for all sorts of reasons.

The latest study of 2000 males in India seems to have addressed a lot of
those very issues. They found that uncircumcised males were six times more
likely to contract HIV. Though admittedly, randomised controlled trials
will be needed to be 100% sure.

I am not feeling very idealogical about this issue. I merely
respond here because I sense a weak argument drifting by -- like a
big, slow, easy target.

) wrote in message . com...
(Ralph DuBose) wrote in message . com...
) wrote in message . com...
NYC "One of the great mysteries that has
always puzzled me is how Jews, who account for such a tiny fraction of
the world's population, have been able to achieve so much and excel in
so many different fields - science, music, medicine, literature, arts,
business and more. If you listed the most influential people of the
last hundred years, three at the top of the list would be Einstein,
Freud and Marx; all were Jews.

What does this have to do with circs?
Yassir Arafat, Osama Bin Laden, and all of the Trade Center
hijackers/mass murderers --- all of these guys went under the knife as
a newborn. All moslem males are circed. Why not mention them as role
models? So, what is your point exactly, bringing religion into this
debate about skin?
Besides, there is a basic disconnect here. Circumcision was given
to Abraham and his heirs as a sign of seperateness from the pagan
societies around them. The introduction of this particular religious
dimension seems odd therefore.

Ralph, last I checked, tag lines were never intended to be part of the
discussion at hand. A tag line is part of the person, which is
precisely why it appears after each message. Regardless, why do you
care so much!? Inferiority-complex perhaps? LOL! Once again, praise
the Jews, and the jealous Gentiles come a running!ehehe FYI: With the
exception of Algebra & wreaking havoc on the world, Arabs (as a whole)
have done absolutely BUPKESS to advance civilization. Jews on the
other hand are regarded as the source of many of the major religions
of the world. Jews have exerted an influence on world civilization
more profound and lasting than any other ancient culture. Jews are the
oldest of any people on earth, still around with their national
identity and cultural heritage intact.


All in spite of comprising a
measly 1/4 of 1% of the world's population and enduring thousands of
years of persecution. Choose any field of human endeavor, and you will
find that Jews have disproportionately excelled in it. From Holy wood
to Hollywood, from Einstein to Freud, from Kosher to circumcision,
from Christianity to The Sabbath, from the polio vaccine to the
syphilis cure, Jews have imbued the world with invaluable creation.
Lastly, your question to me is actually better suited for you: What on
earth does 9/11 have to do with circumcision and Jews!? Unlike you, I
never tried to draw an analogy between circumcision and Jews.

Yes, right. I do not know where I got the idea that you meant to
connect the subject of circumcision with the subject of Jewishness. I
must have been hallucinating. In fact, that same hallucination seems
to be still going on and I keep dreaming that I read constant
referrences to religion in your posts.
They always said that would happen one day, you know. Back in the
60s, the authorities warned us about what would happen to our brains
if we didn't shape up and vote for Nixon. Now, it seems, I have lost
it so completely that I cannot even find anything about the subject of
circs in your last post. And we both know that is the only subject
here, right?
I feel the need for some righteous exercise, something to clear out
the cobwebs. Maybe go down to the river and shoot some minnows with my
old Sharps buffalo rifle -- clouds of smoke, a nice rolling thunder
clap-- and everything is right with the world again.
**** Prozac. **** Valium. Hand out high powered old buffalo
rifles to any one feeling too much STRESS and a new sort of world
would come into view.


You
assumed I was. Considering that Jews comprise a measly 2% of the
American population, the overwhelming majority of circumcised are
non-Jews! BTW, Hitler was uncircumcised, remember!? In terms of mass
murder, you don't get any better than him. -D, NYC "Take away the Jews
- and Germany is destitute" - JAMES W. GERARD (ex US Ambassador to
Germany - excerpt from "Four Years In Germany" - 1917)

??? Many more belong on the list, yet Jews
compriseat most less than 3 percent of the United States population.
They are an amazing people. Imagine the persecution they endured over
the centuries: pogroms, temple burnings, Cossack raids, uprootings of
families, their dispersal to the winds and the Holocaust. After the
Diaspora, they could not own land or worship in much of the world;
they were prohibited from voting and were told where to live. Yet
their children survived and Jews became by far themost accomplished
people per capita that the world has ever produced." - MARLON BRANDO
(excerpt from "SONGS MY MOTHER TAUGHT ME")

(Ralph DuBose) wrote in message . com...
) wrote in message . com...
(Ralph DuBose) wrote in message . com...
) wrote in message . com...
NYC "One of the great mysteries that has
always puzzled me is how Jews, who account for such a tiny fraction of
the world's population, have been able to achieve so much and excel in
so many different fields - science, music, medicine, literature, arts,
business and more. If you listed the most influential people of the
last hundred years, three at the top of the list would be Einstein,
Freud and Marx; all were Jews.

What does this have to do with circs?
Yassir Arafat, Osama Bin Laden, and all of the Trade Center
hijackers/mass murderers --- all of these guys went under the knife as
a newborn. All moslem males are circed. Why not mention them as role
models? So, what is your point exactly, bringing religion into this
debate about skin?
Besides, there is a basic disconnect here. Circumcision was given
to Abraham and his heirs as a sign of seperateness from the pagan
societies around them. The introduction of this particular religious
dimension seems odd therefore.

Ralph, last I checked, tag lines were never intended to be part of the
discussion at hand. A tag line is part of the person, which is
precisely why it appears after each message. Regardless, why do you
care so much!? Inferiority-complex perhaps? LOL! Once again, praise
the Jews, and the jealous Gentiles come a running!ehehe FYI: With the
exception of Algebra

cut more of same blathering



Yes, right. I do not know where I got the idea that you meant to
connect the subject of circumcision with the subject of Jewishness. I
must have been hallucinating. In fact, that same hallucination seems
to be still going on and I keep dreaming that I read constant
referrences to religion in your posts.
They always said that would happen one day, you know. Back in the
60s, the authorities warned us about what would happen to our brains
if we didn't shape up and vote for Nixon. Now, it seems, I have lost
it so completely that I cannot even find anything about the subject of
circs in your last post. And we both know that is the only subject
here, right?
I feel the need for some righteous exercise, something to clear out
the cobwebs. Maybe go down to the river and shoot some minnows with my
old Sharps buffalo rifle -- clouds of smoke, a nice rolling thunder
clap-- and everything is right with the world again.
**** Prozac. **** Valium. Hand out high powered old buffalo
rifles to any one feeling too much STRESS and a new sort of world
would come into view.



What does YOUR stress have to do with circs? Do you seriously
think that you are the sole bearer of stress in the world or that no
one else could use some support or a kind word? If that's the case,
then **** you, not Prozac.
You discuss the rise in cortisol levels (that occur with pain),
but I wonder if the only pain that really matters other than your own,
is when it is in reference to some nameless, nebulous unknown on
usenet or an infant boy undergoing a circ. We all have pain. Some of
us use it to our benefit instead of dwelling on it or shooting at
fish.
I feel the need for some righteous excercise myself. But what
gets my attention more than thunderclaps is solutions. Even if the
solution isn't the absolute best, it *is* something. The stress that
comes from the refusal to actually DO something to improve one's
situation is what is intolerable. That's why I'm going to drive 1500
miles or so to see a man about his funeral - no, don't worry, no
Buffalo rifle or minnows will be required - after all, the death is an
expected one.


You
assumed I was. Considering that Jews comprise a measly 2% of the
American population, the overwhelming majority of circumcised are
non-Jews! BTW, Hitler was uncircumcised, remember!? In terms of mass
murder, you don't get any better than him. -D, NYC "Take away the Jews
- and Germany is destitute" - JAMES W. GERARD (ex US Ambassador to
Germany - excerpt from "Four Years In Germany" - 1917)

??? Many more belong on the list, yet Jews
compriseat most less than 3 percent of the United States population.
They are an amazing people. Imagine the persecution they endured over
the centuries: pogroms, temple burnings, Cossack raids, uprootings of
families, their dispersal to the winds and the Holocaust. After the
Diaspora, they could not own land or worship in much of the world;
they were prohibited from voting and were told where to live. Yet
their children survived and Jews became by far themost accomplished
people per capita that the world has ever produced." - MARLON BRANDO
(excerpt from "SONGS MY MOTHER TAUGHT ME")

Jake Waskett wrote in message ...
Sky King wrote:
Read what I posted above...."these data are not sufficient
to recommend routine neonatal circumcision." In other words they do
NOT recomment routine medical circumsisions. IF there is NO medical
problem
there is NO need. Why is it so hard for you to understand? These are
the specialist that are talking.

They're saying that medical benefits alone are not adequate to support a
recommendation. They don't recommend for or against.


Sure they do.
http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/
Many years ago, when it was thought important to prevent masturbation,
American health authorities advocated circumcision. There is no longer
any national or international public health authority in the western
world which advocates routine circumcision.


The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is the highest child health
authority in the United States. On 1 March 1999 the AAP released its
long-awaited recommendations on circumcision. The AAP News Release
Video stated, "The AAP does not recommend the policy of routine
newborn circumcision..."

Institution Advocates Circumcision
American Medical Association No
American Cancer Society No
Center for Disease Control No
National Institute of Health No
American Academy of Pediatrics No
Pediatric Urologists Association No
Amer. College of Obst. & Gyn. No
other countries
Canadian Pediatric Society No
Canadian Medical Association No
European Medical Societies (any) No




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


All of these public health authorities take seriously their
responsibility to protect your child's health. None of them advise you
to circumcise your child.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In an intact man the sexually sensitive tissue unfolds to cover the
shaft of the penis.
The circumcised man has only a narrow band of this tissue remaining.


Many men do not miss their penile tissue until they discover the
historical basis of circumcision:
Just as with female circumcision in some parts of the world, the
intent of male circumcision in America was to control sexual activity.
It is clear from the historical evidence that circumcision in America
was instituted in a futile attempt to prevent masturbation by reducing
sexual sensitivity.

Abraham ordered his followers to sacrifice the foreskin as evidence of
their covenant, but Christ exempted Christians from circumcision. The
Jews and Muslims have largely continued to follow Abraham's example.

Despite this exemption for Christians, a few 19th century
fundamentalist Christian doctors joined with Jewish doctors to promote
male circumcision in the US. Their clearly stated and sole intent was
to eliminate masturbation by reducing the sexual sensitivity of the
penis. Circumcision rates have plummeted in the US as more men
confront the real reason why they were sexually altered.

Most circumcised men have only a narrow band of sexually sensitive
tissue remaining.

More info here.
http://www.circ-info.org/reasons.htm


That seems pretty clear to me. They do not recommend the police of
routive newborn circumcision.


All of your responses are based on heeby-jeebie ad
hominem & misinformation. They are not based on medical facts. Lastly,
you better tell the AAP that 1.5 million newborns (regardless of
ethnicity) are still being circumcised each and every year! DOH!


Yep and the AAP disagrees with it. It should not be done.

No, they don't say that.


They don't recommend it.

More folks
are NOT circumcised then are. Many do it for strictly religious
reasons and others for cosmetic reasons.


Once
again, I have common sense and medicine on my side.


What do you think the members or AAP are pal? They are the ones that
perform
the circumcision. You have nothing on your side.


What do you have!?
Blind ignorance!? Believe me, I do not fault you as much as I fault
your ignorant and uncaring parents. The same parents who decided to
forgo a simple, safe & beneficial procedure.

Do you know all the complications that can arise from getting
circumcised?
I can enlighten you. I can see that you won't let facts get in the
way
of your beliefs.

Certainly complications can occur, but they are rare.


The first rule of medicine is to do NO harm. IF there is no medical
need
and they do it its wrong.


http://www.cirp.org/library/procedure/patel/
One hundred male infants were studied at the Kingston General
Hospital, Kingston, Ontario to determine the incidence and
complications of routine circumcision. The parents were also
interviewed concerning the cause of the operation.
In these 100 infants, complications, usually minor, were very
common, and included hemorrhage (35), meatal ulcers (31), infection
(eight), phimosis (one) and meatal stenosis.
The reasons given for operation were prophylactic - to avoid
the psychological trauma of later operations for infection, phimosis
and "troubles" (40), cleanliness (11) and phimosis (four). The
remaining cases were for social and other non-medical reasons.
Attitudes of parents and physicians regarding circumcision varied from
firm belief in its value to a casual approach. One half of the babies
had partial circumcisions, confirming previous suspicions that
non-Jewish males frequently had partial operations. Partial operations
do not always guarantees cleanliness and probably do not eliminate the
risk of penile carcinoma in all cases, if smegma is carcinogenic.
Routine circumcision spare a few children psychologically traumatic
operations at a later date and relieve parents of anxiety about the
future of the uncircumcised child. This should be balanced against the
complications, which, although usually minor, may occasionally be
serious.
Between 1961 and 1962, at the Kingston General Hospital, 349
(48%) of 727 male infants were routinely circumcised.



I would also like to here you comment on the fact that its OUR body
and therefore OUR choice. Men can decide if they want to be
circumcised.

Sky King wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote in message
...
Sky King wrote:
Read what I posted above...."these data are not sufficient
to recommend routine neonatal circumcision." In other words they do
NOT recomment routine medical circumsisions. IF there is NO medical
problem
there is NO need. Why is it so hard for you to understand? These are
the specialist that are talking.

They're saying that medical benefits alone are not adequate to support a
recommendation. They don't recommend for or against.


Sure they do.

Actually, they do not. Here is an excerpt from their statement, dated 3rd
March, 1999 (first-hand evidence is so much more reliable, don't you
think?):

"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of
newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to
recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in
which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not
essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what
is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents
of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and
be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. It is legitimate for
parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in
addition to the medical factors, when making this decision. Analgesia is
safe and effective in reducing the procedural pain associated with
circumcision; therefore, if a decision for circumcision is made, procedural
analgesia should be provided. If circumcision is performed in the newborn
period, it should only be done on infants who are stable and healthy."

Source: http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...full/103/3/686

As you can see, they do not recommend for OR against.

Jake.

http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/
Many years ago, when it was thought important to prevent masturbation,
American health authorities advocated circumcision. There is no longer
any national or international public health authority in the western
world which advocates routine circumcision.


The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is the highest child health
authority in the United States. On 1 March 1999 the AAP released its
long-awaited recommendations on circumcision. The AAP News Release
Video stated, "The AAP does not recommend the policy of routine
newborn circumcision..."

Institution Advocates Circumcision
American Medical Association No
American Cancer Society No
Center for Disease Control No
National Institute of Health No
American Academy of Pediatrics No
Pediatric Urologists Association No
Amer. College of Obst. & Gyn. No
other countries
Canadian Pediatric Society No
Canadian Medical Association No
European Medical Societies (any) No

Jake Waskett wrote in message ...
Sky King wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote in message
...
Sky King wrote:
Read what I posted above...."these data are not sufficient
to recommend routine neonatal circumcision." In other words they do
NOT recomment routine medical circumsisions. IF there is NO medical
problem
there is NO need. Why is it so hard for you to understand? These are
the specialist that are talking.

They're saying that medical benefits alone are not adequate to support a
recommendation. They don't recommend for or against.


Sure they do.

Actually, they do not. Here is an excerpt from their statement, dated 3rd
March, 1999 (first-hand evidence is so much more reliable, don't you
think?):



"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of
newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to
recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in
which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not
essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what
is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents
of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and
be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. It is legitimate for
parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in
addition to the medical factors, when making this decision. Analgesia is
safe and effective in reducing the procedural pain associated with
circumcision; therefore, if a decision for circumcision is made, procedural
analgesia should be provided. If circumcision is performed in the newborn
period, it should only be done on infants who are stable and healthy."

Source: http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...full/103/3/686

As you can see, they do not recommend for OR against.

Jake.


The cited statement is a good faith effort to follow the evidence
and avoid an ideologically skewed approach. I think it is admirable
and necessary.
Some thoughts: Circumcision has been practiced for a long time and
for many different reasons. It is impossible, in my view, to wrap the
entire history of this subject up in a neat package. It is especially
difficult to transpose the meanings of it from one millenia to the
next except in the area of ritual and rite. In other words, as a sign
of identity it is likely to be a reliable constant. As to hygeine and
health, it is less constant. Sort of like the whole notion of keeping
kosher for the sake of good health. It is a matter of survival if you
live in someplace like Botswana. In a place like Norway it is not so
clear cut. It becomes much more a matter of ritual.

Hygeine in some bad climate areas is a real problem. I have heard
from reliable sources that uncirced US Marines suffered more in the
jungle warfare of WW 2 when they went weeks without a chance of a
bath. On the other hand, no army in Northern Europe has ever had a
problem with this issue.
As for the question of safety and comfort, I think we have
forgotten too many things. In the real old days, no one asked whether
or not it hurt. Of course it did, but so what? People understood that
life was tough and they saw no reason to hide it. Did someone want it?
Well, until very recently, most peoples' social identity was not
something they were really asked about. People could not change that
even if they wanted. They were in a certain tribe or clan and that was
that (unless they got kicked out-- which was close to a death
sentence).
My point is that that this debate is taking place in an environment
of unprecedented choices for the individual. I think it is great, but
it makes it harder to understand our forebearers.


http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/
Many years ago, when it was thought important to prevent masturbation,
American health authorities advocated circumcision. There is no longer
any national or international public health authority in the western
world which advocates routine circumcision.


The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is the highest child health
authority in the United States. On 1 March 1999 the AAP released its
long-awaited recommendations on circumcision. The AAP News Release
Video stated, "The AAP does not recommend the policy of routine
newborn circumcision..."

Institution Advocates Circumcision
American Medical Association No
American Cancer Society No
Center for Disease Control No
National Institute of Health No
American Academy of Pediatrics No
Pediatric Urologists Association No
Amer. College of Obst. & Gyn. No
other countries
Canadian Pediatric Society No
Canadian Medical Association No
European Medical Societies (any) No

(Ralph DuBose) wrote in message . com...
Jake Waskett wrote in message ...
Sky King wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote in message
...
Sky King wrote:
Read what I posted above...."these data are not sufficient
to recommend routine neonatal circumcision." In other words they do
NOT recomment routine medical circumsisions. IF there is NO medical
problem
there is NO need. Why is it so hard for you to understand? These are
the specialist that are talking.

They're saying that medical benefits alone are not adequate to support a
recommendation. They don't recommend for or against.


Sure they do.

Actually, they do not. Here is an excerpt from their statement, dated 3rd
March, 1999 (first-hand evidence is so much more reliable, don't you
think?):


did you see my cite below listing all the medical organizations that
do not recommend it?



"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of
newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to
recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in
which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not
essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what
is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents
of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and
be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. It is legitimate for
parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in
addition to the medical factors, when making this decision. Analgesia is
safe and effective in reducing the procedural pain associated with
circumcision; therefore, if a decision for circumcision is made, procedural
analgesia should be provided. If circumcision is performed in the newborn
period, it should only be done on infants who are stable and healthy."

Source: http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...full/103/3/686

As you can see, they do not recommend for OR against.

Jake.


The cited statement is a good faith effort to follow the evidence
and avoid an ideologically skewed approach. I think it is admirable
and necessary.
Some thoughts: Circumcision has been practiced for a long time and
for many different reasons. It is impossible, in my view, to wrap the
entire history of this subject up in a neat package. It is especially
difficult to transpose the meanings of it from one millenia to the
next except in the area of ritual and rite. In other words, as a sign
of identity it is likely to be a reliable constant. As to hygeine and
health, it is less constant. Sort of like the whole notion of keeping
kosher for the sake of good health. It is a matter of survival if you
live in someplace like Botswana. In a place like Norway it is not so
clear cut. It becomes much more a matter of ritual.

Hygeine in some bad climate areas is a real problem. I have heard
from reliable sources that uncirced US Marines suffered more in the
jungle warfare of WW 2 when they went weeks without a chance of a
bath. On the other hand, no army in Northern Europe has ever had a
problem with this issue.
As for the question of safety and comfort, I think we have
forgotten too many things. In the real old days, no one asked whether
or not it hurt. Of course it did, but so what? People understood that
life was tough and they saw no reason to hide it. Did someone want it?
Well, until very recently, most peoples' social identity was not
something they were really asked about. People could not change that
even if they wanted. They were in a certain tribe or clan and that was
that (unless they got kicked out-- which was close to a death
sentence).
My point is that that this debate is taking place in an environment
of unprecedented choices for the individual. I think it is great, but
it makes it harder to understand our forebearers.


My point is that its OUR bodies and should be our choice. Men can
decide for themselves if they wished to be circumcised.


http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/
Many years ago, when it was thought important to prevent masturbation,
American health authorities advocated circumcision. There is no longer
any national or international public health authority in the western
world which advocates routine circumcision.


The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is the highest child health
authority in the United States. On 1 March 1999 the AAP released its
long-awaited recommendations on circumcision. The AAP News Release
Video stated, "The AAP does not recommend the policy of routine
newborn circumcision..."

Institution Advocates Circumcision
American Medical Association No
American Cancer Society No
Center for Disease Control No
National Institute of Health No
American Academy of Pediatrics No
Pediatric Urologists Association No
Amer. College of Obst. & Gyn. No
other countries
Canadian Pediatric Society No
Canadian Medical Association No
European Medical Societies (any) No

Sky King wrote:

(Ralph DuBose) wrote in message
. com...
Jake Waskett wrote in message
...
Sky King wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote in message
...
Sky King wrote:
Read what I posted above...."these data are not sufficient
to recommend routine neonatal circumcision." In other words they
do
NOT recomment routine medical circumsisions. IF there is NO
medical problem
there is NO need. Why is it so hard for you to understand? These
are the specialist that are talking.

They're saying that medical benefits alone are not adequate to
support a recommendation. They don't recommend for or against.


Sure they do.

Actually, they do not. Here is an excerpt from their statement, dated
3rd March, 1999 (first-hand evidence is so much more reliable, don't
you think?):


did you see my cite below listing all the medical organizations that
do not recommend it?

Yes, I did. However, it seems a somewhat unreliable source, given that that
it misled you about their recommendations. I provided a link to the source
itself, to avoid such confusion.




"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits
of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to
recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision,
in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is
not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should
determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an
informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate
and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss
this decision. It is legitimate for parents to take into account
cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical
factors, when making this decision. Analgesia is safe and effective in
reducing the procedural pain associated with circumcision; therefore,
if a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be
provided. If circumcision is performed in the newborn period, it should
only be done on infants who are stable and healthy."

Source:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...full/103/3/686

As you can see, they do not recommend for OR against.

Jake.


The cited statement is a good faith effort to follow the evidence
and avoid an ideologically skewed approach. I think it is admirable
and necessary.
Some thoughts: Circumcision has been practiced for a long time and
for many different reasons. It is impossible, in my view, to wrap the
entire history of this subject up in a neat package. It is especially
difficult to transpose the meanings of it from one millenia to the
next except in the area of ritual and rite. In other words, as a sign
of identity it is likely to be a reliable constant. As to hygeine and
health, it is less constant. Sort of like the whole notion of keeping
kosher for the sake of good health. It is a matter of survival if you
live in someplace like Botswana. In a place like Norway it is not so
clear cut. It becomes much more a matter of ritual.

Hygeine in some bad climate areas is a real problem. I have heard
from reliable sources that uncirced US Marines suffered more in the
jungle warfare of WW 2 when they went weeks without a chance of a
bath. On the other hand, no army in Northern Europe has ever had a
problem with this issue.
As for the question of safety and comfort, I think we have
forgotten too many things. In the real old days, no one asked whether
or not it hurt. Of course it did, but so what? People understood that
life was tough and they saw no reason to hide it. Did someone want it?
Well, until very recently, most peoples' social identity was not
something they were really asked about. People could not change that
even if they wanted. They were in a certain tribe or clan and that was
that (unless they got kicked out-- which was close to a death
sentence).
My point is that that this debate is taking place in an environment
of unprecedented choices for the individual. I think it is great, but
it makes it harder to understand our forebearers.


My point is that its OUR bodies and should be our choice. Men can
decide for themselves if they wished to be circumcised.

I understand that is your point of view.



http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/
Many years ago, when it was thought important to prevent
masturbation, American health authorities advocated circumcision.
There is no longer any national or international public health
authority in the western world which advocates routine circumcision.


The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is the highest child health
authority in the United States. On 1 March 1999 the AAP released its
long-awaited recommendations on circumcision. The AAP News Release
Video stated, "The AAP does not recommend the policy of routine
newborn circumcision..."

Institution Advocates Circumcision
American Medical Association No
American Cancer Society No
Center for Disease Control No
National Institute of Health No
American Academy of Pediatrics No
Pediatric Urologists Association No
Amer. College of Obst. & Gyn. No
other countries
Canadian Pediatric Society No
Canadian Medical Association No
European Medical Societies (any) No