• Log In
• Register
• Find Password

• home
• rss
• submission guidelines
• masthead
• letter from the editor
• mra principles and goals
• mnd lifestyles

How to survive the coming food shortage.

19 Responses to “Wanjek’s Reduction”

Flag this comment

1. fourthwire

   2006-08-29 at 3:09 am

   How Does Circumcision Harm?

   The “medical” debate about the “potential health benefits” of circumcision rarely addresses its real effects.

   - Circumcision denudes:
   Depending on the amount of skin cut off, circumcision robs a male of as much as 80 percent or more of his penile skin.

   Depending on the foreskin’s length, cutting it off makes the penis as much as 25 percent or more shorter.

   Careful anatomical investigations have shown that circumcision cuts off more than 3 feet of veins, arteries, and capillaries, 240 feet of nerves, and more than 20,000 nerve endings.

   The foreskin’s muscles, glands, mucous membrane, and epithelial tissue are destroyed, as well.

   - Circumcision desensitizes:
   Circumcision desensitizes the penis radically.

   Foreskin amputation means severing the rich nerve network and all the nerve receptors in the foreskin itself.

   Circumcision almost always damages or destroys the frenulum.

   The loss of the protective foreskin desensitizes the glans.

   Because the membrane covering the permanently externalized glans is now subjected to constant abrasion and irritation, it keratinizes, becoming dry and tough.

   The nerve endings in the glans, which in the intact penis are just beneath the surface of the mucous membrane, are now buried by successive layers of keratinization.

   The denuded glans takes on a dull, grayish, sclerotic appearance.

   - Circumcision disables:
   The amputation of so much penile skin permanently immobilizes whatever skin remains, preventing it from gliding freely over the shaft and glans.

   This loss of mobility destroys the mechanism by which the glans is normally stimulated.

   When the circumcised penis becomes erect, the immobilized remaining skin is stretched, sometimes so tightly that not enough skin is left to cover the erect shaft.

   Hair-bearing skin from the groin and scrotum is often pulled onto the shaft, where hair is not normally found.

   The surgically externalized mucous membrane of the glans has no sebaceous glands.

   Without the protection and emollients of the foreskin, it dries out, making it susceptible to cracking and bleeding.

   - Circumcision disfigures:
   Circumcision alters the appearance of the penis drastically.

   It permanently externalizes the glans, normally an internal organ.

   Circumcision leaves a large circumferential surgical scar on the penile shaft.

   Because circumcision usually necessitates tearing the foreskin from the glans, pieces of the glans may be torn off, too, leaving it pitted and scarred.

   Shreds of foreskin may adhere to the raw glans, forming tags and bridges of dangling, displaced skin.

   Depending on the amount of skin cut off and how the scar forms, the circumcised penis may be permanently twisted, or curve or bow during erection.

   The contraction of the scar tissue may pull the shaft into the abdomen, in effect shortening the penis or burying it completely.

   - Circumcision disrupts circulation:
   Circumcision interrupts the normal circulation of blood throughout the penile skin system and glans.

   The blood flowing into major penile arteries is obstructed by the line of scar tissue at the point of incision, creating backflow instead of feeding the branches and capillary networks beyond the scar.

   Deprived of blood, the meatus may contract and scarify, obstructing the flow of urine.

   This condition, known as meatal stenosis, often requires corrective surgery.

   Meatal stenosis is found almost exclusively among boys who have been circumcised.

   Circumcision also severs the lymph vessels, interrupting the circulation of lymph and sometimes causing lymphedema, a painful, disfiguring condition in which the remaining skin of the penis swells with trapped lymph fluid.

   - Circumcision harms the developing brain:
   Recent studies published in leading medical journals have reported that circumcision has long-lasting detrimental effects on the developing brain, adversely altering the brain’s perception centers.

   Circumcised boys have a lower pain threshold than girls or intact boys.

   Developmental neuropsychologist Dr. James Prescott suggests that circumcision can cause deeper and more disturbing levels of neurological damage, as well.

   - Circumcision is unhygienic and unhealthy:
   One of the most common myths about circumcision is that it makes the penis cleaner and easier to take care of.

   This is not true.

   Eyes without eyelids would not be cleaner; neither would a penis without its foreskin.

   The artificially externalized glans and meatus of the circumcised penis are constantly exposed to abrasion and dirt, making the circumcised penis, in fact, more unclean.

   The loss of the protective foreskin leaves the urinary tract vulnerable to invasion by bacterial and viral pathogens.

   The circumcision wound is larger than most people imagine.

   It is not just the circular point of union between the outer and inner layers of the remaining skin.

   Before a baby is circumcised, his foreskin must be torn from his glans, literally skinning it alive.

   This creates a large open area of raw, bleeding flesh, covered at best with a layer of undeveloped proto-mucosa.

   Germs can easily enter the damaged tissue and bloodstream through the raw glans and, even more easily, through the incision itself.

   Even after the wound has healed, the externalized glans and meatus are still forced into constant unnatural contact with urine, feces, chemically treated diapers, and other contaminants.

   Female partners of circumcised men do not report a lower rate of cervical cancer, nor does circumcision prevent penile cancer.

   A recent study shows that the penile cancer rate is higher in the US than in Denmark, where circumcision, except among Middle-Eastern immigrant workers, is almost unheard of.

   Indeed, researchers should investigate the possibility that circumcision has actually increased the rate of these diseases.

   Circumcision does not prevent acquisition or transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).

   In fact, the US has both the highest percentage of sexually active circumcised males in the Western world and the highest rates of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS.

   Rigorously controlled prospective studies show that circumcised American men are at a greater risk for bacterial and viral STDs, especially gonorrhea, nongonoccal urethritis, human papilloma virus, herpes simplex virus type 2, and chlamydia.

   - Circumcision is always risky:
   Circumcision always carries the risk of serious, even tragic, consequences.

   Its surgical complication rate is one in 500. These complications include uncontrollable bleeding and fatal infections.

   There are many published case reports of gangrene following circumcision.

   Pathogenic bacteria such as staphylococcus, Proteus, Pseudomonas, other coliforms, and even tuberculosis can cause infections leading to death.

   These organisms enter the wound because it provides easy entry, not because the child is predisposed to infection.

   Medical journals have published numerous accounts of babies who have had part or all of their glans cut off while they were being circumcised.

   Other fully conscious, unanesthetized babies have had their entire penis burned off with an electrocautery gun.

   The September 1989 Journal of Urology published an account of four such cases.

   The article described the sex-change operation as “feminizing genitoplasty,” performed on these babies in an attempt to change them into girls.

   The March 1997 Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine described one young person’s horror on learning that “she” had been born a normal male, but that a circumciser had burned his penis off when he was a baby.

   Many other similar cases have been documented. Infant circumcision has a reported death rate of one in 500,000.

   - Circumcision harms mothers:
   Scientific studies have consistently shown that circumcision disrupts a child’s behavioral development.

   Studies performed at the University of Colorado School of Medicine showed that circumcision is followed by prolonged, unrestful non-REM (rapid-eye-movement) sleep.

   In response to the lengthy bombardment of their neural pathways with unbearable pain, the circumcised babies withdrew into a kind of semicoma that lasted days or even weeks.

   Numerous other studies have proven that circumcision disrupts the mother-infant bond during the crucial period after birth.

   Research has also shown that circumcision disrupts feeding patterns.

   In a study at the Washington University School of Medicine, most babies would not nurse right after they were circumcised, and those who did would not look into their mothers’ eyes.

   - Circumcision violates patients’ and human rights:
   No one has the right to cut off any part of someone else’s genitals without that person’s competent, fully informed consent.

   Since it is the infant who must bear the consequences, circumcision violates his legal rights both to refuse treatment and to seek alternative treatment.

   In 1995, the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Bioethics stated that only a competent patient can give patient consent or informed consent.

   An infant is obviously too young to consent to anything.

   He must be protected from anyone who would take advantage of his defenselessness.

   The concept of informed parental permission allows for medical interventions in situations of clear and immediate medical necessity only, such as disease, trauma, or deformity.

   The human penis in its normal, uncircumcised state satisfies none of these requirements.

   http://www.cirp.org/news/Mothering1997/

   #16952
2. Squiggy

   2006-08-27 at 9:04 am

   The Useful Idiot is conflicted and dishonest. He fails to look inside himself and discover the causes of his own problems and unhappiness while he readily enlists himself in causes that validate his distorted perception.

   Understandably, it is easier to blame others and the outside world than to examine oneself with an eye to self-discovery and self-improvement. Furthermore, criticizing and complaining—liberal practices of the Useful Idiot—require little talent and energy. The Useful Idiot is a great armchair philosopher and “Monday Morning Quarterback.”

   The Useful Idiot is not the same as a person who honestly has a different point of view. A society without honest and open differences of views is a dead society. Critical, different and fresh ideas are the life blood of a living society—the very anathema of autocracies where the official position is sacrosanct.

   Even a “normal” person spends a great deal more energy aiming to fix things out there than working to overcome his own flaws and shortcomings, or contribute positively to the larger society. People don’t like to take stock of what they are doing or not doing that is responsible for the conditions they disapprove.

   But the Useful Idiot takes things much farther. The Useful Idiot, among other things, is a master practitioner of scapegoating. He assigns blame to others while absolving himself of responsibility, has a long handy list of candidates for blaming anything and everything, and by living a distorted life, he contributes to the ills of society.

   Mr. Amani – commenting on people with childish perspectives. Sound like anyone you know?

   #16858
3. fourthwire

   2006-08-26 at 5:47 pm

   “As you can see, these fruitcakes keep on even when told to stop.”

   You realize the irony of such a statement……;-)

   “Only banning them ever works.”

   Isn’t “banning” the means that your feminist sites deal with men’s rights activists?

   “I started coming to MND because it seemed like a place that would highlight mens issues without needing to mirror NOW or the Democratic underground.”

   And I started coming to MND because radical feminists don’t control the information and opinions presented to the public.

   “The vast majority of your readers don’t hate women, but nuts like this guy are all that get quoted.”

   If I hated women, I certainly would not have sexual intercourse with them. And I do.

   If you’re suffering from penis envy, tough luck for you.

   And if you were concerned about quotes, you probably should remember some of your more memorable ones.

   Among my favorites included your knowledge of plagiarism.

   “I’d give you links but apparently it’s not important to you”

   Trish? Trish Wilson????? Is that you?????

   “I understand trying to keep a balance so your site doesn’t get pigeon-holed, but allowing people to post thirty inches of other peoples work makes it not worth the effort.”

   You don’t like quotes about a men’s and boys’ rights issue like neonatal male genital mutilation?

   Yet you continue to show up…..;-)

   “I’m sure I can find another site that is what MND once was. ”

   One thing that MND’s style and focus…… is that it’s NOT pussy-whipped, and that’s good enough for me. The variety of bloggers is a breath of fresh air in comparison with “traditional” news sites.

   Not to mention contributions from posters like Denis, Zed, and others, together with MRA’s like Dave Usher, Carey Roberts,

   I also appreciate the humor from bloggers like Fred Reed, Doug Powers, and Joyanna Adams…….

   Fred’s best writing about men, women, and inate differences that the politically-correct flinch from.

   #16834
4. Hal

   2006-08-26 at 5:21 pm

   You’re right MLS. I’m knocking it off. As you can see, these fruitcakes keep on even when told to stop. Only banning them ever works.
   I started coming to MND because it seemed like a place that would highlight mens issues without needing to mirror NOW or the Democratic underground. The vast majority of your readers don’t hate women, but nuts like this guy are all that get quoted. I’d give you links but apparently it’s not important to you. I understand trying to keep a balance so your site doesn’t get pigeon-holed, but allowing people to post thirty inches of other peoples work makes it not worth the effort. I’m sure I can find another site that is what MND once was. May God bless your efforts.

   #16832
5. fourthwire

   2006-08-26 at 12:04 pm

   “You obviously don’t understand the term “feminazi” (I doubt you know it was Rush who coined it.”

   He may have used the term, but there’s no evidence that he was the first to use it.

   He also used words like “but” and “the” as well.

   “It’s not a term for someone who disagrees with you.”

   It’s a pretty good term to describe misandrists, though.

   “Rush has a name for plants like you – “seminar posters”.”

   And I have several descriptors for the likes of you….. many of which you’ve already read.

   “You post such vitriolic nonsense that whatever side you take is made to look stupid (and you are very good at this).”

   Don’t you trouble yourself one bit about anyone else looking stupid.

   “Now go be a good California nutjob. Arise, work hard and prosper young man. And stake out a really good place to sleep in Golden Gate Park. You’re going to need it.”

   Remember, “Hit it, hit it, hit it, then quit it”, “Hal”.

   #16818
6. fourthwire

   2006-08-26 at 11:55 am

   American backgrounder:

   The radical practice of routinely circumcising babies did not begin until the Cold War era.

   This institutionalization of what amounted to compulsory circumcision was part of the same movement that pathologized and medicalized birth and actively discouraged breastfeeding.

   Private-sector, corporate-run hospitals institutionalized routine circumcision without ever consulting the American people.

   There was no public debate or referendum.

   It was only in the 1970s that a series of lawsuits forced hospitals to obtain parental consent to perform this contraindicated but highly profitable surgery.

   Circumcisers responded by inventing new “medical” reasons for circumcision in an attempt to scare parents into consenting.

   Today the reasons given for circumcision have been updated to play on contemporary fears and anxieties; but one day they, too, will be considered irrational.

   Now that such current excuses as the claim that this procedure prevents cancer and sexually transmitted diseases have been thoroughly discredited, circumcisers will undoubtedly invent new ones.

   But if circumcisers were really motivated by purely medical considerations, the procedure would have died out long ago, along with leeching, skull-drilling, and castration.

   The fact that it has not suggests that the compulsion to circumcise came first, the “reasons,” later.

   http://www.cirp.org/news/Mothering1997/

   #16817
7. Mike LaSalle

   2006-08-26 at 9:38 am

   Hal and Fourthwire: please knock it off.

   #16814
8. Hal

   2006-08-26 at 5:40 am

   FW, your anger is underwhelming. Spewing filth is no substitute for hard work and education.

   As for what you do or don’t believe about what I say, it matters not. One tends to see in others what one see’s in himself. Therefore Hal must be a liar.

   You obviously don’t understand the term “feminazi” (I doubt you know it was Rush who coined it. Or did you just say “Rush who?”). As Rush said “there are usually no more than eleven feminazi’s at any one time”. It’s not a term for someone who disagrees with you. Or for someone who just happens to love his daughters. To paraphrase Ann Coulter “a feminazi is anyone who’s winning an argument with a liberal”. Rush has a name for plants like you – “seminar posters”. You post such vitriolic nonsense that whatever side you take is made to look stupid (and you are very good at this).
   Now go be a good California nutjob. Arise, work hard and prosper young man. And stake out a really good place to sleep in Golden Gate Park. You’re going to need it.

   #16805
9. Hal

   2006-08-26 at 4:41 am

   Fourthwire said:

   it certainly hasn’t helped you educate you much.

   Good one Homer. That GED sure comes in handy.

   #16802
10. fourthwire

    2006-08-25 at 8:05 pm

    Genital mutilation is fundamentally different from other kinds of bodily modifications such as body piercing or foot binding.

    GM is directed specifically at a highly emotionally-charged sensory organ, as unique and irreplaceable as the eyes, as critical to human community and emotional connectedness as the ability to see and be seen, to speak and to hear speech, to hold and to be held.

    It is a mutilation and truncation of one seventh of the dimensionality of one’s perceptual space (sexual and spiritual perception being sixth and seventh senses, respectively), and the potential to experience and share love and ego-transcendent, joyful consciousness and its numerous psychological benefits.

    MGM is thus an assault not only on the individual, but on that individual’s future family and friends and, where widely practiced, on the community’s capacity for mutual goodwill, trust, self organization and local empowerment.

    It’s a kind of “social fragmentation grenade.”

    Perhaps this is why MGM was often inflicted on slaves and other conquered peoples in biblical times.

    Men and women who are denied emotional fulfillment in human relationships must seek it elsewhere, and frequently channel their energies into the abstracted and manipulable meanings and rewards of state-sanctioned institutions such as workaholism/consumerism, for example.

    Thus MGM’s social utility goes far beyond mere fertility control, into the realm of generalized social control.

    Interfering with the sexual compatibility and satisfaction of men and women likely strongly affects mass social organization.

    Thus MGM’s social utility goes far beyond mere fertility control, into the realm of generalized social control.

    Social control motivations for MGM are implied and explicit in authoritative religious texts.

    These tendencies to social fragmentation and alienation, deference to authority figures and compulsive economic production and consumption accrue many benefits to the state, while simultaneously impoverishing and disrupting community and family structures, contributing to a social context in which, for instance, authority figures in white coats, often compulsively reenacting their own trauma, routinely bypass the most primordial, protective parental instincts in order to cut into the genitals of healthy newborn boys, a remarkable feat of mass indoctrination and social regimentation.

    The disruption of social cohesion and solidarity, combined with sex-driven religious fervor, state-reinforcing workaholism, MGM-reinforced sexual ignorance, denial, trauma reenactment, sadism and medical self-interest, help to make MGM a powerful promoter of its own perpetuation, as well as that of the social context in which it “lives.”

    In short, MGM is an important component of one of many spontaneously arising, mutally reinforcing and collectively “self”-selecting social processes which facilitate the disempowerment, dissociation, reorganization and integration (i.e. digestion) of the human community into the body of the state.

    http://www.math.missouri.edu/~rich/MGM/primer.html

    #16790
11. fourthwire

    2006-08-25 at 7:51 pm

    “Unlike you I’ve actually read the stuff you copy and paste.”

    Based on your repeatedly demonstrated abject idiocy, it certainly hasn’t helped you educate you much.

    So far, you haven’t posted much in the way of accurate information about male or female genital mutilation.

    And your innacuracies on those topics mirror inaccuracies, myths, and misinformation spouted by many feminazis, “Hal”.

    “I studied this quite deeply when we decided to adopt a baby boy, and I was totally against him being cut. My wife wanted it to happen but I won that argument, so don’t give me your little boy superior attitude (which usually comes from being whipped).”

    It’s rather easy to feel superior to the likes of you…… since you don’t usually show much in the way of intellectual capabilities beyond your usual written mumblings about those fearsome “liberals” and other assorted nonsense.

    And given your pathetic posts on the subject of genital mutilation, I wouldn’t worry about anyone else being “whipped” if I were you….;-)

    “That’s what childish idiots do.”

    Well thanks for the newsflash, but you’re fairly low on the list of individuals whose opinions matter.

    “Since I’ve raised three daughters, and am still raising one, I happen to like the female of the species.”

    I don’t ask about your personal details and don’t particularly care.

    Frankly I don’t believe much of what you post anyway.

    On the topic of genital mutilation, your mindset mirrors that of quite a few feminazis anyway.

    And since you apparently aren’t able to muster up much in the way of actual facts, I’m not exactly hard-pressed to refute those odd attempts of yours to provide misinformation on the topic of genital mutilation.

    Regarding the second half of that sentence: some females are good, kind, gentle, loving humans.

    Some females are complete bitches.

    Some are a bit of both.

    “And it really bugs me when hateful morons trash everything about them.”

    You pretty much provide the prototype for “hateful moron” so I doubt very much that such characteristics actually cause you concern.

    “Since you hate women so much you likely won’t ever reproduce so having to circumcise a child won’t be an issue with you.”

    Taking another line from the feminazi playbook, are you, “Hal”?

    When feminazis get their asses kicked on discussion boards, they start whining about how those mean men “hate women”, as well.

    Perhaps I was completely wrong about you spending your spare time on your knees, in front of men’s open trouser zippers.

    It could very well be that you spend your time with your face in your lesbian lover’s crotch, instead.

    Focus, if you can, my sloped-brow genetic wonder:

    1. I decide if and who I hate…. and a rather dimwitted troll like yourself has no say in the matter.

    2. I decide whether I reproduce or not….. and a rather dimwitted troll like yourself has no say in the matter.

    “Have fun alone, Homer.”

    3. I decide whether or not I am alone…… and a rather dimwitted troll like yourself has no say in the matter, Mongo.

    Try to get your facts straight about genital mutilation, unless you enjoy being teased about your lack of knowledge on the topic.

    #16788
12. Hal

    2006-08-25 at 5:16 pm

    Unlike you I’ve actually read the stuff you copy and paste. I studied this quite deeply when we decided to adopt a baby boy, and I was totally against him being cut. My wife wanted it to happen but I won that argument, so don’t give me your little boy superior attitude (which usually comes from being whipped). Feminazi’s are all liberals (like you) and the first thing they do is question the IQ of anyone who disagrees with them. That’s what childish idiots do. Since I’ve raised three daughters, and am still raising one, I happen to like the female of the species. And it really bugs me when hateful morons trash everything about them. Since you hate women so much you likely won’t ever reproduce so having to circumcise a child won’t be an issue with you. Have fun alone, Homer.

    #16782
13. fourthwire

    2006-08-25 at 10:20 am

    “Female circumcision is not the equivalent of male circumcision, at least not as discussed here.”

    From a human rights perspective, both male genital mutilation and female genital mutilation certainly are.

    From an anatomical perspective, there are differences between the damage done of course.

    “They don’t just cut off the skin covering the clitoris (as they do for the skin covering the glans),”

    In fact, “the skin” in the case of the male prepuce is very tightly nerve-packed tissue.

    “In order for it to be equivalent to male circumcision, they would have to cut off the entire glans (that’s the bulbous purple head of the penis, for you copy and pasters).”

    LOL….. that’s what the feminazis try to peddle about male genital mutilation vs. female genital mutilation (and it’s quite incorrect)….. for you who apparently slept through physiology class.

    An approximation to male genital mutilation on female genitals would include loss of half of the clitoris as well as the loss of vaginal tissues to the depth of an inch or so, to simulate the loss of lubricative capabilities inherent to an intact male foreskin.

    “I’m not trying to change anyone’s opinion here, but I get a little touchy when people use phony arguments. ”

    I’m not trying to change YOUR opinion here, so much as correct your ignorance and misinformation about genital mutilation.

    “You know, like every argument ever put out by liberals.”

    As this topic is concerned, like every argument ever put out by feminazis.

    #16768
14. Hal

    2006-08-25 at 4:33 am

    Female circumcision is not the equivalent of male circumcision, at least not as discussed here. They don’t just cut off the skin covering the clitoris (as they do for the skin covering the glans), they cut out the entire clitoris. In order for it to be equivalent to male circumcision, they would have to cut off the entire glans (that’s the bulbous purple head of the penis, for you copy and pasters). I’m not trying to change anyone’s opinion here, but I get a little touchy when people use phony arguments. You know, like every argument ever put out by liberals.

    #16752
15. fourthwire

    2006-08-24 at 11:19 pm

    Isn’t it interesting, Debi……. that our society practices what your obgyn calls “cosmetic surgery” on non-consenting infants?

    Why is it that Americans are performing “cosmetic” surgery on newborn infant boys?

    Several disturbing implications behind infant male genital mutilation:

    - someone decided that male genitals are so imperfect that crushing and cutting away parts of those genitals are necessary to make their appearance more “attractive”.

    And that begs the point, as many women know, for once intact penises are erect, there is no appreciable difference in appearance, compared with circumcised penises.

    - theoretically at least, only a select and limited number of individuals in newborn infants lives see a baby boy’s genitals, none of whom are allowed to have sex with those boys.

    - this “cosmetic” surgery is actually “elective” surgery.

    Given that the vast majority of the world’s men are intact and fully intend to remain that way, it’s a safe assumption that this elective surgery, which destroys useful functionality and nerve endings, would NOT be chosen by the vast majority of infant boys on which it is performed if they were allowed to grow up with intact genitals.

    The best judges about what is lost from male genital mutilation are those relative few individuals who have had themselves GM’ed as adults….. AFTER having experienced sexual intercourse as adults.

    My two favorite quotes are:

    “I was quite happy (delirious, in fact) with what pleasure I could experience beginning with foreplay and continuing as an intact male.

    After my circumcision, that pleasure was utterly gone.

    Let me put it this way: On a scale of 10, the uncircumcised penis experiences pleasure that is at least 11 or 12; the circumcised penis is lucky to get to 3…”

    From a letter to Marilyn Milos, RN,
    Founder/Director of NOCIRC

    *************************************************

    “[Like] wearing a condom or wearing a glove …

    sight without color would be a good analogy …

    only being able to see in black and white …

    rather than seeing in full color would be like experiencing an orgasm with a foreskin and without.

    There are feelings you’ll just never have without the foreskin.”
    Paul Tardiff, circumcised at age 30

    http://www.math.missouri.edu/~rich/MGM/primer.html

    #16743
16. debi912

    2006-08-24 at 7:35 pm

    When I had my 3rd son last year, circ came up. My obgyn said it’s the only cosmetic surgery, besides breast repair after cancer that insurance pays for. It’s cosmetic surgery. But, on the plus side this was the first time it was even discussed by a doctor. She is Hindu, which could explain it.She went over the pros and cons and ended with it’s not necessary. Perhaps they are just explaining it better to parents these days.

    #16738
17. fourthwire

    2006-08-24 at 4:10 pm

    Forgot to add: http://www.math.missouri.edu/~rich/MGM/primer.html#LI

    http://www.mgmbill.org

    #16722
18. fourthwire

    2006-08-24 at 4:08 pm

    I have rarely seen so much misinformation supplied in any article about the nature of male- and female genital mutilation as this one.

    “The controversy over male circumcision has once again reared its ugly head.”

    In fact, issues related to male genital mutilation have been communicated for quite some time now, as more men are objecting to this profoundly ignorance-ridden and destructive practice.

    As more and more American men are speaking out and asking why they were deprived of their foreskins, with all of the inherently useful functionality, the number of voices calling for banning neonatal male genital mutilation outright have INCREASED in recent years…..particularly as the myth that only women can be victimized unravels.

    “Once favored as a means to reduce the risk of infections and sexually transmitted diseases, then shunned in recent decades as unnecessary and painful for newborn baby boys, the cut is back and looking better than ever.”

    The American medical establishment has promoted male circumcision as a preventative measure for an astonishing array of pathologies, ranging from:

    - masturbatory insanity (whatever the hell that is),
    - moral laxity,
    - aesthetics and hygiene,
    - to headache,
    - tuberculosis,
    - rheumatism,
    - hydrocephalus,
    - epilepsy,
    - paralysis,
    - alcoholism,
    - near-sightedness,
    - rectal prolapse,
    - hernia,
    - gout,
    - clubfoot,
    - urinary tract infections,
    - phimosis,
    - cancer of the penis,
    - cancer of the cervix,
    - syphillis and
    - AIDS.

    In fact, according to the AMA, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and every Western nation’s medical authority, male genital mutilation prevents none of these ailments, nor does it provide effective therapy against these ailments, with the exception of phimosis (which can be treated a simple application of steroidal cream in 85%-95% of cases rather than through MGM).

    But the only rationale which has clear, well established scientific support is the one originally and openly used by the medical establishment when medical circumcision was introduced as a “public health” measure in the Victorian era.

    That is, to punish and control the sexuality of male children.

    “A new study, highlighted at last week’s XVI International AIDS Conference in Toronto, has found that circumcision is almost as good as a high-quality vaccine at preventing HIV infection in South Africa.”

    Such a statement would be amusing if it were not pathetically false. First of all, there are no “high quality vaccines” against HIV/AIDS.

    Secondly, if cutting away genital parts were so effective at preventing HIV infection, then why aren’t doctors conducting research into which bits of female genitals ought to be cut away to “protect” them from HIV/AIDS?

    Thirdly, it should be noted that among the industrialized nations, AIDS is POSITIVELY CORRELATED with circumcision: greater numbers of circumcisions AS WELL AS greater incidence of HIV/AIDS. Not a promising picture as a cure.

    Of the industrialized countries, the USA has by far the highest AIDS rate and the second highest circumcision rate, the latter second only to Israel.

    This flies in the face of recent, widely reported but deeply flawed surveys of AIDS and circumcision in Africa, which did not control for the strong correlation between the circumcision status and the socioeconomic status of African men.

    Muslim men, for instance, tend to be both circumcised and non-promiscuous.

    In circumcising tribes, intact men may tend to be shunned by women, and to frequent prostitutes.

    In more secular African cultures, circumcised men tend to have access to the western model of medical care, and so are less likely to have easily treatable STDs such as gonorrhea, the presence of which causes genital lesions which promote the passage of the AIDS virus.

    Other recent medical research has resorted to comparing the density of HIV receptors in the foreskin and cervix, concluding that the higher density of receptors in the foreskin is a rationale for circumcision.

    But a similar comparison between the inner labia and glans penis would probably argue for the practice of FGM.

    In any case, a causal link between intact male genitals and HIV transmission has never been demonstrated, and confounding factors, such as the pathogen-killing secretions under the foreskin, may well result in a net loss of biological defenses from MGM, even before the behavioral and structural anatomical consequences are considered.

    “While major health bodies such as the World Health Organization have not endorsed circumcision (yet), anti-male-circumcision groups are beefing up their efforts to minimize the procedure.”

    In fact, the World Health Organization will have difficulties trying to convince Asian, South American, and European nations to START MGM’ing their boys, since traditionally the health care providers in these nations not only have no tradition of MGM, they generally understand that cutting away the male foreskin provides no credible defense against HIV/AIDS, although it does include plenty of drawbacks, such as stripping away useful functionality inherent to intact male genitals.

    For instance, the dried out internal organ which is the end of a circumcised penis provides less lubrication and so increases abrasion during intercourse, creating possible infection sites in both partners.

    This may account for the nearly 5-fold difference in US vs European male-to-female HIV transmission rates.

    Abrasion is further exacerbated by the tightness of the penile skin, which can no longer slide freely on the shaft.

    Some circumcisions are cut so tightly that erection produces tearing in the penile skin, creating further sites for the passage of pathogens.

    Condoms are more likely to fall off of a circumcised penis, and American men are less likely to USE condoms (the most effective line of defense against STD’s) probably because of the lack of sensitivity most of them already endure.

    Circumcised men are also significantly more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior such as anal intercourse, possibly in an effort to compensate for desensitization.

    “This natural covering protects the sensitive tip, called the glans, but can also harbor the growth of harmful bacteria and viruses.”

    Here’s a newsflash for you, Wenjak: women’s genitals ALSO “harbor the growth of harmful bacteria and viruses as well. What do you propose ought to be cut of THEIR genitals to “protect” them?

    Besides, the key to good genital hygiene is called “soap and water” (a miraculous invention that’s been around for some centuries now).

    Our European and Asian brethren have long since discovered that application of soap and water prevents buildup of “harmful bacteria and viruses” far better than genital mutilation does.

    Why would American penises be ANY different?

    “Granted, circumcision is not a life-saving procedure in the United States, where much of the anti-cut sentiment is based.”

    More ignorance on Christopher Wanjek’s part. Granted, he’s correct that male genital mutilation is not a life-saving procedure – in the U.S. or any other nation in the world.

    An estimated 200 newborn male infants die every year in America from complications related to the procedure.

    Partial or total penile amputation or deformity, sepsis, gangrene and even coma and death are well established immediate risks of MGM.

    But anti-MGM sentiment is hardly centered around the U.S.

    After all, outside of America, boys are routinely GM’ed in only certain Middle Eastern and African nations.

    Anti-MGM sentiment is by far strongest in those nations that do not practice it, such as Asian, European, South- and Central American nations.

    “The risk of a urinary tract infection is low, and the choice of sexual practices is the far greater determinant of contracting or spreading sexually transmitted diseases.”

    VERY TRUE (and in fact UTI’s are far more common in girls than in boys, not to mention the fact that girls’ UTI’s are treated safely and effectively with antibiotics).

    “Nevertheless, the comparison of male circumcision to female genital mutilation by some groups, such as the International Coalition for Genital Integrity, is shameless and appalling. Female genital cutting is an act of subjugation, the removal of part or all of the genitalia and, sometimes, the near-complete suturing of the vulva, leading to high rates of infection and, during childbirth, death.”

    First of all, there’s a grain of truth in Wanjek’s nonsense. FGM IS pretty horrific, particularly when the most destructive (but least commonly practiced) FGM procedure is used, the so-called “pharonic” procedure.

    From a human rights perspective though, both MGM as well as FGM have common roots to their destructiveness as well as their primary ACTUAL goal – to punish and subjugate young people’s sexuality.

    Human rights is not a zero-sum game.

    The recognition of the harm of MGM in no way trivializes FGM.

    It is clear that most if not all forms of FGM practiced in the world today are more brutalizing, invasive and dangerous than the sterile, technologically sophisticated and surgically simpler practice of western medical circumcision.

    But the cultural and power dynamic, the disregard for the rights of the victim, and the senseless barbarity are the same, as is the unconscious social objective: the control and forcible diminution of young people’s sexuality.

    FGM is committed by older women against younger women,

    MGM is committed by older men against younger men.

    Genital mutilation is an equal opportunity, self-perpetuating, intergenerational form of sexual abuse.

    So, Wanjek, keep in mind that young women dying from FGM complications is tragic and unnecessary.

    But those young boys dying from MGM complications are no less dead.

    And just as importantly, you failed to note that the underlying logic behind BOTH FGM and MGM are the subjugation, punishment, and control of young peoples’ sexuality.

    “The stance that male circumcision is unbearably painful, leads to an epidemic of infections and leaves lasting mental scars borders on the ludicrous. This seems to have been dreamt up by reasonably well-off white guys complaining that they have nothing to complain about in this world.”

    More abject idiocy from Wanjek, with a touch of racism, no less. If he didn’t have his head up his rectum he might note that neither the negative consequences of male genital mutilation nor female genital mutilation have been “dreamt up” by “reasonably well-off white guys”.

    And if he had enough brains to blow his nose, he might also note that the world-class complainers typically are female, rather than male.

    First of all, physicians are not required to provide anesthetic during MGM procedures, since it interferes with the tissue’s resale value.

    Secondly, if a woman can successfully claim in court that someone’s sexual violation of her with a penis can cause “mental scars”……….

    ……..then why is it “ludicrous” that someone’s sexual violation and mutilation with surgical implements would NOT?

    No one volunteers to be tied down to a table to have parts of their genitals crushed and cut off without anesthesia.

    Therefore, it should be obvious even to those who haven’t seen a screaming baby boy being brutalized in a soundproofed hospital room, that “routine” infant circumcision would not be so routine if children could defend themselves from doctors.

    Unburdened of the medical and social rationalizations for MGM, and facing the immediacy of his anguish, the child likely sees circumcision for what it is: a particularly brutal assault and forcible amputation.

    For many years the mainstream medical orthodoxy, put forth after it was no longer acceptable to torture children in the name of “moral hygiene,” was that babies don’t feel pain.

    It wasn’t until 1978 that researchers even suggested using anesthetic during circumcision, and even today, most medical circumcisions are performed without anesthesia, according to the AMA.

    This is in stark contrast to what is known about infant pain perception and its profound and lasting effects on the victim, as well as the plainly obvious reaction of the infant boy, who forcefully communicates his torment to anyone who will look and listen.

    Choking and breathing problems arise due to the continuous screaming.

    Surges in adrenaline and cortisol and large increases in heart rate, all established physiological indicators of torture, have been measured.

    Some babies appear to go into shock.

    Later, problems with sleep, mother-child bonding and breastfeeding, and increased sensitivity to stress and pain are all commonly seen after MGM.

    To all appearances, the infant is left in a state of post-traumatic stress.

    Sometimes older boys have recurring flashbacks of their circumcision, a classic sign of PTS.

    The immediate psychological consequences of MGM are more readily discernable in older boys than in infants.

    The older child perceives the (usually anesthetized) operation as a sexual assault, and grief, rage, aggression, “castration anxiety,” altered sexual identification, emotional withdrawl, reduction in intelligence test scores and regression to “more primitive modes of expression” are all commonly seen in recently GM’d boys.

    The long term psychological impact of birth-related trauma is also relevant to the issue of MGM. Recent studies have found striking connections between birth trauma and adult post traumatic stress and suicide, [93, 94, 95, 96, 75, 67, 78, 97] and adult victims of infant MGM often exhibit a spectrum of symptoms including:

    - a sense of personal powerlessness
    - lack of trust in others and life
    - a sense of vulnerability to violent attack by others
    - irrational rage reactions
    - addictions and dependencies
    - difficulties in establishing intimate relationships
    - decreased ability to communicate
    - emotional numbing
    - reluctance to be in relationships with women
    - anger and violence toward women

    “Some anti-circumcision groups go as far as recommending foreskin restoration, a surgical procedure far more useless than circumcision could ever be. They argue that circumcision exposes the glans and numbs its sensitivity, making sex less pleasurable.”

    Correct. The process by which the exposed glans in GM’ed men is made less sensitive is called “keritinization”, and it’s one of the reasons why drugs like Vigra are so widely sold in America, compared with those nations that leave their boys with intact genitals.

    “That sex could be even more pleasurable is the least of my worries; it would only get me in more trouble.”

    Possibly the most ignorant reason of all to “push” a procedure like neonatal male genital mutilation: in case sex becomes more pleasurable (as is the case for intact men).

    If Wenjak is concerned about having too much pleasure during sex, he’s welcome to have as much of his penis chopped off as he wishes, but to assume that other men suffer his fetishes is absurd.

    And since newborn infants don’t have sex, there’s no reason to start mutilating them on THAT account, either.

    “The American Academy of Pediatrics, for example, states that there are potential medical benefits from circumcision but the procedure is not essential.”

    Aside from its inexplicable hatred of male sexuality and contempt for children’s human rights, the American medical establishment has a huge conflict of interest with regard to MGM.

    It has painted itself into a corner, first by profiting from the brutal enforcement of Victorian sexual oppression, and later by refusing to abolish this flagrant violation of human rights for fear of provoking public suspicion and legal liability.

    In the case of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the “potential benefits” are unproven, and given that most of the world’s men are intact and will continue that way, those “potential benefits” will have to remain “potential” instead of “actual”.

    “But scientists aren’t dismissing circumcision because of possible long-term effects.”

    Certainly those developed nations’ scientists outside of the U.S. have long sinced dismissed MGM as having ANY therapeutic benefits, but plenty of drawbacks, including causing unnecessary trauma to newborn infants.

    “Yet modern organizations such as MGMbill.org, which advocate for a law criminalizing circumcision, punishable by jail time, serve to minimize the benefits that circumcision can bring.”

    Since there ARE NO proven benefits to neonatal male genital mutilation (in spite of repeated attempts to do so), don’t expect any backlash against MGMbill anytime soon.

    The current state of federal law with respect to genital mutilation is in clear violation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, which guarantees equal protection for both girls AND boys under the law.

    And since American girls’ genital integrity is protected by the FGM Act of 1995, America’s boys deserve equal protection and equal rights to genital integrity.

    “Even in the United States, there is considerable evidence that circumcision helps prevent the spread of the Human Papillomavirus, the most common sexually transmitted disease and the main cause of cervical cancer.”

    For decades MGM has been endorsed for the prevention of penile and cervical cancer.

    But in a letter to the American Academy of Pediatrics in 1996, physicians at the American Cancer Society wrote: “As representatives of the American Cancer Society, we would like to discourage the American Academy of Pediatrics from promoting routine circumcision as a preventative measure for penile or cervical cancer.

    The American Cancer Society does not consider routine circumcision to be a valid or effective measure to prevent such cancers.

    Research suggesting a pattern in the circumcision status of partners of women with cervical cancer is methodologically flawed, outdated and has not been taken seriously in the medical community for decades. [...] Fatalities caused by circumcision accidents may approximate the mortality rate from penile cancer.”

    Another, more recent study widely trumpeted in the media as proof of an increased cervical cancer risk among partners of intact men, has been found to suffer from numerous methodological flaws and exceedingly unstable statistics.

    “Ideally, the spread of HIV could be halted by monogamy, a reduction in the number of sexual partners, or the proper use of condoms.”

    Certainly sexual education and the proper use of condoms have resulted in the nearly 5-fold difference in US vs European male-to-female HIV transmission rates.

    And the Europeans are not having sex any less frequently than Americans are…..

    “Apparently, humans being humans, this isn’t happening.”

    Actually it is happening, in Europe.

    Start asking yourself what it is that the European nations are doing right that they aren’t trying to resort to such quackery as male genital mutilation to combat HIV/AIDS.

    THEIR results speak for themselves.

    The U.S. includes a fair number of outright misandrists and the chronically ignorant, who want to continue to try to provide justification for a practice largely abandoned for decades now by the rest of the so-called civilized world.

    The central issue of MGM is obviously human rights, specifically every human being’s right to a natural, complete, fully functional and ecstatic sexuality, free of forcibly imposed handicaps.

    Despite the medical establishment’s obsession with the purported pathologies of male genitals, doctors have no more right to enforce Victorian sexual mores on struggling, screaming children now than they did a century ago.

    #16721
19. Justaguy

    2006-08-24 at 3:31 pm

    Wow! He sure told us! What a bunch of pap. Does he write for New Age Woman too?

    #16720