Quake3World

[xeno]Julios wrote:

S@M wrote:back to the study for a minute...epidemiological studies are very powerful within their context

not necessarily. For example, within a certain culture, there may exist two tribes, one of which practices circumcision, and one of which doesn't.
They may systematically differ in other ways, such as hygeine, or sexual behaviour, and these factors would be huge confounds.

Geebs wrote: 3000 is a fucking tiny sample size for epidemiology.

[xeno]Julios wrote:

Scarface wrote:

[xeno]Julios wrote: Many circumcised women claim the same about their mutilated genitilia.

Ignorance is truly bliss.

you're saying my cock is mutilated? I'm assuming you're uncircumsized, so how could you possibly know what sex feels like without one?

So you're right, ignorance is bliss

yea actually I am circumcised. And yes - our cocks are mutilated.

what else would you call this:

http://ftp.intact.ca/images/new025.mpeg

Scarface wrote:
Don't get me wrong, i do understand your points and where you're coming from, especially on the female side of circumcision ( which i don't agree with at all )

For me, i don't remember the pain, and i don't feel at all left out, nor do i hate my parents for it. It's easy to clean, it appeals to girls ( mainly my gf ) and i still experiance emense pleasure.

As far as I can see it, male circumcision is an either or kind of thing.

R00k wrote:Hypothetically, if it is not tight, and only 20% or so of the tissue is lost (therefore retaining most of the sexual pleasure), and it is done early so that it's no more traumatic than cutting the umbilical cord - and it saves a boy the trauma of having a girl laugh at him the first time he shows his penis to a female.... Hypothetically.... If that were the case, would it still be barbaric?

S@M wrote:

[xeno]Julios wrote:

S@M wrote:back to the study for a minute...epidemiological studies are very powerful within their context

not necessarily. For example, within a certain culture, there may exist two tribes, one of which practices circumcision, and one of which doesn't.
They may systematically differ in other ways, such as hygeine, or sexual behaviour, and these factors would be huge confounds.

actually, no not at all. They are contextual not confounding factors, so given those differences the findings would not be applied cross culturally - which is the essence of my whole post - epidemiological studies are good, and powerful sources of data - within their context. Take them outside their context and they loose validity.

Validity is quite different to confounding factors

shadd_ wrote:ok the verdict is in.

if you want to be a super sex machine, circumcision is required.

if you want to blow your load the second you see a pussy with your super sensitive, unnattractive cock, so be it.

R00k wrote:Hypothetically, if it is not tight, and only 20% or so of the tissue is lost (therefore retaining most of the sexual pleasure), and it is done early so that it's no more traumatic than cutting the umbilical cord - and it saves a boy the trauma of having a girl laugh at him the first time he shows his penis to a female.... Hypothetically.... If that were the case, would it still be barbaric?

Since the early years of the twentieth century, neonatal circumcision has been the most frequently performed surgery in the United States. For generations in fact the operation became so commonplace that physicians and parents scarcely considered it surgery at all. By all indications, the procedure was done with little thought, as though it were simply a routine of childbirth like cutting an infant's umbilical cord. Yet in this respect America differs remarkably from Western Europe and, for that matter, from the rest of the world where circumcision generally has remained either a religious ritual or an infrequent medical intervention to treat specific diseases. [2]

How did a ritual surgery, older than civilization itself, become firmly enshrined in standard American medical practice? And how has an operation whose benefits have never been conclusively verified (although they continue to be hotly debated) managed to survive down to this day? [3]

The medical history of circumcision in the United States properly begins in New York on 9 February 1870. That morning Dr. Lewis A. Sayre was summoned by a colleague, the eminent New York gynecologist James Marion Sims, to consult on a perplexing case. "Please let me know at what hour you can come to my house to see the son of Mr. M_____, of Milwaukee," Sims wrote. "The little fellow has a pair of legs that you would walk miles to see." Sayre was at the time America's leading orthopedic surgeon, a renowned teacher and scholar, an authority on the anatomy of bones, joints, and muscles. Intrigued by the prospect of seeing some rare musculoskeletal pathology, he dropped what he was doing and went at once. When he arrived, Sayre encountered "a most beautiful little boy of five years of age, but exceedingly white and delicate in his appearance, unable to walk without assistance or stand erect, his knees being flexed at about an angle of 45 degrees." Sims, it turned out, had called him in to perform a tenotomy, the desperate remedy of severing the child's hamstring tendons. [4]

shadd_ wrote:dude, cheer up. it was all in jest.

i apologise if i offended you.

Hannibal wrote:Jules, is there some penis-flesh replacement surgery available? Can we dream?

Unlike most of the rest of the human body, the penis is wired end-to-end. The nerve endings run horizontally instead of vertically, through all the penile skin and mucosal surfaces, including the foreskin. Cutting out a significant piece of this sleeve through circumcision, or even a small piece, essentially short-wires the neurologic map of the penis and changes the stimulation landscape completely. If you imagine an electric current in the skin running continuously from glans sulcus to pubis, through and including the foreskin, the dramatic effects of circumcision become immediately apparent.

Workers should explore the subtle sensation differences between the ventral and dorsal sides of the penis, the unique structure and role of the frenulum in carrying blood and nerve sensation to the foreskin and glans, the raphe from anus through perinaeum, scrotum, urethra and frenulum right up to the meatal lips. Most had never noticed or thought about their meatal lips, but three-quarters of circumcised men have some sort of permanent damage to the tender lips through loss of blood supply and exposure abrasion, leading to meatal stenosis.

They should compare differences in sensation coming from circular stimulation of the inner foreskin to direct, in-line stimulation and gentle tugging. They should emphasise the differences in innervation between glans and inner foreskin, explaining about the fine-touch nerve endings clustered in the foreskin, particularly at the ridged band. But mostly, focus on the incredible continuity of sensation in the intact penis, how the innervation runs from one end to the other and the phallus needs to be treated as an organic whole. Once you get going, you're really conducting a symphony orchestra!

The question arises how how anyone in their right mind could condone circumcision if they know all this. The answer is of course that hardly anyone performing or consenting to circumcision has this understanding, and that ignorance of our bodies is a big factor in allowing the disgrace of circumcision to continue and proliferate. Bodyworkers who have this understanding say they can never look at their circumcised students and clients now without a sense of great loss for them.

[xeno]Julios wrote:

R00k wrote:Hypothetically, if it is not tight, and only 20% or so of the tissue is lost (therefore retaining most of the sexual pleasure), and it is done early so that it's no more traumatic than cutting the umbilical cord - and it saves a boy the trauma of having a girl laugh at him the first time he shows his penis to a female.... Hypothetically.... If that were the case, would it still be barbaric?

How would you feel if people justified partial clitoral amputation for a balance between mutilation and aesthetics?

Many of you are forgetting that this bizarre procedure is directly traced to superstition. Our species has an ancient obsession with self mutilation. It's upsetting that this one has become so institutionalized.

Rook - you'd be really doing yourself a lot of education if you read this:

http://www.cirp.org/library/history/gollaher/ (not only is it informative, but it's a very well written piece, and peer reviewed).

an excerpt from the beginning:

text[4]

New History of Circumcision Says It's Outmoded and Harmful


A newly published book by Oxford University Press traces the history of circumcision from its Middle Eastern origins to its unlikely reincarnation in modern America.

(PRWEB) June 28, 2005 -- A newly published book traces the history of circumcision from its Middle Eastern origins to its unlikely reincarnation in modern America. Marked in Your Flesh: Circumcision from Ancient Judea to Modern America, by Leonard B. Glick, shows that for nearly two millennia circumcision was practiced by Jews as a mark of their covenant with God, while Christians rejected it as spiritually worthless. The book is a forceful critique of a medicalized practice many Americans take for granted.

Few Americans want to talk–or even think–about circumcision. When the subject appears in magazine articles, fiction, and television sitcoms, the dominant themes are nervousness and discomfort. Even a popular book for Jewish parents characterizes the circumcision ceremony (bris) as “something less than joyful.”

In no other Western country is circumcision at all common, and in Europe, Asia, and Latin America it’s virtually unknown. Yet, today more than half of American baby boys are being circumcised. How did this come about?

The story begins in the nineteenth century, when British and American physicians began to promote circumcision as a “miracle cure” for everything from masturbation to paralysis and insanity. In the twentieth century doctors introduced theories that the procedure prevented syphilis and several kinds of cancer. None of these claims held up, but as each was refuted, new ones arose, in what Glick describes as a seemingly endless series of attempts to find something for circumcision to prevent.

Eventually the British abandoned the practice. But in America circumcision lives on, preserved by entrenched custom and unsubstantiated beliefs about “hygiene.”

An 18th century British doggerel verse expressed the majority view in the circumcision debate, calling the foreskin “the best of your property.”

St. Paul’s letter to the Galatians established the time-honored Christian position: “Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.”(Gal. 5:2) But American Christians are more likely to circumcise, rather than follow religious doctrine.

The author concludes with reviews of the most recent medical claims for circumcision and the arguments against it. He points out that infants are persons with full civil rights, and therefore no one has the right to impose circumcision on them, not even their own parents.

Leonard B. Glick is a cultural anthropologist with a medical degree and a doctorate in anthropology. He is Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at Hampshire College and is the author of Abraham's Heirs: Jews and Christians in Medieval Europe (1999).

R00k wrote:..and it is done early so that it's no more traumatic than cutting the umbilical cord...

S@M wrote:

Geebs wrote: 3000 is a fucking tiny sample size for epidemiology.

actually that depends on teh complexity of the topic being investigated, hrt studies commonly include many 10's of thoursands of women, but given this question, a small sample is not necessarily a problem. A power analysis would resolve teh appropriateness of the sample size

R00k wrote:t saves a boy the trauma of having a girl laugh at him the first time he shows his penis to a female.... Hypothetically.... If that were the case, would it still be barbaric?