All RIGHT (just convinced like 20 people not to circ!) - Page 2

[nikirj]

Hello Sarah!

Thank you :-)

I got the nerve density stats from my physiology class. We are, coincidentally, covering male reproductive anatomy this semester. It is interesting to note that very little is known about the foreskin tissue except for that it has high nerve density and that much of it is glandular (a lot of speculation about what exactly the glands are doing, but I keep seeing "function is not known"). And yet we cut it off. If we got back into medical history we see that for a very long time, medical professionals had very little idea what the brain was for.

I didn't go into intercourse just because I didn't want to get too explicit, and because the paper is already 8 pages long (assignment was for 5-6 pages). I agree that the sexual function of the foreskin is highly important, but am wondering what exactly my readers will get out of this, you know? How do I get it into the paper in a short, factual way? (In short, what is the positive effect you get by being intact during intercourse?)

The $400 quote I got from my mom, who is a perinatal nurse. Perhaps I should revisit the issue. She is anti-circ as well and may have conveniently exaggerated.

This is due on Friday and so I have another day to revise it.

Thanks for your thoughts! It was very helpful.

[Frankly Speaking]

The issues of sexual function and consequences is not well documented and very much open to counter claims. (I have great sex, My BF has no problems, etc.) This one part of the issue could be a book all by itself. Probably for the intent of this paper, it is best left alone.

Marilyn Milos, the Director of NOCIRC told me that the national average for a circumcision paid by the parents is about $300.00. Your Mother's experience may be accurate for the hospital where she works but I have also seen figures of $150.00 and one doctor reported being paid as little as $12.00 by Medicaid.



Frank

[Sarah]

WHOA!!

Frank!- NIKRJ... you guys are having a problem with the sexual function aspect? What about it is disputable- this is not a qualatative assesment... you are not saying "It is better" or "If feels nicer" or "this group of people is MORE satisfied"

here is the deal-

Human sexual function is designed for the human penis to be covered with a loose sheath of skin, human intercourse is designed with lubrication mainly to enable penetration, but the majority of the movement of coitus is facilitated by the movement of the penile skin over the erectile tissue- which acts as a buffer between the vaginal tissue and the penile skin. When you remove 30- 50% of the skin system of the penis and destroy that rolling mechanical action- you reduce the mechanics of intercourse to skin on skin rubbing with places an undue requirement on lubrication.

Now- listen carefully- some people might want to be rubbed raw- some people might want the glans to work like a plunger sucking all the vaginal fluid out of a woman, if africa some people cram their vagina full of herbs to dry it out because that is the preferred way to have sex there... in the USA they might fill their vagina with so goo they bought in a store to make it slippery...

which is better- honestly- that is NONE OF MY BUSINESS.

It is not for me to judge if a circumcised man enjoys sex more or less than an intact man- that is entirely beside the point-

WHAT IS THE POINT is that circumcision destroys a part of the normal mecahnical function of the human genital pair

An aspect that you ENTIRELY neglected to mention.

A CRUCIAL extremely important understanding about the foreskin... it is not a cover for the real penis- it is a integrated part of the sex organ and the act of the old in and out!

Parents might feel that they have a position to make health decisions about their child, but do they have a feeling that they have a position to make decisions about how much of their normal sexual function they would keep?

What if, instead of asking, "Circ or nocirc?", the doctor asks, "You have to make some decisions considering how your son will experience sex, you can bind his erection in a tight sheath of skin and externalize his internal sex parts. This option might make him masturbate with an artificial product because in order to stimulate the deep pressure nerves inside his glans he would have to squeeze harder than would be comfortable for dry skin- his sex partners will also experience more friction than his normal penis would provide- or if you leave him intact, he will be able to roll his hand over his glans smoothly with his foreskin, and stimulate himself with deep pressure without any friction, for intercourse this will be the normal human model ... the choice is yours- ?"

I would venture to guess that this would make a mother very uncomfortable... to think that something she would do could so dramaticly change the way that a man experiences his own body.

The way his body functions is HIS, it does not have to stand up to any qualatative asessment- it is his- period. If he wants it different- that is option. But NO ONE can make an argument for why it is a mother's perogative to decide how much of her child's sexual function they can keep.

Frank I am horrified that you would suggest that this mechanical function is at all disputed or open to counter claims- it is a reality, it is the PURPOSE of circumcision to destroy it- if that is not the very thing they are trying to destroy- what are they trying to do?

I mean this is silly- you don't need to read a study- you simply need to wrap your hands around two penises and yank up and down- even a chimp could figure out that what is going on is different.

They can not deny this function- what is to dispute?

They can only dispute if this function is important to sexual enjoyment- but at that point they are openly debating how much of a person's sexual function they have an entitlement to keep.

Can anyone argue that people do not have a right to 100% of their human sexual function?

You don't have to take a position that one way of being is better- you only have to take the position that altering another person's sexual function is unethical.

the problem is that many many people choosing circumcision do not even know how the foreskin functions for intercourse and masturbation because they have never seen or experience it and because their is a wholesale silence about it because people are afraid that some circumcised guy might get his feelings hurt if someone implied that he is not 100% sexually.

You don't even try to say that circumcised guys don't enjoy sex- that is a LIE! They LOVE sex... OF COURSE!... but 100% of your sexual function is yours and 100% of what is taken is not someone else's to take- that is the only quantifying that needs to be done.


Also- I said this before and I'll say it again- I would go with the ethics of using medicasl power to do cultural modifications is an criminal misuse of power. Regardless of the parental decisions- physicians have very clearly defined codes and guidelines they are SUPPOSED to adhere to, cutting genitals in the absence of medical need is nothing more than sexual mutilation and they do not have the authority to do that. If a Dr uses a knife outside their professional jurisdiction it is assault. I believe that circumcision of healthy male infants is criminal sexual assault by a Doctor. they do not have any right to act on the wishes of the parents- regardless of the motivations of the parent- their ethical duty supercedes that. Infant circumcision goes against all of the tennets of the AMA code of ethics.

[lise brit]

Just one more idea,

Before you start presenting your paper, show them a video of a circ. It will get people's attention right away and you will have it for the rest of the presentation. It will be incredibly powerful!!! (Don't show a bris, show a hospital circ).

Lise Brit

[Nathan1097]

I don't know what the others have said yet, but here are my few points on it:

"Your son is strapped to a metal tray...." Its plastic, not metal. Are you allowed to use photos? There are photos of a Circumstraint you can print.

The price of a circumcision varies, as does the amount the doctor will get. There are hospital fees and physician fees- both which add up to the cost of a circumcision. In the hospital, a doctor who is "on call" at the time of your baby's circumcision (the morning after he is born, usually) and in your OB's "group" in hospitals are usually the ones assigned to do "rounds" for the circs. However, some do have that baby's particular pediatrician or the mothers obstetrician do the circ. at a specific time. Sometimes later at the pediatrician's office. All depends.

You should mention the most-common methods of circ: GOMCO, Plastibel, and Mogen. And emphasize that there is NOT a "non-cutting" method, as lots of people think there is.

The basics of a circumcision are: the foreskin is separated from the glans- either with a probe or hemostats (locking clamps); the hemostats are locked vertically along the center of the foreskin; cut is made to make room for the bell; bell inserted and clamp tightened to keep the cut from bleeding later. Then the circular cut is made. Its difficult to describe and be suscinct yet accurate. There is a video online that does this- a slide show of sorts. (See http://www.circumcisionquotes.com/methods.html ) In the GOMCO method, once the clamp is on, there should be NO remaining foreskin attachments. By this time, the foreskin actually isn't feeling the cut because its above the crush of the GOMCO- and besides, even IF the baby is feeling it, he is already worn out enough to not give a care! Is there any way you could use the intact.ca video? They have VHS copies. You could explain that its been edited by about 5 minutes because of the 5-minute wait for the crush to "take", too. That one is probably the best video to use overall because it DOES show the whole procedure. You can't see the whole baby, though, but you could also maybe type out what the doctor and dad are saying on the side to have them have just to KNOW what is being said, as they won't be able to take that in while the video is playing- too much information! Just a thought. I can type out what they are saying, if you want. Its extremely interesting actually!

Also, breast reduction can be a medically-indicated procedure. Just thought you'd like to know that. :-)

You might liken the sensitivity of the foreskin's opening to that of the lips of the mouth. And the difference between intact and circ'd tactile sensation as running a finger along the top of your hand, and then the palm of your hand. These are things EVERYBODY can relate to!

You can look for any material you'd like to use at http://www.CircumcisionQuotes.com/

Oh- and I wouldn't go on about smegma like that. I know its not easy to get a lot of points into one presentation, but its better left un-mentioned, unless someone asks after. Then you can just tell them that its the same as women have between their labia and is a natural lubricant.

[Frankly Speaking]

Sara:

You very well *know* that I know all of that. The problem is that Niki is already over the limit of her paper and to add more things in is not going to help. There really is not much in reliable double cross checked scientific research about the amount to sensation lost and there is a lot of conflicting information. Then there are the guys that claim that sex is wonderful and couldn't be better even though it has never dawned on them that there are nerves and receptors in the foreskin. Somehow they just think it is a numb piece of skin with no feeling whatsoever. To present the case sufficiently to counter this, you would have to write a book, a very large book. (War and Peace maybe?) For the time alotted, this is just too much to attempt and could easily jeopardize the credibility of the entire presentation.

[Nathan1097]

I also have the 3+-minute version of the intact.ca video. Its obviously hugely edited, but it might fit into your needs for a speech better. Its available online to download. Not sure how you'd show it to people in a speech though.

[nikirj]

Thanks guys!

Sarah, nobody is denying that the foreskin is important to intercourse. I am just saying that I do not feel like I can make my case in the space alotted, and to make an incomplete case is often the best way to get yourself discredited. I am also trying to talk to people about why they shouldn't circumcise a newborn and feel that talking about the mechanics of sexuality might be a little out of place in the overall context of the paper.

I did edit the section where I talk about smegma. I softened the wording quite a bit and left some of it out entirely. You guys are right; I will stick to the lubrication aspect rather than mention something that people will likely visualize negatively.

Unfortunately, I cannot provide videos. The presentations are informal in nature and more for the purposes of constructive criticism; there is no real "presenting" as it usually occurs in front of a class with visual aids, it is a matter of reading what we have and getting feedback about what kinds of fallacies it may contain, or how to counter arguments that we hadn't thought of.

According to my lab manuals, the procedure is done on metal. The information is admittedly older, though, as my instructor wrote the manuals just for our use and was schooled in the early 50s. I obviously need to look this up and revise. I do not, however, want to go into detail about the different types of the procedures. The little narrative at the beginning was more to bring the subject to life than to actually educate, if that makes any sense.

Thanks again everyone :-)

[Nathan1097]

Originally posted by nikirj

Unfortunately, I cannot provide videos. The presentations are informal in nature and more for the purposes of constructive criticism; there is no real "presenting" as it usually occurs in front of a class with visual aids, it is a matter of reading what we have and getting feedback about what kinds of fallacies it may contain, or how to counter arguments that we hadn't thought of.

According to my lab manuals, the procedure is done on metal. The information is admittedly older, though, as my instructor wrote the manuals just for our use and was schooled in the early 50s. I obviously need to look this up and revise. I do not, however, want to go into detail about the different types of the procedures. The little narrative at the beginning was more to bring the subject to life than to actually educate, if that makes any sense.

Thanks again everyone :-)

I guess I was picturing a persuasive speech with audio or visual aide.

Circumstraints have been around for quite some years and even if not, its what they use now, so I hope you don't go by this lab manual, frankly.

Just so your narritive is accurate is all. It needs to be seen as facts, not emotional scare-tactics. And if they find that even one part of it is incorrect, then your credibility- and their outlook on the subject- will be tarnished. Because for a lot of these people, this is going to be their first image of a circumcision and one they will pass on to many others.

Also, I re-read your post and one thing to watch out for:

Every negative sentace you put, people will remember! Phrase things in a positive light! If you say "DON'T KILL SQUIRRELS" they will remember "... Kill Squirrels" So saying "Smegma is NOT filthy slime" is saying "Smegma=filthy slime" because they will remember these sound-bytes in their head and putting those two images together will backfire on you.

You have to be specific and concise!

[Sarah]

"I am also trying to talk to people about why they shouldn't circumcise a newborn and feel that talking about the mechanics of sexuality might be a little out of place in the overall context of the paper."

The unwillingness of people to equate cutting off a piece of someone's penis with human sexuality is exactly how parents can have an overwhelming urge to accomplish this sexual modification and have the unashamed ability to enlist a doctor to help them accomplish this ...and yet still be so inhibited they don't have the courage to face the clerk at a video store to rent a porn move with an intact actor in it.


Don't you get it? The sexual function loss is MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE PAIN!! Pain is temporary, pain is something that CAN be addressed... but PAIN is NOT the issue- mucking up someone else's sexual anatomy/function is the issue, and if it not made clear that circumcision is not some benign tidying, then people might as well assume that it IS some benign tidying.

The lack of explanation of sexual function is why the AAP statement is biased in favor of circumcision.

You spent the majority of your paper mooning about some horrific pain and intrusion into this baby dreamy moment, and you neglect to mention how this is going to sexually change a man for the rest of his life...

so what -it hurts?- give him a shot, it's no big deal and he won't remember it anyway. If you don't make it clear why this is a sexual imposition then circumcision is nothing more than a unnecissary option.

Unethical sexual imposition?

Unnecissary but benign option?

[Nathan1097]

Sarah, but then people might try to argue that any "benefits" of removing the foreskin would be equal to or greater than any negatives to keeping it. You know how people like to go 27 rounds on this in the first place!

Yes, people don't want to see their newborn as sexual. And yes, their sexuality is forever altered by circumcision! Memory or no memory of the actual event. Nobody knows what he or his partners in future will want or not.

Just how to get all of this information neatly into a short 7-page paper that's just meant to be read, not debated or a speech proper or anything like that...... I couldn't do it. You know my site is HUGE! ROFL