Guest guest Posted December 21, 1998 Report Share Posted December 21, 1998 paul diener wrote: > > What ever happened to factual discussion? More and more, discussions devolve into mere proclamations of " values. " Our whole culture is giving up on Enlightenment ideals, and slipping down the slope toward an irrational abyss. Facts and science no longer matter; only " spiritual " values count. In this vast Spiritual Revolution, AA is only a part. The discussion on this board re circumcision exemplifies this trend. Ken's long post was hyperbole and emotional exaggeration. Where is the EVIDENCE that male, infant circumcision has some dramatic effect upon adult personality formation? No evidence of this supposed effect exists. Indeed, Ken wildly exaggerates the effects of this minor event in childhood as part of his more general (and undocumented) claims regarding human psychological development. In fact, Ken seems to have given up on AA only to adopt the equally mystical " adult child " religion. EVIDENCE, Ken, EVIDENCE. Sadly, Rita responded to Ken, not with an empirical and reasoned discussion, but rather with a claim that HER spiritual values MUST be respected, and the rest of us need to censor our speech to conform with her predilictions. WHATEVER HAPPENED TO FACTUAL DISCUSSION? > , There has been virtually no research on the possible long-term effects of circumcision. Two studies in the last couple of years do show that infants who are circumcised go through apparent neurological changes -- they are more sensitive to pain, feel it more intensely, six months later. That is about all that has been directly done that I'm aware of except for one study that found that men who had been circumcised have higher rates of Chlamydia and certain other venereal diseases and also engage in a broader range of sex acts. Except for a small number of American doctors who push the practice and are reponsible for virutally everything published in U.S. medical journals, it is virually ignored, most particularly possible psychological sequelae. One doesn't get funding to question rituals central to a culture. Circumcision was introduced to the English-speaking world in the mid-1800s as a cure and punishment for adolescent masturbation. It was known to decrease the pleasure and the pain of the surgery without anesthetic served as excellent punishment. Being a rather objectionable scene to some people, it was decided it was best done in infancy as a preventative to the long series of ills thought caused by masturbation. By the 1950s, 90% of male infants were routinely circumcised in the U.S. England, Australia, New Zealand and the rest of the English speaking world have given up the practice. Only the U.S. hasn't. I would venture there are two reasons for this. One is that there is half a billion dollars involved in performing 1,000,000 unnecessary surgeries per year, and the other psychological. An American father would have to own up to the fact that 50% of the most sensitive part of his penis is missing. It seems much easier to inflict it on his own son (as Somali mothers do on their daughters) than to face that fact. A rapidly shrinking but still large percentage of Americans would rather pretend it is nothing but _if_ you want to know about circumcision, there is a wealth of information at http://www.cirp.org It is simply silly and nonsensical to pretend childhood experience doesn't effect the adult. How many Moslem Fundamentalists do you know from Kansas? How many Fundamentalist Christians from Burma? How many socially skilled people who spent the first years of their life in Bosnian orphanages? A couple of classical sociological studies show that those moved into the foster care system in infancy and later adopted tend to have trouble with relationships and addictions for the rest of their lives. Are you going to suggest that it is by accident or that these people " choose " to have lifelong problems with relationships? Maybe " bad blood " (genes)? Or perhaps just maybe early experience counts for something. I'm very curious as to whether when you hear an infant or small child cry if it makes you angry. Ken Ragge ------------------------------------------------------------------------ E-group home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/12-step-free Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 1998 Report Share Posted December 21, 1998 Dear Ken, I really respect you and your work, but I must agree with . Circumsized and proud <g>, ------------------------------------------------------------------------ E-group home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/12-step-free Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 1998 Report Share Posted December 21, 1998 Ken - You confirm that there is, really, no evidence to support the claims you have made. Yet your prose was declarative and emotionally charged. Don't you think that is problematic? More generally, your general approach seems to me to be dangerously close to " adult child " mysticism, ie, adults - and the political and cultural systems they live in - are pictured as the products of " wounds " suffered during childhood, especially " sexual wounds. " This general viewpoint is also promoted by Sex Addicts Anonymous, the dangerous Recovered Memory Movement, etc. It is, at bottom, part of the " purification " / " defilement " / " victimization " theme which underlies the Spiritual Revolution in America. It explains away, rather than explains, the broad malaise most Americans now feel, as the society and culture about them deteriorates and unravels. As to the influences of childhood, and the psychology of human development, these are broad and important themes which deserve more serious discussion than you are giving them. I don't claim that early life experiences have no effect. Breast-feeding, close bodily contact between mother and infant, and a variety of other factors are clearly related to general " tempermental " development. In most primitive societies, women sleep with their babies, for example; in the US, we isolate the baby in a crib virtually from birth. I would be an idiot to deny that such a factor has no influence whatever. But pre-linguistic factors like this seem to influence mostly general " temperment, " eg, " excitability. " How a child is treated in early infancy does NOT influence a purely cultural factor. For example, no matter how a child is treated in infancy, it does not influence what language he or she is enculturated to speak. A child grows up speaking Arabic, German or English depending solely upon his CULTURAL MILIEU. Right??? Right??? Do you get this point??? THIS IS THE POINT OF DIFFERENCE IN OUR THEORETICAL ORIENTATION. Do you get the point here????? For the most part, this same caveat holds for other linguistically-encoded, cultural traits. People learn, for example, the religious customs of the community in which they are raised, the political values of their nation and class, etc. Yet your approach attempts to explain these cultural and political phenomena to pre-linguistic, infantile experience. Eg, you " explain " Hitler and the rise of nazism in terms of abstractions like the " ideal father-figure " whose " sexual potency " attracted " repressed Germanic personalities, " blah, blah, blah. This is all reductionism. The danger in such mystical, pseudo-scientific nonsense is that it directs attention away from the real world around us - who controls the economy, what is happening to family income, how many hours are average people being forced to work, is there housing and food for all, is police and military repression escalating, etc? Instead of focusing upon these real, cultural, linguistically-encoded events which take place in the real environment of flesh and blood, responsible adults, you tell us our problems are caused by having had our foreskins cut when we were five days old. Hogwash. Don't you see the political danger in your mysticism?.--------- > > To: 12-step-freeegroups > Subject: Re: Factual Discussion > Date: Monday, December 21, 1998 1:01 PM > > paul diener wrote: > > > > What ever happened to factual discussion? More and more, discussions devolve into mere proclamations of " values. " Our whole culture is giving up on Enlightenment ideals, and slipping down the slope toward an irrational abyss. Facts and science no longer matter; only " spiritual " values count. In this vast Spiritual Revolution, AA is only a part. The discussion on this board re circumcision exemplifies this trend. Ken's long post was hyperbole and emotional exaggeration. Where is the EVIDENCE that male, infant circumcision has some dramatic effect upon adult personality formation? No evidence of this supposed effect exists. Indeed, Ken wildly exaggerates the effects of this minor event in childhood as part of his more general (and undocumented) claims regarding human psychological development. In fact, Ken seems to have given up on AA only to adopt the equally mystical " adult child " religion. EVIDENCE, Ken, EVIDENCE. Sadly, Rita responded to Ken, not with an empir! > ical and reasoned discussion, but rather with a claim that HER spiritual values MUST be respected, and the rest of us need to censor our speech to conform with her predilictions. WHATEVER HAPPENED TO FACTUAL DISCUSSION? > > > > , > > There has been virtually no research on the possible long-term effects > of circumcision. Two studies in the last couple of years do show that > infants who are circumcised go through apparent neurological changes -- > they are more sensitive to pain, feel it more intensely, six months > later. That is about all that has been directly done that I'm aware of > except for one study that found that men who had been circumcised have > higher rates of Chlamydia and certain other venereal diseases and also > engage in a broader range of sex acts. Except for a small number of > American doctors who push the practice and are reponsible for virutally > everything published in U.S. medical journals, it is virually ignored, > most particularly possible psychological sequelae. One doesn't get > funding to question rituals central to a culture. > > Circumcision was introduced to the English-speaking world in the > mid-1800s as a cure and punishment for adolescent masturbation. It was > known to decrease the pleasure and the pain of the surgery without > anesthetic served as excellent punishment. Being a rather objectionable > scene to some people, it was decided it was best done in infancy as a > preventative to the long series of ills thought caused by masturbation. > By the 1950s, 90% of male infants were routinely circumcised in the U.S. > > England, Australia, New Zealand and the rest of the English speaking > world have given up the practice. Only the U.S. hasn't. I would venture > there are two reasons for this. One is that there is half a billion > dollars involved in performing 1,000,000 unnecessary surgeries per year, > and the other psychological. An American father would have to own up to > the fact that 50% of the most sensitive part of his penis is missing. It > seems much easier to inflict it on his own son (as Somali mothers do on > their daughters) than to face that fact. > > A rapidly shrinking but still large percentage of Americans would rather > pretend it is nothing but _if_ you want to know about circumcision, > there is a wealth of information at http://www.cirp.org > > It is simply silly and nonsensical to pretend childhood experience > doesn't effect the adult. How many Moslem Fundamentalists do you know > from Kansas? How many Fundamentalist Christians from Burma? How many > socially skilled people who spent the first years of their life in > Bosnian orphanages? > > A couple of classical sociological studies show that those moved into > the foster care system in infancy and later adopted tend to have trouble > with relationships and addictions for the rest of their lives. Are you > going to suggest that it is by accident or that these people " choose " to > have lifelong problems with relationships? Maybe " bad blood " (genes)? > Or perhaps just maybe early experience counts for something. > > I'm very curious as to whether when you hear an infant or small child > cry if it makes you angry. > > Ken Ragge > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > More trinkets than the 1996 Olympics. Fewer lines than the Goodwill Games > ESPN gear, SportsCenter gear, NBA NHL MLB NCAA NFL gear, Memorabilia > http://offers./click/172/0 > > E-group home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/12-step-free > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 1998 Report Share Posted December 21, 1998 Re: Factual Discussion paul diener wrote:<and I snipped for brevity>> > ,There has been virtually no research on the possible long-term effectsof circumcision. Really? Two studies in the last couple of years do show thatinfants who are circumcised go through apparent neurological changes --they are more sensitive to pain, feel it more intensely, six monthslater. How is this determined? How do researchers quantify the amount of pain an infant is experiencing? What experimental methods are used? Do they put a circumcised kid next to an uncircumcised one and stick them both with the same number of pins in the exact same places? Is the amount of pain being experienced determined by the volume and duration of noise the poor kids make? (And what about years later? If I kick a circum- cised guy, then kick an uncircumcised one, will the uncircumcised guy pound me into guava jelly while the circumcised one stands there and tries to get his feelings validated?) That is about all that has been directly done that I'm aware ofexcept for one study that found that men who had been circumcised havehigher rates of Chlamydia and certain other venereal diseases and alsoengage in a broader range of sex acts. Without a detailed analysis of all of the men participating in the study this information is useless, frankly. How old were they? What socioeconomic backgrounds were they from? Were they gay, or straight, or both? What racial or ethnic groups were represented? How much education had these men had? Not to mention questions such as: How large was the group used in the study? How were they chosen? Who did the study, and why might they have chosen to do it? And who funded the study? Which men in the study group were more likely to be uncircumcised? Might they have been from poor or blue-collar backgrounds? Would they have been more likely to have come from rural areas, or small towns? What kind of religious background was present in their families, not to mention education? What kind of sexual attitudes had they been raised with? Did they tend to be older than the " uncut " group? It sounds as if I am constructing a stereotype here, but what I am trying to point out is that no study can be reduced to one nice, neat conclusion that sums everything up. For women, an issue currently being examined is the link between taking estrogen when menopause kicks in. To say that women who take estrogen are less likely to develop osteoporosis ignores the fact that the women who do take estrogen are at an income and educational level that already provides for and encourages good nutrition, and encourages the habits that make osteoporosis less likely (regular exercise, not smoking). So, to say that circumcision is the causal factor behind engaging in a wider range of sexual practices, or that it is somehow directly responsible for a higher rate of STD's among the circumcised, is rubbish. Except for a small number ofAmerican doctors who push the practice and are reponsible for virutallyeverything published in U.S. medical journals, it is virually ignored,most particularly possible psychological sequelae. One doesn't getfunding to question rituals central to a culture.Circumcision was introduced to the English-speaking world in themid-1800s as a cure and punishment for adolescent masturbation. It wasknown to decrease the pleasure and the pain of the surgery withoutanesthetic served as excellent punishment. Being a rather objectionablescene to some people, it was decided it was best done in infancy as apreventative to the long series of ills thought caused by masturbation.By the 1950s, 90% of male infants were routinely circumcised in the U.S. Well it should have been patently obvious to one and all that infant circumcision didn't stop adolescent masturbation! <G> I suspect the practice really gained ground during the n period as an alternative to having to explain to little boys what smegma was, and the proper hygiene associated with it. After all, this was the period when piano legs were covered lest they arouse the baser passions... My mother tells me that the rationale for having it done to my brother was " hygeine " . God forbid anyone should have to touch or mention the genitals any more than absolutely necessary--for all the brainless sexual imagery we are bombarded with on TV and in advertising, Americans still have a neurotic terror of their own bodies... England, Australia, New Zealand and the rest of the English speakingworld have given up the practice. Only the U.S. hasn't. I would venturethere are two reasons for this. One is that there is half a billiondollars involved in performing 1,000,000 unnecessary surgeries per year,and the other psychological. An American father would have to own up to the fact that 50% of the most sensitive part of his penis is missing. Itseems much easier to inflict it on his own son (as Somali mothers do ontheir daughters) than to face that fact. A rapidly shrinking but still large percentage of Americans would ratherpretend it is nothing but _if_ you want to know about circumcision,there is a wealth of information at http://www.cirp.org It is simply silly and nonsensical to pretend childhood experiencedoesn't effect the adult. How many Moslem Fundamentalists do you knowfrom Kansas? How many Fundamentalist Christians from Burma? How manysocially skilled people who spent the first years of their life inBosnian orphanages? A couple of classical sociological studies show that those moved intothe foster care system in infancy and later adopted tend to have troublewith relationships and addictions for the rest of their lives. Are yougoing to suggest that it is by accident or that these people " choose " tohave lifelong problems with relationships? Maybe " bad blood " (genes)? Or perhaps just maybe early experience counts for something. Yes, but surely not ALL of those adopted foster kids had problems with relationships and addictions for the rest of their lives! I haven't seen the study, but I would bet a fairly decent percentage of them still managed to turn out okay, despite having the odds stacked against them.. I'm very curious as to whether when you hear an infant or small childcry if it makes you angry. Ken Ragge Okay, Ken. Much as I have respected opinions you have expressed in the past, it is really obvious by this last statement that you are letting yourself get carried away by the strong emotions this issue brings up in you. I hate to see you stoop to the Argument from Intimidation ( " you don't agree with me--I bet you're really evil! " ). I think circumcision is a completely unnecessary and irrational procedure to perform on an infant, period. Several years ago, I actually managed to talk a friend out of having it done on her kid when he was born (it wasn't difficult). There's my stand on it, FWIW. As for your assertion that the pain of circumcision is such an overwhelming trauma that it can be compared to spending childhood in a Bosnian orphanage, I think you're way off base there, too. Yes, childhood events do influence on our adult lives, but we are not formed entire by those experiences; to say that we are is a denial of free will (and just what was it that AA would have denied us?)! I've known people who suffered unimaginable traumas at very early ages, but managed to deal with them and grow up into capable adults (even though there was nobody there willing or able to help them " deal with " the trauma). And guess what? I know a fundie X-ian from China, and a Buddhist monk raised on a wheat farm in Eastern Washington. So much for environmental determinism. I'm going to recommend two books. To understand the real meaning behind all of those study " results " --How to Lie with Statistics, by Darryl Huff . To see how one can overcome an horrific upbringing--'s Ashes, by McCourt. With that, I'll cease chewing on your ass. Despite appearances, I enjoy your posts and do wish you well. Solstice greetings--- Mabee E-group home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/12-step-free Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 22, 1998 Report Share Posted December 22, 1998 > Mabee wrote: > >  > Re: Factual Discussion > >  > paul diener wrote:<and I snipped for brevity>> > ,There has > been virtually no research on the possible long-term effectsof > circumcision. > > Really? > > Two studies in the last couple of years do show thatinfants who are > circumcised go through apparent neurological changes --they are more > sensitive to pain, feel it more intensely, six monthslater. >  > How is this determined? How do researchers quantify the amount of > pain an infant is experiencing? What experimental methods are used? > Do they put a circumcised kid next to an uncircumcised one and stick > them both with the same number of pins in the exact same places? Is > the > amount of pain being experienced determined by the volume and > duration > of noise the poor kids make? (And what about years later? If I kick > a circum- > cised guy, then kick an uncircumcised one, will the uncircumcised > guy pound > me into guava jelly while the circumcised one stands there and tries > to get > his feelings validated?) , You are close. They didn't stick them with pins but with needles. The abstracts (at least) are at: http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/taddio/ http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/taddio2/ And _please_ don't kick us there. <G> > That is about all that has been directly done that I'm aware > ofexcept for one study that found that men who had been circumcised > havehigher rates of Chlamydia and certain other venereal diseases > and alsoengage in a broader range of sex acts. >  > Without a detailed analysis of all of the men participating in the > study this > information is useless, frankly. How old were they? What > socioeconomic > backgrounds were they from? Were they gay, or straight, or both? > What > racial or ethnic groups were represented? How much education had > these men > had? Not to mention questions such as: How large was the group used > in the > study? How were they chosen? Who did the study, and why might they > have > chosen to do it? And who funded the study? >  > Which men in the study group were more likely to be uncircumcised? > Might they > have been from poor or blue-collar backgrounds? Would they have > been more likely to > have come from rural areas, or small towns? What kind of religious > background was > present in their families, not to mention education? What kind of > sexual attitudes > had they been raised with? Did they tend to be older than the > " uncut " group? >  > It sounds as if I am constructing a stereotype here, but what I am > trying to point out is > that no study can be reduced to one nice, neat conclusion that sums > everything up. Good questions and rather than answer them myself, the study is at: http://www.cirp.org/library/general/laumann/ > For women, an issue currently being examined is the link between > taking estrogen when > menopause kicks in. To say that women who take estrogen are less > likely to develop > osteoporosis ignores the fact that the women who do take estrogen > are at an income and > educational level that already provides for and encourages good > nutrition, and encourages the > habits that make osteoporosis less likely (regular exercise, not > smoking). >  > So, to say that circumcision is the causal factor behind engaging in > a wider range of sexual > practices, or that it is somehow directly responsible for a higher > rate of STD's among the > circumcised, is rubbish.  Yes, simply to say so would be. The Laumann study comes out rather neutral overall on STD's which is quite unusual in an _American_ medical journal. > Except for a small number ofAmerican doctors who push the practice > and are reponsible for virutallyeverything published in U.S. medical > journals, it is virually ignored,most particularly possible > psychological sequelae. One doesn't getfunding to question rituals > central to a culture.Circumcision was introduced to the > English-speaking world in themid-1800s as a cure and punishment for > adolescent masturbation. It wasknown to decrease the pleasure and > the pain of the surgery withoutanesthetic served as excellent > punishment. Being a rather objectionablescene to some people, it was > decided it was best done in infancy as apreventative to the long > series of ills thought caused by masturbation.By the 1950s, 90% of > male infants were routinely circumcised in the U.S. >  > Well it should have been patently obvious to one and all that infant > circumcision > didn't stop adolescent masturbation! <G> I suspect the practice > really gained ground > during the n period as an alternative to having to explain > to little boys > what smegma was, and the proper hygiene associated with it. After > all, this was > the period when piano legs were covered lest they arouse the baser > passions... > My mother tells me that the rationale for having it done to my > brother was " hygeine " . > God forbid anyone should have to touch or mention the genitals any > more than absolutely > necessary--for all the brainless sexual imagery we are bombarded > with on TV and in > advertising, Americans still have a neurotic terror of their own > bodies... I think you are hitting at the core of the issue here. > England, Australia, New Zealand and the rest of the English > speakingworld have given up the practice. Only the U.S. hasn't. I > would venturethere are two reasons for this. One is that there is > half a billiondollars involved in performing 1,000,000 unnecessary > surgeries per year,and the other psychological. An American father > would have to own up to the fact that 50% of the most sensitive part > of his penis is missing. Itseems much easier to inflict it on his > own son (as Somali mothers do ontheir daughters) than to face that > fact. >  > A rapidly shrinking but still large percentage of Americans would > ratherpretend it is nothing but _if_ you want to know about > circumcision,there is a wealth of information at http://www.cirp.org > It is simply silly and nonsensical to pretend childhood > experiencedoesn't effect the adult. How many Moslem Fundamentalists > do you knowfrom Kansas? How many Fundamentalist Christians from > Burma? How manysocially skilled people who spent the first years of > their life inBosnian orphanages? A couple of classical sociological > studies show that those moved intothe foster care system in infancy > and later adopted tend to have troublewith relationships and > addictions for the rest of their lives. Are yougoing to suggest that > it is by accident or that these people " choose " tohave lifelong > problems with relationships? Maybe " bad blood " (genes)? Or perhaps > just maybe early experience counts for something. >  > Yes, but surely not ALL of those adopted foster kids had problems > with > relationships and addictions for the rest of their lives! I haven't > seen the > study, but I would bet a fairly decent percentage of them still > managed > to turn out okay, despite having the odds stacked against them.. And there are numerous people who get in car accidents on the freeway on the way to work. Most people just walk away, but that doesn't mean car accidents aren't also responsible for a lot of deaths and broken bodies. > I'm very curious as to whether when you hear an infant or small > childcry if it makes you angry. >  > Ken Ragge >  > Okay, Ken. Much as I have respected opinions you have expressed in > the past, it > is really obvious by this last statement that you are letting > yourself get carried > away by the strong emotions this issue brings up in you. I hate to > see you stoop > to the Argument from Intimidation ( " you don't agree with me--I bet > you're really evil! " ). No, for me the issue isn't " evil. " I used to (and some of my friends do) get really angry and upset when they hear children cry. (Or sometimes just the exuberance that kids often show). I never did (or even considered) getting up and slapping them.<G> > I think circumcision is a completely unnecessary and irrational > procedure to perform > on an infant, period. Several years ago, I actually managed to talk > a friend out of having > it done on her kid when he was born (it wasn't difficult). There's > my stand on it, FWIW. And it is an ever more-popular-stand. Here in California the rates are down to about 35% from probably around 90% in the 60s. We are, however, the last English-speaking (victims of Queen <G>) to be doing away with the practice.  > As for your assertion that the pain of circumcision is such an > overwhelming trauma that > it can be compared to spending childhood in a Bosnian orphanage, I > think you're way off > base there, too. That wasn't intended to be my comparison but merely to use an example in which it is commonly accepted that there is great severe influence to make the point that there may be more influence in circumcision than commonly recognized. > Yes, childhood events do influence on our adult > lives, but we are not > formed entire by those experiences; to say that we are is a denial > of free will (and just what > was it that AA would have denied us?)! I've known people who > suffered unimaginable > traumas at very early ages, but managed to deal with them and grow > up into capable > adults (even though there was nobody there willing or able to help > them " deal with " the trauma). > And guess what? I know a fundie X-ian from China, and a Buddhist > monk raised on a wheat > farm in Eastern Washington. So much for environmental determinism. That depends also on what is being determined. Don't know much about Bhuddism, but would guess that someone who is devoted to living on a " spiritual plane " rather than in this world, might have similar influences. No, I'm not arguing against free will.  > I'm going to recommend two books. To understand the real meaning > behind all of those > study " results " --How to Lie with Statistics, by Darryl Huff . To > see how one can overcome an > horrific upbringing--'s Ashes, by McCourt. Hey, I've read Vaillant's " Natural History of Alcoholism " and a lot of the other literature -- I'm very familiar with lying with statistics. <G> > With that, I'll cease chewing on your ass. Despite appearances, I > enjoy your posts and do > wish you well. Well, I enjoy your posts too and also enjoy disagreement -- I never would learn anything otherwise. Ken Ragge > Solstice greetings--- > Mabee ------------------------------------------------------------------------ E-group home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/12-step-free Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 22, 1998 Report Share Posted December 22, 1998 CoolCandor@... wrote: > > Dear Ken, > > I really respect you and your work, but I must agree with . > > Circumsized and proud <g>, > > > , I'm not questioning any sort of decision an adult makes re: cosmetic surgery. I'm questioning cutting up someone else's body against their will and without anesthetic, no less. Ken Ragge ------------------------------------------------------------------------ E-group home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/12-step-free Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 22, 1998 Report Share Posted December 22, 1998 - Ken overemphasizes and emotionalizes the issue of circumcision, even adopting an " adult child " approach, which is what I disagree with. The actual practice of circumcision seems to me unnecessary, and it is undeniably painful for the infant (tho cutting the foreskin is, I suspect, not a major trauma). Ken leaps to all sorts of unwarranted conclusions about long range cultural effects. But there is no real evidence. Ken says that because there are few fundamentalist Mulsims in Kansas, this proves his point. In fact, it proves him wrong. The speaking of Arabic, or the belief in Islam, are CULTURAL TRAITS, which depend upon linguistic enculturation into a LANGUAGE-BASED cognitive system. This is the big, fundamental error in Ken's thought. He does not understand that human BIOLOGICAL experiences, and human CULTURAL experiences, are fundamentally different. What makes humanity unique, what gives us our intelligence and free-will, is our ability to enter the CULTURAL REALM of language, language-based thought, reason, cumulative information collection, etc. Ken seems not to understand this point. Even circumcision, after all, is a CULTURAL act, a religious act. It is important to recognize the centrality of cultural experience in human existence, because only by understanding the social and cultural nature of human experience will we be able to bring this aspect of our being under rational, humanistic control. What Ken does, by emotionalizing and biologicalizing this whole issue, is confound and confuse. ---------- To: 12-step-freeegroups Subject: Re: Factual Discussion Date: Monday, December 21, 1998 10:56 PM Re: Factual Discussion paul diener wrote:<and I snipped for brevity>> > , There has been virtually no research on the possible long-term effects of circumcision. Really? Two studies in the last couple of years do show that infants who are circumcised go through apparent neurological changes -- they are more sensitive to pain, feel it more intensely, six months later. How is this determined? How do researchers quantify the amount of pain an infant is experiencing? What experimental methods are used? Do they put a circumcised kid next to an uncircumcised one and stick them both with the same number of pins in the exact same places? Is the amount of pain being experienced determined by the volume and duration of noise the poor kids make? (And what about years later? If I kick a circum- cised guy, then kick an uncircumcised one, will the uncircumcised guy pound me into guava jelly while the circumcised one stands there and tries to get his feelings validated?) That is about all that has been directly done that I'm aware of except for one study that found that men who had been circumcised have higher rates of Chlamydia and certain other venereal diseases and also engage in a broader range of sex acts. Without a detailed analysis of all of the men participating in the study this information is useless, frankly. How old were they? What socioeconomic backgrounds were they from? Were they gay, or straight, or both? What racial or ethnic groups were represented? How much education had these men had? Not to mention questions such as: How large was the group used in the study? How were they chosen? Who did the study, and why might they have chosen to do it? And who funded the study? Which men in the study group were more likely to be uncircumcised? Might they have been from poor or blue-collar backgrounds? Would they have been more likely to have come from rural areas, or small towns? What kind of religious background was present in their families, not to mention education? What kind of sexual attitudes had they been raised with? Did they tend to be older than the " uncut " group? It sounds as if I am constructing a stereotype here, but what I am trying to point out is that no study can be reduced to one nice, neat conclusion that sums everything up. For women, an issue currently being examined is the link between taking estrogen when menopause kicks in. To say that women who take estrogen are less likely to develop osteoporosis ignores the fact that the women who do take estrogen are at an income and educational level that already provides for and encourages good nutrition, and encourages the habits that make osteoporosis less likely (regular exercise, not smoking). So, to say that circumcision is the causal factor behind engaging in a wider range of sexual practices, or that it is somehow directly responsible for a higher rate of STD's among the circumcised, is rubbish. Except for a small number of American doctors who push the practice and are reponsible for virutally everything published in U.S. medical journals, it is virually ignored, most particularly possible psychological sequelae. One doesn't get funding to question rituals central to a culture. Circumcision was introduced to the English-speaking world in the mid-1800s as a cure and punishment for adolescent masturbation. It was known to decrease the pleasure and the pain of the surgery without anesthetic served as excellent punishment. Being a rather objectionable scene to some people, it was decided it was best done in infancy as a preventative to the long series of ills thought caused by masturbation. By the 1950s, 90% of male infants were routinely circumcised in the U.S. Well it should have been patently obvious to one and all that infant circumcision didn't stop adolescent masturbation! <G> I suspect the practice really gained ground during the n period as an alternative to having to explain to little boys what smegma was, and the proper hygiene associated with it. After all, this was the period when piano legs were covered lest they arouse the baser passions... My mother tells me that the rationale for having it done to my brother was " hygeine " . God forbid anyone should have to touch or mention the genitals any more than absolutely necessary--for all the brainless sexual imagery we are bombarded with on TV and in advertising, Americans still have a neurotic terror of their own bodies... England, Australia, New Zealand and the rest of the English speaking world have given up the practice. Only the U.S. hasn't. I would venture there are two reasons for this. One is that there is half a billion dollars involved in performing 1,000,000 unnecessary surgeries per year, and the other psychological. An American father would have to own up to the fact that 50% of the most sensitive part of his penis is missing. It seems much easier to inflict it on his own son (as Somali mothers do on their daughters) than to face that fact. A rapidly shrinking but still large percentage of Americans would rather pretend it is nothing but _if_ you want to know about circumcision, there is a wealth of information at http://www.cirp.org It is simply silly and nonsensical to pretend childhood experience doesn't effect the adult. How many Moslem Fundamentalists do you know from Kansas? How many Fundamentalist Christians from Burma? How many socially skilled people who spent the first years of their life in Bosnian orphanages? A couple of classical sociological studies show that those moved into the foster care system in infancy and later adopted tend to have trouble with relationships and addictions for the rest of their lives. Are you going to suggest that it is by accident or that these people " choose " to have lifelong problems with relationships? Maybe " bad blood " (genes)? Or perhaps just maybe early experience counts for something. Yes, but surely not ALL of those adopted foster kids had problems with relationships and addictions for the rest of their lives! I haven't seen the study, but I would bet a fairly decent percentage of them still managed to turn out okay, despite having the odds stacked against them.. I'm very curious as to whether when you hear an infant or small child cry if it makes you angry. Ken Ragge Okay, Ken. Much as I have respected opinions you have expressed in the past, it is really obvious by this last statement that you are letting yourself get carried away by the strong emotions this issue brings up in you. I hate to see you stoop to the Argument from Intimidation ( " you don't agree with me--I bet you're really evil! " ). I think circumcision is a completely unnecessary and irrational procedure to perform on an infant, period. Several years ago, I actually managed to talk a friend out of having it done on her kid when he was born (it wasn't difficult). There's my stand on it, FWIW. As for your assertion that the pain of circumcision is such an overwhelming trauma that it can be compared to spending childhood in a Bosnian orphanage, I think you're way off base there, too. Yes, childhood events do influence on our adult lives, but we are not formed entire by those experiences; to say that we are is a denial of free will (and just what was it that AA would have denied us?)! I've known people who suffered unimaginable traumas at very early ages, but managed to deal with them and grow up into capable adults (even though there was nobody there willing or able to help them " deal with " the trauma). And guess what? I know a fundie X-ian from China, and a Buddhist monk raised on a wheat farm in Eastern Washington. So much for environmental determinism. I'm going to recommend two books. To understand the real meaning behind all of those study " results " --How to Lie with Statistics, by Darryl Huff . To see how one can overcome an horrific upbringing--'s Ashes, by McCourt. With that, I'll cease chewing on your ass. Despite appearances, I enjoy your posts and do wish you well. Solstice greetings--- Mabee ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- E-group home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/12-step-free Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 22, 1998 Report Share Posted December 22, 1998 Re: Factual Discussion Ken, Thank you for your comments, and for sending along the info for these studies--I'll check it out. --- E-group home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/12-step-free Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.