Circumcision Blurb in Mothering Mag - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-20-2004, 01:03 AM - Thread Starter
 
*Erin*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: in a magnolia tree
Posts: 2,391
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I can't put my hands on my issue right now, but i just remembered this and really wanted to talk about it. in this month's issue, there is a little paragraph, tucked at the bottom of a page, and it's about circ. it says that men who are uncirced have a slightly higher chance of having stds( ithink), and that circed men are more likey to be gay. period. no explanation of what that has to do with anything. it left me with a very bad taste in my mouth. are we supposed to infer that having a gay son is bad?? seriously? and that if we leave our sons intact, they have a higher chance of coming out straight???like gay is a disease we're avoiding? or does it imply that gay men have more stds? because there were no facts to back that one up either. that one little unchecked bit of homophobia, or whatever it was, has really made me think critically about the mag.
did anyone else notice this, or know what im talking about??

Erin, 33, salty southern mama, sitting by the sea with my DH35, DD10, DS4, &DD2!
*Erin* is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 03-20-2004, 01:18 AM
 
mamaroni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: riding the wave of change
Posts: 3,050
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think I'm looking at the paragraph to which you're referring. . . page 30.

It says that a new study shows that circ'ing will NOT protect against STDs. (It was a British study.) The last two sentences say "Circ'd men were slightly more likely to become infected that intact men. compared with intact men, circ'd men were more likely to report having had homosexual partners."

Is that what you're referring to?

the fine print cites the following: www.cirp.org/library/general/dave1

namaste.gif

mamaroni is offline  
Old 03-20-2004, 01:26 AM
 
georgia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: tl;dr
Posts: 25,384
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I was curious---since I wasn't very fond of this issue, and wasn't sure why, thought I'd check it out.....

It's on page 30, and it says:

"Circumcision Doesn't Pay

Many parents believe that circumcising their sons will protect them from sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), but a new study says it isn't so. The large study investigated British men across diverse ethnic and social groups. It failed to validate claims made in the US and the developing world that male circ. is associated with a reduced rate of STDs. In fact, the reverse may be true. Circumcised men were slightly more likely to become infected than intact men. Compared with intact men, circumcised men were more likely to report having homosexual partners."

I don't read anything into that other than what it states. There's also a link provided in the magazine--maybe checking that out might ease your mind. I guess I'm not seeing the implied homophobia? The study's stats really are just that to me---each person can infer what they want. That's what so frustrating about stats and research......like who is paying for the research and what do they
*want* to find??? I just don't think MM intended to imply anything on this.

I have retired from administration work, so if you have a question about anything MDC-related, please contact Cynthia Mosher. Thanks!
 
georgia is offline  
Old 03-20-2004, 01:27 AM
 
Meiri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Murrysville, PA
Posts: 8,869
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Some of the myths about circumsion were that it prevents STD, and I'm willing to bet that it prevents gayness, since it was definately promoted way back when as a way to stop masturbation.

What that blurb is doing is blowing holes in those old myths (which did treat both masturbation and gayness as badthings) with science, in the form of that British study.

It's a goodthing. Really.

"What will you do once you know?"
Meiri is offline  
Old 03-20-2004, 01:29 AM - Thread Starter
 
*Erin*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: in a magnolia tree
Posts: 2,391
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
thanks for posting that. its been on my mind. what does this sentence compared with intact men, circ'd men were more likely to report having had homosexual partners." have to do with this one Circumcised men were slightly more likely to become infected than intact men ???
i mean, why put that in there? what's the reasoning?

edited to add
Quote:
Some of the myths about circumsion were that it prevents STD, and I'm willing to bet that it prevents gayness, since it was definately promoted way back when as a way to stop masturbation.
you may be right, but why not say that in the blurb?
that wouldve been great.

Erin, 33, salty southern mama, sitting by the sea with my DH35, DD10, DS4, &DD2!
*Erin* is offline  
Old 03-20-2004, 01:30 AM
 
Meiri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Murrysville, PA
Posts: 8,869
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Comparing behavior with results?

"What will you do once you know?"
Meiri is offline  
Old 03-20-2004, 01:32 AM
 
mamaroni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: riding the wave of change
Posts: 3,050
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by georgia
I was curious---since I wasn't very fond of this issue, and wasn't sure why, thought I'd check it out.....

I don't read anything into that other than what it states. There's also a link provided in the magazine--maybe checking that out might ease your mind. I guess I'm not seeing the implied homophobia?
I wasn't that fond of this issue either!

And, I also didn't read any implied homophobia into the blurb.

oh, and the link to which you refer is in my post above.

namaste.gif

mamaroni is offline  
Old 03-20-2004, 01:43 AM - Thread Starter
 
*Erin*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: in a magnolia tree
Posts: 2,391
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
i read the link-thanks for posting that. my problem is still that they just threw that last sentence on there and didnt quantify it. they left it wide open for interpretation. not everyone is going to read the links provided. and actually, the page that summarized the study didnt say why it mattered or was pertinent that intact men are less likely to be gay. : what is one supposed to make of that finding? yk? it's a little stinky to me.

Erin, 33, salty southern mama, sitting by the sea with my DH35, DD10, DS4, &DD2!
*Erin* is offline  
Old 03-20-2004, 02:20 AM
 
wrensmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: in a little blue house
Posts: 76
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Erin,
I'm with you. The sentence seems random. I just think it was poorly written.
It left me thinking. . . hummm?
wrensmom is offline  
Old 03-20-2004, 11:09 AM
Banned
 
somemama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,592
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It didn't bother me at all. Only the crap in other parenting magazines bothers me.


And, just curious, for those of you who were bothered, does that have anything to do with the state of your own son's penis? (intact or circ'd.)
somemama is offline  
Old 03-20-2004, 02:10 PM
 
wrensmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: in a little blue house
Posts: 76
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I have a daughter. No circ there. On a side note, if I did have a son he would be remain intact.
wrensmom is offline  
Old 03-20-2004, 08:32 PM
 
Frankly Speaking's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: North Atlanta
Posts: 4,928
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by Meiri
I'm willing to bet that it prevents gayness, since it was definately promoted way back when as a way to stop masturbation.

Meiri, I'll take your bet and give you 10:1 odds. Homosexuality is a state of mind. It has nothing to do with the organ. It is an attraction to the same sex. It doesn't mean they don't use their organs or that they don't get sexual pleasure from their organs. They are mentally attracted to the same sex and sexually stimulated by the opposite sex and that's all in the brain.

It has been known that circumcised men partake of a wider variety of sexual stimulations for almost 90 years but they do it with their preferred sex, male or female and circumcision or intactness is not going to affect that. You might say they don't cross the street to try out the other side.



Frank
Frankly Speaking is offline  
Old 03-20-2004, 08:37 PM
 
LavenderMae's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: where I write my own posts!
Posts: 12,213
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Frank, I took Meiri's post to mean that she bets at one time circ was promoted to prevent boys from becoming gay, that parents were told circing your son will prevent him from becoming gay. Not that she thinks it does. Just like circ was supposed to prevent masturbation.

OUR DAUGHTERS ARE PROTECTED SHOULDN'T OUR SONS BE TOO! :
LavenderMae is offline  
Old 03-20-2004, 09:16 PM
 
Mothra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,939
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It bothered me because anything that is homophobic bothers me. I think there should be a certain amount of social responsibility in the media, which is why we criticize the "mainstream" mags, and there was none displayed in that little blurb.

Circumcision has nothing to do with homosexuality. Nothing. It is irresponsible to imply, or directly state, otherwise.
Mothra is offline  
Old 03-20-2004, 09:20 PM
 
Mothra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,939
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
A few more things-- using falsehoods to promote anything takes away from the credibility of valid arguments. Also, if we take everything that comes from Mothering and other "alternative" sources simply because they come from "alternative" sources, that is no better than taking what comes out of Parenting as gospel.

I was deeply, deeply dissappointed by that remark. I started a thread about it when I got the magazine. I am embarrassed because I just got a few friends subscriptions to the magazine-- one of whom is a gay woman.
Mothra is offline  
Old 03-20-2004, 09:30 PM
 
kama'aina mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Watching Top Chef, eating Top Ramen
Posts: 19,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I had a very different take on it. For one thing having a same sex partner does not mean you are gay. They did not say "more reported they were gay" simply that more reported having same sex partners. For a variety of reasons male/male sex is higher risk for a variety of STD transmissions than male/female sex. So, when I read that what I took away was 'despite engaging in statistically riskier behavior, intact men STILL had a lower incidence of STD transmission.' And that strikes me as rather significant.
kama'aina mama is offline  
Old 03-20-2004, 09:40 PM
 
cottonwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,153
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Erin, I agree. If they did mean to make the point that Meiri thought, it certainly wasn't made clear by the context. The only context given, actually, is that of the title of the blurb, "Circumcision Doesn't Pay." Whatever is in the blurb necessarily refers back to the title -- first, that this new study shows that circ'd men are more likely to have infections. So it would be reasonable to assume, if we're following any logical rules of writing, that whatever comes next (if unqualified) also is an example of how circumcision doesn't pay. "Compared with intact men, circumcised men were more likely to report having homosexual partners." So, in other words, one way in which circumcision doesn't pay is that circ'd men are more likely to be gay.

Context is everything.

But I have a VERY hard time believing that Mothering wished to make this point intentionally. I'm inclined to think that the writer wasn't thinking clearly and the editor missed it.
cottonwood is offline  
Old 03-20-2004, 09:46 PM
 
cottonwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,153
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Kama, it was saying that it was circ'd men who were more likely to have homosexual partners.
cottonwood is offline  
Old 03-20-2004, 10:06 PM
 
kama'aina mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Watching Top Chef, eating Top Ramen
Posts: 19,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Oh. Um. Maybe in the interest of full disclosure acknowledging riskier behavior could be the reason for the gap in STD numbers?


Hell, I give up!
kama'aina mama is offline  
Old 03-20-2004, 10:37 PM
 
daria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 242
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I saw that paragraph, and think it was intended more or less the way kama'aina mama suggests--that circumcising a boy isn't a preventive against engaging in risky sexual behaviors--but unless you really think it through it sounds like they are saying "leave your boy intact so he won't be gay!" And I know that is not the sentiment of Mothering so I think it's a shame that the writing and editing were a little sloppy on that piece.
daria is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 01:02 AM
 
Heavenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 4,743
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I took it like this. Circed men showed a higher incidence of stds BUT they also seemed to have a higher number of homosexual relations so this may be the cause of that. I think they were just trying to say it isn't the circed or not circed that determines how many get stds but the sexual activity. Just my take on it.

Shawna, married to Michael, mommy to Elijah 1/18/01, Olivia 11/9/02, and Eliana 1/22/06
Heavenly is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 02:28 AM
 
Mothra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,939
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Heavenly-- The article is entitled "Circumcision Doesn't Pay". It seems silly to explain away the STD thing with homosexuality if the point of the article is to discuss why circumcision is unnecessary.

The fact remains, as well, that the idea that circumcised men are more likely to be homosexual is total crap.
Mothra is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 02:52 AM
 
candiland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Waiting for Calgon to take me away.
Posts: 3,890
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I dunno....... sudden, severe genital trauma right after birth COULD affect a man's psychology in relation to his sexuality.

I know that many people are gay, regardless of what happens, b/c it's sometimes biological. But I wonder if circ.ing isn't a small percent in that equation.......:
candiland is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 11:40 AM
Banned
 
somemama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,592
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by Mothra


The fact remains, as well, that the idea that circumcised men are more likely to be homosexual is total crap.
It's not saying or even implying that all men will be more likely to be homosexual if they are circ'd. It's just saying that IN THAT PARTICULAR STUDY, with those particular men, a higher number of THOSE MEN reported having same sex partners.
somemama is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 12:35 PM
 
Frankly Speaking's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: North Atlanta
Posts: 4,928
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by Sheacoby
Frank, I took Meiri's post to mean that she bets at one time circ was promoted to prevent boys from becoming gay, that parents were told circing your son will prevent him from becoming gay. Not that she thinks it does. Just like circ was supposed to prevent masturbation.

That's still being promoted by some such as Edgar Schoen. He has also said that most men who are restoring are gay and there is just no truth to that statement at all. The problem comes in the fact that Edgar Schoen was once on the Circumcision Taskforce and regardless of the reason he was removed and regardless of the outrageous things he has said and done, he does still have some credibility in the medical profession, among writers and among defenders of circumcision. Those groups will diligently bypass reams of information against circumcision and quote questionable sources such as Schoen, Wiswell and Morris. Slowly, these people are being marginalized and eventually, they will skulk off into the shadows and inane information like they present will be viewed the same as some of the other things we hear about the early days of circumcision.

An interesting side note is that Thomas Wiswell wrote a scathing review of Dr. Paul Fleiss' book at Amazon.com that not only attacked the book but attacked Fleiss personally. Fleiss has filed suit against Wiswell for (I believe) libel and defamation of character. At least until the suit is finished, this should have a chilling effect on Wiswell and cohorts. It's about time!





Frank
Frankly Speaking is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 01:52 PM
 
Mothra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,939
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It is bad science. One study on this does not merit stating this as fact. If, in fact, that is what this study found. It is bad science to draw such a conclusion with no other evidence and it is bad journalism to include it in an article with no other qualifying statements. It takes away credibility from the entire, valid arguement against circumcision.
Mothra is offline  
Old 03-22-2004, 04:25 PM
 
DesireeH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 8,218
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
I took it like this. Circed men showed a higher incidence of stds BUT they also seemed to have a higher number of homosexual relations so this may be the cause of that. I think they were just trying to say it isn't the circed or not circed that determines how many get stds but the sexual activity. Just my take on it.
Thats what I thought too. Has anyone emailed them? I wonder what they will say.

Desiree

DesireeH is offline  
Old 03-22-2004, 04:43 PM
 
lollaleeloo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 53
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by Heavenly
I took it like this. Circed men showed a higher incidence of stds BUT they also seemed to have a higher number of homosexual relations so this may be the cause of that. I think they were just trying to say it isn't the circed or not circed that determines how many get stds but the sexual activity. Just my take on it.
ITA. I took it as their attempt to refute claims to any link between foreskin state and risk of STDs. However, they still could have worded it a little better, choosing instead to highlight specific types of sexual behavior that increase the risk of STDs (which are not certainly limited to homosexuals btw). That would have left if less open to misinterpretation.
lollaleeloo is offline  
Old 03-23-2004, 08:59 PM
 
mollyeilis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: washington
Posts: 2,916
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I am not sure how anyone could read something negative in a reported study (there was no editorializing of it), but I wanted to point out that the last bit of the sentence was left out. And it has continued to be left out in discussion here:

"Relative to uncircumcised men, circumcised men were more likely to report having had homosexual partner(s) (7.5% v 5.3%, p =0.012) and partners from abroad (19.7% v 13.1%, p...0.001)."

It was just a sample study, and since it studies STDs I'm sure there were questions about behaviour involved so they could cover all bases.
mollyeilis is offline  
Old 03-23-2004, 11:31 PM
 
Smilemomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Why, right here, of course!
Posts: 1,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I kind of saw it the other way around. So many more men are circumcised in the US than are not, so it's only logical that more gay men are circumcised, *not necessarily* that more circumcised men are gay, get it?

Isn't it just a numbers thing?
Smilemomma is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off