Oregon Courts Have No Right to Force Circumcision

What would the Oregon Supreme Court say to any adult who wanted to cut out any child's healthy eyes, inner ears, or tongue?

(PANACEA, Florida) - I was extremely distressed to read a quote in a recent AP article by William McCall attributed to Oregon Supreme Court Justice W. Michael Gillette. It says he asked in a hearing, concerning the partial genital amputation desired by a boy's father for his twelve-year-old son, "what would happen if the noncustodial parent of a child objected to allowing participation in a risky sport, such as football", and then that he gave his own preposterous answer:

"'The answer to that is that's preposterous,' Gillette said. 'In fact more people get hurt playing football than from having a circumcision - a lot more, and a lot more seriously.'"

Dead wrong on both counts, Justice Gillette. There is a great deal of confusion in the USA on sex, sex organs and circumcision, and Gillette's question/answer illustrates a number of the serious ones.

First, children are killed by circumcising them, just as they are killed by playing football. I don't think one can harm a child more seriously than by killing him, but at least the child killed by football probably had a choice about whether to play.

Second, every child circumcised is seriously harmed, permanently. That's over a million children seriously and permanently harmed every year in the USA, many times the number harmed by playing football.

Study the modern scientific anatomy including the neuroanatomy of the human male foreskin at research.cirp.org, cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/, and cirp.org/library/anatomy/cold-taylor/. Very few people in the USA know that circumcising always cuts off and destroys forever a recently discovered, highly complex, highly vascularized, highly innervated human sense organ.

What would the Oregon Supreme Court say - what would Justice Gillette say - to any adult who wanted to cut out any child's healthy eyes, inner ears, or tongue?

Astoundingly, what the Oregon Supreme Court is now actually debating - and deciding - is whether to permit adults to commit a permanently genitally mutilative, potentially lethal sex crime against a child. This case is considered "progress" in America, because it IS!

Third, some children lose their glans and some their entire penis to circumcising. I have heard of and read about a number of them, including David Reimer. I never have heard of a child losing his glans or penis from playing football. Other serious injuries and even deaths do occur in football, of course. I am not denying that football is a risky sport, but it doesn't harm all who play it. Not nearly. Circumcising does.

That our genital mutilating culture is deliberately ignorant of the many inevitable serious harms and additional serious risks of circumcising does not reduce to non-existence those harms and risks in reality, only in the "minds" (to use the term loosely) of adults insisting on remaining inexcusably ignorant of the many serious harms and risks of circumcising healthy children.

Fourth, a noncustodial parent objecting to their child's participation in football would most likely be opposing the child's wishes, not the custodial parent's. A child wishing to play football voluntarily is a very different thing from an adult wanting to cut off part of a child's healthy sex organs involuntarily.

Fifth, children have a choice about playing football. Usually adults aren't forcing football on them, and when they are, we recognize it as serious adult misbehavior. If Boldt were a custodial parent trying to force "his" (as we say) child to play football or any other risky sport against the child's will, the noncustodial parent, the child's coach, the legal system and the whole society would have an obvious obligation and duty to object to and prevent this unnecessary and dangerous, abusive imposition on the child.

Whose penis is it anyway? Not Michael Boldt's. Not Justice Gillette's. Not the Oregon Supreme Court's.

Many stand against circumcision in the United States
Photo courtesy: stopinfantcircumcision.org

Parents do not own "their" (as we say) children. Slavery was outlawed in this country some time back. Parents certainly do not own "their" children's bodies or body parts. The legal system does not own them. The children and the adults children become own them, wholly, AND the legal system. It was created for us, not we for it.

The bodies, including all their normal, healthy parts, belong to the children. Chopping healthy, living parts off of children's bodies because you want to isn't a good enough reason. In fact, there isn't any reason good enough to chop off any normal, healthy, living body part from any normal, healthy child. Doing so is always child abuse, serious child abuse. In this case, it's permanently genitally mutilative child abuse and sometimes lethal child abuse. It is impermissible child abuse, as all child abuse is impermissible. It is a heinous sex crime and human rights violation.

What are adults trying to achieve by circumcising healthy children that is worth the risk of killing them?

Mr. Boldt's "religious freedom" excuse doesn't fly. It has been established law in this country for decades that we have complete freedom of religious BELIEF, but that religious PRACTICE must meet the tests of not violating other people's civil and human rights.

For example, in this still-great country I am free to believe that God wants me to burn down the Oregon Supreme Court building. Nobody can do squat about it, not even Judge Gillette. If, however, I start placing gasoline under the building and lighting matches it's no longer a matter of my private religious beliefs to which I have an absolute Constitutional and inalienable human right. It's criminal activity, for which I need arresting, prosecuting, convicting and jailing, my so-called "God" be damned, as far as the U.S. legal system is concerned.

The same goes for Mr. Boldt. He can believe all he wants to that "his God" (his attempted justifier for his sick wish to injure for life "his child's" sex organs and thereby sex life) wants him to chop off his son's foreskin, penis, arms, legs, head and belly button and it's not anyone else's business. When he takes out his knife and threatens or violates the child's physical integrity with it he's violating long established laws against inflicting injury on other people, or even threatening to. His religious freedom of action stops at his son's skin. The rights inside the skin, and TO the skin, belong to the boy, not to his ignorant, arrogant, sick father.

We recognize in this country that adults who hold a religious belief in circumcising girls do not thereby acquire the right to mutilate girls' genital organs. Do boys and intersex children have equal protection of our anti-genital mutilation laws or not?

The Oregon Supreme Court simply cannot allow deliberate, medically unnecessary, premeditated injury to this or any child's healthy sex (or any other healthy) organs. What sex the child happens to have been born is 100% irrelevant. A child's sex organs are strictly private property belonging to the child. That's why we call them "privates". If sex organs are not private there is no such thing as private. Boldt's son, like all children, has a right to his privacy.

He cannot even legally consent to the destruction of any part of his own body, even if he wants it done, which has not been established in this case anyway. No one, not even the Oregon or United States Supreme Courts, can consent on his behalf to medically unnecessary injury and permanent mutilation of his body. He has a human right to it. His body is what makes him human. Chopping it up without medical necessity is a crime. I think it's usually called "mayhem". The Oregon Supreme Court does not need to be in the business of committing genital mayhem against children and THEIR sex organs.

So, to the Oregon Supreme Court, I say, leave the boy whole, as you found him. You are not Gods. You are not entitled to redesign other people's bodies, including their sex organs, according to your or anyone else's sick whims.

This is not football you're playing. Football is not a game played with knives by adults, chopping up the healthy, living sex organs of children. That game is called "human vivisection". Nuremburg had something to say about it.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Char October 1, 2011 11:50 pm (Pacific time)

I would like to join some type of activist group to help support this cause and end circumcision for all baby boys who do not have the voice to defend themselves. How can I get involved in something like that?

Van Lewis December 27, 2009 10:32 pm (Pacific time)

Good news earlier this year from the US Supreme Court on Misha's case, as reported in the NoCirc 2009 Annual Newsletter: Supreme Court Defends Child’s Right of Choice The US Supreme Court in October turned down a father’s petition in Boldt v Boldt. The boy’s father, who con- verted to Judaism and wants his son circumcised, was unhappy with the decision of the Oregon Supreme Court to determine the wishes of the child, and appealed to the US Supreme Court, alleging the child’s wishes are irrelevant. Fortunately, the right of the boy was para- mount in the court’s decision.

Van Lewis December 27, 2009 10:11 pm (Pacific time)

There is good news in the case that occasioned this article. From the 2009 newsletter of Doctors Opposing Circumcision: "After five years of DOC efforts behind the scenes, Misha Boldt, the 14-year-old boy facing circumcision occasioned by the claimed conversion of his custodial father, testified that he did not want to be circumcised and the judge forbad it. On September 3, 2009, the father agreed to give custody to the mother. D.O.C. contributed endless hours of legal work for Misha and others like him. NORM-UK, the British organization defending children against social surgeries and supporting non-surgical restoration, gave generously to support this cause."

Amanda Boldt April 9, 2009 5:12 pm (Pacific time)

It is Child Abuse to force a 12 year old to submit to a "fathers Preference" to cicumcision. There seems to be more behind the scenes, since the father "is not jewish" by birth, and recently converted to Judaism. No child should be a sacificial lamb, for the "sins" of the father.

marymop September 9, 2008 2:54 pm (Pacific time)

no-one has the right to chose circumcision for a child except in the case of a life or death situation.if the child choses the procedure as an adult its his choice .the very fact that uncircumcised adults may not chose the option should not mean that parents are allowed to force the operation on defenceless babies to make sure it gets done .this is an unacceptable situation,circumcision must be a free choice made by the grown child as an adult .

Christoper Van Hagen June 2, 2008 12:45 am (Pacific time)

MGM (male genital mutilation) should be illegal in the United States. It's the only way you'll get those diehard mutilators to stop. Proudly intact.

Sigismond March 21, 2008 12:16 pm (Pacific time)

"while I search for treasure" Hmmmm? Wouldn't you be searching for the lost foreskin? I have a hint that you're loosing your time. Rather restore it!

Richard L. Matteoli February 8, 2008 10:29 pm (Pacific time)

First Encounter Assault Recon??? What's that?? Sounds like a FUBAR to me. Recon is a specific no encounter operation. Doesn't make sense. Just like any attempt to justify circumcision. New study from Africa by the gurus of circumcision. But, actually as mandated reporters they always re-evaluate. New: Circumcised men pass more HIV to their wives. http://www.icgi.org/2008/02/wives-more-likely-to-contract-hiv-from-circumcised-husbands/

Godsofchaos February 3, 2008 9:08 am (Pacific time)

"And your posts therefore have little credibility."Tandy Let me see, if my posts lack credibility and therefore I lack credibility. Do you know whom you are talking to? Have you fought off pirates, climbed up an old fort, found a U-boat in the middle of the jungle? If so are you stalking me? If so please stop it. I can't have random people follow me around while I search for treasure. Only Sully and Elena have that privilege.

Tandy February 2, 2008 6:08 am (Pacific time)

"Tandy FEAR=First Encounter Assault Recon?" WHO wortes your scripts? I think you need some new writers, your posts have little coherence, relevancy, or mame much sense. If they are meant to be humoruous, I am afraid they miss their mark. Nothing seems to be thought out or supported by any substance--it seems you just shoot from the hip. And your posts therefore have little credibility.

Van Lewis February 2, 2008 11:39 am (Pacific time)

Godsofchaos said, "Obviously you missed what I was getting at. Humanity is the same species therefore we remain inherently the same." I believe we evolve, socially and biologically, but your point is that we will always have evil with us. Mine is that you may be right and you may be wrong - always is a long time - but even if you are right, that is no argument for continuing to circumcise babies and children.

Godsofchaos February 1, 2008 3:42 pm (Pacific time)

"FEAR is the force that gives us religion--"Tandy FEAR=First Encounter Assault Recon? Dang thought the FEAR guys only went up against clone troopers and the girl from The Ring. I didn't know they gave us religion too. Seriously do you think fear is the driving force of religion? Following your logic fear is the driving force behind everything since everyone has different fears. Such as airplanes, snakes, and spiders. I say most religions driving force is the opposite. Most religions give hope. Such as after life or going to a higher spiritual plane instead of being worm food and death being the end of all existence. I don't see how such ideas cause fear.

Tandy January 31, 2008 5:59 am (Pacific time)

"The reason we as a species desire religion is to answer what, how and why we are here." The real reason some have gods is they fear the unknown and wish to know enough about hiow it works, so they can influence it.. FEAR is the force that gives us religion--the same thing that gives us circumcision. You might enjoy "The God Delusion"

Godsofchaos January 30, 2008 1:29 pm (Pacific time)

“How about cell phones? Did they have those in the Bible days? Personal computers? Steam engines? William Shakespeare?" Van Lewis Wow humanity has something called technology? Glad you cleared that up. Obviously you missed what I was getting at. Humanity is the same species therefore we remain inherently the same. Just as birds fly to south every winter we as a species continue throughout history have the same vices, virtues (good side of humanity), and needs. Here let me break it down for you. "How about cell phones?" We have always had forms of commutations from the telegraph to pigeons. Technology on how we communicate for long distances may change but reasoning behind it has remanded the same. We as a species desire to know what is going on around us. "Did they have those in the Bible days?" Every culture has religion. Form worshiping a wood god to the modern religion of evolution creationist theory. The reason we as a species desire religion is to answer what, how and why we are here. The answers very but the question behind religion remains the same. "Personal computers?" Depends how you use them but many equivalents existed for each use in history. "Steam engines?" Humanity has always desired faster and safer modes of transportation. What do you think horses were used for? "William Shakespeare?" Ah yes we have always had a thirst for entertainment. What do you think Homer did? How about the Colosseum in Rome? Tastes may change but entertainment has always been a facet of hummaity.

Sigismond January 28, 2008 7:24 am (Pacific time)

A MESSAGE FOR MISHA - could one of his friends make sure he gets it - (from an old French man who would never give away his foreskin neither for all the gold nor for the most beautiful girl of the world) - Since he might choose circumcision for himself, he must be aware that God very obviously changed his mind between his order to Abraham and the Ten Commandments given to Moses, according to the following demonstration. This will enable him to become a Jew without loosing his foreskin, as many modern Jews do. "I AM A JEALOUS GOD WHO PUNISH THE CRIME OF FATHERS UPON CHILDREN UP TO... GREAT-GRANDFATHERS... " (Second Commandment) (PARIS, France) - Already in the middle of the 19th century, a German movement of Reform rabbis was the first Jewish movement in modern times to refuse circumcision, on Biblical grounds; the Ten Commandments do not prescribe it, it was not practised during the Exodus (circumcision was set back into practice after Moses's death, in Gilgal) and Moses was opposed to his son's circumcision, were their main arguments (Encyclopaedia Judaica. Keter publishing house limited; 1972. t. V, p. 571). Previous to Moses, worshipers of the masculine phallus and contemptuous of the feminine one, the Egyptians practised the mutilation of the specific organs of autosexuality of girls and boys and had imposed it on the Jews as a token of slavery. Having freed the Jews, Moses could not tolerate that some would perpetuate the barbarous pagan custom. Thinking that a "jealous God" cannot admit idolatry of the phallus and that the denudation of the glans makes the phallus a fetish and an idol, he denounces chapter 17 of the Book of Genesis through the Second Commandment. Assuming circumcision an attempt against the child ("a barbarous and bleeding rite" [quoted by the Dictionnaire encyclopédique du judaïsme. Paris: Editions du cerf; 1993. p. 433]) and that the custom isolates the Jews, Rabbi Abraham Geiger and his movement decided to follow Moses and abandon circumcision. This provoked an outcry in the Jewish community, rabbinical authorities answered their arguments and, at the end of twenty years, the German Reform rabbis came back to circumcision. But the "heresy" gained the USA where several rabbis practise a non mutilating ceremony of nomination. Geiger and his friends had perfectly understood that Moses was opposed to circumcision but, unfortunately, they had not made our discovery of the falsification of the meaning of the Second Commandment by orthodox rabbis, from antiquity until now. This falsification hides that this commandment forbids circumcision. Indeed the orthodox interpretation understands the Biblical text: "For I, the Eternal, your God, I am a jealous God, who punish the crime of fathers upon children up to the third and fourth generation... " (Exodus, 20: 5, literal translation of the French Rabbinate translation [Paris: Les éditions Colbo; 1966]), as if it said: "… who punish children for the crimes of fathers…", which it does not, merely stating: "... who punish the crime of fathers upon children up to... great-grandfathers... ". - first, God does not express himself in an ambiguous way; if the sentence had the meaning given by the rabbis, its construction would be the one above, - second, the text does not say "the crimes" but "the crime", which involves a definite, well-known crime upon children, which can only be sexual mutilation, - third, asserting that God punishes children for the crimes of fathers, the orthodox interpretation gives the term "jealous" the aberrant meaning of suspicious till injustice. Considering this Commandment a condemnation of common criminality that would strike irresponsible sons and grand-sons is extreme and unlikely, - fourthly, it would illogically make the Second Commandment redundant with the Sixth: "Thou shall not kill", - fifthly, at the contrary, the Second Commandment brings out "the crime" in question (mutilator paedo-sexual criminality) as very particularly reprehensible. Moses was aware of the gravity of a crime striking a whole part of the population (children). He deliberately puts apart sexual mutilation as a crime that is not ordinary crime but crime against creation (humanity), through which man usurps God's place. Mohamed (cf. above) shares this both theological and humanitarian argument of respect of the physical integrity, dignity, modesty and privacy of the child, - sixthly, this is attested by the terms "a jealous God" that simply mean a God jealous of his own creation, which man may not alter, - seventhly and consequently, for the first time in history, a penalty strikes the elderly years after their crime, regardless of the statute of limitations, - eighthly, why should such a draconian and blind (Hitler's madness disastrously copied from the rabbis, and amplified, their interpretation) family punishment of criminality in general abate at the fourth generation rather than applying to all the descendants? On the other hand, it is only natural that the punishment of circumcising criminals must stop with great-grandfathers; beyond them, it's true, there is nobody alive to punish, At last, it must be added that, just a few lines below the 2nd Commandment, the Bible enlightens it saying: "If however you build a stone altar for me, do not build it with carved stones for by touching them with the iron, you made them lay." (Exodus, 20: 21-22). Therefore God, or Moses, did not wrongly word the Second Commandment. The rabbis – very likely deliberately – did ill interpret it through introducing an nonexistent double meaning, in order to conceal that "the crime of fathers" is circumcision perpetrated upon the person of the sons. We owe the great Jewish liberator and legislator, enemy of slavery and barbarity, the invention, against infantile sexual mutilation, of the juridical concept of crime against humanity, with imprescriptible penalty. Cordially yours, Sigismond

Warrior of Love January 28, 2008 2:08 am (Pacific time)

"A urologist who met with the boy submitted an affidavit that said the procedure would cause him minor discomfort for about three days but not interfere with his normal activities, the Supreme Court's decision said." What a God damned liar that urologist is. That is exactly why this child torturing and mutilation called circumcision exists. That's how the child mutilators purposely lie to make people believe that cutting a piece of someone's penis off would be just a little discomfort for three days and not interfere with the victim´s normal activities. What if the boy used to go swimming every day? Wouldn´t circumcision interfere with his normal activities right there? This in itself is proving that this urologist is not telling the truth. Or what if the boy wants to make love to himself by effortlessly massaging his pleasure toy inside his rolling foreskin which, as honest and fearless as I am now out of disrespect for the pleasure diminishing child torturing sexual oppressors, was a normal activity for me at this age? What if he wants to masturbate without buying their expensive artificial lube? What if he realizes that rubbing his knob without his personal little vagina, his lovely and nasty pleasure giving foreskin, is not what it used to be and not the way he enjoyed pleasuring himself the most? Sexual gratification and joy brings inner peace and therefore it is healthy for the body and soul and therefore it is also good for peace in the world; even kids have feelings but thoss insane genital cutting criminals take the divine feelings away from us most effectively when we are still young; they inject sexual fear to take away our inner or truest git feelings so we turn out to be sexual fear spreading slaves that end up obeying those inhuman genital torturing perverts. What if he wants to make love to the world, the air and the universe by pulling his foreskin back and forth feeling the wind touching his moist cherry? What if he armors his sexual area after being violated with a knife on his penis by brain sick adults and therefore thinks of revenge all his life? Wouldn't that interfere with his normal activities? If some God damned reptilian child rapist disguised as an urologist would violate me like this I would not just be in discomfort for three days but in tremor, outrage and anger for life. I would not rest until I see my mutilator´s blood as revenge. Blocking the circumcisers from harming this boy is good but not good enough to solve the circumcision problem. Not closing the case by protecting the boy´s human rights for good and still giving it room for further questioning and a possible different outcome shows the insanity of this society. I would not be able to digest a different outcome without going completely berserk. They are not yet respecting the absolute human right of the child. It is traumatizing for the boy as they continue to torture the boy further with fear and uncertainty. Where is their heart? Do they have one? Or did they maybe delay on purpose so the case can get all the publicity it needs for the final outrage of the people so the Sword of Justice can finally come down on all those who enslave us by injecting sexual pain, fear, hate, mistrust and terror by cutting and torturing children´s genitals. By the way, where is the child protection agency when it comes to attacking children's genitals with knives and torture instruments? Why aren´t the judges and law makers practicing human kindness and justice based on common sense by putting an end to this cruelty by arresting all those who injure and endanger others and especially children. Arrest all circumcisers as they are sadistic sex criminals that tie their victims down to rape them with knives. Arrest them for inflicting cruel pain in children´s genitals, for sadistic psychological torture and sadistic physical harming, mutilation and humiliation of children? Where is their common sense for justice and humanity? Anyway, the delay will create more discussions and more time for people to wake up? I feel happy for the boy as he is temporarily saved from the oppressors burning knives, but it is still immoral, inhuman and cruel to keep him in the state of fear. Will the boy now be threatened and forced by this God damned faith changing father to tell something he would not say if he would not be in fear of possible repercussion by the overpowering and much stronger father? Do the father and the insane pro-circumcision sadists get one more chance to influence and threaten this innocent, afraid and dependent boy? What does the boy have to do with the old idiot's new belief? Why do those cruel cowards not cut their own f_____g dicks when they want to join those cruel religions whose advocates as we all know now are blatant liars that managed throughout history to deceive people and make them believe it would be for some God or even the Good of their children if they cut away the most pleasurable part of the penis? As they turned it into a cultural or religious thing to do they think it is lawful to stick knives into children's most sensitive genitals which were made by the God of Love to perceive LOVE-NOT PAIN? I have had it with these child enslaving, pleasure controlling, child mutilating, child torturing, merciless societies and religions. The genital cutting power freaks only exist because of lies and the fear politics they are practicing which keeps them alive and well fed like maggots in a cadaver in which they are thriving. Circumcisers are all extreme criminals that have to be brought to justice soon and with the help of the God of Love, Mother Nature, all the Higher Spirits, all Intactivists and all Awakened and Outraged People, may this day come sooner than they expect! Michael

Van Lewis January 25, 2008 8:35 pm (Pacific time)

Misha is safe for the moment. The fight for human rights goes on. http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2008/01/oregon_supreme_court_blocks_fa.html#comments Court blocks father from circumcising 12-year-old son Posted by The Oregonian January 25, 2008 08:14AM Categories: Top Stories The Oregon Supreme Court on Friday blocked a divorced former Southern Oregon man from circumcising his 12-year-old son against the wishes of the boy's mother. The court ruled that the trial judge failed to determine whether the boy wanted to have the procedure. The child's mother, Lia Boldt, claims that circumcision is dangerous and that her son is afraid to say he doesn't want the procedure. Go here for the court's decision. The court ordered the case back to the trial judge to determine the boy's wishes. James Boldt, who converted to Judaism several years ago, wants to circumcise his son. As the custodial parent, he argued that he has wide latitude to make decisions for the boy. The lower courts sided with the father. The case attracted national attention. An anti-circumcision group based in Seattle said the practice was dangerous. Jewish groups joined the fray out of the concern that the Oregon court would restrict circumcision. -Ashbel "Tony" Green

Richard L. Matteoli January 25, 2008 12:34 pm (Pacific time)

Yes Sig. re: Original Sin in the Freudian construct, which with my knowledge I can only 'think' it's Freudian,'is your good point of sexual guilt and shame. Also Adam and Eve are archetypes. Archetypes belong to the Collective Unconscious. Kinda like our genetic psyche. These things, when studied, come close to imagry and symbolic myth worldwide even into our new technology of the film industry. Erich Neumann in "The Great Mother" stated: 'Aztec men fell from grace because of sexual desire.' Then one thing leads to another and 'voila' we do stupid things. From my perspective as a health care provider: "Impacted reason prophesies diarrheic action. Excuses are but winds of digestion," p. 51, "Blood Ritual: Socialized Sexual Predation."

Sigismond January 25, 2008 4:13 am (Pacific time)

"The most vital part of the baby, the most sexually pleasurable part of his body. Circumcision in the unconscious realm is a pathological attempt on the part of the adults in genitally mutilating societies to acquire not only the sexual power of the new life, but the life power, the life behind the sexual power, for themselves." And " "religion" is so messed up with genital mutilation." This is narrowly connected with the concept of "original sin". The very original sin is biting the apple: the mother's breasts, and having an erection during this enjoyable time. The punishment from the jealous fathers is inevitable. Circumcising their own infants in hommage to the divinity is the cheap sacrifice that "pays" for their own right to autosexuality... Thank you mummy and daddy! Cordially yours, Sigismond

Richard L. Matteoli January 24, 2008 8:19 pm (Pacific time)

Part of the reason to address circumcision with criminology comes from Lloyd deMause's comment in his "Universality of Incest." ((1)) Paraphrasing deMause: 'Pedophiles, with other perverts, feel unloved and seek children for an illusion. Domination is a huge factor, and sadism is common. In a perpetrator's lifetime, victims will number in the hundreds. These perpetrators possess a strong punitive superego which should not make it a surprise that many are highly religious.' ((2)) Quoting deMause: "The mutilation of children's genitals is such an important need in humans that whole religious and state systems have been founded upon the practice. Yet when scholars attempt to explain why almost everyone since the beginning of recorded history has massively assaulted the genitals of their children, they assiduously deny that it is a sexual perversion or that those who do it ever mean any harm to the children." ((3)) The conundrum for the health care provider is that a perpetrator's intent is not to be considered in making out a child abuse report and failure to do so can lead to the loss the of a reporter's license. And certain professions are declared by law that they are Mandated Reporter's. Yet, the report is just a report - it is up to other authorities to choose to proceed with the report or decide not to proceed. As a social ritual the authorities include the general populace in the 'Social Body. ((4)) "Investigation is implied in our Mandate." (Anakin Skywalker). movie: Attack of the Clones.

Richard L. Matteoli January 24, 2008 5:49 pm (Pacific time)

The concept of mock-killing is not just in the ritual of circumcision. ((1)) Johathan Shay in, "Achilles in Vietnam: Combat Trauma and the Undoing of Character," (USMC Reading List), stated: "The goal of mock executions in political torture is to decompose the prisoner's identity and mental reality, substituting the absolute reality of the torturer's world." ((2)) This involves typical criminal behavior, illustrated in the writings by FBI criminal serial sexual profilers. The involvement uses elements of power, control and authority through manipulation for dominance. And, these are the same elements Catherine Bell says are the motivational basis of ritual in her book "Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice." ((3)) The objective of connections is to show how life's situations intertwine - not necessarily totally equivalent. ((3)) "It's a lotta simple tricks and nonsense." (Han Solo). movie: Star Wars.

Richard L. Matteoli January 24, 2008 4:23 pm (Pacific time)

For mock-death in circumcision rituals see: Philip Slater's "The Glory of Hera: Greek Mythology and the Greek Family," Princeton Univ. Press, 1992. ((1))There is much more than just a sick mock-cannibalism. Slater also relates that: (a) The Poro's when they circumcise both boys and girls have the initiates eat the other sexes exised parts under the concept of incorporating a part of the other sex's power by the opposite sex. (b) Other areas give the parts for the mother's to eat. (c) In some African tribes as the Kikuyu after the circumcision ritual the initiates are allowed to gang-rape and kill an old women. ((2)) It is just, in my perception, it's all built on junk no matter how refined it is presented as civilized behavior. ((3)) "Look at how they massacred my boy" (Vito Corleone). movie: The Godfather.

Van Lewis January 24, 2008 3:02 am (Pacific time)

Richard L. Matteoli said, "Genital rituals are substitute killings in attenuation. Attenuation means the lessening of severity." I had a strange thought about this the other day that may be relevant here, somehow. (Don't take "strange thought" as proof of insanity on my part, mutilationists. Albert Einstein said something like, if an idea doesn't appear absurd at first there's no hope for it." And two-time Nobel laureate Linus Pauling said, "To have good ideas, have lots of ideas." Put this one in that "lots" pile. It may or may not turn out to be a good idea, but it is an idea anyway, and I think an interesting and provocative one deserving of serious consideration and research, perhaps an MRI project not on a baby's brain while he's being circumcised [although that's a worthy project on its own or would be if circumcising weren't a sex crime] but on a circumciser during circumcising.) Here's my to me startling idea. Mammals all have foreskins. (There may be one or two exceptions, but almost all mammals have foreskins.) Reptiles don't. (Maybe there's an exception or two.) Can the persistent power of genital mutilation and the great difficulty in wiping it off the face of the earth, as obviously crazy as mutilating the genitals of children is from a common sense perspective (common sense on the subject having been destroyed through destroying in most of the human mammals in the USA, Jewish and Muslim societies, and a few other places, the penile sense organ common to most all mammals), can circumcising's irrational power over human life be explained by the idea that circumcising is simply an out-of-control, pathological reptilian brain within the genital mutilator, trying to regain control over the later-evolved mammalian brain? Circumcising, in this view, is simply a regression all the way back to our days as reptiles, when foreskinless sex organs were, indeed, normal. In short, circumcisers are reptiles? Male alligators eat their own young if they get a chance to. Back to the mock death ritual, circumcision is society in a mock cannibalism ritual, eating its own young. The mohel sucking the child's blood. The feast following the circumcision. Circumcision isn't just mock child sacrifice. It's mock cannibalism, too, eating the baby after the sacrifice. Eating what, especially? The foreskin. Specifically the prepuce, specifically the sense organ, the ridged band within the foreskin. The most vital part of the baby, the most sexually pleasurable part of his body. Circumcision in the unconscious realm is a pathological attempt on the part of the adults in genitally mutilating societies to acquire not only the sexual power of the new life, but the life power, the life behind the sexual power, for themselves. The baby must die, that the adults might live. Forever. A pathological attempt to steal the baby's life power for the benefit of the thieves, so that they won't have to die. Why mock death for the baby? For mock immortality for the thieves. So this is why "religion" is so messed up with genital mutilation. Who was it saying that we humans will always have evil with us? Child sacrifice is evil. We were supposed to have left it behind with Abraham, when he came back down the mountain with Issac, his son, still alive. Complete Abraham's religious revolution, abolishing child sacrifice: Abolish genital mutilation of children.

Van Lewis January 24, 2008 2:25 am (Pacific time)

Jan says, "If there was any doubt these anti-circs were as nutty as a fruit cake this set of comments confirms it." I thought at first that you were talking about the anti-penis crowd, and agreed with you: "Keep this conversation going so everyone can learn this." I feel the same way, but about the anti-sex mob attacking babies' and children's healthy sex organs essentially for nothing. Is the only argument Jan can put on record here the obvious and pathetic false assertion that his/her opposition is "nutty as a fruit cake"? Bring us facts and reason, not desperate, childish insults.

Van Lewis January 24, 2008 2:12 am (Pacific time)

Tandy says, "Have we now sunk to quoting superstitious babblings? Is there no rational or logical thought that can be brought here anymore?" There has been no announced policy against rational or logical thought on this site. Bring all you want, please. America needs it badly, especially on the subject of children's healthy sex organs, and you are capable of it, rare find that you are. (not sarcasm)

Van Lewis January 24, 2008 2:08 am (Pacific time)

God of Chaos, January 17, 2008 says, "Humanity will always have evil." Always is a long time. I try to stay out of the business of predicting the future for the rest of time, so I respond by saying that you may be right or you may be wrong. I really don't know for sure. "The reason is it is easier to be evil than good." Sometimes that's true, particularly when we don't even know that we're doing evil and think we're doing good, as with infant and child circumcision, but it is true that in general we keep trying to correct our thought and behavior and do good. We have a long way to go, obviously. There is much room for improvement in our consciousness and behavior, might be a positive way of looking at our situation. "To say that getting rid off circumcision would some how bring humanity one-step close -r to morale purity to me shows ignorance and lack off understanding of human nature." I did not say it would bring us closer to "moral purity". I said abolishing the violence of adult genital mutilation of healthy children and babies would bring us closer to a world without violence, a peaceful world. "... Is there anything of which one can say, "Look! This is something new"? How about cell phones? Did they have those in the Bible days? Personal computers? Steam engines? William Shakespeare? ... "I say by now we as humans have ran through every possible combination of society that is possible" I say that's an irrational, incorrect statement. "and therefore will never reach a utopian society." Never is a long time. Maybe you're right and maybe you're wrong, but either way, this argument is not a valid argument against stopping the harmful and dangerous sin of genital mutilation against children and babies once we understand that it is a harmful, dangerous, violent, sexually abusive sin that violates the human rights of the healthy child. Abolish it for all children, not just girls.

Sigismond January 23, 2008 2:18 am (Pacific time)

"all men must be allowed to make this decision for themselves as adults " Who the hell would risk a ruined sexual life, even if some get a little benefit? Which honest physician would dare taking this risk? Cordially yours, Sigismond

john January 22, 2008 11:40 am (Pacific time)

Jan - I am very much anti-circ after having required 7 separate surgeries in an attempt to repair my badly botched infant circumcision - I certainly don't consider myself "nutty as a fruitcake" for being totally against a damaging and useless procedure - it is high time this barbaric practice ended - all men must be allowed to make this decision for themselves as adults - so, as far as I am concerned, the more dialogue, the better as it will continue to bring the clear light of knowledge concerning this practice -

Jan January 20, 2008 5:09 pm (Pacific time)

If there was any doubt these anti-circs were as nutty as a fruit cake this set of comments confirms it. Keep this conversation going so everyone can learn this.

Sigismond January 21, 2008 10:25 am (Pacific time)

"In the United States,... resewing an infibulation scar (reinfibulation) is permitted." http://yourtotalhealth.ivillage.com/female-genital-mutilation.html?pageNum=4 Oh, well, the US case seems desperate; if US physicians may do this with impunity... why should not they castrate everybody there, which would solve the whole problem!!!!!!!!!! Cordially yours, Sigsmond

Richard L. Matteoli January 20, 2008 10:15 pm (Pacific time)

REPORT: HOMICIDE OF CHILDREN: INTRO 3: ((1)) Genital rituals are substitute killings in attenuation. Attenuation means the lessening of severity. Perpetrators performing amputating or bleeding genital rituals, as well as those observing participants, fulfill themselves in the same manner as any other serial sexual predator. Rituals like the ancient circumcision to the present day prepucectomy are mock-death ceremonies representing an Attenuated Homicise and Psychosexual Homicide:* ((2)) ATTENUATED HOMICIDE is the psychological act of homicide lessened to not cause death and often performed in ritual: specif: circumcision ((3)) PSYCHOSEXUAL HOMICIDE is the killing, inhibiting, or stunting of a part of the normal and healthy psychological growth and development of a person during infancy, childhood, adolescense or adulthood. ((4)) My definitions, Matteoli RL, "Blood Ritual: Socialized Sexual Predation." Possibly soon Dog Ear Publications, 2008. Not sure if I want to do that before finding an editor. But, it's wanted by a few. Might keep as rough draft in house though NOCIRC.

Richard L. Matteoli January 20, 2008 9:43 pm (Pacific time)

REPORT: HOMICIDE OF CHILDREN: INTRO 2: ((1)) Child homicides are usually committed by women when there is no social involvement. These women are constant caretakers, driven to be perfect mothers, overwhelmed and subsequently depressed. Regarding victim availability, women spend much more time with children than men. Women who commit these murders often use the defense* of psychosis* from postpartum depression. The social defense used is the excuse of being a trapped mother in a male dominated society. These defenses for lighter sentences are successful. ((2)) 'Us News and World Report' explained:* "Even when a mother's mental illness doesn't meet the legal definition of insanity, jurors and the public are whipsawed between horror at the act and sympathy for the troubled mother... In Great Britain, the law sanctions such leniency. There, a mother who kills her children within the first 12 months of life is unlikely to face jail, a legal nod to the fact that, as Duke obstrtrician and psychiatrist Diana Dell puts it, the period right after birth is 'the most biologically vulnerable time in a woman's life psychiatrically.' Dell says postpartum depression affects at least 10 percent of new mothers." ((3)) References: (a)Derbyshire J, "Maternal Madness," National Review, 01 October 2001. (b) Lithwick, Daliah, "When Parents Kill: Why Fathers Do It, Why Mothers Do It," (c) U.S. News and World Report, "Mothers and Murder: Mental illness of often the backdrop for this most baffling of crime," 18 March 2002.

Richard L. Matteoli January 20, 2008 9:21 pm (Pacific time)

REPORT: HOMICIDE OF CHILDREN: INTRO 1: ((1)) The three socialized forms of child homicide were: neonaticide, infanticide and filicide.* That correlate to the three age groups in ritual circumcision. ((2)) Alan Tuckman stated:* "Ancient civilizations considered children as omens from the gods. Those born with deformations were routinely sacrificed. Asian cultures routinely killed female infants. Roman fathers had the right to murder their children, and Japanese fathers could also have their newborns killed to keep family size down. The slaying of children is an international phenomenon. In certain Eskimo tribes, Indian, and Chinese cultures there is evidence that female neonates are still killed." ((3)) References: (a) J Belsky, (1980) "Child maltreatment: An ecological integration," American Psychologist, 35(4), 320-335. (b) Dietrich D, Berkowitz L, Kadushin A, McGloin J, (1990), Some factors influencing abusers' justification of their child abuse," Child Abuse and Neglect, 14, 337-345. (c) Quoting: Tuckman AJ, "Psychiatry and the Law: Child Murder," SynapseOnLine - last accessed - 14 August 2006: http://www.rfmh.org/whps/Synapse%2011/98.htm.

Richard L. Matteoli January 20, 2008 12:58 pm (Pacific time)

Hi Tandy: Please have patience with me. I still have to do the Three types of Child Homicide: Neonaticide, Infanticide and Filicide. Had a storm and helping my neighbor who just had open heart surgery clear trees around his house. Tired.

Tandy January 19, 2008 5:34 am (Pacific time)

Have we now sunk to quoting superstitious babblings? Is there no rational or logical thought that can be brought here anymore?

Sigismond January 18, 2008 5:33 am (Pacific time)

"Do you seriously think I am haunted by my circumsion? " What do YOU think? Cordially yours, Sigismond

Warrior of Love January 18, 2008 3:22 am (Pacific time)

How does this compute? Sexual pleasure is good and divine. Circumcision is the unthinkable as it is cruel and barbaric and therefore shall be punished! Michael

Godsofchaos January 17, 2008 3:54 pm (Pacific time)

"Aba Eban said, "History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives." Are we there yet?"Van Lewis Humanity will always have evil. The reason is it is easier to be evil than good. 13"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."Matthew 7:13-14 (New International Version) To say that getting rid off circumcision would some how bring humanity one-step close -r to morale purity to me shows ignorance and lack off understanding of human nature. As for you quote. "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. {10} Is there anything of which one can say, "Look! This is something new"? It was here already, long ago;"(Ecclesiastes 1:9-14 NIV) I say by now we as humans have ran through every possible combination of society that is possible and therefore will never reach a utopian society.

Godsofchaos January 17, 2008 3:27 pm (Pacific time)

"This does not mean that it is not active, either you want it or not."Anonymous You have to be kinding....Oh no a non-existant memory is going to destory my life. (sarcasm) I might as well kill myself now.(sarcasm) Do you seriously think I am haunted by my circumsion?

Van Lewis January 17, 2008 2:53 pm (Pacific time)

God of Chaos says,"Wow who would have thought the root of all evil is being circumsied." Only a fool. W.H. Auden said, in his famous poem, September 1, 1939, "I and the public know What all schoolchildren learn, Those to whom evil is done Do evil in return." Revenge is a very deep human motivation. Genital mutilation is far from being the ONLY evil that begets more evil in its wake, but it is a very serious evil and it begets very serious evil. Violence begets violence. I and all school children know this. "I guess all non- circumsied people are above sin." Wrong again, God of Chaos. Genital mutilation is not the only way to commit evil against people, and not the only evil they respond to with more evil of their own. Genitally intact people can easily be abused in other ways and can easily seek revenge for such abuse. Ending the evil violence of genital mutilation is a necessary but not a sufficient condition of ending all violence and establishing peace in the world, but it is an easy way to start. When will we do it? Aba Eban said, "History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives." Are we there yet?

Godsofchaos January 17, 2008 10:42 am (Pacific time)

"No, but your GIs went and torture their friends in Guantanamo, madly assuming that they were preparing atomic bombs for the USA. They even used to send their pals in the States lovely pictures of those tortures ... didn't they?"Anonymous Wow who would have thought the root of all evil is being circumsied. I guess all non- circumsied people are above sin.

Anonymous January 17, 2008 9:01 am (Pacific time)

"How can you live in fear if you can't even remember it? Think back. Can you remember what happened when you were a baby?"

Didn't you ever hear about unconscious trauma? It's still worse that conscious trauma, precisely because you cannot remember. This does not mean that it is not active, either you want it or not.

Cordially yours, Sigismond

Anonymous January 17, 2008 8:57 am (Pacific time)

"I am circumcised and it has never crossed my mind to fly a plane into a building." No, but your GIs went and torture their friends in Guantanamo, madly assuming that they were preparing atomic bombs for the USA. They even used to send their pals in the States lovely pictures of those tortures ... didn't they? Also, your "promised land" America, has not really been invaded by a hordes of fanatics, just a bunch of them with their plane. As non circumcised, I can speak about what that being intact is, a wonderful pleasure, believe me. I also can speak about what it is to be circumcised; it is easy for me to keep my foreskin retracted a fornight or a month and report the terrible damage steming from keratinization. You cannot. So please stop screaming like a circumcised baby. It is too late to get it back. The only efficient thing you can do is a restoration. It'll do you good, for sure. Cordially yours, Sigismond

Godsofchaos January 17, 2008 6:29 am (Pacific time)

"Of course, all those so marked for life became fierce up to suicide (kamikaze) warriors (11 september)."Sigismond Wow that if that isn't stereotyping circumcised people than nothing is. I am circumcised and it has never crossed my mind to fly a plane into a building. Some of the statements that I have come across on this debate, more of agree fest, would suggest that you are not circumcised. You talk as if circumcision is a fear tactic. I ask one simple question.... How can you live in fear if you can't even remember it? Think back. Can you remember what happened when you were a baby? You act, as sex is unpleasant if you are circumcised. I ask how come I enjoy it? My take of this debate is a bunch of people talking about something they never experienced. Since being circumcised to them means that every waking breathing moment I live in fear or I was so traumatized by the event that I fly planes into buildings.

Sigismond January 17, 2008 3:54 am (Pacific time)

" Only the king's wife or mother could bleed him." The same accounted for pharaohs who could chose circumcision or not. This detail reveals the deep nature of mark of enslavement of circumcision - and excision: not only marking like cattle but foremost traumatizing through the most ferocious threat: castration. Of course, all those so marked for life became fierce up to suicide (kamikaze) warriors (11 september). Cordially yours, Sigismond

Richard L. Matteoli January 16, 2008 10:43 pm (Pacific time)

REPORT: Female Serial Killers: Typology 6: TEAM KILLERS: Subset 3: FAMILY TEAMS: ((1)) This grouping involves 3 or more family members with bot sexes participating. It also includes people who band together into a quasi-familial relationships. Their actions are similar to the Male/Female team. Crimes are sexually violent. ((2)) Analysis: Connection to Munchausen's Collective Transmission is the cultural setting. Genital mutilations are play-death ceremonies.

Richard L. Matteoli January 16, 2008 10:37 pm (Pacific time)

REPORT: Female Serial Killers: Typology 6: TEAM KILLERS Subset 2: FEMALE TEAMS: ((1)) Two or more females, most often two, with one dominant. Motivations are similar to Angels of Death and Crime for Profit perpetrators. Killings are more silent than male/female teams. ((2)) Analysis: Similarity to Munchausen Syndrome in Collective Transmission involves the social structure of a sisterhood in Female Genital Mutilation.

Richard L. Matteoli January 16, 2008 10:19 pm (Pacific time)

REPORT: Female Serial Killers Typology 6: TEAM KILLERS: Subset 1: MALE/FEMALE TEAMS: ((1)) This involves a single male and single female pair. This is the most common. They are sexually involved, and crimes are sexually brutal. She is an equal predator. Organizization varies within each relationship. Domination is NOT always the male. ((2)) Analysis: In the macro-social of Munchausen Syndrome in Collective Transmission, the matriarchal and patriarchal functions cannot exist without each other. Genital mutilations, and legalization of abuses involve a tacit social agreement.

Richard L. Matteoli January 16, 2008 10:10 pm (Pacific time)

REPORT: FEMALE SERIAL KILLERS (FSK) TYPOLOGY 6: TEAM KILLERS 1: ((1)) The more people involved, the more convoluted the crime. Weapon choice varies and they torture victims. Dismemberments are common. Female members are usually the youngest of female serial killers. Average age is between 20 and 25. The more stable the interpersonal relationships among the members the longer activity continues. This category includes one third of female serial killers. It has three subsets: (a) Male/Female Teams, (b) Female Teams, (c) Family Teams.

Richard L. Matteoli January 16, 2008 10:03 pm (Pacific time)

REPORT: FEMALE SERIAL KILLERS TYPOLOGY 5: FOR PROFIT OR CRIME: ((1)) This crime is complex. It may easily be confused with other types. Foremost, she is a criminal who kills for profit. Unlike the Black Widow who kills relatives and those close to her for profit, she kills victims outside the family unit. Yet, she, like the Black Widow, mainly uses poison. Location of activity is often similar to the Angels of Death. Though she may perpetrate in a nursing home, or as a live-caretaker, she is not practicing within medical perimeters. Also, she is not a member of a team. She is sane. She will meticulously seek out victims previously unknown to her. Unlike the Revenge killer, there is no emotional passion involved in her actions. Any familiarity with victims is a means to an end. She is very organized, precise, patient, manipulative, and mature. ((2)) Turning to murder to enhance income denotes actual and perceived inadequacy. In African Muslim countries it is the older women who perform Female Genital Mutilation for a fee. The cultural setting in these countries is extremely prohibitive to female careers outside the household as well as female educational opportunities. This may be the case of the female heart surgeon who would circumcise her intact patients during heart surgery. She had a pattern of doing this and moved elsewhere when she was sued.

Richard L. Matteoli January 16, 2008 9:28 pm (Pacific time)

REPORT: FEMALE SERIAL KILLER TYPOLOGY 3: SEXUAL PREDATORS: ((1)) There is only one recorded American instance of a female committing this crime alone. The perpetrator used a gun. The gun may be representative of an emotional sexual dysfunction and represents a penile substitute. For this category feminine participation is usually attached to the masculine in the Team Predator category where she participates often as a facilitator and vicarious bystander. This category will increase with research. ((2) Analysis: Regarding circumcision, the weapons chosen indicate sexual dysfunction. Dysfunctional males often use a knife as a penile substitute whereas the female uses the social weapon as a Clitoral Enhancement. Socially, when males refuse to enforce the genital ritual females will enforce the rite.

Richard L. Matteoli January 16, 2008 9:16 pm (Pacific time)

REPORT: FEMALE SERIAL KILLER TYPOLOGY 2: ANGELS OF DEATH: ((1)) These killers usually attack those under their care. Victims are the weakest and most infirm, with not ability of self-defense. These killers are subtle and hidden. The excuse is euthenasia. Often, in Munchausen by Proxy, Angels of Death create a medical emergency and come to the rescue presenting themselves as the savior. Tools and methodology are interwoven with their environment. Ego and domination are centers of motivation. They set up control of life and death over their victims. In their minds, these victims have no right to survive in their present state of existence. ((2)) (a) This is often the case with nurses of both sexes. (b) It is a form of the Malignant Hero Syndrome. Medicine always looks for a new new disease to justify genital rituals. (c) Historically it correlates to child sacrifice when the neonate has a birth defect. The common excuse is that they are: 'sent to a better place' instead of saying 'I don't want that defective child.'

Richard L. Matteoli January 16, 2008 9:01 pm (Pacific time)

REPORT: FEMALE SERIAL KILLER TYPOLOGY 1: BLACK WIDOW: ((1)) She is careful, patient, deliberate, intelligent, organized, and methodical. Victims rarely extend beyond the family and include children, spouses and relatives. She starts after age 30. Victims have confidence and trust in her. She gets close and stays close. Over 90% of the time her method is extended poisoning, but she also suffocates and strangles. She acts as a concerned parent, spouse or relative. Motive is often financial. Psychotic fear of rejection occurs. ((2)) Social Analysis: The Black Widow's age most closely corresponds to the onset of menopause. The post-menopausal Wise Woman maintains the feminine social.* ((3)) Reference: Bonnie Horrigan, "Red Moon Passage: The Power and Wisdom of Menopause," Three Rivers Press, 1996.

Richard L. Matteoli January 16, 2008 8:49 pm (Pacific time)

REPORT: FEMALE SERIAL KILLERS: ((1))There are 6 motivational types of female serial killers. They are quiet killers. Though discussing the feminine, these motivations do not exclude males, as motivations of rape do not exclude females. ((2)) Connection to socialization is observable. ((3)) The 6 typologies are: (a) Black Widow. (b) Angels of Death. (c) Sexual Predators. (d) Revenge. (e) For Profit or Crime. (f) Team Killers which has 3 subsets. ((4)) Recommendation: Kelleher M and Kelleher C, "Murder Most Rare: The Female Serial Killer."

Richard L. Matteoli January 16, 2008 8:39 pm (Pacific time)

For the next two sections, as the past Rapist Typologies, that will be Female Serial Killers and Homicide of Children please keep in mind how they relate to acculturated: (a) genital rituals (b) child sacrifice.

Richard L. Matteoli January 16, 2008 6:28 pm (Pacific time)

Godsofchaos - I'm talking about bulls**t Games, you're talking about downright murder. Child molesters and serial sexual predators - and killers - are different than all others in that they share the same unique pathologic personality typology. You figure it out for yourself if you haven't been able to see my methodoloy.

Godsofchaos January 16, 2008 1:54 pm (Pacific time)

"You are talking about the Unwanted Child."Richard L. Matteoli Wow that makes shoving a metal spike into a babies skull justified. Don't preach human rights when you ignore the greatest of them all. Life. Just because their unwanted means that they don't have a right to live? Following that path of logic than it is justified to remove any unwanted parts of the child. So before you preach about the horrors of being circumcised please get you priorities straight or at least your message.

Richard L. Matteoli January 16, 2008 12:17 am (Pacific time)

LIFE/DEATH/LIFE FORCE: ((1)) I have referred to Clarissa Estes' book: "Women Who Run With the Wolves" numerous times about the feminine L/D/L Force. (a) This means the concept of Birth/Death/Rebirth. The feminine brings forth Life and the concept is that those who have the power to bring forth life also has the power to take the life. And, then to rebirth that life. (b) This concept is everywhere and takes many forms. Christianity's birth, death and resurrection of Jesus is our era's present best example. (c) The feminine Holy Spirit empregnated Mary and gave life. The social, as the social being the feminine with male servants, took back the Life of Jesus in his Death. Then this feminine force brought back his Life in the Resurection. This is the psychological concept. Sorry guys, but this IS a feminine spirituality movement. ((2)) Genital rituals are the same. In our present practice the child is Born in Life into the world as a whole of humanity, then the ritual Death is the genital ritual where the child must experience a Death solely to then be reborn in a new Life into the 'society's properly perceived social order.' ((3)) (a) This concept is also used in fertility rituals. According to ancient thought people believed removing the tip of the foreskin, not even the whole prepuce, enhanced fertility. (b) Fertility ensures species survival, and especially women's indicidual survival in ancient times. (c) It also serves, in thought, to fulfill the feminine Uterine Demand to have a child - it's natural. ((4)) This L/D/L Force in fertility rituals was seen in the ancient Mayas. They would bleed the prepuce making sure the blood hit the ground to fertilize Mother Earth to ensure a good harvest. Also the blood was captured in a bowl and then placed on the earth. Women also were the main bloodletters. Only the king's wife or mother could bleed him. Pain was an essential element - probably to mimic the travails of menstruation and childbirth. ((5)) Next will be Female Serial Killers and the conceptual connection to genital mutilation rituals.

Sigismond January 14, 2008 8:12 am (Pacific time)

“…not only does not the body of children belong to us but their sex still less.” Françoise Dolto - Cordially yours, Sigismond

Rood Andersson January 14, 2008 5:02 pm (Pacific time)

Mutilating the genitals of a helpless, innocent infant is criminal behaviour, pure and simple, whether for purported "religious" belief, family tradition, or for supposed medical benefits. Circumsexuals ... "doctors", interns, priests, witch doctors, et al ... who cruelly mutilate children should be arrested, tried, and convicted of sexual child abuse.

Sigismond January 14, 2008 8:11 am (Pacific time)

“…not only does not the body of children belong to us but their sex still less.” Françoise Dolto - Cordially yours, Sigismond

Richard L. Matteoli January 14, 2008 1:34 am (Pacific time)

REPORT: RAPE TYPOLOGY 6: GANG RAPE: ((1)) This is pathological behavior of three or more individuals. They act in play with each other. Victims are always seriousaly injured. ((2)) Analysis: Socialized genital mutilations is an expression of gang rape where all participate in their own particular way during "The Gathering."* This also occurs in some Islamic countries as Malaysia, Bosnia, and Lebanon where Christians of BOTH SEXES are kidnapped circumcised, then released. ((3)) Recommendation: Chris Knight, "Blood Relations." ((4)) "Morons have committed murders so shrewdly that it taken a hundred trained police minds to catch them." (Doyle). movie: Rear Window.

Richard L. Matteoli January 14, 2008 1:22 am (Pacific time)

REPORT: RAPE TYPOLOGY 5: OPPORTUNISTIC RAPIST: ((1)) This form of rape occurs when the perpetrator is committing another act as burglary. It is impulsive because the ability to commit the crime is present. Minimal force is used and time with the victim is short. It is the only rape where sexual satisfaction is primary over power. Power is already established from the crime of origin as burglary. Here the victim is bound rendering escape impossible. ((2)) Analysis: This has occurred many times in hospitals.. It used to happen when a physician saw an uncircumcised male infant and circumcised him. In the past this was treated with impunity in the doctor's favor by peer review committes. Due to recent law suits physicians are beginning to understand the consequences from such pre-emptive action. Circumcisions have also occured to patients undergoing other operations as heart surgery where the procedure was not discussed prior to the heart surgery. One heart surgeon has done this more than once - when sued she just moves elsewhere. ((3)) "You're so adorable when you're going in for the kill." (Sara). movie: Laws of Attraction.

Richard L. Matteoli January 14, 2008 1:07 am (Pacific time)

REPORT: RAPE TYPOLOGY 4: ANGER EXCITATION RAPIST - SADISTIC: ((1)) This is the most dangerous rape. Hospitalization often required. Perpetrators are impulsive and opportunistic. Control is paramount. Perpetrators experience sexual dysfunction. They are the most methodical and well planned in performance. Every detail is carefully planned rehersed, and acted out in detail and exactness. ((2)) Analysis: (a) For genital mutilating rituals every detail is carefully planned, rehersed and acted out - a set ritual. A physician or mohel has a tool kit. Bindings are used as the Circumstraint. (b) The correlations of anger are hidden envies, resentments and self-experience. The exxitation is not necessarily sexual, but in the power derived in doing the act. ((3)) "We're dealing with a very organized killer. He's someone who plans. His killings, they're random spur of the moment things. He only kills who he wants to kill. Low risk victims and low risk areas." (O'Hara). movie: Bloodmoon.

Richard L. Matteoli January 14, 2008 12:51 am (Pacific time)

REPORT: RAPE TYPOLOGY 3: ANGRY RETALIATORY RAPIST - DISPLACED: ((1)) Assaults require hospitalization. Perpetrators are violent and impulsive in expressing control. Often they rip off the victim's clothes. The perpetrator predator experiences sexual dysfunction. This is the most common form of date and spousal rape. ((2)) Analysis: (a) This usually occurs right after birth. The mother says if she had to go through childbirth he should be circumcised. (b) The masculine element may be exampled when a mohel, once reported as radiating hostility, during a circumcision/precupectomy, he was performing and said to the effect that: 'Every time we circumcise a Jewish child we are getting revenge upon the anti-Semites who wanted to crush us.'* This ritual expert's actions may very well indicate an identity conflict in the form of Munchausen Syndrome in Social Transference. ((3)) Reference: Lila Hanft, "Becoming a Jewish Mother," Cleveland Jewish News, 17 May 2006. ((4)) "You can't give back what you've taken from me." (Archer). movie: Face Off.

Richard L. Matteoli January 14, 2008 12:34 am (Pacific time)

REPORT: RAPE TYPOLOGY 2: POWER ASSERTIVE RAPIST - EXPLOITIVE: ((1)) The victim is in the same age range. Perpetrator does not doubt their sexuality but assaults to reassure it. Perpetrator, here males, wants other men to see him as a man's man. He has a macho seld-image. They are aggressive but not lethal. ((2)) Analysis: (a) This also occurs when women or men ask their sexual partner or potential partner to be mutilated. By having the victim do this, power in the relationship is forever established. The power is still present even when the relationship discontinues. From this they will have a "Psychological Token" to relive when desired, just as a male rapist who takes and object. (b). In primitive societies same sex perpetration of genital mutilations occurs during initiation rites. Accordin to deMause, this is also incestuous. They are saying, in essence, they went through the ritual to be an adult and so must the initiate. This reinforces the elders sexuality. And an example of Munchausen Syndrome in Collective Transmission. The perpetrator was a prior victim. ((3)) "It excites him. Most serial killers keep some sort of trophies from their victims." (Clarice). movie: Silence of the Lambs.

Richard L. Matteoli January 13, 2008 11:59 pm (Pacific time)

RAPE TYPOLOGY 1: POWER REASSURANCE RAPIST - COMPENSATORY: ((1)) Stranger to stranger rape. Power is gained through sex. No other physical injury than the rape itself. Victims are complimented, and asked if they are pleased. Perpoetrator doubts their sexuality - masculinity here. It is as if the perpetrator's unhappy personal history somehow explains and mitigates the denigration and trauma that is being inflicted on the victim. Crimes are ritualistic. ((2)) Analysis: The psychology is to create a WILLING victim through an admission by the victim that they are being pleased. The aura of victim willingness to be sacrificed for both sexes as victims is essential in religious rituals in genital mutilations. Also this is seen in public forums from those advocating the positives of genital mutilation, and the perpetrator's preferences. ((3)) Reference on victim willingness to be sacrificed in ritual: Joseph Campbell, "The Power of Myth." ((4)) "He really wants someone to think what he's doing is an art. I think we're looking for someone desparate for acceptance." (Helen). movie: Copycat.

Richard L. Matteoli January 13, 2008 11:37 pm (Pacific time)

REPORT: RAPE 1: ((1))Genital mutilations are rapes.* There are 6 types of rapists.* Actions and motivations of rapists apply to genital mutilators of either sex. This also transfers to the society that perpetrates the mutilation. 76% of rapists were sexual victims as youngsters* which indicates genital rituals are forms of Munchausen Syndrome in Collective Transmission. ((2)) The next posts will Michaud's and Hazelwood's 6 typologies. ((3)) (a) WKC Morgan, "Rape of the Phallus," Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 173, July 2, 1960. (b) John Douglas, Ann Burgess, Allen Burgess, Robert Ressler, "CRIME CLASSIFICATION MANUAL: A Standard System for Investigating and Classifying Violent Crimes." (c) Steven Michaud with Roy Hazelwood, "The Evil That Men Do."

Van Lewis January 13, 2008 6:25 am (Pacific time)

Ignaz Semmelweis and the "Semmelweis Reflex". Anyone wishing to understand the issue of infant circumcision in the USA, and the U.S. medical profession's part in it and response to it, needs to hear and understand the story of Semmelweis and understand the Semmelweis reflex. Wikipedia has a good presentation and google will give you references to deeper detail. Here is the short version. Semmelweis discovered in the mid-1800s, before Pasteur and the germ theory of disease (the same time that British and U.S. medicine started adopting circumcision to "cure" masturbation, ironically) that if obstetricians would just wash their hands before seeing women in labor, the death rate from childbed fever would drop almost to zero. The medical profession took offense at the idea that they might be harming and killing women and babies, and refused to accept or even try or examine Semmelweis' reports of concrete results in his hospital. Thus, "Semmelweis reflex" is "the dismissing or rejecting out of hand any information, automatically, without thought, inspection, or experiment." Medicine does the same today with the modern scientific neuroanatomy of the male foreskin and the importance for normal human sexual development of leaving normal human sexual structures and functions intact. Perhaps the reflex is misnamed. Should we call it the "U.S. physician's reflex"? You can see a perfect illustration of the Semmelweis reflex in action by reviewing the posts of Neal Feldman below. Neal admitted that he had never even considered circumcision before reading my article about it posted above by Salem-News.com. And yet he dismisses and rejects "out of hand any information, automatically, without thought, inspection, or experiment" that challenges his presuppositions, his cultural indoctrination, on the subject. Not only that, he does to us who know better exactly what medical doctors did for decades to Ignaz Semmelweis. They called him every dirty name in the book and ran him out of medicine. He died in a mental hospital a broken man. (I don't think Neal or anyone else can do that to me but medicine did it to Semmelweis.) It was long after Semmelweis died that medicine was finally forced to accept hand washing for doctors and health practitioners as an essential precaution against health workers transmitting infectious organisms and diseases to patients. Even now medicine still attempts to blame SEMMELWEIS for its OWN FAILURE! A U.S. medical doctor published in the 21st century a book laying the blame for this massive failure that cost so many people their lives on the personality of Semmelweis rather than the pathetic arrogance of doctors. This is one of the more despicable tactics used by mutilationists against intactivists. You know the lines: "If you weren't so (you choose the pejorative language, Neal can help) maybe somebody would listen to you. As it is everybody knows you're a monomaniacal delusional nutter etc ad infinitum. End of discussion." The issue wasn't Semmelweis's personality 150 years ago. It was the observed fact that obstetricians were killing women and babies right and left and that washing physicians' hands solved the problem. The medical profession reflexively refused to examine the discovery and still today blames Semmelweis for its own failure to do so. Today it's the discovery of the neuroanatomy and other anatomy and normal, important functions of the normal, important ridged band and prepuce to normal human sexual development and life, and medicine's and U.S. society's adamant refusal to examine the facts. Neal shows it best: "Semmelweis reflex" in action.

Sigismond January 13, 2008 4:49 am (Pacific time)

MAKE LOVE WITH YOUR FORESKIN, NOT WAR WITHOUT IT MOTHERS AN FATHERS FROM ALL COUNTRIES, DO NOT THROW BABY'S CLITORIS OR FORESKIN OUT WITH THE BATH WATER BRING THE WHOLE BABY HOME THEIR BODY, THEIR RIGHT Cordially yours, Sigismond

Sigismond January 13, 2008 4:46 am (Pacific time)

Well said God's warrior Michael; when one has a good gun in one's pants, one does not need any other... Cordially yours, Sigismond

Richard L. Matteoli January 12, 2008 10:51 pm (Pacific time)

ANALYSIS: Child Molestation: ((1)) There is an amount of cross-over between the Fixated and Regressed with the social ritual of genital blood rituals. ((2)) Joshua's last attempt with Feminine Preference shows the Regressed Subsitution and Offense of demanding circumcision/prepucectomy for a sex trade-off.

Richard L. Matteoli January 12, 2008 10:46 pm (Pacific time)

REPORT: CHILD MOLESTATION 5: REGRESSED TYPOLOGY: ((1)) Primary sexual orientation is to same age. ((2)) Involvement may be more episodic and may wax and wane with stress. ((3)) Female victims are primary target. ((4)) 'Substitution:' Offender replaces conflictual adult relationships with behavior to the level of the child, pseudo-adult relationship. ((5)) Offense - maladaptive attempt to cope with specific stresses.

Richard L. Matteoli January 12, 2008 10:40 pm (Pacific time)

REPORT: CHILD MOLESTATION 4: FIXATED TYPOLOGY: ((1)) Primary sexual orientation is to children. ((2)) Persistent interests and compulsive behavior. ((3)) Male victims are primary target. ((4)) 'Identification:' offender identifies closely with the victim and equalizes behavior to the level of the child and/or adopt a pseudo-parental role ((5)) Offense - maladaptive resolution of life development (maturation).

Richard L. Matteoli January 12, 2008 10:33 pm (Pacific time)

REPORT: CHILD MOLESTATION 3: TYPOLOGY B: ((1)) Another typoloigy of child molesters is that they are Fixated or Regressed. Fixated most closely represents infant and child genital mutilation with stress to male genital mutilation. Regressed most closely represents demands for adult genital mutilation to both sexes depending on the culture and current power relations including improper medicine.* ((2)) Reference for this and the next 2 posts: Peter Banning, "Typology of Child Molesters," 'Breaking the Cycle: A Fresh Look,' Chapter 5 - Myths, Exlibrus, 2000. Can be googled.

Richard L. Matteoli January 12, 2008 10:20 pm (Pacific time)

REPORT: CHILD MOLESTATION 2: TYPOLOGY A: ((1)) One typology of child molesters separates them into two types: (a) Situational and (b) Preferential. ((3)) The Situational child molester has four subsets (a) Regressed, (b) Morally Indiscriminate, (c) Sexually Indiscriminate, (d) Inadequate. ((4)) Genital mutilators mainly fit the Situational Child Molester subset Morally Indiscriminate, though the other sub-sets cannot be totally excluded because social rituals like gential mutilations allow everyone to participate with their own particular quirk. ((5)) Criteria for the Situational, Morally Indiscriminate are (a) Basic Characteristics: - User of people. (b) Motivation: - Why Not? (c) Victim criteria: - Vulnerability and opportunity. (d) Method of Operation: - Lure, force, or manipulation. ((6)) MISHA 's father may possibly be by the force of his demands luring and manipulating Oregon's courts. ((7)) Reference: Kenneth Lanning, FBI, "Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis," 1992 - can be googled. Prior publication: Robert Roy Hazelwood and Ann W. Burgess, FBI, Practical Aspects of of Rape Investigation: A Multi-Discipline Approach."

Richard L. Matteoli January 12, 2008 9:59 pm (Pacific time)

REPORT: CHILD MOLESTATION 1: ((1)) Child molesters believe they do no wrong and improve their victim's lives.* Child molesters and serial killers are different than other criminals and share the same personality type.* Child molestation, as opposed to rape, is about sex.* Their attack neutralizes their greatest threats first.* In genital amputation rituals this would be the parent. ((2)) References: (a) Lambiet J, "Attorney's suspension may delay trial," Sun Sentinel, Florida, 17 May 1998. (b). "Child Molestation: A National Crisis," google this - from psychiatrist from Nevada State Prisons. (c)Connie Fletcher, "What Cops Know." (d) John Douglas with Mark Olshaker, FBI, "Obsession."

Warrior of Love January 12, 2008 3:15 am (Pacific time)

Here are some suggestions for Dads: Give Boys a Chance. Let boys have their toys. Happiness is a full Gun. Happiness is a whole Gun. Happiness is an Intact Gun. Could baby boys' glass shattering screams maybe be words of consent?

Give Babies Guns! Let them have some satisfaction. End of Circumcisers.

Happiness is a warm Gun back in its Holster. End of Circumcisers.

Happiness is a blown away Circumciser/ Genital Mutilator/ Genital Torturer.

Don’t drive your car without the hood! Stop cutting off boys’ penis parts you cruel idiots.

If anybody asks you if he can peel your boy’s banana, ask the idiot if he wants his carrot chopped.

Pretty soon baby boys will be born with loaded guns. It’s called Evolution. Mother Nature will come through. End of Circumcisers.

If law makers fail to protect our boys from having their genitals tortured, real men won't.

When you go to your son’s birth, take along a Cigar, a Gun, a Bottle of Whisky and two Bricks. If some ass asks you if he can stick a knife into your son’s penis, offer him a free Castration.

When you are done, take your boy into your arms, light the Cigar and take a zip of Whisky. Then whisper into your lovely son’s ears:

“This idiot just made my day.”

Michael

Richard L. Matteoli January 11, 2008 9:36 pm (Pacific time)

ANALYSIS Child Abuse 2: ((1)) The flint knife, or other instrument used, represents penile function. The blood represents the feminine. Socially sexual gratification is mainly intended for another person at a later date and for a person to obtain a sexual partner. Genital mutilations, in a de Sadian way, are meant to desensitize the sexual organs. Thus, the ritual of circumcision/prepucectomy serves two sexual outlets. (a) first is during the act itself.* (b) second is for sexual and social control throughout the victim's lifetime. ((2)) Reference: NOTE: one which Joshua referred to in support to male genital modification: "Some Women Find Circumcision Erotic." http://www.circlist.org/cmatriarchslut.html

Richard L. Matteoli January 11, 2008 9:23 pm (Pacific time)

ANALYSIS Child Abuse 1: ((1)) Genital modifications to children are intentional sexual contacts that alter and damage the child. At times, perpetrating males experience erection and females become aroused. Female participants often perceive a deep religious experience in seeing the glans penis exposed for the first time. This indicates participation in his first sexual experience as if his penis was mature just like raping an infant girl. In the strict Jewish rite of circumcision women are not present. Now, however, women observe with front seat status. Many even hold their infant while the ritual occurs. And, women are now becoming mohels - religious experts. deMause considers circumcisions of all types, including the prepucectomy, incestuous. ((2)) Reference: deMause, Lloyd, "The Universality of Incest," The J. of Psychohistory, Fall 1991, vol. 19, no. 2:123-164. http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/06a1_incest.html

Richard L. Matteoli January 11, 2008 9:02 pm (Pacific time)

REPORT: CHILD ABUSE 2: Monteleone also in "Recognition of Child Abuse for the Mandated Reporter" states: "Child Abuse involves every segment of society and crosses all social, ethnic, religious, and professional lines. The definition of child abuse can range from a narrow focus, limited to intentional inflicted injury, to a broad scope, covering any act that adversely affects the development potential of a child. Included in the definition are neglect (acts of omission) and physical, psychological, or sexual injury (acts of commission) by a parent or caretaker. INTENT is not considered in reporting abuse; PROTECTION of the child is paramount." Caps. added.

Richard L. Matteoli January 11, 2008 8:53 pm (Pacific time)

REPORT: CHILD ABUSE 1: ((1)) Abuse is defined in dictionaries as: a corrupt act or custom and a wrongful use, which injures and damages. It is a deceptive improper use or treatment and can involve physical maltreatment. ((2)) Regarding Sexual Abuse Monteleone's "Recognition of Child Abuse for the Mandated Reporter" states: "Sexual abuse occurs between a child and an adult or older child and is defined as sexual contact or interaction for sexual stimulation and gratification of the adult or older child, who is a parent or caretaker and responsible for the child's care. Sexual abuse is a form of child abuse and must be reported to state child protective services." ((3)) NOTE: When I put REPORT for my posts they are Mandated Reports to the social body, our society, about our society's child abuse on the socio-cultural level.

Richard L. Matteoli January 11, 2008 8:11 pm (Pacific time)

REPORT: CHILD MALTREATMENT TYPOLOGIES:((1)) The National Association of Counsel for Children defines four types of child maltreatment: (a) PHYSICAL ABUSE: Nonaccidental physical injury as a result of caretaker acts. Physical abuse frequently includes: shaking, slapping, punching, beating, kicking, biting and burning. (b) SEXUAL ABUSE: Involvement is with dependent developmentally immature children and adolescents in sexual activities which they do not fully comprehend and to which they are unable to give informed consent. Sexual abuse includes touching, fondling and penetration. (c) NEGLECT: Failure of caretakers to provide for a child's fundamental needs. Although neglect can include children's necessary emotional needs, neglect typically concerns adequate food, housing, clothing, medical care and education. (d) EMOTIONAL / PSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE: This is habitual verbal harassment of a child by disparaging criterion, threat and ridicule. Emotional or psychological abuse includes behavior that threatens or intimidates a child. It includes threats, name calling, belittling and shaming. ((2)) MISHA is experiencing all forms of Child Maltreatment due to his father's possible need to dominate and punish his x-wife. This type of case happens often with divorce. Genital rituals as Physical Abuse in a nonaccidental event. As sexual Abuse it is an alteration of the genitals which is common in Sexual Sadism. In Neglect, the social is involved by its participation in this abuse. For Emotional and Psychological Abuse the threat to MISHA'S genitals is intimidating forcing a subordination to the father and subordination to belong to a social group, and being a minor his right to consent is subordinated to the parent demanding the genital alteration and the social group demanding the prepucectomy which is not the ritual under the original Abrahamic Tradition which is the basis of the claim to do such.

Richard L. Matteoli January 11, 2008 7:27 pm (Pacific time)

REPORT: CHILD MALTREATMENT: ((1)) The American government defines Child Maltreatment as: "The physical and mental injury, sexual abuse, negligent treatment or maltreatment of a child under the age of 18 by a person who was responsible for the child's welfare under circumstances which indicate that the child's health or welfare is harmed or threatened."* ((2)) Note: THREATENED. Misha by virtue of the court case being decided is experiencing CHILD MALTREATMENT on both the individual and social level. ((3))*Reference: National Association of Counsel Children.

Richard L. Matteoli January 11, 2008 7:20 pm (Pacific time)

REPORT: TRAUMA. ((1)) There are two types of trauma. (a) Type I may be a single short-term event such as rape, assault, or even beating. This is the the event of circumcision/prepucectomy. (b) Type II involves repeated long term exposure within chronic victimization. This involves socialized genital rituals where the chronic aspect is whenever the ritual event takes place and even during urination. Women who are extensively circumcised may take up to 30 minutes to urinate. Previous victims are reminded of their status.

Tandy January 11, 2008 12:05 pm (Pacific time)

"Since circumcision is not an operation with the intent of killing.I survived circumcision and live a happy life people who are aborted can't make such a statement."
WHO gives a damn about INTENT? I am only concerned with the outcome--and that is senseless and unnecessary harm and damage. If you are happy with only 1/4 of your penile sensation and sensitivity, who cares? Many DO care, and to rob them of this without their consent is nothing less than criminal!

Richard L. Matteoli January 11, 2008 12:03 pm (Pacific time)

Godsofchaos: You did not have a circumcision. You had a prepucectomy. Go back and read my posts. I don't want to keep repeating. The ritual is a MOCK DEATH ceremony. The book I got this from is not worth the average person buying so I won't reference it. I'm trying to do a logical sequence on Criminology first. The court is deciding the MISHA case NOW, nothing new can be presented to the court, but they can read the paper and forums like this. This forum is an outside chance that the courts are reading. And these connections I'm doing is not allowed. There is an innocent Muslim man in jail for doing a female circumcision on his daughter because this stuff and other stuff was not allowed. After some more typologies of serial predators, I will get into the three forms of Child Homicide. Don't introduce abortion to this issue. Take what I'm doing and use it elsewhere. NOW, if you are serious about abortion get the two books I recommended. Right now you are operating on emotions. Educate yourself to the big picture. Your path has many steps. You have your answer, but you don't know WHY. To jump far ahead of my pathway, google Munchausen Syndrome and Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy. You are talking about the Unwanted Child. We are talking about the games being played with the wanted child. Also, look up Cortical Adrenal Hyperplasia which is a genetic defect common to certain populations which is part of the genital ritual thing. You will see abortion and genital rituals are two different topics, that have some similarities.

Godsofchaos January 11, 2008 5:15 am (Pacific time)

"'Hard to see the Dark Side is.' (Yoda). movie: The Phantom Menace?"Richard L. Matteoli What are you trying to imply or say here? "For your purposes, it would be best and easiest to stop circumcision before discussing the abortion venue."Richard L. Matteoli I think it would be better to stop abortion before circumcision. Since circumcision is not an operation with the intent of killing.I survived circumcision and live a happy life people who are aborted can't make such a statement.

Richard L. Matteoli January 10, 2008 6:31 pm (Pacific time)

Van and Godsofchaos: ((1)) Cut the abortion issue, you both agree in principle as far as I can see. This forum is about circumcision and a child named MISHA. ((2)) GODSOFCHAOS the power of abortion and circumcision/prepecectomy resides in the same place. For your purposes, it would be best and easiest to stop circumcision before discussing the abortion venue. ((3)) REFERENCES: To understand the immense power you are dealing with, get the books by: (a) Jungian psychologist Clarissa Estes', "Women Who Run With the Wolves," and (b) Erich Neumann's "The Great Mother." ((4)) Then as a basis keep in mind the statement on Estes' pg. 9 "Who is the Wild Woman? She is the Life/Death/Life force." ((5)) Then correlate both books to: (a) Why there is a psychological connection to goddesses as goddesses of war, dismemberment, and blood. Forget Ares, he's the male servant. (b) Why it was God's feminine half, the Holy Spirit, who 'empregnated' Mary. The bible doesn't say God the Father played 'hide the salami' with Mary like when Zeus empregnated Alcheme to produce Heracles. (c) Why the Jewish testament says in Genesis that humans were made in "our" image. ((6)) The first 5a being the feminine Dark side, the latter 5b being the feminine Light side. This is similar to the masculine Light/Dark sides of God vs. Devil. ((7)) In chemistry Like Dissolves Like, these are feminine issues. For the masculine, it determines which feminine he chooses to serve. Both the Anti-abortion and anti-circumcision organizations that are most effective are run by women. ((8)) 'Hard to see the Dark Side is.' (Yoda). movie: The Phantom Menace?

Van Lewis January 10, 2008 6:16 pm (Pacific time)

God of chaos says, "So your " That should be "you're". "going to whine about circumcision over stepping human rights" I'm not whining. I'm castrating circumcising. Castrating is not whining. "but then proceed to tell me that PBA doesn't overstep the bounds of human rights." I've never told you or anyone else any such thing. This forum is not about abortion. It's about genital mutilation.

Godsofchaos January 10, 2008 4:25 pm (Pacific time)

"So anyone who circumcises a healthy boy is committing a federal felony."Van Lewis While were at it lets arrest the abortion doctors. "but claiming that babies don't have the right to life is incorrect according to current US law and court rulings."Van Lewis The term "Partial Birth Abortion" was recently created by pro-life groups when the procedure became actively discussed at a political and religious level. We will generally use the medical terms in this section. "The procedure is usually performed during the fifth month of gestation or later. The woman's cervix is dilated, and the fetus is partially removed from the womb, feet first. The surgeon inserts a sharp object into the back of the fetus' head, removes it, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains are extracted. The head of the fetus contracts at this point and allows the fetus to be more easily removed from the womb." So your going to whine about circumcision over stepping human rights but then proceed to tell me that PBA doesn't overstep the bounds of human rights.

Van Lewis January 10, 2008 3:12 pm (Pacific time)

As I remember it now, Neal Feldman said something important earlier in this process that I have been wanting to comment on. Can't find the quote at the moment but his point, as I remember it, was that laws that are unconstitutional are invalid from the moment they were created, not from the moment they were declared unconstitutional. Such a declaration absolves guilt not just of parties who violate the law after the declaration, but also those convicted of violating it any time before the declaration. The obviously sexist provision in the federal Anti-female Genital Mutilation Act limiting its protections to females only is unconstitutional on its face because of its blatant denial of equal protection of the law to all children who have genitals, and therefore has been invalid from the start. This means that the federal Anti-Genital Mutilation Act has applied equally to all children from the start, regardless of sex, religion of the parents, or any other factor, and boys are protected by the law now and have been since it took effect on 30 March, 1997. So anyone who circumcises a healthy boy is committing a federal felony. Jail, jail, jail.

Van Lewis January 10, 2008 2:11 pm (Pacific time)

Godsofchaos says, "Van Lewis I must of missed it when it became allowed for a child to buy a car," That is not a right. Certainly not a human right. "drive a car" Neither is that. "own a house" Nor that. "drink" Nor that, if you're talking about drinking alcohol. "smoke" Nor that. "join the army" Nor that. "vote" Nor that. "run for office" Nor that. "Last time I checked that list above would be considered rights." Check again. They are not human rights. Some are privileges, some may be legal rights is some cases. My statement is about human rights. Children have more than adults. " Also last time I check -ed it wasn't legal to murder adults obviously babies don't hold such rights(abortion)." That depends on how you define the word "babies". If by "babies" you mean "already born children", then they most certainly do have the right to not be murdered. In the USA today the not-yet-born are not defined as "babies" in the sense of being already born human beings. Some people think the definition should be changed to include everything all the way back to the fertilized egg before dividing the first time. It's their right to believe this and to try to get the society to change the definition, but claiming that babies don't have the right to life is incorrect according to current US law and court rulings. "So please tell me how babies and childern have more rights." Already born human beings all have the same inalienable human rights. These are enumerated in the International Declaration of Human Rights. Look it up. Read it. Educate yourself. Children have additional human rights that adults do not. These were enumerated in the International Convention on the Rights of the Child. Look it up. Read it. Educate yourself. Sigismond said, "As an entire fellow, I can say that never on earth, at any price, shall I separate myself from it. It is the most enjoyable part of my sex, indispensable for autosexuality, and it would be totally mad to deprive myself from it." God of chaos said in response, "That is why you will never understand why I am not anti- circumcision and vise versa." I think you can both come to understand each other. It just takes more communication. Thanks to Salem-News.com for providing that important opportunity to all of us. Van Lewis said, "What would the Oregon Supreme court say" ... "to any adult who wanted to cut out any child's healthy eyes, inner ears, or tongue?" God of chaos asks, "Van Lewis Wow what sensory organ did I lose." Thanks for asking, "God". It's called the "ridged band" by the scientists who discovered it in the early 1990s. It is a highly complex, highly organized, highly vascularized (lots of blood supply), highly innervated (lots of nerve supply) human sense organ new to science in the 1990s, found in the inner foreskin, encircling the preputial opening. You were born with one but don't have one any more. It was cut off when you were circumcised as a baby. That violated your human right to have all of your body. It's called the right to bodily integrity. Sorry, but that's the bad news truth. The good news truth is that you can grow a substitute foreskin back with your own skin, time and effort. No surgery involved. It probably will not contain a ridged band sense organ as your original foreskin did, but a faux-skin is a lot better than having no foreskin at all. God of chaos asks, "Can non-circumcised people see through walls or something?" No, scientists and other intelligent human beings can look through microscopes and discover important things about penises that no one ever knew before, like the fact that the highest density of nerve endings so far discovered in the penis is in this newly discovered sense organ in the foreskin. God of chaos asks, "What exactly does it 'sense'." No need for quotes around the word. It senses. Really. Full of Meissner's corpuscle nerve endings, it is known to sense fine touch, like the high densities of Meissners corpuscles in the lips and finger tips and eyelids do. Ever felt any pleasure in your lips while kissing? If they had cut off your eyelids when you were born, or more to the point, cut out your eyes, do you think it would have negatively impacted your ability to see? The God of chaos is a false god. This universe is not made of chaos. "Chaos" is merely a failure of perception. This universe is made of order and the real God creates it profligately and beautifully. Looking at foreskin tissue through microscopes reveals high order. Chaos is far overrated. Order is where it's at. Study, God of chaos. Learn. Sorry to hear the bad news about your ridged band being cut off when you were a baby. You lost the diabolical US circumcision lottery. But you can learn about it if you have or develop the guts to, and then you can help stop this tragic mistake from destroying other babies' ridged bands. Small but important comfort for the genitally mutilated. Saving babies from unnecessary injury and reckless endangerment and sometimes death is a real trip and can be a whole lot of fun. Give it a try. You might like it.

Richard L. Matteoli January 10, 2008 1:33 pm (Pacific time)

Godsofchaos, re: post Jan 10. ((1)) I think some of your examples of rights are actually privileges like driving a car, etc. ((2)) But either way, possessing rights and privileges demands responsibility. ((3)) Good question about lost senses.

Godsofchaos January 10, 2008 12:56 pm (Pacific time)

"They have more human rights than adults have."Van Lewis I must of missed it when it became allowed for a child to buy a car,drive a car, own a house, drink, smoke, join the army, vote,and run for office. Last time I checked that list above would be considered rights. Also last time I check -ed it wasn't legal to murder adults obviously babies don't hold such rights(abortion). So please tell me how babies and childern have more rights. "As an entire fellow, I can say that never on earth, at any price, shall I separate myself from it. It is the most enjoyable part of my sex, indispensable for autosexuality, and it would be totally mad to deprive myself from it."Sigismond That is why you will never understand why I am not anti- circumcision and vise versa. "to any adult who wanted to cut out any child's healthy eyes, inner ears, or tongue?" Van Lewis Wow what sensory organ did I lose. Can non-circumcised people see through walls or something? What exactly does it "sense".

Sigismond January 10, 2008 9:32 am (Pacific time)

" I was circumcised as a baby so excuse me if I don't quite see what the big deal about this is." The great problem with men circumcised in infancy is that they have not got the slightest idea of what they have lost, simply because they never experienced how extremely enjoyable the foreskin is. As an entire fellow, I can say that never on earth, at any price, shall I separate myself from it. It is the most enjoyable part of my sex, indispensable for autosexuality, and it would be totally mad to deprive myself from it. Cordially yours, Sigismond

Sigismond January 10, 2008 9:03 am (Pacific time)

"Some religions feel its important to circumcise their daughters." Girls or boys, one must face the fact that THE AUTOSEXUAL ORGAN is destroyed. This destruction is proned by puritan cultures or religions (Judeo-Christian and Muslim religions notably). Now, the whole psychoanalysis teaches us that the repression of autosexuality is at the root of the formation of the unconscious, and thus of mental disease. Autosexaulity is indeed the very first natural sexuality, begining inside the womb were the fetus gaily practises autosexuality, up to autofellatio..., which has been observed through ultrasound. How do you want that the child should not be highly traumatized when his main autosexual instrument is painfully and irremediably destroyed?!!! Cordially yours, Sigismond (researcher in psychoanalysis)

Van Lewis January 10, 2008 7:48 am (Pacific time)

God of chaos says, " I was circumcised as a baby so excuse me if I don't quite see what the big deal about this is." If your mutilation had killed you you might not have been able to see what the big deal is either, but your mother might have. Being unable to see what the big deal is, about violating children's bodies and human rights, doesn't make it OK to violate them. It just makes you unable. One of the insidious things about circumcising children is that it gives the adults they become high incentives to be unable to see what the big deal is. The desire to not understand the problem makes it easy to not be able to see it. I think they call it denial. "As for death of a child I think abortion needs to stop way before we panic about how circumcision kills." I am not advocating that we panic. I am advocating that we stop killing children for nothing. The method of killing is irrelevant. It is the killing itself that must stop. What is relevant is whether we can correct our genitally mutilative abusive misbehavior toward our children and their sex organs. Godofchaos claims, falsely, that "Children have very little rights as children." The fact is that children have every human right that adults have, plus additional human rights due to their special vulnerability that adults do not have. They have more human rights than adults have. God of chaos says "For example the government can decide to uproot a child from his family even though they have to drag him out of the house kicking and screaming. Salem News had an article on this very issue." And when they do it without just cause they are violating the human rights of the parents and the child. Godoofchaos: "A parent can adopt children and give their children up for adoption. A parent has almost complete legal control over their children." But NO ILLEGALl control. Parents cannot, for example HARM their children. Circumcising always harms. "So form a legal state point it to me seems legal." And to a lot of other misinformed and ignorant people including lawyers and judges, unfortunately for the many children whose bodies and human rights are being violated by such erroneous opinions and who are being injured and killed by genital mutilation. "Heck right now a parent can decide if their child lives or dies on a whim. I believe they call it pro- choice." There is serious legal dispute in this country over whether a fetus is a child. Some people believe abortion, of even a fertilized egg, is killing a child. Some do not. The current law of the land is that fetuses are not children, in the legal sense of having all the human rights that adults have plus having the extra human rights that only children have. There is NO serious dispute over whether children already born are children. Killing already born children is illegal. I believe they call it murder.

Van Lewis January 10, 2008 7:04 am (Pacific time)

Sigismond says, "What would happen if all judges considered violation of the body through butchering the child's sex as a sport?" Circumcising Children - America's Last Blood Sport. "Don't take it away from us, not the very last one!", they scream.

Anonymous January 10, 2008 12:22 am (Pacific time)

In the futile hope of stopping this debate from being side-tracked into the abortion one, I should point out that the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, signed by GBW in 2002 in the presence of several "pro-life" leaders, gave *born* children full human rights. This makes the difference between the rights of baby girls and baby boys that much more stark - and unconsitutitional.

Richard L. Matteoli January 9, 2008 6:29 pm (Pacific time)

Godsofchaos - I like that. Your post on 09 Jan: ((1)) 'Circumcised as a child - what does it matter.' Your moniker. Maybe it should matter. The INNER ANGST. Your circumcision is remembered. Deep inside the part you cannot consciously reach. The Lizard Brain, so to speak. That's where most of our pre-verbal memories reside. ((2)) The rise of serial killers started 10 years after the socialization of circumcision/prepucectomy. ((3)) It was not just your penis that was attacked. Circumcision/prepucectomy is also an attack on your masculinity. ((4)) Peo-choice has a lot of similarities with pro-circumcision, but that lies in the existential. ((5)) Slavery waas once legal. ((6)) "They remember." (Mulldoon). movie: Jurassic Park.

Avendexora January 9, 2008 5:27 pm (Pacific time)

Godofchaos, God-of-chaos – interesting name – A parent can't choose to trim their daughters labia and remove her preputial hood (female foreskin) = FGM type one (same as MGM type one) for the sake of pro-choice or religion. Some religions feel its important to circumcise their daughters. The "cutters" support 'medical claims' to justify FGM. The current laws protecting girls from circumcision make no exemption to cultural, cosmetic, hygienic, religion, or medically unnecessary reasons. She also must wait to the age of 18 before undergoing the operation herself. The 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution states that, “…everyone has the same protection under law and shall not be deprived of that equal protection.” It is clear that fully protecting girls from any form of genital cutting but not boys is unconstitutional. Intact genitals are the birth right of both genders, not just females. Michael Glass came up with a good solution to the Misha case. Wait until he is 18 to decide if he wants to undergo circumcision. Its not the parents penis, or the practitioner's penis, its not the Mohels penis, it belongs to the boy who will live with his own genitals for the rest of his life.

Godsofchaos January 9, 2008 1:40 pm (Pacific time)

Just to add something: I was circumcised as a baby so excuse me if I don't quite see what the big deal about this is. As for death of a child I think abortion needs to stop way before we panic about how circumcision kills. "Parents do not own "their" (as we say) children."Van Lewis Depends what you define as ownership. Children have very little rights as children. For example the government can decide to uproot a child from his family even though they have to drag him out of the house kicking and screaming.Salem News had an article on this very issue. A parent can adopt children and give their children up for adoption. A parent has almost complete legal control over their children.Make reference to legal guardian. So form a legal state point it to me seems legal. Heck right now a parent can decide if their child lives or dies on a whim. I believe they call it pro- choice.

Sigismond January 9, 2008 7:08 am (Pacific time)

To make it clearer, self-mutilation is not criminal, collaborating to mutilation is criminal. Cordially yours, Sigismond

Sigismond January 9, 2008 7:03 am (Pacific time)

"to prohibit the circumcision until the boy became of legal age and could make his own decision" Disturbing a physician through asking for mutilation is unlawful; every one knows it is not a physician's job to mutilate people. So the doctor would be obliged to kindly send the lunatic would consult with such a bid back home and explain him the usefulness of the prepuce. Cordially yours, Sigismond

Sigismond January 9, 2008 6:56 am (Pacific time)

"What would happen if the noncustodial parent of a child objected to allowing participation in a risky sport, such as football?" What would happen if all judges considered violation of the body through butchering the child's sex as a sport? Dismiss the scandalous judge, for heaven's sake; we do not pay him wages for life to express utterly shameful personal opinions in courts. Cordially yours, Sigismond

Van Lewis January 8, 2008 10:12 pm (Pacific time)

Michael Glass makes several good points about the Misha case and then concludes, "Myself, I believe the best solution would be to order a delay to the circumcision until the boy reaches 18. Then he can decide the issue for himself." There is also already good legal precedent for this in the recent Chicago case, where the judge solved the dispute between the parents in exactly that way. The uncorrectable injury to the child was what made the judge, who was Jewish by the way, decide to prohibit the circumcision until the boy became of legal age and could make his own decision. I think that is not only the best solution for Misha, his parents, and the Oregon Supreme Court, but also for our nation and the world. The involuntary circumcising of children not only cuts off the sexiest part of the penis, it cuts off something even more precious, the free will and self determination of the victim. Circumcising violates the most fundamental human rights human beings have. Mutilating the healthy sex organs of anyone without getting their own fully informed adult consent, in writing, should be understood as the criminal activity that it is. I think Michael has discovered the logical solution for Misha and for all children in the world, and that is for adults to mind their own business and leave children's healthy sex organs alone. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

LW January 8, 2008 6:52 pm (Pacific time)

Let the boy decide, when he's eighteen if he wants to be Jewish. If he does, he free to have himself altered. Once your altered there's no going back to the intact state that nature intended for all men. One of the most valid comments against circumcision comes from the Jewish Physician Maimonides, who said: With regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility for everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for the member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally. The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: "It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him." In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision. Moses ben Maimon, Guide of the perplexed, Part III, Chapter 49 Maimonides (The Rambam) (1135-1204) was an important Jewish physician, philosopher and theologian. http://www.circumstitions.com/Pleasure.html#maimonides A parent can attempt to persuade his child to belong to a certain religion, but no parent has a right to mutilate his sons penis as required by that religion.

Michael Glass January 8, 2008 5:02 am (Pacific time)

As I see it, the problem with the discussion about this case is that it has the supporters and the opponents of circumcision at each other's throats about circumcision itself. I don't believe that this is the case at issue before the Oregon Supreme Court. The case to be decided there is whether a boy who is almost 13 should be circumcised for non-medical reasons when the boy's mother opposes the procedure and the boy is too young to decide the issue for himself. People have been debating about circumcision for more than 2000 years, so there is no chance that this debate will come to an end at any time soon. However, the case of the boy in this case could be solved with a bit of common sense. Myself, I believe the best solution would be to order a delay to the circumcision until the boy reaches 18. Then he can decide the issue for himself.

Richard L. Matteoli January 8, 2008 12:05 am (Pacific time)

REPORT: Disorganized and Organized PERSONALITY TYPOLOGY: ((1)) One personality typology is: (a) DISORGANIZED killers are often anal explosive personalities. (b) ORGANIZED killers often phallic with anal retentive personalities. There are 4 types of these Organized killers: Visionary, Mission-Oriented, Hedonistic, and Power/Control. ((2)) (a) VISIONARY: Only killer with biogenic etiology. Etiology may be from auditory or visual delusional hallucinations. They are psychotic: paranoid schizophrenics. Often justifications use theological explanation. (b) MISSION ORIENTED: Their goal iss elimination of those deemed improper and they are correcting a perceived wrong. (c) HEDONISTIC: These are lust killers who kill for emotional and/or sexual pleasure. They are thrill-oriented and sadistic who kill in comfort. Main motivation is just the ability to kill - why not? (d) POWER/CONTROL: These predators seek total domination over the life of another. The victim is subject to the perpetrator's whim. Excitement is in the power and control, through a perceived authority to do so.* ((3)) Quite possibly, through a Mission-Oriented action, MISHA is the object victim being used to destroy the perceived improper mother. ((4)) MISHA may also be the object victim in a Power/Control movement by the father over the mother. ((5)) All of these 4 typologies apply to genital rituals, even the Visionary if one believes the voices heard in the Patriarch's head were not God's. ((6)) Reference*: Sean Wolf Hill, "Nurture Born Killers: The Motivation and Personality Development of the Serial Killer," Wright State University, Fall 1994. ((7)) "Without their death, their pain, without the sacrifice, we would be nothing." (Tyler). movie: Fight Club.

Richard L. Matteoli January 7, 2008 9:25 pm (Pacific time)

ORGANIZED CRIME 3, ORGANIZED OFFENDER: CRIME SCENE: ((1)) The organized offender's crime scene shows order, before, during, and after the act of violence. Their acts are carefully planned. Victims are victims of opportunity; yet, for the most part the victims share common characteristics. There is careful planning and searching for the preferred type of victim. Selection may hinge on age, appearance, occupation, hairstyle or lifestyle. Being socially adept, they try to set up a pseudo-relationship. They often use a type of impersonation to hide their true demeanor. They usually have a clean appearance and dress well. This is aimed to obtain the victim's confidence. They lure their victims rather than forcibly abducting them. Sexual control is required, and when resistence ceases, violence increases. The outcome is largely predetermined. Control is obtained with various types of restraints. Weapons are sadistically used with elements of eroticism. These weapons are brought to, and taken away from, the crime scene. Death is tortured and methodical. Fantasy and ritual predominate. Obsessive-compulsive behavior is indicated in the crime scene. Victims may be posed. ((2)) There is a lot of order and detail to get the MISHA case to the Oregon State Supreme Court. ((3)) MISHA is a victim of opportunity that may be similar to a predator's Signature's Desire of power, control and authority through manipulation for dominance out of selfishness. ((4)) Planning and searching for victims is eliminated when the crime becomes a social ritual as well as "The Basic Social Act." ((5)) The plea for circumcision is a lure and a CON type of approach in the criminal act of genital mutilation. This includes medicine. ((6)) Web sites featuring circumcision/prepucectomy services often show a posed infant especially in the religious web sites. ((7)) "It was routine." (Nazi Doctor). documentary: Hitler's Henchmen: Mengele.

Avendexora January 7, 2008 8:51 pm (Pacific time)

To Robin of January 4, 2008 10:36 pm Your vocabulary is consistent with that of another user. The clues are obvious, your not Robin but rather a man using a female name. I just want to say thank you for helping my “cause” by being so obtrusive. I exposed the flaws in this dubious study and all you can do is ridicule? Thats interesting. The “cutters” and those who advocate amputation of a normal healthy body part on newborns are very aggressive. Many of them like to piggyback WHO for a source even when the WHO has expressed concerns that these results may not play out “in real life”. What good are the results then? Recruit a few black men - amputate the best part of their sex organ - tell them they can't have sex during their healing time; the uncircumcised group is free to use this time for sexual activity - provide the circumcised group with condoms - diligently educate the freshly circumcised men on behavior modification - neglect the uncircumcised group for this study - end it early when there is enough data to manipulate the conclusion to favor the hypothesis and you have a bona-fide biased TRASH. Not everyone is stupid enough to believe this study. I fear for America but at least South Africa has done what she should to protect her Children from mass circumcisions. July 2007, South Africa's parliament stepped in and passed the Children's Act which gives significant legal protection to boys under the age of sixteen form being forcefully circumcised.

Richard L. Matteoli January 7, 2008 8:46 pm (Pacific time)

Continuing ORGANIZED CRIME from post Jan 6, 10:34. REPORT: ORGANIZED OFFENDER: PROFILE CHARACTERISTICS: ((1)) Organized offenders often come from a stable family with erratic discipline. They have a higher than average intellegence, are mature and sane.* They have skilled jobs but there may be sporatic employment. Stressful events, including financial, employment, or relationship difficulties, precipitate criminal behavior. Organized offenders are socially adequate, live with a partner, or dominant female member. They are sexually competent within the limits of normalcy. Though anger elicits the crime, they are calm, controlled, and relaxed during the act. Fantasies are fixed. They take items as tokens from the victim and use them to relive the experience. They acquire documentation from the press. ((2)) Birth, and puberty initiations into adulthood are stressful events. For the parents, family and victims as well. ((3)) The SOCIAL TOKEN is the prepuce, and is psychologically kept not physically kept. Yet, in Turkey, the boy keeps his bloody ceremonial prepucectomy robe and presents it to his wife immediately ofter they are married. ((4)) Reliving with the token is with other mutilating events with the next victim. And here, with each conjugal event whether conscious or unconscious by both partners. ((5)) The MISHA case may indicate how meticulous and determined the dominant parent or family member can become. ((6)) "He plans with obsessive detail what props he'll bring and what knots he will tie." (Helen) movie: Copycat.

Van Lewis January 7, 2008 3:41 pm (Pacific time)

To my comment of January 7, 2008 11:25 am, the Editor says, "Van, the things that are automatically stripped out are anything with html," I don't know how to do html so that doesn't explain deletion of anything in any of my posts, certainly not entire posts. "can you resubmit the post?" Unfortunately I haven't been keeping copies on my end before sending them in. Perhaps I should try to remember to do that. Maybe I can try to reconstruct some of the missing ones from memory. I think at least two whole ones are missing plus the partial. "If not, try emailing it to me and I will put it up for you." Thank you. I'll do that if the main line continues to malfunction. "In a word, we remove comments that suggest bodily harm" How then, can you publish any posts advocating genital mutilation of children? For myself, I am a believer in nonviolence, which is one of the most important reasons I oppose the extreme violence of genital mutilation committed against children. "or illegal acts and those with profanity." I don't think I've written anything like that in any of my posts. I oppose physical violence, even against circumcisers. "They are all approved by a living, breathing person. We do not and will not remove comments for other reasons," Good. Freedom of speech is an important value in our country and I admire sites that honor and believe in it and support it by allowing it and protecting it. The only thing worse that freedom of speech for everyone is the lack of it. "but everyone must remember that this is a business, a news agency, and we reserve the right to do what we have to do." So does that mean that maybe you will censor for other reasons after all? If necessary? I realize that it may not be possible to create a perfect policy ahead of time that will cover all possible situations. "We do not ever set out to specifically censor or frustrate people." Good. I am grateful that you decided to publish my article about the judge's strange words. It's hard to find people in the media these days that have the nerve to publish controversial views, and this in a country that used to be the home of the brave and the land of the free. "Thanks." Thank YOU.

Van Lewis January 7, 2008 11:25 am (Pacific time)

Van Lewis January 7, 2008 5:51 am (Pacific time) ... Why is censorship going on on this site? "Editor: Van, we will delete any comment we wish but your comments were not censored yesterday unless they had profanity and I don't recall any." There was none. You see thie incomplete one-line post as I do at 4:40 yesterday? Any ideas why that happened? There were nasty names that Joshua and others have called us copied directly from my screen and those don't seem to get censored when they post them, but nothing else. Do you have any standards for deletion other than profanity? Is profanity automatically deleted? Can you give us a list of prohibited words? Prohibited ideas? What makes you wish to delete a post? Can you give us any guidance? If I as an intactivist am called a "anti-circumcision zealot" (over and over and over and over again) why is it not fair game for me to call the person calling me that a "penis-hating psychopath"?

Editor: Van, the things that are automatically stripped out are anything with html, can you resubmit the post? If not, try emailing it to me and I will put it up for you. In a word, we remove comments that suggest bodily harm or illegal acts and those with profanity. They are all approved by a living, breathing person. We do not and will not remove comments for other reasons, but everyone must remember that this is a business, a news agency, and we reserve the right to do what we have to do. We do not ever set out to specifically censor or frustrate people. Thanks.

Sigismond January 7, 2008 8:37 am (Pacific time)

TERRORISM AND CIRCUMCISION I – Terrorised children Most societies censure, to various degrees, juvenile sexuality: autosexuality and premarital sexuality. Only a few, in order to prevent it, go as far as sexual mutilation. The latter was born in the ruling classes (rich enough to afford polygamy) of some primitive civilizations, in order to avoid incest through setting up an unconscious terror: the anguish of castration. Indeed, inside the family clan, incest was a strong temptation: grown-up sons lived together with their father’s young spouses; these were mixed with the eldest’s young daughters. Fathers, all-powerful, easily imposed the circumcision of their sons, a cruel but simple warning (a threat of total castration in case of transgression). In several societies, the young spouses gained the daughters’ excision, a revolting destruction. The commercial argument: a deflowered girl is unmarriageable, hushed up all vague impulses of resistance. An unspeakable covenant of jealous adults was established between mothers and fathers, reducing children into quasi-slavery. The most virtuous societies escaped this contagious scourge. In other societies, parents, unable to make order prevail, had recourse to equilibrium through terror. Later on, sorcerers and religious chiefs invented “founding” myths to give the thing a moral basis. These customs are now solidly settled. They have become second nature, extremely hard to eradicate. Even when polygamy, by the force of things, tends to disappear, as autosexuality is a strongly repressed taboo, no one sees, or wants to see, any reason to end with these so-called “cultural” millennial customs. Freud’s theory of circumcision-submission: a symbolic substitute for castration which would formerly have been practised by the primal father, is merely phantastical, projective and optimistic. Infantile sexual mutilation is not a progress but a monstrous regression in the history of humanity. Originally a morbid safeguard against incest, by terror, it is certainly not an accepted submission. It is, by sheer violence and/or lie, a destroying humiliation, quickly forgiven to irresponsible adults by trustful and loving children. Infantile sexual mutilation is not the only form of adult terrorism against the child: strokes, threats of castration, humiliations of wanton authoritarianism, repression of infantile and premarital sexuality provoke as many traumatisms disturbing health and human relationships. II – Terrorist children The compulsion to excise or circumcise observed by modern psychiatry with the victims of infantile sexual mutilation is a consequence of the phenomenon. So was King Saul’s behest towards David in order to gain his daughter’s hand: a hundred enemies’ foreskins (1 Sam, 18: 25-27). Circumcision was often, in history, a torture for the defeated by circumcised men (the English prisoners of the Moguls, the German prisoners of the Hereros in Namibia, the Serbs circumcised Muslims during the war in ex-Yugoslavia, etc…) In December 2000, 800 Christians of Moluccas suffered forced Islamicization, including feminine and masculine genital mutilation. 11 September 2001, a symbolic “Islamicization” of American buildings (cf. Sylvie Vermeulen (*)) accompanies the slaughter of those working inside. The Pentagon, seen from above, figures the hole of the feminine sex. It was pulled down in one point, as if in imitation of excision. The phallic towers of the World trade centre were hit at the place of the foreskin. One may think that these odious outrages were, unconsciously, an alarm signal, a SOS to halt sexual mutilation of young people and that the suicidal terrorists, unconsciously, made shrill protest against this crime against humanity, assaulting the body and dignity of the child at a particularly vulnerable age. The attacks of September 2001 are only one example of violence generated by infantile sexual mutilation: on one hand, as Spinoza and Freud asserted, circumcision is the deep cause of the hatred felt by a number of intact against the circumcised (the slaughters of circumcised ethnic groups ordered by Leopold II, William II [the Herero], Hitler, the Tutsis and Milosevic find their unconscious origin here and vice versa for the Turks [Armenians] and the Hutus [Tutsis]), on the other hand, the record rate of criminality in the USA, the immoderate reaction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the relentlessness against Viet-Nam, the unceasing slaughters in Africa and the Middle-East are symptomatic of the blind thirst for revenge and megalomaniac paranoia of grown-up children. Stately missiles, buzzing airplanes, impressive airplane-carriers, fascinating bombs and well oiled machine guns come and replace, in “hard core”, the fragile foreskins cast to the dogs. Compulsions and phobias explain the warlike temper of peoples of circumcised, pushed up to terrorism and piracy, driven to the worst extremes when it is exerted “in the name of God”. By favouring submission to established order and hyper-aggressiveness to defend it, circumcision gives an extremely powerful spring to endlessly renewed tribal wars. Cordially yours, Sigismond

Sigismond January 7, 2008 8:32 am (Pacific time)

Out of the ten genocides of modern times: Congolese, Hereros, Armenians, Jews, Biafrans, Cambodians, Hutus, Tutsis, Bosnians, inhabitants of Darfur, nine implied circumcised on one side or the other. Except for one civil war (Sri Lanka), all wars, between 1996 and 2002, involved at least one circumcising country. But they were 4 times more frequent in circumcising countries. The death penalty is more than twice more common in countries practising circumcision. Torture is more widespread in them. Excision (practised in half of circumciser countries) only exists in circumcising countries. Cordially yours, Sigismond

Van Lewis January 7, 2008 5:51 am (Pacific time)

My question at 4:40 yesterday appears to have been pretty heavily circumcised. What was missing from my screen was all the nasty names they call us and then the second half of my question, which went something like this: "... but when the pro-intact side responds in kind our responses are censored?"

Why is censorship going on on this site?

Editor: Van, we will delete any comment we wish but your comments were not censored yesterday unless they had profanity and I don't recall any.

Richard L. Matteoli January 6, 2008 10:34 pm (Pacific time)

REPORT: CRIME: DISORGANIZED vs ORGANIZED:* ((1)) Basically, "Some serial killers are disorganized; they tend to be sloppy in the comission of their crimes and careless about the details of the murder scene and ritual. Others are highly organized, with precise rituals that are repeated time and again."* ((2)) These two can be differentiated by analyzing 4 criteria: (a) murderer's action during the offense. (b) victim characteristics. (c) mobility. (d) type of evidence left at the crime scene. ((3)) Genital mutilation rituals are almost always a type of Organized crime. ((4)) The MISHA case illustrates how socially structured and organized circumcision/prepucectomy is. ((5)) And so structured and organized that there are Religious Exemptions to Child Abuse Statutes.* ((6)) References (a) Steven Michaud with Roy Hazelwood, "The Evil That Men Do." (b) Quote from: Cullen, Robert, "Citizen X," p. 261. (c) American Academy of Pediatrics, Committe on Bioethics, "Religious Exemptions from Child Abuse Statutes," Pediatrics, vol. 81, no. 1, pp. 169-171, Jan. 1988. ((7)) "You were born to be murdered." (Calloway). movie: The Third Man.

Richard L. Matteoli January 6, 2008 8:44 pm (Pacific time)

REPORT: TRANSFERENCE OF AGGRESSION: ((1)) Genital attacks are psychosexual transferences of aggression. ((2)) Transference may be defined as: the deliberate displacement of one's unresolved conflicts, dependencies, and aggressions onto a substitute object. ((3)) The MISHA case appears to be a transference of aggression by the father onto the objectified child due to the unresolved conflict between the parents. ((4)) And the child MISHA is objectified to a thing resembling a toy being fought over in the school yard. ((5)) "The child is mine." (Rumpelstiltskin). movie: Rumpelstiltskin.

Richard L. Matteoli January 6, 2008 8:32 pm (Pacific time)

REPORT: SEXUAL PREDATION: ((1)) Sexual Predation may be defined as: a pathologically directed activity, via the objectification of another person from a perceived sexual nature, which often, though not necessarily, possesses the intent to do harm to another, whether the harm is either physical and/or psychological, often including motivations of power, control, and authority for domination through manipulation out of selfishness. ((2)) Sex and violence become intertwined. ((3)) Objectification is the perception of another person as an object rather than a distinct human being. This separation is dissociation. Dissociation is integral to the perpetration of violence against another. ((4)) With a genital attack, whether or not from medicine, a social demand or ritual, the dissociation involves genitalization of the whole body of the victim with the genital body part attacked. ((5)) "Most of these guys have no burn-out point."* ((6)) ANY EMPATHY stated by a predator for a victim is purely self-serving.* ((7)) Reference: (a) John Douglas and Mark Olshaker, "Mind Hunter." (b) Reid WH, "Myths About Violent Sexual Predators and All That Pesky Legislation," J. Pract Psychiatry and Behav Health, July 1998, 4:246-248. ((8)) "We need a visual confirmation. Has the target been destroyed?" (Radioman). movie: Independence Day.

Richard L. Matteoli January 6, 2008 8:08 pm (Pacific time)

Van: re. your question Jan 6, 4:40. It is because, as I have seen it here so far, some have nothing to else say. Those posts have nothing of true substance. Just parsing that requires inspection, shunning or an occasional Bi*ch Slap*ing. This issue appears to be more in subjectivity than in true objectivity. But I'm willing to see where the behavior thread goes. Think it's important - there should be more.

Van Lewis January 6, 2008 4:40 pm (Pacific time)

Why is it that the pro-mutilation side is allowed to repeatedly, over and over and over and over again, characterize the pro-intact side as

Joe January 6, 2008 3:16 pm (Pacific time)

Earlier Joshua tried to compare circumcision with vaccination; I don't think this is a reasonable comparison. The latter can be considered therapeutic whereas the former is not. A medical-benefits or "therapeutic" justification requires: (1) That overall the medical benefits should outweigh the risks and harms of the procedure required to obtain them. (2) That this procedure is the only reasonable way to obtain these benefits. (3) That these benefits are necessary to the well-being of the child. None of these conditions is fulfilled for routine infant male circumcision. Vaccination however is a completely different story. In particular diseases that children are vaccinated against are communicable mostly in casual ways, such as just being in public, coupled with the fact that, to my knowledge, a vaccination is the only reasonable way to obtain those benefits. In the case of circumcision there is nothing that the procedure provides which is necessary to the well-being of the child and there are less invasive, safer, and more reasonable ways to obtain the pro ported benefits.

Richard Russell January 6, 2008 2:04 pm (Pacific time)

Joshua. January 5: "Association between the intact foreskin and inferior standards of male genital hygiene behaviour: a cross-sectional study. O'Farrell N, Quigley M, Fox P. Pasteur Suite, Ealing Hospital, Uxbridge Rd, London UB1 3HW, UK;" Joshua, Have you already forgotten Neal Feldman's rule against information and ideas from "foreign" sources? It is un-American to get any ideas from outside the USA. As a fanatical advocate of infant circumcision, you should know that already. Next thing we know we will see Neal telling you to get your un-American rear-end out of the USA. Too bad.

Richard Russell January 6, 2008 1:55 pm (Pacific time)

Gail, January 6: "Richard Russell dances around the issue foul genital odor peculiar to uncircumcised men by posting a long screed of stuff merely to obfuscate." My post said nothing about genital odor, and had nothing to do with genital odor. My post was about how easy it is to carefully select a survey group and orchestrate results in favor of circumcision in the USA. That's all. I should address genital odor? Very well, here goes. Washing, bathing, soap and water. Water alone for the most sensitive, essentially internal-organs- parts. Just as for women. As Gail says, that is acceptable for women; I say it is acceptable for men. There is no US cultural mandate that women be mutilated to make their cleansing of genitals more convenient, though it is in many places around the world. Soap and water. Water alone where indicated. Wash cloth. Towel. That's all. No mutilating surgery (for any gender) to expedite what is extremely easy at its most difficult.

Patricia Robinett January 6, 2008 11:24 am (Pacific time)

Sounds to me as if the whole issue of hygiene boils down to soap and water, not how much genital skin someone has -- whether male or female. I remember when I first started researching circumcision. There was a 'lady' from South Africa who would go on and on about 'smegma' -- it was years before I discovered the word 'smegma' meant 'soap'. Nature is not stupid. The body is very well designed to function perfectly, given half a chance. As a circumcised woman (see my story in the December 12 posts, below), just as many circumcised men, I also suffered from the curse of not being able to bond with a partner, so I have known many different lovers. Fortunately, for me, I seemed to often be attracted to men who were intact, because those who were cut were totally incompatible with my own physical needs... and besides, the intact male seems to be a better friend to women than the cut male, who seems to be very fixated on sexual gratification to the exclusion of genuine friendship. Intact lovers remain friends even after the sexual relationship has ended -- not so with circumcised lovers... once the sex is gone -- so are they! I have had lovely, loving, orgiastic sexual experiences with men who were intact and usually frustrating, unfulfilling, painful experiences with those who were cut. There just wasn't enough skin. And the dynamics of sexuality were very different between natural and altered genitalia. Cut sex is more rough and harsh and intact sex is more sensuous. I do believe, personally, that circumcision might have a lot to do with why there are so many failed relationships in the USA. But that is a matter for another study altogether. Consequently, I personally have never smelled a rank foreskin. But I have smelled some very unpleasant smelling circumcised penises. And since smegma means soap, and nature is not stupid, then I figure the real difference is that some men use water to wash the soap away and others do not realize they should do that. Circumcision status is not a factor -- information is. Surely there could be hygiene classes or lessons for parents and/or children to instruct them in the care of genitalia, without having to resort to cutting skin. Cutting skin is a very serious, severe thing to do in the unrealistic hope of preventing poor hygiene. People who defend the practice of cutting genitalia are suspect to me. Are they on the payroll of the medical profession? Are they justifying their own circumcised status -- trying to pretend that 'altered' is 'natural'? Did they choose circumcision for their children and are they trying to belie their guilt? Are they members of the medical profession and feel they have to promote the practice so that they will not be prosecuted for a crime in the future? Are they defending their superstitious beliefs? Do they have a fetish for babies' genitals? Are they superficial? Unkind? Ignorant of the effect circumcision has on human psychology? Do they personally profit financially from circumcision? Are they in the medical field? There are people who are paid by different industries to post emails on the internet, to push the industry's point of view. I don't know. But I sincerely don't understand how anyone could advocate cutting genitals -- whether those of infants or adults. I am an advocate for kindness and lovingness. I personally feel that whoever it was who cut my genitals must have been motivated by something other than loving kindness. The medical profession depends far too much on cutting human flesh. There are many other ways to accomplish the supposed ends. Let's come up to date. This is 2008. Haven't we learned better by now? Or is the human race crueler than any animal species? I grieve for my brothers and sisters who are so in the dark.

Van Lewis January 6, 2008 11:13 am (Pacific time)

"Gail" (whoever s/he is) claims "foul genital odor peculiar to uncircumcised men", and admits that " there is potential for vaginal odors". No, "foul genital odor peculiar to uncircumcised women", note. In either case - it's completely irrelevant what sex the stinky child or adult happens to be - odors, foul or otherwise, are no excuse to violate human rights. Take a shower? Fine. Chop off normal, healthy if occasionally smelly body parts? Whoa! Do NOT circumcise children to prevent them form smelling! WASH them. Duuuuhhh. Gently. And do NOT retract normal, non-retractable, immature foreskins to wash under them. And DON'T use SOAP on mucus membranes. Wash children's penises and vulvas with clean water ONLY. Soap only if really necessary to remove oil or dirt and NEVER internally, for boys or girls. WHY are people so stupid? Gail January 6, 2008 5:29 am (Pacific time) Richard Russell dances around the issue foul genital odor peculiar to uncircumcised men by posting a long screed of stuff merely to obfuscate. There is no question that often foreskins harbor foul odors and this should be recognized as a real passion killer but for Joshua to suggest a rinse out with Draino is a little cruel. Women will never deny that there is potential for vaginal odors and most take extraordinary steps to prevent this happening. Uncircumcised men and their admirers should do the same.

Van Lewis January 6, 2008 8:51 am (Pacific time)

Now for the actual content, such as it is, in Joshua's post of January 5, 2008 10:43 pm (Pacific time). Joshua says, "Amputation in the sane world usually refers to the surgical removal of a limb." Joshua needs to read the actual dictionary definitions of the words "amputate" and "amputation": Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - –verb (used with object), -tat·ed, -tat·ing. 1. to cut off (all or part of a limb or digit of the body), as by surgery. 2. to prune, lop off, or remove: Because of space limitations the editor amputated the last two paragraphs of the news report. 3. Obsolete. to prune, as branches of trees. Joshua: "Van Lewis talks of cells (I kid you not)," And I kid you not. " he said 'Circumcision amputates millions of them, every one belonging to the victim.'" Undisputed facts. "But when comparing the cells that comprise the foreskin with the infants immune system which is 'altered' through vaccination." Incomplete sentence. The immune system cells are not amputated. They are stimulated to produce protective antibodies to the diseases sought to be prevented. That's different. "Why was it so difficult for thsi rabid single issue activists to acknowledge that more infants die or get seriously ill as a result of shots than from male infant circumcision?" No such data or even claim has been presented in this forum to my knowledge, prior to this post of his. Even here, no data. No source of evidence for his unsupported claim. "So despite his casual denial" I did not deny a claim that had not yet been made. "... it is clear that he and his fellow foreskin admirers do care only for the foreskin and its retention at all costs." A rank falsehood. It is those advocating and circumcising healthy children and thereby actively injuring and killing children for nothing who obviously care only for destroying the sexual foreskin at all costs including the lives of other people's babies and children and sometimes their own. What an extreme psychopathology. "A pretty bizarre cause to select in isolation of all else given the number of sane causes out there they could sign on to." Back at ya, mate. "Of course his wild eyed claims of human rights abuse do not explain exactly how male infant circumcision may constitute child abuse" Anyone who injures and kills children without clear, present-time, medical necessity and broadly accepted medical justification is abusing them. That's exactly how. "... while non-consensual infant vaccinations are not." I did not claim that non-consensual infant vaccinations are not child abuse and I did not claim that they are. I claimed, truthfully and correctly, that vaccination is not amputation, is a different issue from genital mutilation, one that is under serious medical and scientific investigation and dispute, and that it is not the subject of this forum. I claimed, truthfully and correctly, I believe, that Joshua is trying to drag a different issue into this discussion to try to distract attention from the primary issue, that is whether involuntary genital mutilation is an unethical, illegal human rights violation. I say it is. Joshua refuses to address directly the issue of genital mutilation being child abuse and a human rights violation because he knows that he cannot win that argument, so he wants to argue about vaccinations instead. I will not argue about vaccination in this forum. "It is said that 'prevention is always better than treatment'" Many lies are said in this world. That doesn't make them true. "... but when it comes to foreskin related diseases the foreskin admirers are adamant this should not apply." Because involuntary prophylactic genital mutilation - amputating healthy foreskins (or any other normal, healthy living body parts) of non-consenting persons for preventative purposes - is not medically justified, according to the medical evidence and every national and international medical society in the world that has spoken on the subject - about 18 of them. The damages and additional risks and the human rights violations involved far outweigh any "potential" medical or other "benefits" (there are no ACTUAL medical benefits to the victim at the time of the assault), even if every child mutilated received every "potential benefit" claimed. Very few if any do receive any actual benefit down the road. All receive damage, violation of their most sacred human rights, and additional extreme risk immediately. Some are killed outright. None of this completely unnecessary medical malpractice and child abuse is medically or in any other way justified. It is stone age insanity and it's time it went the way of all other forms of child sacrifice. I do agree with Joshua that I am a "foreskin admirer". He got that one absolutely right. I believe that the human male (and female) foreskins, like every other organ of the human body, are highly admirable in the beauty and efficiency with which they do their important, vital physiological work, and in the benefits they perform for the human beings lucky enough to have whole, healthy, fully functional ones. Foreskin admirer? You bet. "Very strange people, very weird cause." Back at 'ya mate.

Tandy January 6, 2008 5:46 am (Pacific time)

Washing after sex --logical when you know that the foreskin produces langerhin and lysozymes--both kill HIV virus--washing afterwards washes away the protection. But circumcisers deliberately ignore this evidence--along with the evidence that the HIV virus is NOT transmitted through normal, undamaged epithelia.. cut at all costs--even scicnce and logic.

Tandy January 6, 2008 5:39 am (Pacific time)

oh, an american poll (now labeled research)--how cute is that--and from a circumfetishist site no less..defintitly credible-LOL "This is not to say that some women do not prefer and uncircumcised penis, rather it is just to say that in my research through various polls taken (including our own)"

Gail January 6, 2008 5:29 am (Pacific time)

Richard Russell dances around the issue foul genital odor peculiar to uncircumcised men by posting a long screed of stuff merely to obfuscate. There is no question that often foreskins harbor foul odors and this should be recognized as a real passion killer but for Joshua to suggest a rinse out with Draino is a little cruel. Women will never deny that there is potential for vaginal odors and most take extraordinary steps to prevent this happening. Uncircumcised men and their admirers should do the same.

Richard L. Matteoli January 6, 2008 2:11 am (Pacific time)

REPORT: PASSIVE INITIATION: ((1)) Passive Initiation is having another person commit an act without the initiator's direct involvement. Passive Initiation is common with the physically dimunitive female and used by males also - mostly in criminal environs, which include gang initiations to join. Passive Initiation was used by Charles Manson who is dimunitive at 5 foot 2inches tall. ((2)) For genital blood rituals, it creates plausible deniability mostly through religion, part of the existential, in the excuse of a deity demand. ((3)) Submitting to feminine preference is a form of Passive Initiation which essentially creates a psychosexual subjugation. ((4)) With regard to the MISHA case, the court is possibly being used in a form of a multi-step Passive Initiation of first the court and second the 'Ritual Expert.' ((5)) "Are you going to kill my baby?" (Maddie). "No." (Catherine). "Why not?" (Maddie). movie: The Reaping.

Richard L Matteoli January 6, 2008 1:34 am (Pacific time)

REPORT: APPROACH: ((1)) Serial predators use three approaches to gain access to their victims.* They act within their Comfort Zone.* These are the Con, Blitz, and Suprise. Violence never decreases. They use a Service Personality.* These types of behaviors are helpful in correlating the structure of socialized violence. ((2)) (a) The Con is used to gain the victim's confidence. They act friendly and have a calm attitude. Often they wear uniforms. They are confident, organized, patient, and meticulous. The Con approaches over time as the serial predator becomes more confident and orgainzed. (b) The Blitz is brutally violent. Suddenness is not the defining factor. The Blitz approach describes the act itself. Total time with the act may vary. It is commonly used by the Anger Retaliatory type of predator. (c) The victim of the Surprise approach is chosen and a trap is set. They usually attack from behind. Threats are made if the victim does not cooperate. The Surprise approach is often used by the Power Reassurance type of serial predator. ((3)) With regard to MISHA, and Western civilization in general, the Con is probably being perpetrated on the court by MISHA's father. And the father, without needing to go through the courts, could possibly be more comfortable with the Blitz because he appears to be angry about his failed relationship and is retaliating. Who knows for sure. Moods and motivations are complex. ((4)) References: (a) Michaud, Stephen with Hazelwood, Roy, "The Evil That Men Do." (b) John Douglas with Mark Olshaker, "The Anatomy of Motive." (c) John Douglas and Mark OLshaker, "Obsession." ((5)) "This could be the day of days, but the timing must be flawless." (Dame Vaaco). The Chronicles of Riddick.

Richard L. Matteoli January 6, 2008 1:02 am (Pacific time)

REPORT: VICTIMOLOGY: ((1)) Victimology is the study of victim traits. This includes life-style, employment, background, likes and dislikes, financial troubles, alcohol or drug abuse, daily routines, and who the victim last spoke to. These statistics aid criminologists in understanding why particular victims are chosen. They also enable law enforcement to know which type of person is at risk. It also narrows the perpetrator's profile and helps to understand the crimes motive. By knowing what behavior is indicated by a particular type of evidence, the profiler may aid law enforcement in taking pro-active measures to draw out and apprehend the offender. Victimology provides direction for use and in interrogation techniques - e.g., does the perpetrator feel remorse or not? It also helps to provide public knowledge making it possible to warn those most likely to be in danger. Knowing the victim's profile aids the criminalist understand what happened during the commission of the act.* ((2)) A helpless child like MISHA is an obvious tool being used by his father to attack his mother. 'Seldom does the perpetrator of sexual crime attack the object of their resentment.' - John Douglas, FBI. ((3)) With regard to the MISHA case: "These are crimes of passion, not of profit." movie: Psycho.

Richard L. Matteoli January 5, 2008 11:53 pm (Pacific time)

REPORT 2: SEXUAL SADISM:((1))There are two types of Sadism classified as Minor and Major.* ((2)) Minor involves consenting partners in bondage, discipline, spanking, and submitting to degrading acts.* ((3)) Circumcision and the prepucectomy are a form of discipline and creates a social bondage - whether realized or not. ((4)) Major involves lust murder - sexual arousal to the act of killing, vampirism - sexual arousal from bloodletting and drinking blood, necrophilia and cannibalism.* ((5)) Circumcision and the precupectomy are narcissistic* mock-death ceremonies in attenuation. The act represents a psychological killing as well as a type of physical genital killing. Attenuation is a "lessening the severity of," here so no actual killing 'purposely' occurs. ((6)) This leads us to: (a) Victimology, (b) Passive Initiation, and ((c)) Homicide of Children: Neonaticide, Infanticide, and Filicide. ((7)) Genital blood rituals are forms of sadistic pathological group behavior within both Minor and Major Sexual Sadism. ((8)) FBI References: (a) Hazelwood, Robert Roy, "The Criminal Sexual Sadist," Law Enforcement Bulletin, (FBI), February, 1992. (b) John Douglas and Mark Olshaker, "Journey into Darkness." ((9)) "Pathetic earthlings. Hurling your bodies out into the void, without the slightest inkling of who or what is out there." (Ming the Merciless). movie: Flash Gordon.

Richard Russell January 5, 2008 11:22 pm (Pacific time)

Joshua January 5, 2008 http://www.holisticwisdom.com/article_sex_adult_circumcision.htm Good grief Joshua. How many times do I have to tell you? Of course you will get pro-circumcision attitudes from pro-circumcision people and pro-circumcision websites. Of course women in the US will like circumcised penises better. They have circumcised fathers, circumcised brothers, circumcised sexual partners, and they have ordered the sexual mutilation, euphemized as circumcison, of their own sons. What else do you expect them to say? Your website is not only in the US, it is a part of the US, where circumcison rates are the highest. It starts out with a statement from a man who submitted himself to circumcision. I must say for him that he was a victim of circumcision even before he let the brainwashing convince him that he needed a circumcision, but in the end it was his decision. Once he had it done, he can't possibly say anything other than it is the best thing that ever happened to him. How could he possibly say, "Oh I made a horrible mistake?" "I let someone cut off the best part of my penis?" "Now I don't enjoy sex nearly as much as I did before?" "Oh I was such a fool to let people like Joshua talk me into doing this thing?" The fact is he will never say all these things, though he will certainly come to know them to be absolute facts, some day, sooner or later. Yes, of course Joshua. You can always find supporters of circumcision among the circumcised. That's the beauty of the thing; it perpetuates itself by appealing to ignorance, by deceiving people with false claims about how good it is, by intimidating and cajoling those who don't immediately give in, until they finally do give in. This system is just as oppresive as any totalitarian political regime. It has been working well within the shadows of an egalitarian democracy, because until now no one could fight back with the truth. The truth is that circumcision is a useless mutilation of the male genitals, with no proven medical value. It is inflicted on helpless baby boys and imposed on adult men and others through intimidation and social pressure. And there are a lot of us here now to fight back with the truth. Too bad Joshua, you can't get away with all the lies any more.

Richard L. Matteoli January 5, 2008 11:11 pm (Pacific time)

AGAIN, Yes Joshua. Re.your post Jan 5, 9:55: Now you're talking - BEHAVIOR. Though we will probably always disagree, behavior, in its many forms, should be addressed. Yet, I'll continue with criminology and see where you are leading to.

Joshua January 5, 2008 10:52 pm (Pacific time)

It seems the original post got truncated so here is the study detail again, or read at: http://tinyurl.com/2ha42w -------------------------------------------- Association between the intact foreskin and inferior standards of male genital hygiene behaviour: a cross-sectional study. O'Farrell N, Quigley M, Fox P. Pasteur Suite, Ealing Hospital, Uxbridge Rd, London UB1 3HW, UK; Department of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, UK. This study was undertaken to determine whether non-circumcised men have inferior standards of genital hygiene behaviour, as measured by reported washing of the whole penis, compared with circumcised men. Male attenders at a sexually transmitted infections (STI) clinic at Ealing Hospital, London had routine STI tests and examinations performed and were asked about the frequency and thoroughness of genital washing. One hundred and fifty non-circumcised and 75 circumcised men were enrolled. Not always washing the whole penis, including retracting the foreskin in non-circumcised men every time they washed (defined as inferior genital hygiene behaviour) was more common in non-circumcised (26%) than circumcised men (4%) (crude odds ratio = 8.43, 95% confidence interval: 2.51-28.3, P

Joshua January 5, 2008 10:43 pm (Pacific time)

Neil Feldman termed Van Lewis' posts as "More ridiculous spew from the delusional nutter." Sadly this comment has proved to be an understatement. Looking at the issue of amputation one can see just how delusional our anti-circumcision zealots have become. Amputation in the sane world usually refers to the surgical removal of a limb. Van Lewis talks of cells (I kid you not), he said "Circumcision amputates millions of them, every one belonging to the victim." But when comparing the cells that comprise the foreskin with the infants immune system which is 'altered' through vaccination. Why was it so difficult for thsi rabid single issue activists to acknowledge that more infants die or get seriously ill as a result of shots than from male infant circumcision? So despite his casual denial it is clear that he and his fellow foreskin admirers do care only for the foreskin and its retention at all costs. A pretty bizarre cause to select in isolation of all else given the number of sane causes out there they could sign on to. Of course his wild eyed claims of human rights abuse do not explain exactly how male infant circumcision may constitute child abuse while non-consensual infant vaccinations are not. It is said that "prevention is always better than treatment" but when it comes to foreskin related diseases the foreskin admirers are adamant this should not apply. Very strange people, very weird cause.

Van Lewis January 5, 2008 10:37 pm (Pacific time)

Joshua's obsession with washing is dangerous: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/21/health/21hiv.html?_r=1andoref=slogin or http://tinyurl.com/269pj6 Washing After Sex May Raise H.I.V. Risk By LAWRENCE K. ALTMAN Published: August 21, 2007 A study in Uganda has come up with a surprising finding about sex and H.I.V. Washing the penis minutes after sex increased the risk of acquiring H.I.V. in uncircumcised men. The sooner the washing, the greater the risk of becoming infected, the study found. Delaying washing for at least 10 minutes after sex significantly lowered the risk of H.I.V. infection, Dr. Fredrick E. Makumbi reported on July 25 at an International AIDS Society Conference in Sydney, Australia. The researchers do not have a precise explanation for the findings, which challenge common wisdom and the teaching of many infectious disease experts who urge penile cleansing as part of good genital hygiene. Health experts have suggested that washing the penis after sex could prevent potentially infectious vaginal secretions from entering the body through the uncircumcised penis. Washing the penis after sex is common in Africa. To determine whether washing could be recommended as an alternative to male circumcision, Dr. Makumbi’s team from the Makerere University Institute of Public Health studied 2,552 uncircumcised men in the Rakai district of Uganda. The men, ages 15 to 49, were uncircumcised and not H.I.V. infected when they enrolled. Eighty-three percent said they washed with all sex partners. The researchers asked about when and how the men washed after intercourse at enrollment and 6, 12 and 24 months later, including whether they washed with or without cloths. Because of a slip-up, the researchers did not ask details of how the cleansing was done or directly about using soap, said Dr. Ronald H. Gray, a co-author from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Some soaps used in Africa are more irritating than those used elsewhere. Men who washed within three minutes had a 2.3 percent risk of H.I.V. infection compared with 0.4 percent among those who delayed washing for 10 or more minutes. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases paid for the study. The washing analysis was a secondary part of a study undertaken to determine the effectiveness of male circumcision against H.I.V. infection. Earlier reports had shown that circumcision was protective. One message from the study, Dr. Gray said, “is that there ought to be a little time left for postcoital cuddling before you go and wash.” “Don’t just finish and jump out of bed,” he said. Dr. Makumbi and other AIDS experts said they did not know why the washing practice increased vulnerability to H.I.V. infection, but offered various explanations. One is that the acidity of vaginal secretions may impair the ability of the AIDS virus to survive on the penis. Delayed cleansing — and longer exposure to the vaginal secretions — may then reduce viral infectivity. Another is that use of water, which has a neutral pH, may encourage viral survival and possible infectivity. H.I.V. apparently needs to be in a fluid to cross the mucosa to infect cells, Dr. Gray said. If the H.I.V.-contaminated fluid dries, its infectivity may decrease. Adding water could resuspend H.I.V. to make it more infectious. The study findings are counterintuitive, said Dr. Merle A. Sande, an infectious diseases expert at the University of Washington in Seattle, and “show why you have to do the studies, because until you do them, you just don’t know.” Dr. Sande, who was not involved in the study, said, “There is still so much we don’t understand about the complex factors that influence H.I.V. transmission in the genital tract, but this important study will help.” He also is president of the Academic Alliance Foundation, a group that trains health workers to treat AIDS and other infectious diseases in Uganda.

Van Lewis January 5, 2008 10:17 pm (Pacific time)

Joshua, January 5, 2008 9:44 pm, gives a long list of supposedly aesthetic reasons that an adult male with very little consciousness of biological reality might CONSIDER allowing someone else to cut off his own foreskin. (Less than 1 in 1000 genitally intact adult males fall for such nonsense.) None of these stupid excuses for genital mutilation justify in the faintest way the violation of basic human rights necessary to mutilate the sex organs of babies or children. Genital mutilation is a decision for informed ADULTS to make about their OWN sex organs, not about OTHER PEOPLE'S sex organs. My perverted aesthetic sensibilities do not entitle me to cut off part of your ugly, smelly sex organs, Joshua. Why is that hard for you to understand?

Joshua January 5, 2008 9:55 pm (Pacific time)

Further on the matter of the unfortunate hygiene problems that plague uncircumcised men which merely serves to confirm what has been know for ever so long. .......... http://tinyurl.com/2ha42w .......... Association between the intact foreskin and inferior standards of male genital hygiene behaviour: a cross-sectional study. .......... O'Farrell N, Quigley M, Fox P. .......... Pasteur Suite, Ealing Hospital, Uxbridge Rd, London UB1 3HW, UK; Department of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, UK. .......... This study was undertaken to determine whether non-circumcised men have inferior standards of genital hygiene behaviour, as measured by reported washing of the whole penis, compared with circumcised men. .......... Male attenders at a sexually transmitted infections (STI) clinic at Ealing Hospital, London had routine STI tests and examinations performed and were asked about the frequency and thoroughness of genital washing. .......... One hundred and fifty non-circumcised and 75 circumcised men were enrolled. Not always washing the whole penis, including retracting the foreskin in non-circumcised men every time they washed (defined as inferior genital hygiene behaviour) was more common in non-circumcised (26%) than circumcised men (4%) (crude odds ratio = 8.43, 95% confidence interval: 2.51-28.3, P

Joshua January 5, 2008 9:44 pm (Pacific time)

Someone said: "An overzealous imagination coupled with a complete ignornace of the real penis leads one to such utter nonsense." ............ Not at all it is well known that the uncircumcised penis is associated with foul odors. See here: ............ Women's Attitudes Toward The Circumcised Penis http://www.holisticwisdom.com/article_sex_adult_circumcision.htm ............... It seems that a circumcised penis is favored by most women for appearance and hygiene. Furthermore, some women were not attracted to the smell of the uncircumcised penis, where, as mentioned earlier, bacteria and other microorganisms proliferate under the foreskin. This is not to say that some women do not prefer and uncircumcised penis, rather it is just to say that in my research through various polls taken (including our own) that most women prefer a circumcised penis on their lover. .............. A Poll Of 1000 Women From Our Web Site Was Taken Last Month And Here Are The Results- .............. 92% said the circumcised penis was cleaner. ......... 90% said it looked 'sexier.' ........... 85% it felt nicer to touch. ............. 55% smelled more pleasant. ............. 2% preferred an uncircumcised penis for fellatio. ........ 82% preferring the circumcised variety. ........... 71% preferred sex with men who were circumcised ........... 6% preferred men who were not circumcised ............ Why women generally say they like a circumcised penis over a non circumcised one- .......... Visual appeal- Quite likely it is that the glans is exposed in both the erect and un-erect state. .......... Cleanliness- They consider they are at less risk of yeast infections, bacterial infections and STDs. .......... Smell- The foreskin was also regarded as a source of a bad smell and men too thought it was cleaner. .......... Sexual Satisfaction- Increased sexual pleasure from the exposed head. Women who failed to reach an orgasm were 3 times more likely to have an uncircumcised lover this may be due to the head of the penis being more pronounced in circumcised men. However it may also have to do with the confidence of men who are circumcised as well as other sociological factors.

Van Lewis January 5, 2008 9:13 pm (Pacific time)

Joshua asks, in response to my pointing out that we all have the inalienable human right to our own bodies, "Does this also apply to the infant getting vaccinated?" Vaccination is not amputation. Circumcision is. Vaccination doesn't amputate one cell. Circumcision amputates millions of them, every one belonging to the victim. There is serious medical and scientific dispute over whether and which vaccinations might do more harm than good, but vaccinations do not amputate healthy sex organs or any other healthy organs. They do sometimes kill the entire baby, however. The two issues have similarities and differences, but they are definitely not the same. There are great differences. "Or is your concern only for the foreskin?" My concern is not only for the foreskin. My concern is for the whole child. In the article I wrote I was not trying to solve all the problems of the world, only to participate in helping to solve the problem of the violation of the human rights of children and babies by adults amputating their healthy body parts; sex organs no less. Is "Joshua's" concern in his questions to me to straightforwardly and honestly address the extremely serious issue raised of human rights violations of children by adults, or is his primary concern to attempt to deflect attention from the core issue to a different issue that is not the issue of this forum? The advocates of violating the human rights of infants and children won't come out and honestly proclaim that children have no such rights (it is well established in binding national and international law that they do), so they are reduced to trying to change the subject. Nice try, Joshua.

Richard L. Matteoli January 5, 2008 2:13 pm (Pacific time)

YES JOSHUA ((1)) I finally agree with a connection you made in your post 05 Jan 8:54 about using DRAINO, but for a different reason. ((2)) In the African areas where the AIDS/HIV studies occurred there is a high incidence of DRY SEX practices where women create vaginal dryness by using, to name a few: (a) shredded newspapers (b) cotton (c) salt (d) detergents (e) and even a 'special' baboon urine mixture obtained from a local shaman. ((3)) The result of dry sex practices creates vaginal tearing during intercourse. ((4)) Couple this with the high incidence of herpes where open sores exist during a breakout and men refusing to wear condoms and you might have a more complete picture. There is more of an avenue to transmission from Dry Sex with open sores than magically passing through some intact cellular barrier. ((5)) Even HALPERIN acknowledges this and these other avenues should be addressed. ((6)) Look, these and all studies are of necessity limited in nature. ((7)) One perceived connection does not imply causation leading to thinking a magical panacea exists. ((8)) The studies should be done, as Halperin recommended, and it does not matter who finances them.

Tandy January 5, 2008 1:39 pm (Pacific time)

"Someone introduced the words HARM and PROVEN. By now we all know that the removal of their beloved foreskin will always be seen as harmful by the true believing foreskin zealots. When it comers to proven there is little chance that the foreskin zealots will accept any proof or scientific finding that does not find for their beloved foreskin. Radical single isse groups tend to have closed minds on the matter. Sad really. hohum, the usual josh rant and rave--must be what happens when one's brain is crammed with a lot of superstitious rubbish.

Tandy January 5, 2008 1:37 pm (Pacific time)

"Hope for uncircumcised men - a product to deal with their MGO (male genital odor) condition. it has been long known that uncircumcised men often suffer from the unfortunate passion killing condition known as MGO. (see details at ismellperfect.com ) At $9.99 a tube I would say that the other options would be to get circumcised or try a weekly rinse out with Draino. Nothing to say to Josh except-LOL-get a life!!--or at least a brain. An overzealous imagination coupled with a complete ignornace of the real penis leads one to such utter nonsense.

Joshua January 5, 2008 8:59 am (Pacific time)

Someone introduced the words HARM and PROVEN. By now we all know that the removal of their beloved foreskin will always be seen as harmful by the true believing foreskin zealots. When it comers to proven there is little chance that the foreskin zealots will accept any proof or scientific finding that does not find for their beloved foreskin. Radical single isse groups tend to have closed minds on the matter. Sad really.

Joshua January 5, 2008 8:54 am (Pacific time)

Hope for uncircumcised men - a product to deal with their MGO (male genital odor) condition. it has been long known that uncircumcised men often suffer from the unfortunate passion killing condition known as MGO. (see details at ismellperfect.com ) At $9.99 a tube I would say that the other options would be to get circumcised or try a weekly rinse out with Draino.

Tandy January 5, 2008 6:08 am (Pacific time)

Hey, Robin did a sex change come with that name change? Where have we heard this rant and rave before? I am still waiting for you to explain (with evidence) that circumcision reduced HIV rates in USA and Ethiopia--when can we expect this?

Richard L. Matteoli January 5, 2008 1:47 am (Pacific time)

REPORT 1: SEXUAL SADISM: ((1)) Sexual sadism is sexual arousal from inflicting pain and suffering on others. They are the most destructive predators. Focus is on the goal and process. Inflicting pain and humiliating the victim is central. Torture is both physical and mental. Clothes are often cut in body symbolism. Sadists are highly symbolic and often use religion. They have no remorse or sympathy. The victim is depersonalized to object status. Killing is their apogee in obsessive control. Core fantasies are cemented by age 16. ((2)) (a) Males have reported reflex erections when performing prepucectomies and while observing a ritual bris. (b) Females, including nurses, say they experience overwhelming spirituality in seeing the glans penis exposed for the first time. ((3)) References: (a) DeRiver, J. Paul, "The Sexual Criminal." (b) John Douglas and Mark Olshaker - FBI - "Obsession."

Robin January 4, 2008 10:36 pm (Pacific time)

Avendexora's rant of 4 January refers. It's pretty sad to see the sour grapes from a rabid anti-circ fanatic when the tide turns against them. I an beginning to understand how some people can suffer severe mental anguish when a 'cause' that they have invested so much in falls apart through solid scientific evidence. It will take some time for these foreskin zealots to come to terms with the loss of their cause and the the final relegation of their organizations to the lunatic fringe of society where they have always belonged. Kind of tragic really.

Avendexora January 4, 2008 9:20 pm (Pacific time)

Three randomized studies were conducted in South Africa, Kenya and Uganda. Based on the apparent significance of the early results all three studies were ended early (none went longer than 24 months), preventing further study of the trends over time of HIV rates after circumcision. Ending the studies early potentially biased the results towards showing a prophylactic effect of circumcision on HIV acquisition, because who were circumcised were unable to have sex for some period of time and were told they had to wear a condom during healing. Also, since the results were obtained under such conditions – intensive monitoring, education, and full access to condoms – the WHO has expressed concerns that these results may not play out “in real life”. Circumcision is “not a magic silver bullet” to place HIV/AIDS into extinction. Circumcised men can and DO get HIV/AIDS - through heterosexual intercourse. Africa has always been a dumping ground to experiment on black human beings. This is a country where HIV positive men rape newborns and female children because they believe that if they rape a virgin they will be cured of AIDS. The notion that circumcision will prevent AIDS is catastrophic to that Country and our own. This flawed and inconclusive study should never justify male newborn circumcision. We all know newborns aren't sexually active. Infants are not at risk for sexual transmission of HIV.

Richard L. Matteoli January 4, 2008 11:32 am (Pacific time)

((1)) Now that I have covered Narcissism and the personality changes when there is a threat to the Narcissistic Supply ((2)) And covered Psychopathology where the psychopath often turns to Sexual Sadism, I will next discuss Sadism. ((3)) As the Psychopath cuts through the hyperbole and truthfully answers the reason he circumcises question: "We are only interested in friendship. Why do you attack us? (Zarkov). "Why not?" (Ming the Merciless). movie: Flash Gordon.

Tandy January 4, 2008 10:27 am (Pacific time)

"Anon said: "What's preposterous is that lies and strong personal opinions suddenly get published as "facts"." Well this has been a wonderful opportunity for all readers to understand this much from the flurry of posts coming from the anti-circumcision zealots. The sad thing is that they actually believe this stuff and when WHO and UNAIDS publish support for the facts that clearly go against their position they are forced to see a conspiracy against the foreskin of lunatic proportions. One needs to allow these tormented souls an outlet for their propaganda and bile it may just turn out to be therapeutic." So, Josh, other than your usual and expected rant and rave, can you offer (with proof) that circumcision has reduced the rate of HIV in the USA and Ethiopia--both the rates of circumcision and HIV are lower in Japan..so what gives here?

Tandy January 4, 2008 7:46 am (Pacific time)

Ross, even if the material is beyond your comprehension does not mean that it is so for others, each will undetsand to their level of ability--and the rates of circumciison will continue to fall until the only ones done are foir superstitions reasons, and then they will be seen as something barabaric in a civilized world.

Tandy January 4, 2008 7:43 am (Pacific time)

"When Cutting Isn't Cruel On fighting HIV/AIDS against defenders of the prepuce... Circumcision: Fact, Fiction and Hype Thanks for these unsupported OPINIONS, Josh, but they dies in the face of the facts and evidence refutting them.. One has to rmemeber that OPINIONS are like rectums, everyone has at least one, and they should be cleaned regularly.

Tandy January 4, 2008 7:40 am (Pacific time)

"Van Lewis said: "Remember, the real disagreement here, and it is a profound and profoundly important one, is over whether or not human beings have the human right to our own human bodies." Does this also apply to the infant getting vaccinated? Or is your concern only for the foreskin?" The key here, that you are ignoring is the word "HARM"! So only concerned that anything that causes harms have sufficient PROVEN benefit to compensate for that deliberate harm.

Joshua January 4, 2008 1:28 am (Pacific time)

Anon said: "What's preposterous is that lies and strong personal opinions suddenly get published as "facts"." Well this has been a wonderful opportunity for all readers to understand this much from the flurry of posts coming from the anti-circumcision zealots. The sad thing is that they actually believe this stuff and when WHO and UNAIDS publish support for the facts that clearly go against their position they are forced to see a conspiracy against the foreskin of lunatic proportions. One needs to allow these tormented souls an outlet for their propaganda and bile it may just turn out to be therapeutic.

Joshua January 4, 2008 1:21 am (Pacific time)

Van Lewis said: "Remember, the real disagreement here, and it is a profound and profoundly important one, is over whether or not human beings have the human right to our own human bodies." Does this also apply to the infant getting vaccinated? Or is your concern only for the foreskin?

Joshua January 4, 2008 1:19 am (Pacific time)

I am wondering whether the Salem-News will publish the other side of the story? In the meantime while the editorial board consider this option maybe some articles from the past may be helpful to balance the stuff posted here: When Cutting Isn't Cruel http://tinyurl.com/fw4xw On fighting HIV/AIDS against defenders of the prepuce... http://tinyurl.com/333tvo Circumcision: Fact, Fiction and Hype http://tinyurl.com/2n2spd

Ross January 4, 2008 12:36 am (Pacific time)

To Dr. Richard L. Matteoli. As Neil Feldman said of the Van clown: "More ridiculous spew from the delusional nutter." Sadly Richard you (and the other anti-circumsion zealots) should have quite when you were ahead. The longer you continue to spew this garbage the more the readers will gain the impression that you and your anti-circumcision ilk are indeed 'nutters'.

Dr. Richard L. Matteoli January 3, 2008 10:31 pm (Pacific time)

Frankie: re: your post Jan 03, 4:35. ((1)) If you are new here I'll repeat my technique for you. This discussion has been to long to go back and read everything. ((a)) BY LAW I am mandated as a health care professional to report child abuse and molestation. That is why I use REPORT on certain posts with regard to genital assaults on minors as being socialized forms of child abuse and molestation - with references included. I do not believe in reporting parents for a circumcision because of the social nature of the act. My reports here are, in essense, reports to the "social body." ((b)) Also, I split from the medical studies because I think they are circular arguments with many flaws and loopholes. ((c)) The "Ancient Knowledge reports came from Rick's post regarding statement of "Distant Learning." I gave reports to show distant learning/ancient knowledge can enhance understanding.((c)) My emphasis is showing how ritual "The Basic Social Act" relates to criminology, history, mythworking and the existential. ((d)) It requires a different train of thought than the usual discussions on the issue. I will take your 'psychobabble' comment as such. Your 'lunatic' comment is appropriate to the issue of genital blood rituals and social power relations, but that is for later after the criminology connections and deals with mythworking. ((e)) Mythworking is all around us. The reason for film quotes is that movies are our new form of mythworking. And, mythworking is everywhere a relatively important aspect of humanity. Myths relate to everyday existence, expectations, and actions. ((2)) If you are not new and using another name, which has occurred here: When all else fails try abuse, name calling, and censorship.

Van Lewis January 3, 2008 9:42 pm (Pacific time)

I am glad to see that this important debate about children's rights and human rights has continued in my absence. I have been away with my family for the holidays since the 19th. I will read up and rejoin as time permits. Remember, the real disagreement here, and it is a profound and profoundly important one, is over whether or not human beings have the human right to our own human bodies. Some of us believe that we do, some don't. I find it hard to understand how human beings can promote the idea that human beings, including themselves presumably, don't have the inalienable right to the integrity of our own bodies. If we don't, then aren't we living in that jungle Neal Feldman so eloquently described when he said, and this is a direct and an exact quote, "...the natural thing is the biggest guy with the biggest club took whatever he wanted from whoever he could that was unable to defend against it". That's the world where human rights are not recognized, respected, and protected with the full force of the law. Why would anybody want it? It denies the fundamentals of human decency and civilization. My plea is for human rights, human decency, and humane civilization. That has to include leaving children's sex organs intact as called for and forth by human genetics, by our common human and indeed mammalian heritage.

Anonymous January 3, 2008 2:36 pm (Pacific time)

Frankie January 3, 2008 "Is there anyway someone can place a spam guard on these psychobabble posts from this Richard lunatic?" Not sure if I am the Richard of interest, or if it's Richard Matteoli. In any event, yes there is a solution: It's called DO NOT READ what you don't want to read. It won't hurt your eyes, it won't hurt your computer; just pass it by.

Tandy January 3, 2008 12:15 pm (Pacific time)

"Is there anyway someone can place a spam guard on these psychobabble posts from this Richard lunatic?" If so, then to be fair, we need to block Joshua/Jake lunatic also?

Sigismond January 3, 2008 9:22 am (Pacific time)

Limited attacks to the principle of physical integrity committed in the aim of preventive prophylaxis (vaccines) are tolerated by jurisprudence under the condition of being, one, operated for the protection of life, two, proportionate to their aim (European Court of the Rights of Man, 6.10.77; Conseil d'Etat (State Council) (France), 26.11.1), three, submitted to official enquiry. But in principle, on one hand physical mutilation is not a limited attack, on the other hand, elementary ethics considers it unacceptable on prophylactic grounds. Only circumcision has rashly made an exception to this rule but, considering the risks of the operation, no medical society in the world recommends it. Therefore, there is no chance for the last two conditions to be fulfilled for circumcision. Consequently, tolerance for ritual or pseudo-medical circumcision is unwarranted.

Frankie January 3, 2008 4:35 am (Pacific time)

Is there anyway someone can place a spam guard on these psychobabble posts from this Richard lunatic?

Richard L. Matteoli January 2, 2008 9:46 pm (Pacific time)

REPORT 4: CONCLUSION, ANCIENT KNOWLEDGE: ((1)) "The articles of the contract are so precisely determined by the nature of the act, that the slightest modification must render them null and void; they are such that, though perhaps never formally stated, they are everywhere the same, everywhere tacitly admitted and recognized, and if ever the social pact is violated, every man regains his original right..." ((2)) And the original right is also retained by the child - here, MISHA. ((3)) Reference: Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, "The Social Contract."

Richard L. Matteoli January 2, 2008 9:34 pm (Pacific time)

REPORT 3: ANCIENT KNOWLEDGE: ((1)) Two Hebrew words in the Jewish testament used for circumcision are "namal" and "muwl." ((2)) "Namal" is a clipping that only cuts the tip of an object. ((3)) "Muwl" means to blunt an edge shorter. ((4)) Neither word indicates complete removal. ((5)) Again, from the meaning of the testamental language, it is innapropriate to plead to the courts that any child should have a PREPUCECTOMY under Mosaic Law or Abrahamic Covenantial tradition - including MISHA. ((6)) Reference: (a): Jezek, Laura, "What the Bible Really Says About Routine Infant Circumcision." (b) Singer, Isaac Bashevis, "The Case for Brit without Milah."

Richard L. Matteoli January 2, 2008 9:02 pm (Pacific time)

REPORT 2: ANCIENT KNOWLEDGE: ((1)) The ancients differentiated between the prepuce and foreskin. ((2)) The prepuce is the entire natural skin covering the glans penis. In Greek, the word is "posthe." ((3)) The foreskin is the skin that extends beyond the glans penis and constitutes a small part of the prepuce. The Greek word for the foreskin is "akroposthion." ((4)) This difference also applies to the words used in the Torah. Full glans exposure did not occur until the ritual was changed in 140 AD. ((5)) Thus, the ritual was changed from only a tip of the prepuce being removed to removing the whole prepuce, but the same word was kept - so the Word of God was changed and is an acknowledged as a sin. ((6)) The new procedure is properly termed a PREPUCECTOMY not circumcision. Note: I to fall into the conventional vernacular. ((7)) Thus it is innapropriaste to plead to the court under Mosaic Law and Abrahamic Covenantial tradition that any one, including MISHA, should have their entire prepuce removed, which constitutes a prepucectomy - not a circumcision. ((7)) References: (a): Hodges, Fredrick, "The Ideal Prepuce in Ancient Greece and Rome:.., The Bulletin of the History of Medicine, vol. 75: pp. 375-405, Fall 2001. (b): Werblowski, RJZ, "The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion," Oxford University Press, 1997.

Sigismond January 2, 2008 8:44 am (Pacific time)

"I am a jealous God who punishes the crime of fathers upon sons up to... great-grandfathers... ". This is the first historical institution of an out of the statute of limitations penalty... Cordially yours, Sigismond

Richard L. Matteoli January 2, 2008 3:32 am (Pacific time)

Sorry: Hathor initial reference to post Jan 2, 1:29 am. Schaalje, Jacqueline, "Timna," The Jewish Magazine, (Archeology in Israel), October 2005.

Richard L. Matteoli January 2, 2008 1:29 am (Pacific time)

RICK re your post Dec 23, 07 on 7:05 you mirror image mentioned "Distant Learining" which leads to: REPORT 1: ANCIENT KNOWLEDGE. ((1)) Hope everyone enjoyed SATURNALIA honoring the pagan holiday of the birth of the god Mithros on 25 December. ((2)) Saturnalia celebrated the health and well-being of children. This forum is about MISHA. ((3)) Saturnalia was incorporated as a Christian celebration for the birth of Jesus by Emperor Constantine to consolidate power. ((4)) Saturn was the metaphorical god Mithros as the sun was the metaphorical Egyptian god Ra. ((5)) Saturn was the star of the Hebrews. ((6)) Saturn is the star Rapham in association to the Golden Calf worship that occurred in Exodus. ((7)) Golden Calf ceremonies were a part of Hathor worship. ((8)) After Solomon the Hebrews built two temples for Golden Calf ceremonial worship which were a part of 'doing evil in the eyes of the Lord.' ((9)) The Midianites worshipped Hathor as their Great Mother goddess and fertility goddess. ((10)) Hathor's son Horus, her animus projection, when he would transform into an animal would have a flint knife paw. ((11)) Moses' wife was a Midianite. ((12)) Moses' wife circumcised their son with a flint knife, not Moses. ((13)) The god mentioned in the Moses' wife's circumcision story was Horus. ((14)) CIRCUMCISION in any form is an INCORPORATION of HATHOR worship into the Hebrew structure and practice similar to the incorporation of Saturnalia into Christianity. ((15)) Thus, circumcision, in ANY FORM, is not a true part of any JERUSALEMIC TRADITION and improper to indicate as such to the courts.

Richard Russell December 29, 2007 1:18 am (Pacific time)

Ref. Josh December 22, 2007 "Richard Russell deals with the rebuttal of the anti-circumcision organized and funded excuse of a study by shooting the messengers." First of all, what rebuttal? Waskett and Morris rebutted nothing. They engaged in some percentage puffing and numerical magic to come up with nothing which they described as something. For the record, I have shot no one. Actually Josh, the saying is from ancient Greece, when they had no firearms. It goes like this: "kill the messenger." I suppose you are upset that I killed the message. You see, there actually is a difference. It is your buddies Brain and Jake who engage in ad hominem attacks; I attack messages and unsubstantiated claims and numerical mumbo jumbo. I do not attack persons except to expose their various biases, if indeed that is any attack. "I guess they do that when they are unable to answer the rebuttal. Who does he think he is fooling when it is so obvious that that disgusting in-house study has been exposed as a fraud?" Who is fooling whom? What proof do you have that the penile touch study was fraudulent? I suggest that you might want to have your proof ready when you accuse a distinguished group of physicians and other health care specialists of fraud. Check with your attorney about definitions of defamation, slander, and libel. Make a special inquiry about criminal defamation, perhaps to your local District Attorney. And Josh, please give me a citation to support your self-serving theory that everyone opposed to circumcision is always wrong simply because they take that position, while everyone in favo[u]r of circumcision is always right, simply because they take that position. It seems to me to be a somewhat strange rule of logic that is not accepted in most civilized cultures I am aware of.

Richard L. Matteoli December 27, 2007 8:52 pm (Pacific time)

Brian: re your post Dec 25, 9:04 equating with WHO and UNAIDS, Dr. Lifton again in 'The NAZI DOCTORS: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide" wrote: ((1)) "Genocide is a response to collective fear of pollution and defilement... Purification tends to be associated with sacrificial victims, whether in primitive or contemporary religions or secular terms. Genocide can be understood as a quest to make sacrificial victims out of an entire people... It becomes an all-or-none matter, equally absolute in its claim to truth and in its rejection of alternate claims... Medical materialism can overlay symbol systems that closely parallel those of primitive purification rituals... As it becomes total - the violent cure draws upon all facets of the perpetrators' culture.. (ie. first the men, then the adolescents, then the children WHO mantra). ((2)) Your Hiel mantra appears to be telling everyone from an inappropriate Ivory Tower you sound off on: 'Drop to your knees.' (The Purifier). movie: The Chronicles of Riddick.

Richard L. Matteoli December 27, 2007 8:06 pm (Pacific time)

Josh: re: Post Dec 25 9:12. ((1)) Lifton in 'The NAZI DOCTORS: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Killing" mentions the Nazi use of social purifications. Eugenics, patterned after American eugenics, and the concentrating on Auschwitz stated: ((2)) "If you are curing a sickness ANYTHING is possible. The image of cure leads to the restorative myth of state violence and to the literal enactment of that myth... The key to understanding how Nazi doctors came to do the work in Auschwitz is the psychological principle I call 'Doubling': the division of the self into two functioning wholes, so that a part-self acts as the entire self. An Auschwitz doctor could through doubling, not only kill and continue to kill but organize silently, on behalf of that evil project, an entire self-structure (or self-process) encompassing virtually all aspects of his behavior. What is repudiated is not reality itself - the individual Nazi doctor was aware of what he was doing via the Auschwitz self - but the meaning of reality. Disavowel was the lifeblood of the Auschwitz self... Doubling can include elements characteristic of 'psychopathic' character impairment... Doubling may well be an important psychological mechanism for individuals living within any CRIMINAL SUBSTRUCTURE." ((3)) Your mantra about the human prepuce appears to be: "They have contaminated you." movie: Lost Souls.

Richard L. Matteoli December 27, 2007 6:58 pm (Pacific time)

Brian, ((1)) re your poorly informed post Dec 25 9:04 by endorsing, relying on and citing WHO and UNAIDS only joins you to their absurdity - which leads to: ((2)) "Once you give up your integrity, the rest is a piece of cake." (J.R Ewing) Television - Dallas.

Richard L. Matteoli December 27, 2007 6:48 pm (Pacific time)

Josh: Dec 25, 9:12. ((1))There is NO "biomedical imperative." You talk like it's a Nazi Doctor 'purification ritual." If you cared to read Sigismond Dec 26, 9:48 you will find the: BIOLOGICAL IMPERATIVE of the human prepuce. ((2)) "Man, you come right out of a comic book." movie: Enter the Dragon.

Richard L. Matteoli December 27, 2007 6:26 pm (Pacific time)

Albert M. Re: your post: ORGAN HARVESTING: The American male prepuce is being harvested for the cosmetics industry. Once taken, the tissue becomes the property of the facility that took it. The prepuce is used in research. For cosmetics they make PENTAPEPTIDES from the prepuce. One cosmetic, among many, that uses pentapeptides is OLAY REGENERIST. This feeds the Dorian Gray Syndrome: The fear of growing old. Was even a segment on the Oprah program. Lots of $$$ involved in this. Google: 1) pentapeptides 2) Dr. Patricia Wexler 3) Olay Regenerist.

Richard Russell December 27, 2007 11:33 am (Pacific time)

Ref Josh, December 25, 2007: "'Circumcision of males represents a surgical "vaccine" . . .'" There is no such thing as "surgical vaccine." Repeat, THERE IS NO SUCH THING as "surgical vaccine." That is an invented rhetorical term to enhance the status of voodoo science and junk science, which cannot stand alone on its scientific value. Give me a citation to one medical or scientific dictionary or standard reference work that gives a definition of "surgical vaccine." Just one, Joshua, JUST ONE. Let alone several to prove the one isn't an abberration. Wikipedia does not count, as you could go there right now and put it in. "It has no adverse effect on penile sensitivity, function, or sensation during sexual arousal." Along with all your other false assertions, just above this one, you have no authority to cite other than papers prepared by persons who are confirmed advocates of circumcision. They write papers to validate their beliefs, and to validate their mutilated penises. With regard to the immediate assertion above, you have only more home-cooked "studies," two of which are recent: The Payne study, which DID NOT ASSESS the ridged band of the foreskin itself. Its lead author, Payne, knew how faulty her so-called "study" was, and has used the disingenusous device of claiming to be opposed to circumcision as a weak means of trying to give some validity to her "study." Then you have the more recent "Africa study" co-authored by one of the lead "researchers" in one of the African AIDS studies. But of course! The "new scientists" of AIDS-in-Africa-is-our-disease-to-cure studies need some "proof" that what they are doing is harmless. So they coat-tail another study to do just that among newly circumcised men who asked for it and now have much less penis (both quality and quantity wise). They MUST defend their new penises. What else can they do? "Oh, how I hate my mutilated penis. Oh, how I wish I hadn't asked to have a big part of it cut off." Do you really believe any man will say that even if it is the abosolute truth? And have everyone laugh at him for being such a fool? EVEN IF, the study was done on the level, it involved adult circumcisions which are done on a much larger object that has completed its development. An adult organ is much less likely to be damaged than is an infant organ. An infant penis is extremely small and in many cases has not completed its development when it is savagely assaulted by a procedure widely hailed for its ability to inflict damage to sexualy sensing at the time it was introduced into Anglophone cultures in the late 19th century. Now that we have come to a place in history when we hail sexual pleasure rather than its destruction, YOU JOSHUA, and all the other fanatical advocates of circumcision want to forget that bit of history. Perhaps you can install a Fuehrer who will order all history of that other moment in history to be destroyed: In order that the mutilation of the male sexual organ can procede without opposition. "Most women prefer the circumcised penis for appearance, hygiene and sex." Most women where? Where, Joshua? Women in circumcising cultures have been indoctrinated and brain-washed into believing a circumcised penis is the norm. Their fathers and brothers are circumcised. Their male mates are circumcised. They have had their sons circumcised. How could they believe otherwise? Yet many from circumcising cultures, who have studied the issue, and many who have had sexual relations with both types, have learned that an intact, unmutilated penis is a thing of beauty as a beneficient creator designed it. To them it's a thing of beauty in both the aesthetic sense and in its functioning as a pleasure giving and receiving organ. Women who live in non-circumcising cultures see it as a non-issue. To them, "Natural is normal. Normal is normal. Mutilated is mutilated. Why would anyone want to do that? To prevent diseases? But yes, we have less of those diseases than they have. What is wrong with them?" "http://www.circinfo.net/" An extremely dangerous website that presents only the faulty arguments in favor of circumcision. Anyone who goes there should be aware of the danger of being taken in by the Cult of Circumcision. "Buyer" beware.

Albert Marnell December 27, 2007 9:48 am (Pacific time)

We are going backwards in this country. This topic reminds me of the eugenic sterilization laws that existed in this country starting in 1907. The last forced sterilization was done as late as 1980. Why don't we do "Organ Harvesting" like they do in China? This is where the government kills people in prisons for real and political crimes, then sells their organs to the highest bidder. We are going further and further down to third world standards in the Western Nations. Positively DIGUSTING!

Hugh December 26, 2007 3:36 pm (Pacific time)

Rick: "When I read what these anti circ fanatics post I am reminded of some now distant learning: Tenets of Sanity 1. Anyone who claims to be 100% certain is lying. 1a. The caveat being that if they are not lying, then they are most likely insane." Who claims to be 100% certain? Look at the record. A baby is horribly damaged from circumcision, but the parents say they will circumcise the next. Now *that's* 100% certain. What you miss is that circumcision (and fanatical advocacy of circumcision) has been so normalised in the US that anatomy texts show a circumcised penis as "normal". Masters and Johnson, and Payne et al. could claim to demonstrate that circumcision has no effect on sexual functioning without measuring the foreskin. From an outside point of view, cutting off part of every baby's penis (and holding scientific studies after doing it for decades - I'm referring to the "medical" practice - to show that it is beneficial) is bizarre in the extreme. You don't have to be a fanatic to think so, just unblinkered. And from this point of view, leaving a baby's genitals alone seems obvious.

Sigismond December 26, 2007 9:52 am (Pacific time)

Amputation for prophylactic purpose is rigourously unethical and thus contrary to medical deontology. Cordially yours, Sigismond

Sigismond December 26, 2007 9:48 am (Pacific time)

THE FORESKIN, A FORMIDABLE SEXUAL INSTRUMENT (advance sheets from "Sexual mutilation, the child's point of view", a free e-book available at http://groups.msn.com/circabolition or at intactwiki.org) a) The preputial enjoyment, a “feminine” enjoyment Only lie down on your back, Sirs, and let a woman make love astride to you, a technique in which the pleasure of the eyes is not the smallest. If she should have a minimum of expertise, you will observe that she does not do it like you; no rhythmic, hurried for satisfaction movements. It is a slow caress, of unsettled speed, very soft and seeking the intense, fine and delicate sensations of the feminine enjoyment. This “Tease me, don’t squeeze me” can last for hours. Some people say that this pleasure, in which woman “dominates”, was that of Lilith and Adam whilst the enjoyment or the circumcised is that of Adam and Eve, we shall see why in chapter V. Now make love to yourself through stroking your foreskin dry, without decapping, and you will know the lively and silky purely preputial enjoyment. Its isolated orgasmic contractions do not lead to orgasm. On the contrary, they seem to induce the closing of a sphincter impeding and controlling ejaculation. They are all the more numerous and smooth than the caress is lighter and slower. It is the enjoyment of the preludes, intense and refined, indefinitely extendable, of variable sharpness and the centre of which, subtly and unpredictably, moves from the perineum to the tip of the penis passing through the scrotum. The excitement can reach extreme levels to diminish then but it seems that the best of it precisely lays in variations that permit each time a new discovery. But let us not exaggerate; the French say “préputial” rather that “préputiel” because heaven (“ciel” in French) is in the other sex. But those refined pleasures are totally unknown to the circumcised, and even to some whole men... The amputation of the foreskin is irreversible; it destroys around 90-120 cm2 of skin and mucosa: twice (outer face and inner face) 4.5-5 cm of length by 10-12 cm of diameter. Then the foreskin contains 116 nerve endings per cm2 . The loss is thus around 10 to 14 000 nerve endings. But, Bazett did not mention certain types of nerve endings present in the foreskin and these figures are underestimated. This sensitivity is constituted both by a great affluence in fine-touch sensory receptors 3, and by erogenous receptors. This alliance bestows the foreskin an exquisite ability of stimulation... The experimental study by Sorrells and al. about penile fine-touch sensitivity confirms the works of Head about the great insensitivity of the glans. They also disclose a certain fine-touch sensitivity of the corona of the glans (a part traditionally considered as most erogenous). This fine-touch sensitivity of the corona is reduced by 20% with the circumcised. They also show on one hand that the orifice ring (existing with the intact) – cf. Taylor’s discovery below – is the area with the highest fine-touch sensitivity, on the other hand that this sensitivity is twice that of the most sensitive part of the circumcised penis (scar). So, they bring experimental evidence that the fine-touch sensitivity of the foreskin (yet nothing could be said about erogenous sensitivity) makes it the privileged organ of sexual caress, very particularly dry caress. On one hand circumcision amputates the most sensitive-to-strike part of the penis, on the other hand the fine-touch pressure thresholds of circumcised are, as regards to their little remains of penile skin, equal (only for the scar) or higher than intact’s, who are thus more sensitive. The synergy between fine-touch sensitivity and erogeneity makes the foreskin an irreplaceable sexual organ... Let us complete this description with the image of the accordion that marvellously describes the functioning of the foreskin. Its possibilities of both lateral and longitudinal stretching make it an extraordinary multidimensional love accordion. Under solicitation, the foreskin and the glans first reciprocally massage each other, narrowly and intimately. Only after total retraction does the foreskin deserve the best comparison with the accordion, moreover massaging the shaft. In this use, it can operate independently of the glans in order to trigger orgasm... Furnished with its ring, the foreskin is the specific organ of autosexuality. The very wealth of this instrument, irrevocably destroyed by prepucectomy, is aimed at by puritan and youth domineering religions and customs that advocate the operation in order to hamper autosexuality. These religions and customs erect a veritable “Wall of silence” around everything touching infantile sexual mutilation. Taylor’s discovery has never been given media coverage. In spite of the major interest for humanity of the finding of a till now ignored sexual organ, he did not receive the Nobel Prize. Neither did Foldès for his discoveries about the clitoris and his operation of reconstruction of that organ. Sex is not Nobelizable... The ablation thus destroys the lid of the main masculine erogenous organ. The thin, smooth and silky mucosa of the glans is no longer protected from the constant rubbing of clothes, a permanent source of irritation, contrary to the natural comfort of the absolutely necessary sheath, elastic and warm (it is not mere skin but veritable flesh, including a peripheral muscle: the dartos). Whereas the glans is supersensitive to cold 5, the foreskin protects it from chilblain, of which the circumcised may suffer in extreme cold (northern countries, high mountain). The hypersensitive mucosa of the glans becomes skin, 10 times thicker , dry and coarse. A study showed that penile sensitivity of whole men is 25-30% higher than that of circumcised men. Love is intended by nature mucosa against mucosa (some see there a promise of subtle exchange) and not skin against mucosa. It is not an exercise of gymnastic or massage but a demonstration of tenderness... The second consequence of that absence or protection, progressive impotence – in varying degrees – is insidious; it reveals itself in the very long run only. It is much more frequent with the circumcised 16, 18, , , . Cases are thus numerous in the United States: 52% of the 1 290 random selected subjects of a study, aged between 40 and 70 21. The success of Viagra in the United States and its relative failure in Europe, have no other explanation. We can predict that it will easily be sold to wealthy Africans and Muslims... 4° The unique autosexual function of the foreskin Manusexuality of the foreskin through the prized autosexual technique known as "the prayer" is the most inescapable demonstration of the formidable erogenous efficiency of the foreskin. Its circular gliding by both hands joined and rubbed the one against the other around the sheathed glans, in a lateral instead of longitudinal movement, is the fastest way to achieve orgasm; less than two minutes. The recipe can certainly be applied to the vulva. Ablation of the foreskin besides destroys the fraenulum. This small square centimetre is man’s most erogenous area, a true erotic acupuncture point. Conclusion Like petals around the cherry of the glans, the foreskin is the protective cover of its fragile mucosa. Its sexual response makes it the privileged organ of erotic caress. For all those who enjoy the extreme sensitivity of the sexual mucosa and skin in their natural state, stripping the child from this sexual organ is an as inhuman as obscene act. Sorry, the bibliography does not pass through. See in in the original. Cordially yours, Sigismond

Sigismond December 26, 2007 9:33 am (Pacific time)

Letter to the Editor of the British Journal of Urology International, published 2003 n° 91, p. 429-30. Sir, UTIs of the newborn are very easy to cure but in the USA, proponents of the removal of the foreskin support it as a major prophylactic measure. Winberg (and others) countered this view in 1989 (1): "It is suggested that the effect of one unphysiological intervention are counterbalancing those of another, i.e. colonization of the baby's gastrointestinal tract and genitals in maternity units by Escherrichia coli strains of non-maternal origin, to which the baby has no passive immmunity. As an alternative to circumcision to prevent early infantile male UTI, more natural colonization could be promoted by strict rooming-in of the mother and baby or by active colonization of the baby with his mother's anaerobic flora" (1). Other authors (2-4) highlighted this proposal but the views were published in either an English review (2) or in relatively obscure American or French publications (3, 4). Winberg's proposal has not been properly considered in the USA; it was not even cited in the last policy statement of the American academy of Pediatricians (5), which seems to be reticent on this major scientific issue. It is time that this view was given more attention worldwide. Winberg and his supporters are unexpectedly in agreement with Leboyer's cause for the sake of nature: the mother and her baby must never be separated (6). (1) Winberg J., Bolgren I., Hertelius M., Tullus K., The prepuce: a mistake of nature? Lancet 1989; i: 598-9 (2) Thomson R.S. Is routine circumcision indicated in the newborn? An opposing view. J Fam Pract 1990; 31: 189-96. (3) Zwang G. Quel avenir pour la circoncision? contraception, fertilité, sexualité 1995; 23: 350. (4) Dritsas L.S. Below the belt: doctors, debate, and the ongoing American discussion of routine neonatal male circumcision. Bull Sci Technol Soc 2001; 21: 297-311. (5) Anonymous. Circumcision policy statement. American Academy of Pediatrics. Task force on circumcision. Pediatrics 1999; 103: 686-93. (6) Leboyer F. Birth without violence. Rochester; Inner traditions ltd. 1995. Cordially yours, Sigismond

Tandy December 26, 2007 5:56 am (Pacific time)

Gee, Josh/Jake, still quoting BM's site.. do you have any actual studies, or just his nonsense.. In fact, dio you have the rates for these conditions/problems for intact countries and for cutting countries? Do you see these alleged reductions for circumcision? Ask Brian where they might be hiding.

Tandy December 26, 2007 5:53 am (Pacific time)

Gee Brian, do you not have a brain, are you unable to critically anlyze the HIV studies, Are you unable to see the obvious flaws, are you unbale to see that the claims for this reduction do not manifest themeselves? Do you not understand the scientific process? Apparently not if you believe some OPINION from others just as limited in metal faculties. Gotta love the sheeple!

Josh December 25, 2007 9:12 pm (Pacific time)

Why circumcision is a biomedical imperative for the 21(st) century."Circumcision of males represents a surgical "vaccine" against a wide variety of infections, adverse medical conditions and potentially fatal diseases over their lifetime, and also protects their sexual partners. In experienced hands, this common, inexpensive procedure is very safe, can be pain-free and can be performed at any age. The benefits vastly outweigh risks. The enormous public health benefits include protection from urinary tract infections, sexually transmitted HIV, HPV, syphilis and chancroid, penile and prostate cancer, phimosis, thrush, and inflammatory dermatoses. In women circumcision of the male partner provides substantial protection from cervical cancer and chlamydia. Circumcision has socio-sexual benefits and reduces sexual problems with age. It has no adverse effect on penile sensitivity, function, or sensation during sexual arousal. Most women prefer the circumcised penis for appearance, hygiene and sex. Given the convincing epidemiological evidence and biological support, routine circumcision should be highly recommended by all health professionals." http://www.circinfo.net/

Brian December 25, 2007 9:04 pm (Pacific time)

In whose mond are these studies 'logically absurd'? I'm afraid I will take the view of the WHO and UNAIDS over that of a special interest anti-circumcision group anyday. This is what they say: "Conclusion: The research evidence is compelling The research evidence that male circumcision is efficacious in reducing sexual transmission of HIV from women to men is compelling. The partial protective effect of male circumcision is remarkably consistent across the observational studies (ecological, cross-sectional and cohort) and the three randomized controlled trials conducted in diverse settings. The three randomised controlled trials showed that male circumcision performed by well-trained medical professionals was safe and reduced the risk of acquiring HIV infection by approximately 60%. The efficacy of male circumcision in reducing female to male transmission of HIV has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. This is an important landmark in the history of HIV prevention. Recommendations : 1.1 Male circumcision should now be recognized as an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention. 1.2 Promoting male circumcision should be recognized as an additional, important strategy for the prevention of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men." http://data.unaids.org/pub/Report/2007/mc_recommendations_en.pdf

Anonymous December 24, 2007 8:01 am (Pacific time)

My greatest hope is that the whole world gets to know the veritable meaning of the 2nd Commandment, that is that God forbids the alteration of his creation, and punishes it as crime, and also punishes it out of the statute of limitations (up to great-grandfathers). That's exactly what is meant by: "I am a jealous God who punishes the crime of fathers upon sons up to the third and fourth generation... " If the Jews and the Muslims acknowledge this, not only is it the end of circumcision but also the end of this stupid war, and fanatism, and terrorism; indeed Palestine then belongs to all of them Arabs and Jews and they can fraternise for peace. Cordially yours, Sigismond

Tandy December 24, 2007 6:45 am (Pacific time)

Joshua/Jake, no matter how many times you direct us to logically-absurd studies on YOUR site, you still need to provide us a LOGICAL and RATIONAL explanation (with evidence) that removing thousands and thousands of nerves does not cause a loss of sensation and/ or sensitivity.. SO, other than that collection of pathetic excuses for studies on your site, have anything rational people can accept?

Tandy December 24, 2007 6:40 am (Pacific time)

"The Waskett/Morris rebuttal effectively deals with the intellectual dishonesty of the NOCIRC funded trashy excuse for a study." So, no rebuttal? Just trash talk? "Anyone note how they tested for sexual sensitivity on non-erect penises?" Gee, nerves either fire or do not--and being erect does not change this.. sorry , this is logically absurd--take a couse in neurophsiology! "Funny that as I've always tried to have sex with an erect penis ;-)" Cute, but perhaps your bain doesn't work unless erect either? "So what we got then? One in-house NOCIRC study against a number of others." Yes, one logical study verses a collection of logically-absurd ones.. quess which is the more valid? Come back when you have some study that contains some logic and not based on ignornace or chosen ignorance,

Avendexora December 23, 2007 7:36 pm (Pacific time)

Joshua, your referencing from one of the most notorious Circumfanatics known in the movement. Brian Morris resides in Australia where currently ALL Victorian Hospitals have Banned circumcision. This action led the AU law commissioners to BAN circumcision completely! Brian Morris's site talks about NOCIRC's director Marilyn Milos. She had ALL three of her sons circumcised. This was back when parents thought it wasn't painful for the infant and it was medically necessary because this is what the doctor would tell parents. An actual informed consent during this time was unheard of and patients were referred as numbers not names . She later became a Nurse. The first circumcision she assisted with changed her life forever. That baby was thrashing, screaming, and vomiting. When the doctor was done he said, "There is no medical reason for circumcision!". She was horrified and angry that the medical establishment betrayed parents for the sake of a profit so she video recorded the next one. Marilyn showed this recording to the parents who had infant boys. Every parent that saw this video of an actual circumcision, including the doctor confirming that there was no medical reason for circumcision, led them to decline the procedure. Marilyn Milos was fired for this. Makes one wonder if their motives were purely for profit and they saw her as a threat. She has circumcised sons because she didn't know what she knows now. ALL of her grandchildren are intact!

Richard L. Matteoli December 23, 2007 1:19 pm (Pacific time)

TRANSLATION: Forum: ((1)) Translation can become a problem even among those who have reviewed each other's writings. ((2)) Sig: I know you are a quiet person. But, you are the originator of Transgenerational. Had no idea of transgeneration until you mentioned it. I applied where the concept belonged. And you corrected, with your knowledge, the definitions to propriety. ((3)) When I mentioned your academics, I mention in regard to your writings and ability and what you do from your studies regarding circumcision. Not that your are a professor. ((4)) And neither of us take royalties from our stuff, because we do not feel that it is appropriate to do so. ((5))You did more than Dr. Hasan from the University of Rome's medical school, Dept of Psychiatry. ((6)) What amazed me at first is how the European mind can grasp concepts better than American's. Respectfully submitted, RLM

Sigismond December 23, 2007 7:10 am (Pacific time)

" You and most of us could not come close to his type of academics even if you could speak and think in his native language. " Please, Richard, I'm not an aademic, just an amateur. Foremost, you're the inventor of the Collective and Transgenerational Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy (CTMSP). Cordially yours, Hervé

Sigismond December 23, 2007 7:05 am (Pacific time)

" "One does not play football with one's penis, does one?" Who let the dogs out? " One does not play football with one's penis out! Cordially yours (and dead laughing), Sigismond

Rick December 23, 2007 6:39 am (Pacific time)

When I read what these anti circ fanatics post I am reminded of some now distant learning: Tenets of Sanity 1. Anyone who claims to be 100% certain is lying. 1a. The caveat being that if they are not lying, then they are most likely insane.

Richard L. Matteoli December 23, 2007 3:39 am (Pacific time)

NOTE TO FORUM: I will be as general as possible with my thread. If something can be found from 3 sources, it is considered 'common knowledge.' So, if you find anything interesting, research it by starting on the web. Also, there is no problem with asking. Will refer books of interest. "What is it about earth people that makes them think a futile gesture is a noble one?" Dr. Who.

Richard L. Matteoli December 23, 2007 12:19 am (Pacific time)

REPORT: PSYOPATHOLOGY #3: MYTHWORKING: Brief to discussion: Weaponry is attached archetypes. Knives are mostly attached to goddesses. This goes from the Mediterranean to the Americas. ((1)) Obsidian Knife Woman, is an expression of a Native American goddess from Central America into the lower Western states in the USA. ((2)) (a). Isis turned into a piece of flint similar to Lot's wife turning into salt. (b). The Isis myth could have come from when they incoroprated Hathor/Horus mythology when they took over the Midianites. (c) Moses' wife was a Midianite. (d) Horus was the moon-god son of Midianite Hathor. And the same son for Isis. (e) As a moon-god son Horus was the animus masculine projection of his Great Mother gossesses Hathor and Isis who were also fertility goddesses. (f). When Horus transforms into animal form, one of his paws was a flint knife. ((3)) So the god mentioned when Moses' wife circumcised their son because god was coming to punish for not circumcising their son was most probably the god Horus. ((4)) That is unless the Jerusalemic god is Horus. ((5)) Secondary mythworking: Blood Relations where feminine blood has primacy and masculine blood is secondary. ((6)) WHAT AN EXCUSE FROM PROJECTION. See: Erich Neumann, "The Great Mother." ((7)) "Are you crazy?" (Audrey). "Yes. But I'm your mother. (Sara). movie: Laws of Attraction.

Joshua December 23, 2007 12:14 am (Pacific time)

Someone said: "where is YOUR rebuttal of the numerous studies refuting that self-serving piece of nonsense from Bailey and boys?" The Waskett/Morris rebuttal effectively deals with the intellectual dishonesty of the NOCIRC funded trashy excuse for a study. Anyone note how they tested for sexual sensitivity on non-erect penises? Funny that as I've always tried to have sex with an erect penis ;-) (Maybe the anti-circ zealots are onto something - sex with a flaccid penis) If your cause was indeed just why would you have to resort to conjuring up studies yourselves to produce your required findings? Pretty damn sad if you ask me. So what we got then? One in-house NOCIRC study against a number of others. (little wonder you guys were driven by desperation to organize your own study) Payne Found: "These results do not support the hypothesized penile sensory differences associated with circumcision." http://allcircumcision.blogspot.com/2007/07/sensation-and-sexual-arousal-in.html Kigozi found: "Adult male circumcision does not adversely affect sexual satisfaction or clinically significant function in men." http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.07369.x and a host of others at: http://www.circs.org/library/i_sex.html

Richard L. Matteoli December 22, 2007 11:09 pm (Pacific time)

REPORT: PSYCHOPATHOLOGY #2: Brief to discussion: Psychopaths do not attach to other people but to objects as knives. The object possesses magical powers, and they use the object to project themselves. They gravitate toward sexual sadism. Psychopaths will not change, stop, and are untreatable. It is best to avoid them even when one is a family member.

Richard L. Matteoli December 22, 2007 11:02 pm (Pacific time)

REPORT: PSYCHOPATHOLOGY #1: Brief to discussion: Psychopathology allows three characteristics: (1) egocentricity (2) lack of empathy (3) no remorse. This permits using and taking from others to enhance their status internally and socially. Psychopaths lie. When caught, they make up other lies. The lie is actually deceit through restructuring. Their service personality is humble, sensitive, profound, and says what is expected. Yet they brag about their deeds and feel they have special entitlement. These people set systems of destruction and bring that destruction to others.

Richard L. Matteoli December 22, 2007 7:54 pm (Pacific time)

Joshua: THOROUGHNESS - PROPER CONNECTIONS: "Rico, Rico, RICO!! Pay attention." movie: Starship Troopers. ((1)) On Dec 18 10:51 am Sigismond stated "One does not play football with one's penis, does one?" ((2))On Dec 18 8:39 pm you responded with: "One said: 'One does not play football with one's penis, does one?' Who let the dogs out?" ((3)) Sigismond's statement refers to Justice Gillette's statement in the above article from which this discussion originates where Gillette mentioned: 'In fact more people get hurt playing football than from having a circumcision - a lot more, and a lot more serious." Just read the article. It will not change your position. ((4)) You were speaking into the mirror as it pertains to the Christian testament 2 Peter 2:22 "Of them the proverbs are true: 'A dog returns to its vomit,' and, 'A sow that is washed goes back to wallowing in the mud.'" ((5)) Now to the totemic analogies of the Jewish and Christian testaments that are associated with animals, animal behavior and connections to human behavior in the metaphysics of theology - that reaches into the existential. ((6)) Sigismond was involved in giving the academic definitions of extended Munchausen behaviors from my original post on 09 December 10:36 pm. You and most of us could not come close to his type of academics even if you could speak and think in his native language. ((7)) EXAMPLE, BROTHER AL: We had a philosophy professor at St. Mary's, Brother Albert, who taught required classes we couldn't avoid. He knew his stuff and was so far above common thought, and our heads, that we called him CLOUDS. ((8)) In relation to the Jewish and Christian totemic analgies of clouds, clouds bring different things. Some things come from the masculine West and some come from the masculine North. ((9)) Michael CUTS TO THE QUICK regarding warnings of the masculine Northern clouds that come with the associated masculine Northern winds. But this requires a lot more than where this discussion sits, and will probably never get to. "Be afraid." Yoda.

Richard L. Matteoli December 22, 2007 3:29 pm (Pacific time)

REPORT: ((1)) There is a set of 4 elemental communication factors to ritual besides the myriad of psychological indicators, other communication techniques and the 4 structural elements to ritual already mentioned: 1) DENIAL 2) DEFERRAL 3) DEFLECTION 4)DECEIT. Fine. Have at it with the medical stuff. ((2)) For now, I'll split the discussion and continue with what drives and connects to the ritual of circumcision yet keep observation on the medical side and some inconsistences from the medical side. Because, they truly are different aspects - spaces. The medical side is a psychological Safety Zone. I am going to encroach. ((3)) ONE THING, on the pro side, BE MEN. Richard Russell is Richard Russell, Neal Feldman is Neal Feldman, and Henry Ruark is Henry Ruark not to mention others. So, if anyone parses the identity of anyone else, just say who you are. I don't care who the J.J.'s are though you haven't clarified yourselves regarding Jake. LIKE WOMEN behind the veil. ((4)) Such is the nature allowed in forums. But this forum is different because it is mainly being carried by opposing international focus groups. ((5)) Just remember, when it comes to child abuse and when I perveive it comes from that perspective due to the statement or individual as I perceive them, I will continue not being deflective. But please correct me if you feel I am wrong.

Tandy December 22, 2007 10:53 am (Pacific time)

"Richard Russell deals with the rebuttal of the anti-circumcision organized and funded excuse of a study by shooting the messengers. I guess they do that when they are unable to answer the rebuttal. Who does he think he is fooling when it is so obvious that that disgusting in-house study has been exposed as a fraud? " EXPOSED as a fraud???? C'mon Jake where is this EXPOSURE? I have not seen ANY scientifically -credible information form you? C'mon, Jake, where is YOUR rebuttal of the numerous studies refuting that self-serving piece of nonsense from Bailey and boys?

Tandy December 22, 2007 10:48 am (Pacific time)

"Hugh said: "I've only seen the abstract so far, ..." Why would that be important to anyone? Are you the official anti-circumcision zealot who analyses studies? What exactly are your qualifications in this? " Josh/Jake, just because you are inherently unable to do a critical analysis of a study, does not mean that others are unable to do so. Anyone who is capabl;e of doing one, knows the devil is in the details..

Tandy December 22, 2007 5:45 am (Pacific time)

I see Frank didn't bother to read the following: "The nerves in the foreskin apparently provide an impulse to aid erection. Circumcision has long been associated with an increased incidence of impotence. Glover reported a case in 1929. Winkelmann suggested impotence as a possibility in 1959.6 as did Foley in 1966. Stinson reported five cases in 1973. Palmer and Link reported two cases in 1979. More recently, additional evidence of sexual dysfunction after circumcision has emerged. Coursey et al. reported that the degradation in sexual function after circumcision is equivalent to the degradation experienced after anterior urethroplasty. Fink et al. reported statistically significant degradation in sexual function. A survey carried out in South Korea found that circumcised men reported painful erections, and diminished sexual pleasure, and a few reported curvature of the penis upon erection. Shen et al., in a study carried out in China, reported erectile dysfunction in 28.4 percent of the men in the study after circumcision, and 'weakened erectile confidence' in 34.7 percent." http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/ (File revised 28 February 2004) and Pang found cut men were not so happy with being chopped--perhaps unlike those African men, they did not particulaly WANT to be cut enought to ask to be done.

Josh December 22, 2007 5:33 am (Pacific time)

Hugh said: "I've only seen the abstract so far, ..." Why would that be important to anyone? Are you the official anti-circumcision zealot who analyses studies? What exactly are your qualifications in this?

Richard L. Matteoli December 22, 2007 5:22 am (Pacific time)

Yes Frank, you have a very good point and that's why I don't get into the medical stuff. ((1)) Both sides do it and both sides are frustrated with the argument. WHO and these pro-circ medical people have a just and serious concern about the AIDS epidemic. Medicine is at a loss for a true cure now. But whenever circumcision has been touted a medical cure, it has always been proven false. So everyone does side issues which in a sense does enhance necessary knowledge. But that's too burdeonsome for me and I feel is secondary especially to the Misha case. ((2)) There is a difference between sensitivity pre-se and as you mentioned performance. It is in the motivation of the patient. The mind is the biggest factor. And you will think this funny: EXAMPLE: A while ago in the ol' military field communal tent shower a circumcised guy and an intact guy were dogging each other verbally. They were a riot. The circumcised guy was extremely happy with his adult circumcision. He said that before he could only do it once when making love because he was too sensitive afterward to continue. Then he eloquently described at length how he can variously do it more than once because he was less sensitive and it's great. Fine for him, and I quit exhautively reading and nitpicking the medical stuff. I leave that aspect to others in the anti side who can handle it. ((3)) But this all one way thing that everyone should be circumcised and even recruiting for this procedure from "other than medical reasons and hidden motivations," as exampled in my last two posts,is another issue and arena which truly exists. It is this different arena that I am addressing and how it's done. The child does not belong in any differential and here it's Misha. ((4)) The vast majority of the Anti's I know will state the decision is an adult one, does not belong put upon the child and if an adult chooses to do so that is their absolute right. Not so historically to the present with the genocidal perception of the pros both medical and otherwise motivated. The reason the anti's do what they do is a reaction to the very genocidal propositions of the pros. If the child was left out of the equation of these various groups most of the anti's would stop and fade away following a westward wind. So, they will nitpick back and even fund their efforts. Fine. ((5)) This child issue really gets to some anti's hard. What I didn't respect about MICHAEL'S post was his 'expression' from pain. He has a lot of pain in the heart over the children and that pain comes from circumcision as child abuse. Go back and read his posts and you will now see how obvious it is. I hated to see it. ((6)) I just hope you can understand my connection here. I spent my life helping taking people out of physical pain with associated mental pain and when we work we take onto ourselves a part of those pains. Just happens, live with it. It's WORSE BY FAR when working on kids. It's hands on, up and close. Not philosophically at a distance. Many times we even pray silently when we work. And everyone who does surgery in their field, regardless of disagreement, looks back to see if he or she could have done better. ((7)) My one issue, though, is that as a male gets older he increasingly relies more on the sensitity response part of the male copulation act than the hormone portion because the hormones aren't there as much anymore. ((8)) EXAMPLE: So, in my opinion, if an older guy wants to get some when he is living in ye ol' Menopause Manor/Limber D**k Village he has a better chance of hitting the target presented him and completing his mission uncircumcised. But, then again, a circumcised man when this time comes can help himself greatly later in life by stretching his remaining skin to enhance sensitivity like some of the anti's are doing. Fine, better than relying on Medicare to pay for the erectile dysfunction drugs. ((9)) Again, my focus here is the child, here MISHA, socialization, and the factors in improper socialization. Socializing circumcision is just different than this medical thing. This forum is about MISHA and what's going on in this case, not the relative arguments about circumcision though Frank's post is a necessary ingredient in what happening here. MISHA'S case revolves around a child caught in the middle of marital discord, religion, parental rights. But, then again I may be off base trying to stick to that part of the discussion. ((10)) 'There's no winning in this. Just degrees of losing.' movie: War of the Roses.

Josh December 22, 2007 3:38 am (Pacific time)

Richard Russell deals with the rebuttal of the anti-circumcision organized and funded excuse of a study by shooting the messengers. I guess they do that when they are unable to answer the rebuttal. Who does he think he is fooling when it is so obvious that that disgusting in-house study has been exposed as a fraud?

Frank December 22, 2007 12:12 am (Pacific time)

Just a note. I see the casual manner in which the studies of no effect on sexual performance are trashed by the anti's while they cling to an in-house study (done by fellow anti's) as if were the holy grail. Funny, very funny.

Richard L. Matteoli December 21, 2007 2:09 pm (Pacific time)

REPORT: THE 4 ASPECTS OF RITUAL: ((1)) There is nothing wrong with ritual regardless if it is personal or as a ritual pertains to ANY religion. Ritual is healthy, gives us a grasp on life, helps us cope, mourn and give hope. The 4 movements of ritual are used by the shaman, any religious expert, psychologists, individuals, and with medicine, a special agent with Secondary Power, in a circumcision. ((2)) These 4 movements are: a). SEPARATION b) CONTAINMENT c) TRANSFORMATION d) REEMERGENCE. ((3)) Think of an African puberty initiation rite to focus on just one: a) They Separate the initiate(s) from the society and take them out into the bush, b) then they Contain them in a special enviornment, c) And it is in the contained metaphysical space where the action is - something is done to the initiate(s) to Transform them. And d). upon successful transformation the initiate(s) return back to the tribal society Reemerged as a new person ready to take on the responsibilities and functions as an adult in order to belong to the society and for tribal continuance. ((4)) To Correlate: The third element is Transformation which pertains to the mysticism in Transformation Fetishism. ((5)) Recommendations: (a) Each of these 4 elements is a chapter in Jungian Virginia Rutter's "Women Changing Women." (b) Susan Forward and Donna Frazier, "Emotional Blackmail: When the People in Your Life Use Fear, Obligation and Guilt to Manipulate You." ((6)) These things are so elemental, necessary and essential to humanity, it is just how they are used. 'In a moment the Transformation will be complete.' Darth Vader.

Richard L. Matteoli December 21, 2007 1:10 pm (Pacific time)

Josh, your post on Dec 10, 10:08 was important in only one aspect: ((A))"Here is a study which will no doubt whip our anti-circumcision zealots up into a frenzy." It gave me the way to post my promise on the nature of DELUSION WITH EXAMPLES on Dec 20 11:33 for a starter and to show this forum's historical misuse of the word. You did not understand my K-bar warnings about what happens when playing games on Dec 20 1:03 and 6:49. Thanks, but I realize you cannot help it. ((B)) FIRST REPORT: ((1)) "TRANSFORMATION FETISHISM is a context of sexual fetishism in which a person becomes sexually aroused by descriptions or depictions of transformations, usually the transformations of people into other beings or objects." Transformation is one of the essential movements in ritual. ((2)) "AMPUTEE FETISHISM refers to a context and set of beliefs supporting the pleasure and benefits gained from the amputation of body parts. PARAPHILIAS (1) ACROTOMOPHILIA (aka Amelotatism) refers to an attraction, including sexual, to amputation and amputees. ((2)) APOTEMNOPHILIA pertains to self-amputation, ie. the desire to be an amputee. ((C)) The mantra of your movement appears to be: "Let's sheer them like the sheep they are." (Dark Warrior). movie: DragonHeart.

Tandy December 21, 2007 6:25 am (Pacific time)

Actu;;y Josh/Jake, these "studies were done in connection to the ridiculous HIV studies.. and are hardly credible..didn't i juast mention hiow you people take any excuse for a study and run around screaming "redeemed, redeemed" There are many studies contradicting those .. "The nerves in the foreskin apparently provide an impulse to aid erection. Circumcision has long been associated with an increased incidence of impotence. Glover reported a case in 1929. Winkelmann suggested impotence as a possibility in 1959.6 as did Foley in 1966. Stinson reported five cases in 1973. Palmer and Link reported two cases in 1979. More recently, additional evidence of sexual dysfunction after circumcision has emerged. Coursey et al. reported that the degradation in sexual function after circumcision is equivalent to the degradation experienced after anterior urethroplasty. Fink et al. reported statistically significant degradation in sexual function. A survey carried out in South Korea found that circumcised men reported painful erections, and diminished sexual pleasure, and a few reported curvature of the penis upon erection. Shen et al., in a study carried out in China, reported erectile dysfunction in 28.4 percent of the men in the study after circumcision, and 'weakened erectile confidence' in 34.7 percent." http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/ (File revised 28 February 2004) and Pang found cut men were not so happy with being chopped--perhaps unlike those African men, they did not particulaly WANT to be cut enought to ask to be done.

Richard Russell December 21, 2007 1:42 am (Pacific time)

Good grief, Josh. Don't you understand what the words mean, other than the ones that back up your fervent, faith-like belief that circumcision is a good thing, a good thing only, that can only ever have good results? Yes, they used the word "randomized" several times in that abstract for a specific deceitful purpose: To make gullible readers who are not capable of critical reading and critical thinking believe there was something random in the study they did. There was not. The men they studied were not randomly selected for their study. They were cherry picked only from a group of men who met these "qualifications": Every one of them had signed on as a person deeply desiring to be circumcised. In other words, they wanted to be circumcised. They believed it would be a good thing for them. They BELIEVED IN circumcision. You MUST HAVE that kind of faith to seek out a partial penile amputation. They did not believe it could do them any harm. They gave proof of their belief by letting men wearing masks cut off a substantial part of their penises. They underwent pain and mutilation to confirm their faith in circumcision as The Great Thing. They also received money for every visit they made to the seat of faith, "circumcision central" where they continued to confirm their faith in The Great Circumcision. They thereby felt that they were even more obligated to the High Priests of Circumcision at Circumcision Central. Most people go to a center of faith and give money; these men went to a center of faith and received money. What did you expect them to say when they were asked if The Great Circumcision they received was a Very Good Thing? Did you really expect any of them to say, oh my penis hurts all the time and I can't get it up sometimes when I need to? I don't enjoy sex any more since I converted to the Faith of Circumcision? THEY CANNOT SAY OTHER THAN WHAT THEY SAID. Converts are the most devout of the devout. For at least 10 years after conversion. In addition to all that is the typical effect of circumcision on a man's mind. A man who has been circumcised realizes a substantial part of his penis has been cut off and (especially if he has asked for it himself) he must find that this is a good thing in order to maintain his mental equilibrium. The only alternative is to accept that it was not a good thing, and adjust to that realit. Many who do this become opponents of circumcision in order to stop it from being inflicted on other males in the future. Until a man does that he must maintain a psychological defense mechanism, which says circumcision is a good thing. It is quite clear from those participating in this blog discussion that men who are most disturbed by having had a substantial part of their penises cut off have the greatest need to constantly reinforce their denial. The spend countless hours at blogs and discussion lists showing support for a cultural institution that is alive and well and still espoused by a large portion of the population. In a manner that reminds one of fundamentalist Christians, they are obsessed with converting everyone to their "religion" or "faith." They are not satisfied to enjoy and practice their own Faith (in circumcision), quietly in the privacy of their own homes. They are obsessed with the idea that they must make everyone else accept that same Faith and submit to the same mutilation. Interview them all again in ten years (if they haven't all died from the AIDS they now believe they cannot catch), and see what they say. But be sure to tell the few still alive how many of their cohort have already died from AIDS. Now that will go a little way toward making them slightly more objective subjects of a study. Even so, many of them will probably still recite the creed: "Great is Circumcision. Great is Circumcision. Great is Circumcision. Ask all you may if Circumcision is Great; the only answer is Great is Circumcision, Great is Circumcision, Great is Circumcision. Amen."

Richard L. Matteoli December 21, 2007 1:23 am (Pacific time)

Joe: Now is the time to answer your question on 12 Dec 9:00 regarding circumcision as a form of sociological Repetition Compulsion. ((1)) Yes. But the experience is not on the Self as few actually do. The experience is onto another. It is a psychological drive involving tokenism. And in a sense is like the serial sexual predator who will take tokens as jewelry from their victims to use in reexperiencing his rape or sexual homicide. In circumcision the token of the discarded prepuce is psychologically kept through the criminal process of being successfully able to exercise power, control and authority for domination through manipulation out of selfishness. And it is a transactional game in communications. This forum is all communication. RECOMMENDATION: First 70 pages of Berne's "Games People Play." ((2)) Also, they will not stop until arrested. They use a criminal Service Personality to capture their victim. There will be like a psychological endorphin high that Cutters get each time they cut themselves. ((3)) The advocate's method is termed "Passive Initiation." In Passive Initiation a person has someone else do a deed for them. The person who Passively Initiates has the Primary Power and the person who acts has a Secondary Power whether or not the person who acts knows what's going on. Charlie Manson never killed anyone. He's 5' 2" and would probably be unable to have done what he had Tex Watson do for him. But he carries the ultimate pleasure of what was done because he had the real power and control - the Primary Power. After all these years he's still the one associated with what was done, but where's Tex Watson? (They are both at Corcoran and Tex Watson has 3 children from conjugal visits). Also Passive Initiation is common like when your wife asks you to take out the garbage, or when Don Vito Corleone had Lucca Brazi kill for him in the movie The Goodfather. ((4)) The need is so strong that even B*tch Slapping won't stop them and often they will result to ridicule. They are oblivious to others because they do not care about the harm done another as long as they are gratified. But, B*tch Slapping is the best that can be done on this forum and regretably itself needs repetition. I did 3 posts on narcissism so I won't repeat further.

Richard L. Matteoli December 20, 2007 11:33 pm (Pacific time)

Josh: Yea right. ((1)) You're dealing with men self-reporting. I can see it now. "Classroom, you men here stick up your hands and tell us all here how your d**k feels after you let them play with it." It's like the guys who have had multiple circumcisions in Repetition Compulsion: "It's cool dude - even though I have lost some sensation." And in many of those places they don't get any until they are circumcised. "It's good man, I'm now gettin some." ((2)) No different than other delusional thinking and acting on the delusion. For a comparison to this Google the following study: "GENDER PLEASURE: Exploration of Sex Gadgets, Penile Implants, and Related Beliefs in Thailand." ((3)) If you have a motivated patient, treatment and surgery will be a success no matter how poor the results. Half the reason cardiac surgeons want their patients to start a walking regimen is because many were couch potatoes who wouldn't get off their butts and see there is a life outside. Heck, they even have a remote control to change channels on their televisions. Habits, behavior. ((4)) For others Google or go to the DSM-IV to Culture Bound Syndrome and check out a) koro b) shenkui c) shenjing shairuo ((5)) FOR WOMEN, Google: Michele Klein, "A Time to be Born: Customs and Folklore of Jewish Birth," Jewish Publication Society of America, 2000. And these examples are not exclusive to Judaism. ((6)) And especially Google: LLOYD DEMAUSE and first check out a) "The Universality of Incest" (which circumcision partly relates to psychologically) and b). "The Evolution of Childhood." STUFF TOO SICK AND WEIRD TO POST. 'Tell me, when they took you up into the spaceship, did they do - sexual things to you?' movie: Independence Day

Hugh December 20, 2007 11:20 pm (Pacific time)

I've only seen the abstract so far, but it seems in 4,450 men they could hardly find any sexual dysfunction AT ALL whether they were circumcised or not, which is ridiculous. Clearly their tests were too insensitive. Nice try, though Josh.

Josh December 20, 2007 10:08 pm (Pacific time)

Here is a study which will no doubt whip our anti-circumcision zealots up into a frenzy: The effect of male circumcision on sexual satisfaction and function results from a randomized trial of male circumcision for human immunodeficiency virus prevention, Rakai, Uganda. Kigozi G, Watya S, Polis CB, Buwembo D, Kiggundu V, Wawer MJ, Serwadda D, Nalugoda F, Kiwanuka N, Bacon MC, Ssempijja V, Makumbi F, Gray RH. Rakai Health Sciences Program, Entebbe, Uganda. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between adult male circumcision and sexual satisfaction and function in men, as observational studies on the effect of adult male circumcision on sexual satisfaction show conflicting results. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We investigated self-reported sexual satisfaction and function among men enrolled in a randomized trial of male circumcision for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention conducted in Rakai, Uganda. In all, 4456 sexually experienced HIV-negative males aged 15-49 years were enrolled; 2210 were randomized to receive immediate circumcision (intervention arm) and 2246 to circumcision delayed for 24 months (control arm). Men were followed up at 6, 12 and 24 months, and information on sexual desire, satisfaction and erectile dysfunction was collected. These variables were compared between the study arms and over time within the study arms, using chi-square or Fisher's exact tests. The trial registration number is NCT00425984. RESULTS: There were no differences between the study arms at enrollment and problems with sexual satisfaction and function were reported by

Michael December 20, 2007 8:59 pm (Pacific time)

... and please let me add. Let's stop this ancient circumcision cruelty for the sake of our boys and children across this wonderful blue planet. Let tehm have their bodies the waqy they were created by the God of Love and Nature. Someone not respecting the other was the original problem. May love and joy prevail, NOT pain and fear. Let the healing begin. Thank you, Michael Warrior of Love

Richard L. Matteoli December 20, 2007 6:49 pm (Pacific time)

MISDIRECTION; GUILT BY ASSOCIATION: Joshua I doubt very much you are Jake. The J's got confusing. CORRECTION: ie. In my last post I said of Morris "pick" instead of "pink" Caddilac. You see - it's not hard. Your case is much more serious. You did not CLARIFY your identity enough in your response Dec 18 8:32. The happenstance Misdirection occurred with your response to Avendexora's response to the word "fetish." The person who used the word "fetish" was Justice James on Dec 17 12:27. The word "fetish" can only come from someone familiar with Jake's improper Wikipedia "Foreskin Fetish." And, you assert as him. There is nothing wrong knowing him or having studied his viewpoint. But STAND UP FOR YOURSELF AS YOURSELF. Van, and Richard Russell, who I know and have met, do as well as many more here that I haven't met - or open enough as Neal to say 'Look at my bio and web site.' It does not matter what position a person takes. On Dec 17 8:53 you said clean up the "smoke and mirrors" so do so if you want, it does not matter now. Misdirection is a False Arguement as well as a happenstance. The thing that happened was not clearing up enough that led us to argue against Jake through you. It left the opening for the K-bar to get to Jake who has improperly used his influence at the otherwise remarkable Wikipedia. So, if Justice James is Jake W. or a devotee I do not believe you should have fallen on the sword for it. But, again, it allowed me access Jake and will still do so, if needed, until the association is clarified untrue. Who knows, maybe you are also Justice James. And, Justice James hasn't shown the two things necessary for a man to speak up and continue while leaving you in the lurch. If you are the same then, in Jungian terms, you are the Mask and Justice James is the Shadow. In Transactional Analysis the endpoint is a game and a game is inherently dishonest. There is enough openings to find in a dishonest game. You appear to have allowed/given a cave for me to walk through.

Richard L. Matteloi December 20, 2007 1:03 pm (Pacific time)

Thanks Henry, and also Avendexora for a previous post. ((1)) There is very little discussion or constructive debate here but assertions of immovable viewpoints which is sad but typical - work with it. I have my viewpoint and trying to advocate from another arena. The medical arena itself does not apply to the true nature of what drives circumcision and is an exercise in cyclic nothingness where the wheel of the circle does not move the circumcision debate in any direction - the cart on which the wheel belongs does not move and will not move in any direction. ((2)) There is nothing wrong with admitting a miscommunication which I hope I have been consistent with. EXAMPLES: ((3)) Anonymous Dec 9 cited a bunch of medical articles. Every one is either a). A flawed study b). Invalid Association ((4)) Avendexora Dec 16 gave a long list of historical medical articles that any FBI criminal profiler would look at and associate to a) long term patterns of behavior b) Various 'Team Predator' typologies. ((5)) For Jake/Joshua's assertions especially with the African studies I pointed out the flaws inherent with those studies on Dec 17 12:24. He cannot rebut. Hugh on Dec 10 gave a list of the actual countries involved in the flawed African Studies as well as the one's they choose not to study because their predestined studies cannot support. So, in the typical Persuasion and Propaganda techniques Jake/Joshua et al use 'Repetition.' (This is different from Freudian Repetition Compulsion which is a condition). Actually, both sides use medical and other repetitions just proving there is no constructive movement. ((6)) The actual medical academics does not support circumcision. Even the Israeli Medical Association agrees. Circumcision is not a medical procedure. It is a ritual. The true avenue of discussion resides in the SOCIAL and patterns of BEHAVIOR. ((7)) a) I respect Neal's viewpoint but disagree - ie. the extent of Parental Rights - shock is not a problem. b) I do not respect Jake/Joshua's methodology because of how he uses the power of his position on Wikipedia and expects the right to debate or add to the discussion while he censors at Wikipedia. ((8)) For a reality check Brian Morris needs to assert his position in a pick Caddilac with pom-poom balls. ((9)) a) I respect Avendexora's and others and Avendexora's shock is not a problem. b) I do not respect Michael's last post. ((10)) Differentiate do not Dissociate. When one Dissociates and does not Differentiate the K-bar has an opening.

Henry Ruark December 20, 2007 5:56 am (Pacific time)

To all" R/Matteoli wrote: "My fortune is having met the people who taught me more." Thank you, Richard. That one-shot makes most of the remainder of this thread worthwhile.

Sigismond December 20, 2007 4:13 am (Pacific time)

"I am a jealous God who punishes the crime of the fathers upon the sons up to the third and fourth géneration... " means that this God is jealous of his own creation and, therefore, that circumcision is a crime against creation. Cordially yours, Sigismond

Joe m. December 20, 2007 4:01 am (Pacific time)

Circumcised males are missing about FIFTEEN square inches of skin and THOUSANDS of nerve endings that give strong feelings of pleasure. I can't believe males could have all that cut off of them without decreasing their sexual pleasure capacity, at least for most males. It amazes me that most males who were circumcised as a baby are not outraged by that. Many males who were circumcised as a baby are outraged though, and I think as people become more well informed about how harmful and unnecessary circumcisions are many times more males are going to become outraged for being circumcised. Currently in the U.S. about 57% of baby boys are circumcised. But in Canada only about 9% of baby boys are circumcised and in all of Europe near 0% of baby boys are circumcised.

Richard L. Matteoli December 20, 2007 1:08 am (Pacific time)

REPORT: Salem-News.com on 05 February 2007 published "Oregon Man Arrested for Using Stun Gun on 18 month Old Son." There was no discussion on Parental Rights.

Hugh December 19, 2007 11:43 pm (Pacific time)

Joshua has tried to re-spin the HIV/circumcision statistics, but just provides another inconclusive set of associations and inferences. The relevant fact needed is whether circumcised heterosexual men (of whatever colour) are more or less likely to have HIV than intact heterosexual men. The Mor et al. study of 58,600 men in San Francisco provides that information, and the answer is that they are not. Nor does Joshua provide any figures from Europe. So he's failed to prove his case.

Michael December 19, 2007 7:20 pm (Pacific time)

I looked up the word zealot. It said “a fanatically committed person” and it also stands for some other quite interesting characters also used in Video Games and its origin is Greek. I must admit that word could be used for the characters on both sides of this discussion. Joshua and some others keep calling us “delusional nutters” and “zealots” which seem to become their favorite words to describe us. Well, maybe it’s because we can see lots of things they can not see yet and subconsciously they think that name fits us quite well. So when they get pushed in the corner lacking of rational and logical answers they defend themselves by calling us those names. I think when they call us zealots they actually mean “SEELOTS” but they won’t admit to that and therefore rather misspell it to give us a little punch that’s supposed to hurt. Hurting others and especially helpless little baby boys became their favorite subconscious goal in this discussion and probably in their lives and no one can actually blame them for it because extreme pain in their genitals is what they had to endure when they came to this world. Why should others be spared? It feels good to get even with this cruel world and the unknown other that ripped them away from the warm breast of their loving mother and then mercilessly hurt them in their genitals so they would experience their first weeks of being on this planet with excruciating pain in their sexual area which caused them to armor their sexuality for life. Oh yeah, and then we are also the “weird people” with that “weird cause”. I must admit that I am pretty weird standing up for that future little Josh and Joshua and whatever their names will be without making any money of it, in contrary spending a lot of money and time for that cause. I am weird because my weird cause is to protect those future little boys from having to endure that same immense cruelty little Josh and little Joshua had to experience. We are weird because we try to stop those “totally normal” and “not weird” brain damaged bastards who strap innocent little boys down or incapacitate them with overwhelming force and then rip and shred their foreskins off; those who try to break the perfectly loving souls of those little boys; those who are in sexual fear and try to forbid them to masturbate; those who never let them experience what it is like to be left unharmed; those who think they have the right to modify those little penises to their own taste or belief; those who confuse little boys’ most private parts with something they think they own; those who disrespect the human rights of these little boys; those who want to force their religion onto those little boys and others; those who inflict sexual fear and spread it across this world; those who sell those little boys’ private parts for profit; those who alter the brains of these little boys so those little boys can not think straight anymore and start to defend the injustice that has been done to them because this atrocity performed on their genitals and brains made them unable to differentiate between good and bad . Well, maybe little Josh and little Joshua would look at us in a more loving way if we nutters, seelots and weird people would have raised our voices fifty or 2000 years ago to educate their parents not to fall for the lies of those who want to do evil in this world because evil has been done to them and if we would have been there to convince their parents not to do this atrocity anymore to their so perfectly loving little souls and perfect little bodies? And then, no matter how those who desperately seek for a new excuse to continue the rape of children with knives for profit or belief, it does not matter how much little grown up Josh tries to joggle the numbers now and how much he wants to confuse people with those numbers, it won’t change the FACT that circumcised North America has the highest AIDS rate in the first world countries and it won’t change the big picture. The numbers have been joggled enough. All societies have homosexuality and they should not be excluded from your count and our societies. I am sorry that this raped moron raped you little Josh and Joshua and I wish you healing and I wish that those who did this to you be punished to the max in very near future if they want to continue in spite of this expanded love consciousness and being told by the people to stop. As they were victims of this ancient evil themselves they may be forgiven once, but if they continue to rape little children with their knives they will be recognized as evil. They did not have any rights to stick their knives into little Josh’s, Joshua’s, Neal’s and whoever’s penis. I wish you all healing and maybe if we stop this crime now, we will not have to live through this cruel and painful trauma again just in case we get reborn. Michael Warrior of Love

Neal Feldman December 19, 2007 9:45 pm (Pacific time)

Tandy - The same could be said of you. Ah well...

1199 December 19, 2007 9:08 pm (Pacific time)

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/end-male-genital-mutilation-mgm-in-the-usa

Tandy December 19, 2007 6:17 pm (Pacific time)

I think it is great that Josh/Jake is here..it gives a great perspective on the circumcisng mentality--any study, regardless how illogical and scientifically absurd that supports their obseesion is tossed around willy-nilly. They seem to lack the facility of critical analyis and an understanding of the scientific process- (or only enough to distort,mis-use, and abuse that process).

Neal Feldman December 19, 2007 3:19 pm (Pacific time)

Joshua - I find Salem News prints many things for discussion purposes, also to give voice to different sides unlike so many venues that only give voice to one side or another. I have no issue with it so long as there are folks like you and myself to point out the nuttiness for what it is. Ah well...

Neal Feldman December 19, 2007 3:16 pm (Pacific time)

Val Lewis - leaving families alone in the context of the discussion you incredibly dishonest misquoting and misrepresenting nutter. The rest of your delusional blatherings justifiably ignored. Ah well...

Richard L. Matteoli December 19, 2007 1:55 pm (Pacific time)

I think you guys need a manly 'out of the box' perception to your sensitivity discussion. A personal one. Though not necessarily a private one. A correlation you guys can really connect with. Not this having a viewpoint and finding some doctor who has written a paper that favors your viewpoint. Both sides will find such papers. And it gets nowhere. The perception involves masculine behavior that guys have a habit of doing and women notice. And a habit that doctors know is a perfectly Natural and necessary human response. It's when you're stopped at a red light and have that indescribable unstoppable urge to pick your nose. Just make sure it's clean when you shake someone's hand afterward. Picking one's nose without a fingernail is like sex without a prepuce. And if you're fingernail is removed before you can ever pick your nose, then you wouldn't know the difference. Any sensation gained after the fingernail is removed will be an altered response of what Nature truly intended. It would be a different kind of sensation in the area affected due to the nature of the type of nerve endings lost compared to the type of nerve endings replaced by the attempt of Nature to try her best to heal the results of human ignorance. Now, if a person has a problem with Nature's original response, then fine and go ahead and alter what she gave you. That is your right as an adult, BUT NOT ON YOUR CHILD. Doing that to your child is improper projection. Here's the point of Journal articles. Or internal articles that I have done in the military at the local bases I was stationed at. 1). There is a question 2). the study is made 3). The report is made and disseminated 4). The topic is debated THEN IF SERIOUS 5). Only repeated tests can verify 6) Reports are made and disseminated 7) All findings are correlated in discussion 8) Results are confirmed or found inconclusive. From what I've seen here is proof that all this medical viewpointing means is that nothing is getting accomplished by useless medical citings. It's glittering fly stuff that has become after over 400 posts a prarie pizza.

Richard L. Matteoli December 19, 2007 12:53 pm (Pacific time)

J.J.J.J.J. "Here's a toast to J.J. and all the pieces we can't find." movie: Heartbreak Ridge. It's confusing with all the J.'s, my earlier post was wrong. I meant to say Jake/Joshua not Jake/Jason. You, or you guys whoever you are, might agree with Neal's position questioning people who are advocating against circumcision, but you come nowhere close to him. He and I know the military use where, when two people are fighting ya make them bunk next to each other - let em fight it out - and come to know one another. The internet is much harder and more open. Nowhere in all of Neal's statements has he quoted a medical reference. He's shocked at the idea of the circumcision controversy. You are trying to incorporate him into your arena and organization's ideals outside this forum by yourselves mimicking his terminology. So, to the JJ's learn about Repetition Compulsion. The psychological indicators for Cutting are similar whether the person does it to themselves or has someone do it for them. AND, inside Neal knows a lot more about what drives the issue of circumcision than anyone of a Jerusalemic faith. My Native American assistants know more about what is really behind circumcision than me, Neal, and anyone else here. They are "Rez Women" born and raised on the reservation with a lot of abject poverty. The one movie scene they always talked about is a rez. scene where the vehicle that they can use to get around only works in reverse gear - their lives. Sorry I don't remember the film. So, we need A LITTLE MORE FRANK. My college is 15 miles from Berkeley and during the Vietnam war they would come for dorm room debates. OK: Frank said to me "Watch this." Then Frank asked the guys from Berkeley "Is the Pope Catholic?" One answered, "How do you know, he might be a Lutheran in disguise." Disgusted, Frank then asked "Does a frog have a water tight a*s?" and the response was "How do you know. But a turtle can breath through it's b**t." It's all denial, deferral, deflection and for some deceit. NOW, I practiced for 34 years. I know high flying surgeons who made fortunes doing procedures that were in vogue at the time and were proven useless later on. Sorry if anyone thinks I'm anything more. I always worked on the poor and have made no personal monatary fortune. My fortune is having met the people who taught me more. This medical stuff is only a piece of glitter on the Christmas tree ornament. It is meaningless and a piece of fly stuff. Cut the wire that holds the ornament to the tree. Let it fall. Then LOOK AT THE TREE and envision the beautiful and dangerous 'Forest' of NATURE where that tree came from - and that is where you will find the answer. I still need to get you guys the blood bibliography I promised and something not too objectionable on real socio-cultural practices of delusion - sick stuff hard time making it palatable).

Tandy December 19, 2007 8:35 am (Pacific time)

Josh/Jake, I found it interesting that you try to dismiss the Sorrels study based on some unsupported claim of bias, and at the same time you tried to counter with the very biased Williamson "study". Even more interesting is your posting a link to BM's site--a site hosted by a man who travels to witness and photograph mass circumcisions--hardly an objectifve and strictly professional activity. BM wrote a book based on the information from his website. it was almost universally panned (even by his fellow Australians) as being a cherry-picked collection of outdated information, full of misrepresentations, and some outright silly attempts to justify infant circumcision. Moreover how much objective information can one expect from an intact man from the UK who became so enamoured with the LOOKS of the mutilated penis, that he later how choose to (and privatetly payed) to have his own penis mutilated?

Tandy December 19, 2007 7:00 am (Pacific time)

"Interesting to see how the anti-circumcision zealots desperately defend the results of their own organized and funded study into penile sensitivity (just like Big Tobacco defended theirs). It would be hilarious if it were not so damn sad (from a mental health point of view). They deserve sympathy and compassion. Josh seems to forget that circumcision is a multi-BILLION dollar industry! And of a group with some irrational superstitious interests.

Tandy December 19, 2007 6:56 am (Pacific time)

Joshua, poating that statement is nothing but "an appeal to authority" --you know the thing that got us into Iraq.. Until and IF circumcisers can explain the HUGE descrepency between their prediction and the numbers in reality, science dismisses the claim. Reality always trumps flawed correlational statistics!

Tandy December 19, 2007 6:52 am (Pacific time)

Josh?Jake, we have read the BM's site and your pathetic attempt to refute the sorrels's study with verbose BS. Try coming back and address the simple logic--HOW can one measure the sentitivty of a missing part to a part still present.. Got any RATIONAL response? BTW, don;t try to dimiss the objective with the subjective BS.. and that pathetic excuse for a study by Williamson is hardly credible since the majority of the women had never even SEEN a real penis, let alone experiecned on--they based their answers on nothing but looking at drawings.

Henry Ruark December 19, 2007 6:26 am (Pacific time)

"Anon" et al: You may be right about unavoidable outcome. But meanwhile we had 3 great years, rebuilt two families, reconstituted two professional enterprises, before Freudian analysis demanded its unavoidable toll. SO no regrets and great memories, too !! At risk of becoming not only verbose but also "traditional" --that's life !!

Joshua December 19, 2007 4:39 am (Pacific time)

Neil said: "Van Lewis - More ridiculous spew from the delusional nutter." I cant think why Salem-News printed his psychotic rant in the first place ... other than maybe to show readers just what 'delusional nutters' these anti-circumcision zealots really are. Weird people, weird cause.

Josh December 19, 2007 4:35 am (Pacific time)

Michael stated: "Fact that circumcised North America has the highest AIDS rate in the first world countries compared to Intact Europe that has the lowest one." Hows that for some spin? Now lets look at the US stats shall we, from http://www.avert.org/statsum.htm At the end of 2005 it was found that only 11% of males were in infected through heterosexual activity. 59% through many having sex with men (MSM), 20% through injecting drug use (IDU), a further 8% from those involved in MSM sex and IDU and the rest unknown source of infection. So only 11% of HIV men in the US have been HIV infected by that means.while the majority are homosexual and/or IDU drug abusing. Obviously the majority of those dying were not through heterosexual infection. Now of this 11% of males there are no circumcision statistics yet it is known that 15% of the 11% are White, non-Hispanic (reflecting 60% of the population), Of the 62% of the 11% Black/African American (reflecting 12% of the population), and 20% of the 11% Hispanic (reflecting 14% of the population). There you have it, so predominantly circumcised white heterosexual males have a 0.002% chance in the US of being HIV . Non-black Hispanics heterosexual males have a 0.017% chance of being HIV (8.5 times higher than whites) and Black/African American males have a 0.061% chance of being HIV (30.5 times higher than for whites.) So there you see the story for the US. White heterosexual males (the majority of whom are circumcised) have the lowest HIV infection rate. More bad news for foreskin admirers?

Richard Russell December 19, 2007 2:16 am (Pacific time)

Joshua: "Jake H. Waskett and Brian J. Morris* , Circumcision Independent Reference and Commentary Service, Radcliffe, Manchester, UK, and *School of Medical Sciences and Bosch Institute, University of Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia" You cite these people to support the idea of cutting off healthy tissue from healthy baby boys? These two men are among the most biased advocates of circumcision in the whole world. Their enthusiasm is beyond rabid and fanatical. It is absolutely mind boggling madness. They are among the most biased persons on Earth about any issue; their bias in favor of circumcision excedes the bias of Josef Stalin and Mao Tse Tung in favor of communism. No one in his right mind would rely on anything either of these two say about circumcision. They are too biased, ab initio, to be trusted when they say anything at all about circumcision. Mr Waskett's "organization" (CIRC[u]S) is at most the work station of his home computer, if he has one. He is neither employed by nor associated with ANY actual scientific, medical, or research organization. He works in the computer industry. Doctor Morris is NOT a medical doctor, though he often tries to give the impression that he is. He is a professor of medical sciences, and actually does have a PhD degree which qualifies him to teach some courses to medical students, but he is not an established expert about circumcision, other than in his own mind. How could you be so gullible?

Michael December 19, 2007 12:36 am (Pacific time)

Circumcising to protect you from Sexually Transmitted Diseases is like fucking with a Condom that has a big hole in it. The hole is the Fact that circumcised North America has the highest AIDS rate in the first world countries compared to Intact Europe that has the lowest one. We will repeat this until the circers turn green in their faces. Only stupidity would give any weight to the circumcision profiteers’ short term studies and ignore those long term facts of more than 20 years where circumcised people are dying in circumcised North America.

Richard Russell real name December 19, 2007 12:16 am (Pacific time)

Ref. Joshua December 18, 2007 8:32 pm (Pacific time) No conspiratorial delusion, just a carefully designed test of you from forensic stylistics. You passed the split personality part, but failed the willingness to engage the issues part: You refuse to confront the fallacy of your tobacco industry analogy. Yes, I see the pattern of anti-circumcision activists. No need to wait for it to evolve; it has been clear all along. They want the cutting of boys' genitals stopped, while those who advocate the cutting, enjoy knowing that it is being done, mutilation, pain, sexual dysfunction and all. We want the violent child abuse to stop. You want the abuse to continue. What is your motive? Why do you want to see it continue?

Van Lewis December 18, 2007 10:17 pm (Pacific time)

Neal again: "I am saying leave families alone." That's a death sentence for families. No nuclear family can make it alone. Everyone needs checks and balances. No one can be invested safely with absolute power in any group because people are fallible. Yes, children's protective services makes mistakes, just like Neal does. Did his father treat him like he treats us? He just wants to be in the dictatorial position in the family, it looks like to me. He says families have to be hierarchical, otherwise, CHAOS! Not true in my family. Thank God I didn't feel I had to be a dictator in my family. My children love me and their mother. Neither of us had any compulsion to dominate our children. "Again, you claim circumcision is harmful in and of itself and I again state to you that your side has not proven your point to me..." And we don't have to. The burden of proof rests on those advocating the cutting. That would be Neal et al. Pro-circumcision factions have never proved and never will or can prove that circumcising is NOT harmful because it IS harmful. This is obvious except to lunatics. When medically unnecessary genital amputations injure (100% of the time) and kill (sometimes) babies and children, harm is obvious except to those who work 24/7 to remain blind to harm. Advocating cutting other people's healthy sex organs is evil. Doing it is more so. Jail mutilators. Their compulsion to harm others sexually is an extreme form of psychological illness. They dress their sickness up and call it "science" and "medicine" and "religion" but we see through their putrid lies. The pro-circumcision zealots are the real whackos. Jail, jail, jail.

Neal Feldman December 18, 2007 11:37 am (Pacific time)

Van Lewis - More ridiculous spew from the delusional nutter. You claim everyone is ignorant and if so then where do you get off pointing it out only at me as a flaw when you, yourself, are just s much a part of the set [everyone] as I am. Then you try and claim I am delusional for a claim I never made (you claim I claimed to know everything about everything which I have never claimed) while you are a proven delusional making claims about reality that are patently and demonstrably false. But typical of you and your ilk who misquote by misrepresentation, as proven before, and then you make your ludicrous straw man arguments with your wholesale BS and intellectual dishonesty. And you wonder why you are considered a nutter and why your arguments are not convoncing any but your particular choir.... it is because you acting like and presenting yourself as a lying delusional nutter is not conducive to credibility and since you have no credibility you will not convince many intelligent educated folks. Ah well...

Avendexora December 18, 2007 9:57 pm (Pacific time)

Richard L. Matteoli I appreciate the book suggestion. Btw, your writing is absolutely fascinating! You also mentioned checking him out. I did that. He looks a lot like the “Wiccan Teacher” who won the lottery a few months ago. Thank you Hugh for that information re: Brit B'li Milah. It seems Neal responded to a post that did not make it on the forum. Thats simply isn't fair. I'll be surprise if this makes it as well. I'm giving this one more try... Indeed, the “History of Circumcision” FACTS was copied from a document created for historical studies and then pasted into the post. Anyone who avoids learning from History is bound to repeat it. Which is why circumcision continues. Circumcision is a ritual. Like most rituals, it lacks practical common sense. Circumfanatics actually believed circumcision was a prophylactic for spinal paralysis, and cures epilepsy. When those claims were refuted, they sought out for other so-called miracles to support genital cutting. You truly believe every male child is born with a birth defect. You think hygiene on an intact male body is overly complicated. Honestly, how hard is it to remember the three R's: Retract, Rinse, Replace for a retractable foreskin? Is this effortless routine preserved only for the privileged SMART male American? Why must a newborn be forced to expose his bloody circumcision wound in a soiled diaper? How is it cleaner to have feces and urine up against a wound? A male infant is born with a non-retractable foreskin for a reason. Its there to protect the meatus from fecal matter. The praeputial sphincter opens to release urine and will shut when the bladder empties. This is one of the many ways the foreskin is valuable to its owner, meaning the boy himself. Its not the parents penis nor is it the practitioner's penis. There is a double standard in our justice system. Every child has an inherent right to preserve the integrity of his own sexual organs. The foreskin is included in the human blueprint. This wasn't an accident. Why must you continue to discriminate against this natural design the body of every male is born with?

Richard L. Matteoli December 18, 2007 9:55 pm (Pacific time)

Neal: re your Dec 18, 11:59 response: I know my plea for a sane conversation was not up. ((1)). Yet would you talk to your child that way? In a sense we are all children to another's lifestyles, religions and practices. Many people have two Judith Spencer books "Suffer the Child" and "Satan's High Priest." Please just explain. She's not Jake/Jason. Differentiate not dissociate. I don't know either yet know a lot of it had been patriarchalized out and lost to Jerusalemic thought as well as knowing a miniscule BASIC about the feminine involved in all spirituality, theology and religious practices. Either way: If your child says "Daddy those Christians cut their children. They're sick people" Would you say "Child you are ilk." Or would you say: "I know my child, many do but they haven't been told the truth by some leaders. This is what it says they are to do. *** Now, let's have a healing ritual for them." Then go on. What would you think if a non-circumcising parent was the one who heard your child and then called your child "ilk." ((2)) Yes we all feed and clothe ourselves and our children as you pointed out. "NATURE" Pope John Paul II said to his companion upon feeling the wind when they were walking down the Vatican steps that the wind was the 'touch of the Holy Spirit.' He knew something lost. Now: If your neighbor's child is never fed, will you feed the child even if the scraps from your table were enough? 2). If your neighbor's child is never given clothing and you could clothe the child with what your children have outgrown, would you clothe the child? ((3)) Then, through Nature, if you and/or your child see and know your neighbor is taking off Nature's clothing given the child and forever throwing that clothing Nature gave that child never for that child to be clothed by Nature again, what would you do? Say to your child "They have the right as parents to do so thus it is right? The law says it is OK, so it is OK?" And if your child says "Daddy, why didn't you do something?" because after all you are the child's male parental figure, "My darling child when it came time to act, I did not have the courage of my convictions which are the convictions I live my life by - at least what I tell other people. This is because I am not the person that I say I am. And I am ilk."

Van Lewis December 18, 2007 9:49 pm (Pacific time)

All the pro-circ people want to cut OTHER PEOPLE'S sex organs. This is a very sick approach to life. Who do they think they are? If they want to cut sex organs so bad, why not stick to their own? "I only wish that those troublemakers who want to mutilate you by circumcision would mutilate [or castrate] themselves." St. Paul Galatians 5:12

Josh December 18, 2007 9:19 pm (Pacific time)

A rebuttal of the anti-circumcision organised and funded 'study' fro the BJU: FINE-TOUCH PRESSURE THRESHOLDS IN THE ADULT PENIS Sir, Now that the medical benefits of circumcision have been convincingly shown (www.circinfo.net), campaigning by anticircumcision groups has retreated to claims that circumcision is sexually damaging. The largest, the National Organization of Circumcision Information and Resource Centers (NOCIRC), insists that ‘without this protection [of the prepuce] the glans becomes . . . desensitized from exposure and chafing’ [despite available evidence to the contrary] and that ‘specialized nerve endings in the foreskin enhance sexual pleasure’ [1]. To support their claim of decreased sensitivity, they now report in BJU Int fine-touch pressure sensitivity thresholds on 19 areas of the uncircumcised penis, nine also being on the circumcised penis [2]. Poor methods and erroneous statistical analysis mar this paper; e.g. in their Table 2 they fail to compare the same points on the circumcised and uncircumcised penis. Using their data we find no significant differences (Table 1), consistent with previous findings [2,3]. Only in their multivariate analysis were P values of apparent significance. They claim that several locations on the uncircumcised penis are significantly more sensitive than the most sensitive location on the circumcised penis (the ventral scar), yet their Table 2 shows this applies only to their position 3, the orifice rim of the prepuce. However, after we used the Bonferroni method to correct for multiple comparisons, this significance disappeared. Statistical naiveté is also apparent in their expression of values to up to four significant figures! Although their Methods section states that they recruited participants through ‘fliers’ at a medical school, announcements on a radio programme, and newspaper advertisements, their Table 1 shows only 13 (19%) uncircumcised and 35 (38%) of circumcised participants were recruited in this way. This table reveals that more, 33 (49%) of the uncircumcised and 32 (35%) of the circumcised participants, were recruited via a ‘friend’, the ‘Internet’ and even the ‘study leader’! Even then, their Table 1 is incomplete, as the referral sources of 30 (44%) uncircumcised and 24 (26%) circumcised participants are unaccounted for. In an attempt to support their wish that uncircumcised men are better lovers they refer to a ‘preliminary survey’ of women recruited in part through an anti-circumcision newsletter. Yet this states ‘this study has some obvious methodological flaws’ and that ‘it is important that these findings be confirmed by a prospective study of a randomly selected population of women’ [4]. A more credible study, not cited, found that most women prefer the circumcised penis for appearance, hygiene and sex [5]. By contrast to the authors’ distorted discussion of the literature, most studies reported improved satisfaction after circumcision. Particularly notable are two large clinical trials involving circumcision of healthy volunteers, where 98.5% and 99.5% were ‘very satisfied’ [6,7]. The authors conclude that ‘circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis’, although they only tested the ability of subjects to detect the lightest touch. Meissner’s corpuscles, being light-touch receptors, would be expected to cause such a measurement to exaggerate the sensitivity of the prepuce. However, sensitivity, particularly when discussing erogenous sensation, depends on several different modes of stimulation and their interaction. In addition, sexual sensation depends upon the types of mechanical stimulation generated during intercourse, which might in turn be influenced by circumcision status. Thus circumcision has the potential to either increase or decrease sexual sensation. Surprisingly, the study omitted to address sexual pleasure. The existence of a market for lidocaine-based products to reduce penile sensitivity attests to the desire by some men for a penis with reduced, not heightened, sensitivity. Moreover, undesirable preputial sensations such as pain, discomfort and irritation must be considered. While results are somewhat mixed, one study found reduced pain in 69% of men after circumcision [8]. Thus it would seem that a more important question is whether sexual pleasure is affected. In two very much larger surveys, no association was found between circumcision status and failure to enjoy sex [9,10]. In conclusion, despite a poorly representative sample and methods prone to exaggerating the sensitivity of the prepuce, NOCIRC’s claims remain unconfirmed. When the authors’ data are analysed properly, no significant differences exist. Thus the claim that circumcision adversely affects penile sensitivity is poorly supported, and this study provides no evidence for the belief that circumcision adversely affects sexual pleasure. Jake H. Waskett and Brian J. Morris* , Circumcision Independent Reference and Commentary Service, Radcliffe, Manchester, UK, and *School of Medical Sciences and Bosch Institute, University of Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia

Jason December 18, 2007 9:04 pm (Pacific time)

Neal, what of the experience in improved sensitivity with people who have kept the glans covered for an extended period of time, whether restored, restoring, or just seeing what happens if it is covered? Although not scientifically tracked, the results are highly in favor of improved sensitivity (I have only seen one person say the results were not noticeable and he only kept covered for 2 weeks). My personal experience with keeping it covered was done when I knew barely anything about circ so to say it is just psychological doesn't fly with me.... I didn't have some "deep seeded" problem, simply curiosity. ALSO, you say we need to find the fault in the Payne study.... how about finding some fault in the Sorrel study? Which one seems more extensive?

Joshua December 18, 2007 8:53 pm (Pacific time)

Time to cut through the smoke and mirrors and return to the facts. New Data on Male Circumcision and HIV Prevention: Policy and Programme Implications http://data.unaids.org/pub/Report/2007/mc_recommendations_en.pdf Quotes: "The research evidence that male circumcision is efficacious in reducing sexual transmission of HIV from women to men is compelling." "The three randomised controlled trials showed that male circumcision performed by well-trained medical professionals was safe and reduced the risk of acquiring HIV infection by approximately 60%." "The efficacy of male circumcision in reducing female to male transmission of HIV has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. This is an important landmark in the history of HIV prevention." Recommendation 1: "Male circumcision should now be recognized as an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention." Recomendation 2: "Promoting male circumcision should be recognized as an additional, important strategy for the prevention of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men."

Joshua December 18, 2007 8:39 pm (Pacific time)

One said: "One does not play football with one's penis, does one?" Who let the dogs out?

Joshua December 18, 2007 8:38 pm (Pacific time)

Interesting to see how the anti-circumcision zealots desperately defend the results of their own organized and funded study into penile sensitivity (just like Big Tobacco defended theirs). It would be hilarious if it were not so damn sad (from a mental health point of view). They deserve sympathy and compassion.

Joshua December 18, 2007 8:32 pm (Pacific time)

Richard Russell said: "I wish a fortiori that Joshua would tell us who he really is. Clue to "Joshua": Keep the J and a, throw out two letters, and change two others. Then we might expose his involvement in a huge, powerful, and well-funded plan to impose circumcision on every male in the world." Don't you just love the level of conspiratorial delusion in this statement? This with the incoherent ranting of his namesake does anyone begin to see a 'pattern' among these anti-circumcision zealots?

Joe December 18, 2007 7:53 pm (Pacific time)

Joshua December 17, 2007 10:32 am said: "Now why would any sane person believe a study organized and funded by an anti-circumcision group? Just like no sane person would accept the findings of a study into smoking organized and funded by Big Tobacco. Nice try though ;-)" Now I've been thinking about this but it doesn't quite make sense. What shady ulterior motive could NOCIRC have? It's not like they're working on commission. Big Tobacco on the other hand has a clear profit motive. As might a doctor who performs circumcisions and generates a study in favor of the procedure.

Kira December 18, 2007 5:59 pm (Pacific time)

FACT: 1) My OB/Gyn told me RIC was NOT medically necessary 2) Both my sons did NOT receive surgery 3) Neither male have ever had any problem and/or complication from their foreskins At 15 and 8 years old I couldn't imagine ANYONE wanting to perform a circumcision on them, and I KNOW they wouldn't WANT it done. I hope the Courts are listening!

Hugh December 18, 2007 2:29 pm (Pacific time)

Avendexora: "Brit Shalom - a 'cut free' naming ceremony. This is a Bris without a circumcision." Also known as Brit B'li Milah, covenant without cutting; you can find a list of celebrants (including at least 14 rabbis) at shalom dot notlong dot com.

Richard L. Matteoli December 18, 2007 12:21 pm (Pacific time)

"Where's the sex?" There is 1) one coital sexual organ 2) two separate types of sexual performing acts 3) one act of Death and 4) one act of Life - in my Shadow mythwork. Any guesses? OK: Joseph Campbell in, "The Power of Myth" stated: "The function of Myth was to put man in accord with nature.. The problem of mythology is to relate that sound truth to the actual living of life. The Myth has to deal with the cosmgony of today. A mythological image that has to be explained to the brain is not working. WHAT DOES IT MEAN: Part way there. The myth is nature, actual living of life, deals with film our present day Greek theater - but needs to be explained. This is what we've lost. An ancient mind would have known the sexual elements as the story went on.

Neal Feldman December 18, 2007 11:59 am (Pacific time)

Avendexora - Your ignorance and nysteria are showing as usual. Yes I am a Wiccan. But the religion is called Wicca not Wiccan. Wiccans are the practitioners. Like Christians are the practitioners of Christianity. You apparent comprehension problem lies between your own ears. You cannot, due to your limiting fervent zealotry, conceive of anyone who does not agree with you. You consider circumcision to be harmful and (laughably) an atrocity but I do not. As such my support of parental right to consent to the procedure regarding their infant male children is not incompatible with my beliefs. Also if you know anything of Wicca you know there are a nearly infinite variety. As for manipulating, dominating, etc that seems to be you. I am saying leave families alone. You and your ilk are the ones seeking to dominate everyone through dishonest manipulation methods to do only what you wish to allow them to do. More projection on your part, clearly. As for Wiccans revering nature we do... but that does not mean we starve to death because we refuse to eat any plant or animal nor freeze to death because we refuse to wear clothing, etc. We on the whole try and apply sanity to the concepts. I understand that since sanity and you are far from close acquaintances this part of comprehending might be hard for you to grasp. Also we take actions.. call them rituals, prayers, or spells - as in all religions they tend to be interchangeable - to impose our will upon the natural order of the universe. Tool using is much the same. We just do so in ways that harm none. Again, you claim circumcision is harmful in and of itself and I again state to you that your side has not proven your point to me (and considering the dishonest nature of your sophistry arguments so deeply rooted in delusions of your own and presented with such extreme hyperbole and emotion-laden histrionics as to be seen as the incoherent ravings of mentally unhinged nutters it is unlikely such 'arguments' ever will convince me of your alleged points). Do you comprehend yet? I doubt it but figured I would ask anyway. Ah well...

Anonymous December 18, 2007 11:42 am (Pacific time)

HENRY: 3 years with a child psychologist wife!!! Sex belongs to 1). The Freudian id 2). The Transactional Child and 3). The first level of Maslow's Hierarchy on Needs. MUST HAVE BEEN GREAT - at least "In the beginning" as they say.

Richard L. Matteoli December 18, 2007 11:33 am (Pacific time)

EVERYONE CALM DOWN: True story this time. "Who is Frank?" Went to St. Mary's College, CA. Christian Brothers. Grad 67. Everyone graduated with philosophy, theology and classical literature minors (Greek-Roman). Past life, hard trying to remember. FRANK: Lot of my classmates filtered in from leaving the seminary. Standard question. 1). 'Your religion?' Frank: Agnostic. 2). "What Denomination?" Frank: Non-Denominational. 3). "Affiliation?" Frank: Unaffiliated. It took three times to get the message. Unaffiliated Non-Denominational Agnostic. MEANS NOTHING. Frank is now a college psychology professor. OK: LESSON #1: If ya want to learn, get a thick skin. Allow shock response. Work through the structure people use and realize something might be gained. Know that different communication techniques are needed at different times. Once you know, bet ya'll use 'em sometime. Explain. Then go on. LESSON #2: a). The different ways and tone where I've used capital letters. b). The different ways many of our responses have been numbered. QUESTIONS: a). Does your religion-denomination-affiliation practice a Dark Side movement? b). What is it? c). Where does our innate FEAR of the Dark Side reside? STATEMENT: Circumcision is harmful Dark Side movement. NEXT: 1). Find the Sex. 2). Example of delusion.

Richard Russell real name December 18, 2007 11:11 am (Pacific time)

Hugh wishes to Joshua that he would "tell us what you REALLY think," I wish a fortiori that Joshua would tell us who he really is. Clue to "Joshua": Keep the J and a, throw out two letters, and change two others. Then we might expose his involvement in a huge, powerful, and well-funded plan to impose circumcision on every male in the world. We might learn that he has extensive involvement with one of the world's foremost experts on ad hominem attacks. For example, in his opinion, any opponent of circumcision is prima facie disqualified for bias, a position cherrily presented here by J---. Any advocate of circumcision is automatically a circumcision expert. Let's get this straight: The tobacco industry is in business to make money selling their products; they have a financial motive to deceive with false advertising. The US medical industry is in business to make money. The circumcision segment of that industry makes hundreds of millions of dollars in profits every year. That's why US interests back "research" in Africa with controlled studies (which means to "controlled" outcomes that promote circumcision). Opponents of circumcision are volunteers who donate their own money to do studies in the public interest. The efforts of circumcision opponents are designed to ultimately put themselves out of their non-paying "jobs." Now where is the bias? Medical advertising would be subject to strict rules requiring proof of claims; rigged "scientific" studies are wildly embraced by the popular press and touted to the public without charges for advertising space. How brilliant is this scam?

Sigismond December 18, 2007 10:51 am (Pacific time)

One does not play football with one's penis, does one?

Richard Russell December 18, 2007 10:39 am (Pacific time)

In a letter published this month by the _Canadian Family Physician_ medical journal, Dr J Menage in UK, made some interesting observations. "Puppies are now protected from tail-docking but human babies can still have a normal, healthy, functioning part of their genitalia amputated at the drop of a hat." In Dr Menage's professional opinion, "Loss of a body part is psychologically traumatic. When it occurs without consent it is perceived as an assault. When it attacks the penis it constitutes a sexual assault. And when done without anaesthetic it may be experienced as sexual torture." She supports her opinion with references to published professional material. Dr Menage goes on to say that "there is a risk of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder similar to that experienced by victims of war, rape and childhood sexual abuse." She cites preliminary research into the psychological effects of circumcision, that has "revealed similar findings of PTSD on a clinical scoring system validated on Vietnam war veterans." Why hasn't such effects of circumcision been more widely reported? Dr Menage explains that many "doctors will not have heard any complaints from circumcised men as they would be reluctant to trust the medical profession, would fear ridicule, and likely feel ashamed of their condition, as per other victims of sexual assault." The conclusion of Dr Menage is that "Genital mutilation of healthy, unconsenting children is an anachronism in the 21st century: balanitis is treatable by antibiotics, phimosis by steroids, vaccines prevent cervical cancer, condoms are prophylactic against HIV, many studies showing putative benefits are flawed, and religious belief is not a valid medical indication to amputate normal healthy tissue. So what is left? – only transgenerational irrationality, tradition and circumcisers' denial of the unwitting harm done to themselves." Her message should be heeded by anyone in a position to influence the liklihood of any boy being circumcised.

Van Lewis December 18, 2007 10:24 am (Pacific time)

Neal says, "... no ignorance on the topic on my part." Every human being is ignorant to one degree or another about sex and sex organs. Some are just more and some less ignorant than others. Neal doesn't know what he doesn't know. He has no idea of the extent of knowledge possible on the subject. He thinks he knows it all already. That it a very dangerous delusion, exactly the kind of delusional non-thinking that makes circumcising possible to begin with. It kills babies. Dead. 100%. It should not be allowed to rule US medicine, and if the doctors won't clean up their own act, then citizens, lawyers, judges, politicians will have to do it for them. Thanks to Neal for demonstrating so clearly the extent of the problem with ignorance and arrogance that we and the babies face.

Henry Ruark December 18, 2007 9:57 am (Pacific time)

To all: Sorry for incomplete disclosure; here's rest: "...three years with then-noted child psychologist wife...colleagues got continued large chuckle out of that !!

Henry Ruark December 17, 2007 11:57 am (Pacific time)

To all; Re last Matteoli comment, can confirm each detail he gives re Jungs. He mentions this from his personal experience. My knowledge comes from similar, with 3-yr

Neal Feldman December 17, 2007 10:20 am (Pacific time)

Avendexora - Your raving claims and histrionics show you to be even more factless and unhinged than Joe or Van. I see no need to respond to your long-winded clearly cut and pasted misapplied and baseless ravings other than to point them out as such. Ah well...

Richard L. Matteoli December 18, 2007 7:58 am (Pacific time)

Avendexora: ((1)). Neal asked us to check him out. So I went to Home and clicked Staff. Read his bio and then clicked his web page. Then went through it. Accept as stated. ((2)). And then I answered that I forgot where the churches are. So, what's happening with my identity? Why was my response the way it was. I legally can't go to church in my county. We were having water right issues for our ranch. My twin (mirror image) brother went to the opponent's church. He said he was going to ask for Christian arbitration and I can't go. OK with me. Next thing I got was a court order not to do anything with any church in the county. Well, f'n OK. The jerks can never well us apart even now and were going to be 63. Not even the judge who owned the ranch next to us. Identity. Well the dude opposing our 127 year rights died of a heart attack. I say God got the Christian. The last real Catholic church I was around was over 3 years ago in Padua Italy. Yet, circumcision is from Hathor/Horus worship, so are there any Jews, Christians or Muslims?? ((3)). Identity: from your posts I assume you are a health care professional like me. So I mentioned brain function. ((4)). Like Henry Ruark in Dec 17 1:46 I had the reference in a pile that was under a pile covered by another pile and I put the reference bio #2. ((5)). The amygdala is emotion and dominates in teenagers and early 20's the prefrontal cortex functions rational thinking after the early 20's. ((6)). I know Wicca is Nature based, but the other stuff??? OK the Mask and the Shadow. In my little mythwork of the Shadow the power of the Shadow hides behind the Mask. "Luke, take off my Mask." Jungian to the hilt. ((7)). OK in your post Dec 16 you mentioned castration. Blood stuff again. Circumcision, castration, sacrificing the King are all mythworks around the subject of fertility. Every Wiccan knows this and all 3 Jerusalemic religions lost its meaning. Hope you can follow and make it at least 3 who can. ((8)). The power in the circumcision issue is the little wire that holds the Christmas Tree ornament of this argument. Cut the wire. All this bickering, not shrieking, is looking at the glitter on the ornament and miss the big picture. This is the topic of Galatians 5:12 - the Christian curse. The priests of goddesses like Cybele had to be castrates. False sacrifices. ((9)). For examples of bickering leading to shrieking to browbeating see my first three bios. Spent 5 years at boot camps. Used to do it better. My drinking buddys taught me. Past life. ((10)). Thanks for letting me do a few posts in this one. ((11)). There is one Jewish leader in the anti circ movement I knew of from the start. Dr. Dean Edele. Grew up with his manager Mike and Mike was my patient. Had a talk about the success of a program like that. I thought so, said go for it. Worked out right. ((12)). Getting too long. Will post a list of books relative to blood.

Avendexora December 17, 2007 8:27 pm (Pacific time)

He is a Wiccan!?!!??? WOW! I had the impression Wiccan was a Neopagan earth-centered religion. They wouldn't dare reduce or impose harm on another human being. According to Wicca, Nature is well respected. I grew up with a wiccan teacher. Not saying I'm a wiccan or ever was a wiccan! Its hard to believe Neal is a Wiccan. Wiccans are not allowed do dominate, manipulate, control, or harm others. Nor are they allowed to advocate atrocities, such as circumcision. An Orthodox Satanic Dogmatist CAN declare Wiccan, and such wiccans cloak themselves with a drought desire to shed blood from the innocent, or see to it that its done. Interesting... This makes it so much easier to see pass his Bigotry. And for the record, I'm not an anti-semite. I know more Jews that choose not to circumcise their sons than most Christians I know. It was a Jew who educated me on Brit Shalom - a 'cut free' naming ceremony. This is a Bris without a circumcision.

Richard L. Matteoli December 17, 2007 8:14 pm (Pacific time)

Neal: The Shadow!! Love movie quotes and humor. Your tin hat and Illumaniti was the best: ** And while under the all enveloping tin hat the Shadow noticed a little penetrating light illuminating the end of the tunnel. And, "The Shadow knows." But what does the Shadow know?? "Paranoia is ultimate awareness." Durant. Darkman II. Why? Because under the light he saw the Mayan calendar "The end of the world as we know it." Like playing roulette. Round and round it goes, where it stops nobody knows. Step by step into oblivion. Then we're born-again and "We choose up sides and start all over." Anzio. How existential. ** OK: I know Neal can follow this. It is an example of the the Life/Death/Life cycle and force discussed by Jungian psychologist Clarissa Estes in her book "Women Who Run With the Wolves." Who knows if the real essence of this discussion will become ready to get this far. Whatever.

Richard L. Matteoli December 17, 2007 6:54 pm (Pacific time)

Promised 4th bio: Karl Friedrich von Munchausen was an 18th century German baron. He served in the German army and later was assigned with the Russians during two Turkish Wars against the Ottoman Empire. After retiring in 1760, it was his habit to entertain others about his military and hunting experiences. His friend Rudolph Raspe created a myth around Munchausen by publishing a book with fables attributed to the Baron. Not all the stories were Munchausen's. Connecting his name to Munchausen Syndrome indicates that, like his extraordinary stories, the extrardinary stories of those exhibiting Munchausen behavior are not true. OK: Though Munchausen told his stories for entertainment, the actual habits of those perpetrating Munchausen behavior are often serious. Some are minor. Refer back to my post on Dec 9. The conditions definitions are not mine. The pure definitions are from Europe. The Europeans have different definitions and diagnosis patterns compared to many things American.

Tandy December 17, 2007 6:13 pm (Pacific time)

Josh, Josh,Josh From the Payne study Touch and pain thresholds were assessed on the "penile shaft" , the glans penis, and the volar surface of the forearm. Sexual arousal was assessed via thermal imaging of the penis. Gee, where did they measure the foreskin? How did they measure the sensitivity of the MISSING foreskin? One cannot pretend there is no foreskin sensation by refusing to actually measure the foreskin itself.--that is logically absurd. Oh, and WHY would these "esteemed" researchers bother to measure the forearm? Can we all say QUACKS!

Neal Feldman December 17, 2007 5:51 pm (Pacific time)

Hugh - "But who knows what evil lurks within the hearts of men?? The Shadow? lol Ah well...

Neal Feldman December 17, 2007 5:48 pm (Pacific time)

Richard L. Matteoli - I laugh hard at the 'end of the world' predictions based on the mayan calendar only going to dec 21, 2012. Every year I buy a calendar that only goes to dec 31 of the following year. Does this mean that is when the world would end? Of course not. It means the mayans had better things to do than print out their calendar into infinity. Ah well...

Hugh December 17, 2007 4:59 pm (Pacific time)

Joshua: "Hugh lied:" Ohh, Josh, don't mince words, tell us what you REALLY think. "'The Payne et al. study (unbelievably) didn't measure the foreskin.' Actually they did when it lays back during an erection, on the shaft." Not if they were measuring the outer foreskin, which is just skin. Their conclusion admits they didn't measure the inner foreskin: "In light of these findings, the examination of penile sensory diffrences between uncircumcised and circumcised men warrants further study via a replication with a larger sample size [Sorrells et al. had this] including the measurement of multiple sensory modalities over multiple penile locations (comprising those believed to be directly affected by circumcision [i.e. the inner foreskin, and Sorrells et al. did this])" 'And they found the "results do not support the hypothesized penile sensory differences associated with circumcision."' but since they didn't measure those, the results do not refute those differences either. " "Now why would any sane person believe a study organised and funded by an anti-circumcision group? " A glance at the authors of the Payne study indicates that they would have an interest in vindicating circumcision. But who knows what evil lurks within the hearts of men? Any study's authors may bring their own biases to it. Unless you can refute the data, this is just argumentum ad hominem.

Richard L. Matteoli December 17, 2007 3:03 pm (Pacific time)

Promised third bio. and DEFINITION: Dr. Ignatz Semmelweiss was in charge of two birthing wards in his hospital. The first ward was run by midwives and had no unusual complication rates. When the second ward was added to the medical school's teaching facility, staggering infection and death rates occurred in that ward. The mothers were dying from childbed fever. Semmelweis observed that his fellow physicians and students were moving from the morgue to the teaching maternity ward. He surmised that they were carrying a disease from the dead to the new mothers. Semmelweis suggested that the doctors should wash their hands before performing pelvic examination. This simple suggestion encountered great resistence. The doctors complained that even if this was correct, washing their hands would be too much work. Nor were their doctors eager to admit that they had caused so many deaths. In 1861 Semmelweis wrote "The Etiology, Concept, and Propylaxis of Childbed Fever." The book included over 50 pages of statistics documenting patient morbidity and mortality rates. This was over 30 years before Louiis Pasteur proved proved the germ theory of disease. Consequently, the medical establishment had little appreciation for Semmelweis' premise. They ridiculed him and removed him from both his hospital and medical school positions. He eventually died a broken man. Negative reaction based on emotion and self-defense to new ideas is now known as the Semmelweis Reflex. DEFINITION: "The Semmelweis Reflex is the dismissal or rejecting out of hand any information, automatically, without thought, inspection, or experiment." NOW DON'T MAKE THE JUVENILE ASSOCIATION that washing one's hands equates to circumcision. Part of the circumcision spread of AIDS in Africa is from non-sterile and improperly sterilized instruments. What it means is DON'T PUT IT WHERE IT DON'T BELONG and DON'T TAKE IT IF IT DON'T BELONG. It's BEHAVIOR. If anyone can't understand this, then Charmin isn't in your lifestyle. OK, I'll give you a 4th.

Richard L. Matteoli December 17, 2007 2:17 pm (Pacific time)

Promised bio with quote #2: Rabbi Maimonides (Moshe ben Maimon, 1135-1204), was a rabbi, physician and philosopher. Maimonides was born in Spain. In 1148 the Almohades conquered Spain and threatened the Jewish population with death or exile if they did not convert to Islam. After ten years of avoiding persecution his family moved to Morroco. From Morocco he then lived in the Holy Land eventually settling in Egypt. Rabbi Maimonides was the first to write a systematic code of Jewish Law in his "Mishneh Torah." He also wrote numerous medical texts and served as a leader of Cairo's Jewish community. Rabbi Maimonides eloquently stated circumcision's HISTORICAL criminal motivations, THAT WE AS A SOCIETY PARTICIPATE IN, long before the Marquis de Sade, acculturated 19th Century English and American medicine, and FBI analysis of serial sexual predators with comments in his 12th Century "The Guide to the Perplexed." Quote: "The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupisence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been to bleed and has had the covering taken away from it, it must be indubitably weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: 'It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him... The perfection and perpetuation of this law can only be achieved if circumcision is performed in childhood... The parents of the child that is just born take lightly matters concerning it, for up to that time the imaginative form that compels the parents to love is not yet consolidated." RABBI DOCTOR MAIMONIDES KNEW MORE THAN ALL THE CRAP PRESENT DAY MEDICINE IS TRYING TO FIND OUT. If anyone can't figure this out then find a way to build an Egyptian pyramid. Lost knowledge. He also stated faith is the only reason to circumcise. Thus being a rabbi and physician he knew circumcision is NOT a medical procedure. Who cares what they were doing then when they didn't have printed books, computers or the web. Just learn what was going on. As the Marines state: ADAPT, IMPROVISE, OVERCOME. Reference was made to the Mayan end of the world in 2012. The specific date is December 21. Look, there have been wars over circumcision. People have been killed over it. You can't persecute someone for living in a mentally acculturated mud hut, but you can try to help them. I'm adamant about circumcision being wrong, but killing over it? Give me a break - though I totally understand how it gets to that point for some. Ah, "The better nature of angels" as Abraham Lincoln opined. I believe in the death penalty, but it is a very sticky wicket: "Brain Development, Culpability and the Death Penalty," http://www.internationaljusticeproject.org/pdfs/juvBrainDev.pdf. OK, I'll give a 3rd bio.

Henry Ruark December 17, 2007 1:46 pm (Pacific time)

Last-comment by Matteoli again right on facts and his statements re what they mean. Bernays indeed father of psycological premises and priinciples behind not only PR but also persuasive power widely now perverted in ongoing politics. Bad things stated about dissociation also apply strongly to torture and all connected with it, serving to assuage and conceal by self-denial the realities of conscious behavior for those taking part --as in waterboarding, and all other such evil, criminal attacks on the human psyche. Truth so recognized here is what contains many now found loathsome former practices of "security agencies", including torturous adventures we now learning about... As usual here for me, solid documentation available so long as my files remain intact, now being culled.

Richard L. Matteoli December 17, 2007 1:03 pm (Pacific time)

Promised bio and story #1: Edward Bernay's, Freud's nephew, was a military propaganda officer during World War I. After the war, he united his uncle's psychological discoveries with his knowledge of propaganda to sell commercial products and influence politics. Bernays considered the general population - the herd - inferior. He is called the father of Public Relations. Bernays termed the phrase "Big Think" that includes carefully veiled marketing practices as: publicity stunts, third party authorities as medical endorsements, national surveys and product branding to veil harmful effects. He has been called the "Prince of Puff" and the "Baron of Ballyhoo." Bernays' personal life appears to have personified his philosophy. He believed in 'the intelligent few.' Bernays called his chauffer "Dumb Jack" who would awake at five AM and take Bernays and his wife Doris Fleishman, to their office. Then the chauffer would take their daughters to school. After, he would drive the Bernays to their appointments and pick the daughters up from school. After work the chauffer would make dinner and go to bed at nine in the evening. Bernays paid him twenty-five dollars a week and he got a half day off every two weeks. Summing it up, Bernays stated, "Not a bad deal. But that's before people got a social conscience." NOW WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? Bernays did not consider his chauffer equally human, or a fully developed person worthy of equal humanity. THIS IS WHY 1) a Jewish male child is not given a name until after he is circumcised, 2) a Jewish Talmudic male can have sex with a girl before the age of 9 because she is not a fully developed woman; and 3) Why an Islamic girl under the age of 9 is not harmed if she is raped or has sex before the age of 9. THEY ARE NOT CONSIDERED HUMAN by the perpetrators. If not human, they are OBJECTS. This is DISSOCIATION. Dissociation is essential in criminal behavior like serial sexual predation.

Tandy December 17, 2007 12:52 pm (Pacific time)

"Avendexora, said ... Regarding "Fetish". You are correct it is worse than a fetish. What possible motivation could a group of people have that they would rather hundreds of thousands of people in Africa died from AIDS rather than support the WHO UNAIDS position regarding mass male circumcision. Makes one think." Well, this "reasoning" might apply is there was scientifically-credible evidence that circumcision has ANY effect on the prevalence of HIV. But as shown, there really is none. This statement is nothing aScare tactic based on scientific nonsense.

Tandy December 17, 2007 12:49 pm (Pacific time)

Tandy December 17, 2007 12:47 pm (Pacific time)

"Hugh lied: The Payne et al. study (unbelievably) didn't measure the foreskin. Actually they did when it lays back during an erection, on the shaft. And they found the "results do not support the hypothesized penile sensory differences associated with circumcision." Which in fact exposed another anti-circumcision fiction and that being that the glans of a circumcised penis is less sensitive than that on an uncircumcised penis. Now why would any sane person believe a study organised and funded by an anti-circumcision group? Just like no sane person would accept the findings of a study into smoking organised and funded by Big Tobacco. Nice try though ;-) Don't rty to blow smoke up my skirt--they no more measured the foreskin that did the others with their logically-absurd studies.. and trying to spin it otherwise is beyond belief. If you wish a definitve study, on actaul and exacting measurement of the penis AND the foreskin--go read the Sorrel's study. BTW, care to tell us how they can measure the sensitivity of a missing foreskin? LOL Can we all say absurd!

Jason December 17, 2007 12:41 pm (Pacific time)

Joshua... who does the study is definately important to keep in mind, but you cant ignore the data if no fault is found. I could easily say the HIV study is in the same bracket you place the sensitivity study. What really matters is data that they may have missed or were misleading about (on purpose or not), confounds such as culture, diet, etc, etc. Also, having kept my glans covered for over a month before, I have a hard time believing there is no/minimal difference... Also, if the extra sensitivity of the frenulum and inner foreskin is any clue to sensitivity of the "ridged bands" and in general, the removed skin, then I also have a hard time believing no/minimal differences were found. Not necessarily scienfitic study, but that along with similar experiences by others, leads me to think the Payne study is the one that missed something.

Richard L. Matteoli December 17, 2007 12:24 pm (Pacific time)

Joshua: re. your post Dec 17 12:36: There is NO medical reason for circumcision. Your citings are medical junk. Circumcision is NOT a medical procedure. Medicine has moved into the shaman's arena. Now, here are the citings that show the World Health Organization's stuff is TOTALLY INNAPROPRIATE AND INCOMPLETE medically. From my post on Dec 9 10:36 followed by Hugh's post Dec 10 2:57: 1) DEMOGRAPHICS: a) "Circumcision and HIV" http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html b): "Size matters: The number of prostitutes and the the Global HIV/AIDS Pandemic," http://www.circumcisionandhiv/download_studies_as_pdf_f.html c). "Male and Female circumcision associated with prevalent HIV infection in virgins and adolescents in Kenya, Lesotho, and tanzania," web source same as 'b)', 2) PREDESTINED STUDIES, a) "More concerns raised about HIV circumcision research," http://www.drpetra.co.uk/blog/?p=440, b) "Report on Male Circumcision: an Arguable Method of Reducing the Risks of HIV Transmission," http://www.cns.sante.fr/web_sida/avis/international/24_05_07/fr_1_b.htm, c): Same as c. in #1. NOW IF YOU WANT TO KNOW MORE THAT WON'T OVERRIDE YOUR PEA BRAINS, google 3) Dry Sex, and 4) Multiple Concurrent partnerships. All this CRAP over circumcision, HIV, religion and medicine is about PSYCHOLOGY, COMMUNICATIONS and BEHAVIOR. So, GET REAL if you are serious and learn the basics of 1) Psychology = Freud, 2) Communication = Transactional Analysis; and 3) Behavior = Jung. Also, from the point of mysticism you can read the Jungian stuff from Marie-Louise von Franz. Google her on the web and Amazon.

Henry Ruark December 17, 2007 11:12 am (Pacific time)

Discovered long ago that if you run a nutter-butter mill, it seems there is always a crowd seeking to put 'em into place. Trick is to protect and preserve one's own while fending off inevitable progressive-attack proceedings seemingly inevitable.

Richard L. Matteoli December 17, 2007 11:08 am (Pacific time)

Avendexora: I made the same assumption that Neal is Jewish when I asked him to have his Rabbi join the discussion. Neal is Wiccan. For the REAL purpose of discussing circumcision within the spiritual, theological and religious context that we are waiting to get to it does not matter. I'm putting it off because I want to do more on criminology first as a basis. We will address the issue. Your posts are good, BUT I DO NOT UNDERSTAND how some people can do the medical impossibility of non-surgically getting their amygdala to inhibit their prefrontal cortex that allows themselves to have such superior medical and otherwise understanding. I've searched the web and my books. Will ask a friend. If you want to follow, I recommend Emma Jung's fantastic little book "ANIMUS AND ANIMA" which can be purchased from Amazon. She was Carl Jung's wife. Though he gets the credit because he said first that they exist, she was the one who expanded and developed the concept of animus and anima for the Western mind. As for being a husband, Carl Jung was a jerk to his wife way beyond anything said on this forum. Actually, there was only one thing on the forum that got me irate and it wasn't directed toward me but hit me from personal experience as an adolescent. Not worth mentioning, does not belong here, we all have our stuff. I will correlate, without reference, with two short biographies followed by their quotes from their writings that directly pertain to the issue of circumcision, criminology, and behavior.

Neal Feldman December 17, 2007 10:42 am (Pacific time)

Henry - You know as well as I the delusionals will continue to rant and rave, falling deeper into their psychosis every day. As said, if they were not so decidedly offensive I might actually pity them. Ah well...

Neal Feldman December 17, 2007 10:33 am (Pacific time)

Jason - Yes your assessment is more or less accurate. The overemotional hyperbole and histrionics as well as the clear delusion in claims and the unsupported and unsubstantiated (legally false) allegations of child abuse and sex crimes do nothing to bolster the intactivist cause and in fact merely show them to be dishonest and unglued delusional nutters. It is their choice and their right how they choose to present themselves but few myself included) bother to debate with nutters. It is entirely a nonproductive exercise in intellectual futility. Ah well...

Joshua December 17, 2007 10:32 am (Pacific time)

Hugh lied: The Payne et al. study (unbelievably) didn't measure the foreskin. Actually they did when it lays back during an erection, on the shaft. And they found the "results do not support the hypothesized penile sensory differences associated with circumcision." Which in fact exposed another anti-circumcision fiction and that being that the glans of a circumcised penis is less sensitive than that on an uncircumcised penis. Now why would any sane person believe a study organised and funded by an anti-circumcision group? Just like no sane person would accept the findings of a study into smoking organised and funded by Big Tobacco. Nice try though ;-)

Neal Feldman December 17, 2007 10:28 am (Pacific time)

Van Lewis - no ignorance on the topic on my part. I just do not lap up your delusion-based spew. As for the estimates like I said those are grossly inflated on the point of circumcision deaths including many things that have nothing to do with the procedure itself such as incompetence, non-antiseptic or primitive conditions, etc. As to your whines about one time vs multiple aplication re: aspirin usually if you take aspirin once, product tampering aside and that is not included in the data as far as I am aware being unpredictable) you are safe from dying from taking it later which eliminates as relevant the multiple application aspect... it is only on initial application (ie number of patients not number of pills) that the data is based. As to whether it is necessary or not a great many take doses of aspirin as a regimen without a specific ailment at the time as a blood thinning agent. So your claim it is only taken 'as needed' is fairly flimsy. And circumcision is only done 'as needed'... you just do not happen to agreed as to the decided need or who did the deciding. According to the law, however, no matter how much you howl and scream about it, the choice in cases of infants and young minor males the is the parents'... not yours. You can again rant and rave your delusional claims to the contrary but those are the facts whether you like it or not. Ah well...

Joshua December 17, 2007 10:24 am (Pacific time)

Avendexora, said ... Regarding "Fetish". You are correct it is worse than a fetish. What possible motivation could a group of people have that they would rather hundreds of thousands of people in Africa died from AIDS rather than support the WHO UNAIDS position regarding mass male circumcision. Makes one think.

Tandy December 17, 2007 10:02 am (Pacific time)

Actually, a mutilated penis can be a fetish.

Henry Ruark December 17, 2007 6:22 am (Pacific time)

To all: I was wrong; obviously there is much more to say, and it can only get worser and deeper and more revealing all the way....Ah well !!

Tandy December 17, 2007 6:05 am (Pacific time)

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00471.x Sorry Jake, but that is a deceitful attempt to dismiss a scientifically sound study--one cannot pretend there is no foreskin sensation by refusing to actually measure the foreskin itself.--that is logically absurd.

Tandy December 17, 2007 6:01 am (Pacific time)

so, how does the claim that circumcision reduces HIV stand up to scientific scrutiny: Basic tenets of science: These can be used as a litmus test for claimed benefits Conclusions based solely on known flawed data cannot be considered valid All studies have known flaws—flaws of commission and/or flaws of omission Flaws = not scientifically compelling The worth of a theory is determined by ability to make accurate predictions No predicted reduction or elimination is found in real world Failure to fulfill prediction = not scientifically credible USA C-85%; HIV- 0,6% Japan C-,1%; HIV 0.1% Sorry, not scientifically credible

Avendexora December 17, 2007 6:00 am (Pacific time)

Regarding "Fetish" - It's not an obsession or a fetish to prefer sexual parts the way nature intended them to be. The ones with the unnatural obsession are the ones that can't deal with a normal set of genitals and have to cut parts of them off to find them attractive. Only circumfanatics have a hard time finding whole genitals of the opposite sex attractive. It is ENTIRELY natural, its how things are supposed to be. It's not possible to have a sexual fetish about normal genitals, because it's, well, normal. On the other hand, not being able to find normal body parts attractive is unnatural, and I'd say that having to cut parts of them off and having to have a reduced penis in a partner would be the ones with the fetish.

Richard L. Matteoli December 17, 2007 1:43 am (Pacific time)

Gary: Here is the last I'm going to do for narcissism from Shmuel Vankin's "Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited" from http://samvac.tripod.com (and) htt://malignantselflove.tripod.com: "The narcissist derives his Narcissistic Supply (other people - victims) from Primary and Secondary sources. But this supply is used by the narcissistic much the same as one uses perishable goods. He uses the supply to substitute for certain ego functions. At first, he uses his False Self with the aim of obtaining Primary Narcissistic supply source by demonstrating his superiority and uniqueness. This he does by putting on his intellect and knowledge. Once this phase is over the narcissist believes that his excellence has been established, securing a constant flow of Narcissistic Supply and accumulation. His False Self is satisfied and exits the scene. It will not reappear unless the supply is threatened." OK: This False Self persona mentioned by Shmuel is what the FBI terms the "Service Personality" used by serial sexual predators who use the "Con" technique to gain access to their victims by disarming their defenses. Their attire is very good and they often use authorative clothing. A doctor's robes, shaman's vestments? The World Health Organization representatives who can't get Lancet to publish their stuff so the put their stuff out on the web and advertizements? P.T. barnum would be proud of them. Charles DeGaulle said: "Men are of no importance. What counts is who commands."

Hugh December 17, 2007 1:42 am (Pacific time)

Joshua: The Payne et al. study (unbelievably) didn't measure the foreskin - apparently because their circumcised subjects had nothing to compare it with. The Sorrells et al. study, which found circumcision removes the most sensitive part, did.

Hugh December 17, 2007 1:00 am (Pacific time)

Justus James December 17, 2007 12:27 am (Pacific time) Justus James: "The foreskin is no more than a sheath as other mammals have." Most other mammals have fully retractable penises. "What could cause the stretch of imagination to claim a sexual function? A fetish?" Let's see. 1) First person reports by many intact men. 2) Scientific tests by Sorrells et al. (the only ones to actually test the foreskin) showing it is considerably more sensitive to light touch than the rest of the penis. 3) Why should it not? It's ideally situated. 4) Who says it doesn't have a sexual function in other mammals?

Joshua December 17, 2007 12:36 am (Pacific time)

Can't fault Neal Feldman's comment on this thread. In the face of the foreskin promotionists his resilience is admirable. The foreskin is of course a public health risk as can be seen from the joint statement published by the World Health Organisation and UNAIDS: New Data on Male Circumcision and HIV Prevention: Policy and Programme Implications http://data.unaids.org/pub/Report/2007/mc_recommendations_en.pdf and of course the supposed sexual function has been debunked once and for all in the following study: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00471.x

Justus James December 17, 2007 12:27 am (Pacific time)

The foreskin is no more than a sheath as other mammals have. What could cause the stretch of imagination to claim a sexual function? A fetish?

Richard L. Matteoli December 16, 2007 11:45 pm (Pacific time)

Gary, here's something about narcissism from Shmuel's book that I promised. Will keep it short and give something more. He has so much stuff. But, there will be a limit to this. I'll do narcissism before discussing other stuff like Dissociation and Object use. Remember there is nothing wrong with a healthy self-esteem, and as Neal says, don't think of it as a generality. "The narcissist is an actor in a melodrama, yet forced to remain behind the scenes. The scenes take center stage instead. The narcissist does not cater at all to his own needs. Contrary to his reputation, the narcissist does not 'love' himself in any sense of the word. He feeds off other people who hurl back at him an image that he projects to them. This is their sole function in his world: to reflect, to admire, to applaud, to detest - in a word, to assure him that he exists. Otherwise, they have no right to tax his time, energy, or emotions - so he feels. The narcissist's ego is weak and lacks clear borders. Many of the ego functions are projected. The superego is sadistic and punishing. The id is unrestrained. Primary objects in the narcissist's childhood were badly idealized and destroyed... He becomes unscruplous, never bothered by the constant use he makes of his milieu (surroundings), is indifferent to the consequences of his actions, the damage and the pain that he inflicts on others and even the social condemnation and sanctions that he often has to endure. The narcissist does not suffer from a faulty sense of causation. He is oblivious to the likely outcomes of his actions and to the price he may have to pay. But he doesn't care." OK: the FBI stuff applies to serial killers and serial rapists. But, there are structural similarities with various criminal typologies - that's later. I don't understand how these physicians, who project their white-robed god-like persona, could have ever thought, from all their literature and practice, that newborns don't feel pain. Circumcision without anesthesia is one thing, but these guys would give curarie to paralyze infants and do all kinds of surgery. Curarie does not in any way abate pain. SO, "Where does the newborn go from here?" (Motoko), movie: Ghost in a Shell.

Anonymous December 16, 2007 11:35 pm (Pacific time)

Neal Feldman: "let's us US citizens just give up our sovereignty and let the pissant other nations of the world dictate to us how we operate." That's your thinking and your words. Not mine. If that's the way you think, I hope you never get into a position in government from which you could do such a thing. I merely offer information that could lead to a better way of life for all the Americans willing to take heed. Every nation with similar health care, educational level, and industrialization to the US does not practice circumcision and does not have any significant level of problems with the genital health of their male citizens, while the US has high levels of such problems despite doing a surgery sold by the medical industry as something that will prevent all those problems. We're driving cars they make, wearing clothes they make, eating food they grow, and taking medicine they make. Why would you object to looking into how well they take care of penises that are disdained in the US and sent up right away for a surgical modification? This is not about style; it is about health and healthiness, whole bodies for baby boys, and a non-violent entry into the world, and most especially about non-violence to the one spot on the body designed by the Great Designer as the most sensitive sexual spot on the male body. Why should anyone want to show a baby boy that violence and sex mix, that sex and pleasure must not mix? Most of the well educated world has figured out we should NOT do such things. Put it this way, what if some "other" country (you got to watch out for those OTHERS you know, you can't trust them because they ain't like US) came up with a vaccine for AIDS or some other health scourge? Do you advocate ignoring the invention and refusing to use it to save our population from the horrors of the disease? I didn't have you figured for that much of a reactionary bigot. "This country has pulled the rest of the world's fat out of the fire several times. . ." Sooo? What does that mean? They should all be forced to start circumcising all their males so their superior male health without it won't give evidence that circumcision is nothing more than a money making scam for US medicine (and a very few mohels and caterers, but not to quibble about minutiae) , and a victimizing scam for those who fall for it? "If you like how things are in Finland or Sweden etc go live there and leave us the hell alone to live as WE like. Fair enough? What is it? No nation can defeat us militarily so you whine us to death? Is that it?" No that's not fair enough. I spent 25 years of my life in the military service of this country never whined for one second, no matter how hot or how cold it got or how far from the US it was where they sent me. I'm sure as hell not leaving it because some big mouth pipsqueak bully like you doesn't like the way I see things. What gives you the right to order poeple out of the country who don't agree with you? You turn out to be one of the most narrow-minded and most bigoted persons I've ever encountered in this country. And that includes a few Klansmen and Neo-Nazis along the way who didn't like the way I see things and live my life. I am really surprised and disappointed that a newspaper with the potential to influence the thinking of the population lets a person like you have any voice at all there. What if someone had told you that if you don't like the trends toward the end of infant circumcision, then you should move to a country where circumcision is the order of the day, like Saudi Arabia, maybe? I betcha that wouldn't sit quietly without a loud uproar from the editors and the publisher. Your capacity for pettiness, bigotry, and hatred is absolutely amazing. The only thing more amazing is that you are allowed a priveleged position from which to spout your venom.

Van Lewis December 16, 2007 10:27 pm (Pacific time)

Neal confesses," I, on the other hand, have not concerned myself with the topic of circumcision prior to responding to this thread." So THAT'S why you're so appallingly ignorant about it!

Jason December 16, 2007 9:51 pm (Pacific time)

Avendexora, if you are having trouble looking through the insults and bigotry, maybe this will help. In Neal's POV, circ is helping the kid medically, or at the least isn't harming him. This gives the parents the choice of following their religious belief or simply their personal preference. The kid is not harmed by the procedure so trying to relate/connect them to the FGM or Equal Protection law is not accurate and instead the 1st Amendment comes in and allows the parents to decide. Even though the FGM law bans all cutting of girls, even ones that would make minimal difference in their life, no substantial religion requires even minor cutting, so although some may still think it is needed it isn't the same as male circ since it is mandated. The medical harm/benefit is really the core difference that shapes each sides view of this topic. Most things debated here related back to this. If Neal thought circ actually harmed kids, I am pretty sure he would change his tune even on the religious side (religion isn't a free pass to harm your kid). ///// In my case, I believe circ harmed me, the medical benefits argued upon on are useless to me... circ took away what nature intended and gave me no choice on what was done with my body. Neal is perfectly fine with it and although he might not directly benefit from the argued medical beliefs, he thinks nature's design was improved upon so doesn't mind not getting the choice. Is all this about right Neal? ah well?

Avendexora December 16, 2007 9:45 pm (Pacific time)

Neal - if your so obsessed with cutting genitals you should castrate yourself! Your stupidity and insecurity disgust me! Poaching Christians and claiming you're G-D's chosen people when in fact YOU ARE NOT! Go on cry to the ADL! Your hypocrisy perpetuates genital holocaust on the millions of innocent American boys who in fact have an inherent right to an intact body. You've become apart of the BS brainwashing that led people like you to cling to absurdities. No one should inflict pain on another human being. There is nothing wrong with the foreskin, you filthy prejudice piece of SH!T! Nothing good ever comes from amputating healthy functional genital tissue. Stop whining about missing your foreskin and let the Boys of this Great Nation keep theirs! Would you turn a blind eye on the medicalization of genital cutting on women? If this cultural phenomenon was about infant girls being subjected to circumcision with blatant lies such as the same ones that support male circumcision, would you turn a blind eye or advocate for their integrity? There are plenty of Radical Muslims who say they're right to "perfect" their daughters and justify their circumcision with medical "claims" to prevent UTI's , vulvadina,lichen sclerosis,labial adhesions, STD's, circumcising them for cosmetic preference, better hygiene so they won't smell,or trap smegma... Here is the list of the yrs of brainwashing you so dearly advocate for: *1870 Lewis A. Sayre publishes a paper "proving" that circumcision cures epilepsy.*1870 Lewis A. Sayre declares that circumcision prevents spinal paralysis. *1871 M.J. Moses declares that circumcised Jews are immune to masturbation. *1873 Joseph Bell announces his discovery that circumcision cures bed wetting. *1875 Lewis A. Sayre declares that foreskin causes curvature of the spine paralysis of the bladder and clubfoot. *1879 H.H. Kane "discovers" nocturnal seminal emission and abdominal nueralgia. *1881 Maximillian Landesburg announces that circumcision cures eye problems. *1886 William G. Eggleston declares the foreskin caused crossed eyes. *1888 John Harvey Kellogg promotes circumcision from boys to prevent them from masturbating. *1890 William D. Gentry declares that circumcision cures blindness, deafness and dumbness. *1891 Johnathan Hutchinson declares that the foreskin "constitute a harbor for filth and is a constant source for irritation it conduces and adds to the difficulties of sexual continence." *1893 Mark J. Lehman demands immediate implementation of mass circumcision of all boys. *1864 Remondino says circumcising Blacks prevents them from raping white women. *1894 H.L. Rosenberry publishes paper "proving" that circumcision prevents urinary and rectal incontinence. *1900 Johnathan Hutchinson pushes circumcision as a means of desensitizing the penis. *1901 Ernest G. Mark advises circumcision as a method of permanently desensitizing the penis. *1902 Roswell Park publishes paper "proving" that the foreskin causes epilepsy and circumcision cures it. *1914 Abraham L. Wolbarst publishes manifesto demanding the compulsory circumcision of all non Jewish children in America. *1914 Abraham L. Wolbarst claims that circumcision prevents tuberculosis. *1914 Abraham L. Wolbasrt theorizes that circumcision prevents penile cancer. *1930 Norton Henry Bare claims that he has cured a boy of epilepsy by circumcising him. *1932 Abraham L. Wolbarst publishes his most widely sited paper claiming that circumcision prevents penile cancer. *1934 Aaron Goldstein and Hiram S. (Inch) Yellen invent and mass market the Gomco clamp circumcision instrument. * 1935 R.W. Cockshut demands that all boys be circumcised in order to desensitize the penis and promote chastity. *1941 Allan F. Guttmacher pushes mass circumcision as a means of blunting male sexual sensitivity. *1941 Allen F. Guttmacher falsely claims that a baby's foreskin must be forcibly retracted and the glans scrubbed daily. *1942 Abraham Ravich claims that circumcision prevents prostate cancer. (October of 2007 The Prime Minister of Israel, who was undoubtedly circumcised as a newborn, announced he has prostate cancer.) *1949 Eugene H. Hand claims circumcision prevents venereal disease and cancer of the tongue. *1949 Douglas Gairdner points out the lack of medical justification for circumcision, and baby's lives that could be saved; leading to the elimination of infant circumcision in the United Kingdom. *1951 Abraham Ravich invents the falsehood that circumcision prevents cervical cancer in women. *1953 R.L. Miller and D.C. Snyder unleash their plans to circumcise all male babies immediately after birth while still in the delivery room to prevent masturbation and provide "immunity to nearly all physical and mental illness." *1954 Ernest L. Wydner publishes his influential paper supporting Ravich theory that male circumcision prevents cervical cancer in women. *1956 Raymond Creelman invents the Circumstraint. *1966 Masters and Johnson claim, with no supporting data, that there is no difference in sensitivity between the circumcised and intact penis, misleading parents and men for forty years before being disproving. *1969 Morris Fishbein calls for circumcision to cure masturbation and nervousness. *1971 Abraham Ravich invents the falsehood that circumcision prevents cancer of the bladder and rectum. *1971 Prior to Shoen's involvement, The American Academy of Pediatrics on Fetus and Newborn issues a warning to the Nation that, "There are no Medical indication for circumcision in the neonatal period". *1973 R. Dagher, Melvin Selzer, and Jack Lapides declare that anyone who disagrees with their agenda to impose mass circumcision on America is mentally ill. *1975 Prior to Schoen's involvement the American Academy of Pediatrics Task force on Circumcision declares, "There are no medical indications for routine circumcisions and the procedure cannot be considered an essential component of health care." (The AAP statements do not stop the number of circumcisions done in America from rising!) *1976 Benjamin Spock, after recommending circumcision for thirty years , revises his book, "Baby and Childcare" to recommend against circumcision, "If I had a baby boy now...I would certainly would... leave his poor little penis alone." *1985 Thomas E. Wiswell invents the falsehood that prevents urinary tract infections.*1986 Aaron J. Fink invents the falsehood that circumcision prevents AIDS. *1988 Aaron J. Fink invents the falsehood that circumcision prevents neonatal group B streptococcal disease. *1989 Under the direction of Edgar J. Schoen, the American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision declares circumcision is necessary. *1991 Edgar J. Schoen tries and fails to convince European countries to institute mass circumcision. *1991 Aaron J. Fink declares mass circumcision is necessary to prevent sand from getting into the solders' foreskins. *1993 Gerald N. Weiss that the presence of Langerhans cells in the foreskin lead to HIV infection. *1997 Edgar J. Schoen tries and fails once again to convince European countries to institute mass circumcision. *1998 Howard Stang, inventor of an infant circumcision restraint fails to mention this conflict of interest in his article promoting infant circumcision. *1999 The AAP Task Force on Circumcision reverses the policy of the earlier Schoen Committee and once again declares circumcision is not necessary. *2002 The Federal Agency USAID, in corporation with RHO and the Gates Foundation, revel plans to export mass male circumcision to deal with the HIV crises in Africa. *2003 Edgar J. Steps up pressure on American Academy of Pediatrics to reverse its policy on circumcision, claiming that circumcision prevents AIDS. *2005-07 The medicalization agenda can be seen in these three African experiments, all funded by the US, with US (White) researchers, using the same format, were ended early, and came to the same conclusion touting circumcision as a 'vaccine' that prevents HIV infection. *2007 It only took 24 hours for World Health Organization Kevin DeCock to jump from recommending mass circumcision from adult African males to advising parents in developed countries to cut their infant son's genitals. *2007 Sorrells disproves the forty-year-long Masters and Johnson's 'theory'. The intact penis has four times the sensitivity. The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis, the glans is the least. *2007 Brian Morris et al. reprise the prostate cancer scare tactic. "Circumcision is a solution in search of a problem" - Edward Wallerstein.

Van Lewis December 16, 2007 9:00 pm (Pacific time)

As I understand it, Neal Feldman claims that aspirin kills twenty times as many children as circumcising does. One in a million from circumcising and 23 or so from aspirin. Where does he get one in a million? Robert Leon Baker, M.D., in SEXUAL MEDICINE TODAY, Volume 3, Number 11, Page 35-36, November 1979, says it's at least 172 per million. Using Baker's data for circumcising and Feldman's for aspirin, you're about 7.5 times more likely to kill your baby by circumcising than by treating a headache with aspirin, especially considering the fact that aspirin treatments usually are not a one-time event. Circumcising is. I have seen estimates of circumcision deaths far higher than Baker's, too. The truth is, nobody knows how many children are killed by circumcising, but we know that they are. At least Neal is finally admitting that truth. Took pulling teeth practically to drag that admission out of him. There is another factor to consider, as well. People don't usually give aspirin to children who are not sick or in pain. Aspirin is used to treat actual illness, not the fear of it. Circumcising is usually done to children who are not sick in any way. They don't even need aspirin, let alone genital mutilation. At least the parent whose child dies from taking aspirin has the small comfort of knowing that they were trying to help their suffering child deal with a real problem. A parent whose child dies from circumcising has no such comfort. "If only we had left him alone he'd still be with us. He was fine. Nothing was wrong with him. Why didn't we listen? What were we thinking?"

Neal Feldman December 16, 2007 8:54 pm (Pacific time)

Van Lewis - That the likes of you consider me obnoxious I wear as a badge of honor. As to the rest of your delusional cheerleading... whatever. Ah well...

Neal Feldman December 16, 2007 8:50 pm (Pacific time)

Tammy Swanson - Oh right, and someone named Tammy has such a secure grasp of penis issues, right? Oh it is laughable! And you may think your usage pf such inflammatory terms that only undermine any possibility of taking you seriously help you make your point... I assure you they do not. Quite the opposite actually. Ah well...

Neal Feldman December 16, 2007 8:45 pm (Pacific time)

Hugh - You are being dishonest again. The numbers I presented re: aspirin risk I attributed at the time. The numbers of deaths by circumcision were claimed by YOUR side in their most inflated as being in the hundreds. Over a trillion circumcisions one can assume and yet only hundreds of alleged deaths even in the worst case scenario. But your dishonesty continues in your fallacy claim. You cannot deny that properly performed (no incompetence or medical malpractice) the risk of death from the procedure is vitually zero. You can rant on and on about whether it is necessary or not but the fact remains that in virtually all cases it is just a benign procedure and none of the ranting loons from your side have ever proven otherwise. Just crossing the street or taking a shower can pose a potential risk of death or injury too. So what? The question is whether properly performed the procedure is a risk. The answer clearly is no it is not. Taking cases of primitive circumstances or procedural incompetence in a relatively insignificantly minuscule portion of the whole and applying it to the whole is not only fallacious but genuinely intellectually dishonest. Your side cannot even pull your heads out of your delusions enough to face facts of reality. So why should anyone listen to a tiny, though vocal, group of dishonest and delusional nutters' ravings? Let me know when you figure that out ok? Ah well...

Richard L. Matteoli December 16, 2007 8:43 pm (Pacific time)

Gary: There is a lot about narcissism. Narcissism is beyond healthy self-esteem. Too much for one post so will start with the reference in your question: 1). These guys have psychology degrees. Douglas and Olshaker, FBI profilers, state in "Journey into Darkness," pp. 33-34, 43, 66 and 75, "When you've analyzed what should be the motive based on the crime scenario and that doesn't make sense, and you go through all the other 'logical' ones and you can't make one fit reasonably, then you start looking into psychiatric territory. All crimes have a motive; all crimes make sense according to some logic, though that logic may be a strictly internal one with no relationship to any 'objective' logic. In many instances, a hidden sexual motive emerges, a motive that originates in fantasy. Tragically, this motive of uncontrolled anger and the need for sexual domination doesn't always occur against strangers. Many sexual sadists are married or in ongoing relationships - totally self-involved narcissists." And 2). Narcissism has a genetic component that parallels aggression. Karen Horney developed the NPA Personality theory where N=narcissism; P=perfectionism; and, A=aggression. Variability occurs because each parent possesses a genetic type so individuals may possess a single factor from one parent, or have two of a trait from both parents. A person who has one of each has 'npa', while another may have 'nnpa', or 'nppa', and so on. Also, gene expressivity is a factor regarding how strong of an influence the gene manifests itself. See: a) Benis AM, "Narcissism: A Genetic Trait," http://www.homestead.com/narcissism/index-ns4.html. See: b). Benis AM, "The Narcisstic Type N," http://www.homestead.com/narcissism/ntype.html 3) Shmuel Vankin is great. I'll work through his stuff for a post. Have his personal permission to do so. Enough for this report.

Neal Feldman December 16, 2007 8:35 pm (Pacific time)

Michael - Get your Kumbayayas out then? You sound like someone devoutly trying to convince themselves of something. From this side you just come across as another raving loon without a clue. Ah well...

Neal Feldman December 16, 2007 8:30 pm (Pacific time)

Avendexora - More of you blathering on about concepts pf which you lack any meaningful comprehension. It is not about equal protection nor gender equality. There are merely sophistry flags you choose to use to beat down the witless, the uneducated, the unintelligent, the easily swayed. What the specific reasons any individual one of you charlatans of sophistry have for your current zealotry it is abundantly clear that a devout belief in equal protection under the law or gender equity have absolutely nothing to do with it. You can squawk and squeal all you like to the contrary but your BS has been exposed along with your delusions and your dishonesty. And to further incite your ire... Ah well...

Van Lewis December 16, 2007 8:28 pm (Pacific time)

I think the reason I like Neal Feldman so much is that he is just as obnoxious as I am, but he's so much better at it! I have a lot to learn from him. Thanks to all posters for caring enough about children to express your concerns, and especially to all the people who are able to ignore Neal and post thoughtful, well-reasoned, educational, compassionate statements. The children of the future owe you a great deal for your careful work on their behalf. Thanks to you, they are winning this long and difficult struggle against mindless, prehistoric, stone age brutality.

Neal Feldman December 16, 2007 8:24 pm (Pacific time)

Avendexora - No confusion on my end, but clear desperation and intellectual dishonesty on your part is clearly evident. And the insecurity is yours as well, so desperate you seem to try and project it inapplicably onto me. You continue to demonstrate the delusional nature of your ilk here... that if you insist something it becomes true even though the facts clearly show otherwise in reality. That it why I might actually pity you and your ilk if your intellectual dishonesty and propensity for spewing your delusions as if they were facts did not disgust me. I value honesty, intelligence, education, logic and fact of which you and your like exhibit little of any. Intact or not it is clearly you focussed on penises, not I. And your emotion-laden taunts are to me like water off a duck's back... utterly meaningless and ineffectual. I would hazard to guess from the zealous fervor inherent in your posts that you have been focussed on penises for quite some time. I, on the other hand, have not concerned myself with the topic of circumcision prior to responding to this thread. And likely once this thread fades as all eventually do I will hardly give it a moment's thought again unless fools and sophistry spewing charlatans such as you and your ilk bring it up again. I will then limit myself, as I have here, to exposing your BS, dishonesty, stupidity and insanity and leave it at that. I realize this truth enrages you. Tough nuggets for you I guess. Ah well...

Some random nurse December 16, 2007 8:12 pm (Pacific time)

I don't have the time to read through all the comments but I just need to point out that children do indeed suffer from circumcision complications all the time and even death. Complications are always under-reported. If under any other circumstances, a doctor would be considered unethical and held liable for removing healthy, functioning tissue in a child. No ogranization in the world recommends infant circumcision. The only reason it is allowed to be left to "parental discretion" in the US is because Americans are scared to death to be labeled "anti-semite". And that's the truth of the matter. Yet, the majority of circumcisions are carried out on non-Jewish babies. I say either allow Jews to circ but give equal protection to the religions who are "commanded" to cut their daughters, or make genital cutting completely illegal for all cases involving minors without a medical need. There are several nations who are currently banning male genital circumcision for all infants for non-therapeutic reasons. Lets hope the US will follow. To the comment from "Anon" re: EMLA and dorsile block - sorry buddy, I've never, ever seen in all my years, both methods employed before a circ. When I've seen the EMLA, it's never on quite long enough and it's never fully effective. The dorsal block is a bit better but the injection of the block itself causes a mighty sting and isn't completely effective and provides no relief in the recovery period. More often than not, the only "method" employed is a pacifier dipped in sugar water. Make sure you suck on some sugar water next time you have dental work or a vasectomy and let me know how that works for you! Everytime I read and respond to these circumcision debates, and I don't often, I always wonder who all the "pro-circ" comments are from. They must be left by those who are rabbis or OB/Pediatricians making profit from circumcision because otherwise, I don't see how anyone could know anything about infant circumcision and still belief it's legally, ethically or medically the right thing to do. I can not fathom why this isn't seen for what it is: child abuse.

Tammy Swanson December 16, 2007 8:02 pm (Pacific time)

It amazes me that people who have no idea about circumcision (Like this Gilette guy) want to make laws about it. I wonder if "Justice" Michael Gilette would like to have his penis torn apart with no anesthesia, just to prove it's 'dangerous'?

Richard L. Matteoli December 16, 2007 7:35 pm (Pacific time)

There are different methods of reporting to Child Protective Services. 1). The first type: The Mandated Report which is required by law to be made by: child care custodians, health practitioners, employees of a child protective agency, and commercial film and photographic print processors. The latter is for child pornography. Parents are almost always counselled before this type of report is made and told they will be reported if behavior does not change. Not to provide counselling may be used as a defense by the person the Mandated Report is made against. My position of reporting health care professionals, hospitals and out-patient clinics, not parents, is to establish the viability of a possible suit by the child when he or she-(ie. Cortical Adrenal Hyperplasia) gets older if impropriety is found overwhelming. These types of suits have been successful even without a Mandated Report. But when a filed Mandated Report is on record then the impropriety cannot be as easily hidden by the offending practitioner or clinic with the convenient excuse of lost records. This lost record excuse is often used successfully for many things. The Mandated Report for circumcisioon will not be successful in taking the child from the parent. Just won't happen. This is a social issue. 2)The second type: Any person may file a complaint to Child Protective Services. Their report is different than a per se Mandated Report. Most often it is a Nosy Neighbor complaint who is having personal issues with the parents they report on. And these reports do become very damaging especially if the Nosy Neighbor will not quit reporting. Each report requires an investigation. This second type of report is outside the context of the my discussion. NOW to the opposing: Maybe someone should make a report against those institutions trying to stop medical marajuana with the intent of doing harm to individuals, which may be Rico Act tied to the collusion of various groups with a profit motive. Drugs for what Mary Jane can provide increases costs that will directly affect the health and well being of many people who cannot afford the more expensive corporate therapy.

Hugh December 16, 2007 7:29 pm (Pacific time)

Neal: "...I had never heard of a single death from the procedure." Well, now he has. "I still feel that competently done there has never been a death..." That is called the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Whenever there is a death, Neal can define the circumcision as not being competently done. Even if he were correct, babies get no guarantee of competency. "...death due to medical incompetence is death due to medical incompetence in my book." They're just as dead. And their circumcisions were just as unnecessary. "But I have allowed for the possibility recently but stated that the rate is so statistically insignificant that it is (according to YOUR over inflated numbers) about 20 times less likely than death by aspirin usage (previous comment... 1 case per million" Those are actually Neal's numbers. The fact is we don't know how many babies die from circumcision, because the deaths are seldom sheeted home to the operation that was the ultimate cause. One 13-year old died in Kenya at the weekend. I suppose we mustn't count him because his circumcision was "tribal" - yet virtually all cutting of girls is "tribal". And Neal fudges with his asprin figures. They count "asprin patients" - not every time an asprin was taken. If 20 people died for every million asprins sold, asprins would be withdrawn.

tandy December 16, 2007 6:57 pm (Pacific time)

Michael, I am one of those people at the Capitol bldg every year, and yes the Capitol police are very supportive of our being there--we are called by our names, and get the thumbs up from all. And actually talk about our families. Not many groups are as well received by so many. I personlly have convinced two of them to not circumcise. Many times they tell us that our group is very appreciated there by many as they DO appreciate the information we have to offer. The tide is indeed turning--I would never believed it would change this much in so short a time..and the internet sure has helped get this information out there.

Avendexora December 16, 2007 6:16 pm (Pacific time)

This comes down to equal protection of the Laws. This is about gender equality! The current laws protecting girls from circumcision make no exemption to cultural, cosmetic, hygienic, religion, or medically unnecessary reasons. She also must wait to the age of 18 before undergoing the operation herself. The 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution states that, “…everyone has the same protection under law and shall not be deprived of that equal protection.” It is clear that fully protecting girls from any form of genital cutting but not boys is unconstitutional. Intact genitals are the birth right of both genders, not just females. If a adult man decides on his own that he wants to undergo circumcision after being informed, then he is entitled to make that decision. If that choice is taken from him, then he has been robbed of his basic fundamentals to being an American!

Michael December 16, 2007 5:29 pm (Pacific time)

Higher Love Consciousness will ban circumcision world wide. A simple projection into the future. 2007 the year of enlightenment and genital integrity. We are living in a time of global awakening. The turning point is happening right now. We witness discussions all over the Internet and in newspapers which discuss the human rights of children to have intact and unaltered genitals. Even those who performed these medical and religious unnecessary surgeries are starting to question this barbaric practice of genital mutilation. Already 30 years ago some people found the courage to express their minds and feelings about the world’s darkest deception which is the mutilation of children’s sex or love organs. Those people went on the streets and held up signs that would raise consciousness. We thank them for their courage. Over the years other individuals recognized the brutality of cutting children’s genitals and they found like minded people on the Internet and in the cities they lived in. New Activity Groups are being formed constantly and we call our selves intactivists as we fight for the rights of children to have an intact body or genital integrity. We had endless discussions that would analyze the motivations of those who perform such cruelty on their own and other people’s children. We found ways to spread consciousness to people of all societies and religions by educating them about the physical and psychological harm that is being done to their children by this cruel and compassionless practice called circumcision. People log on from all over the world to our web sites to find the truth and they will help us to spread more consciousness to bring an end to this ancient barbaric ritual performed on innocence. Publicly burning down a Circumstraint, yearly demonstrations in front of the Capitol in Washington DC and other places, peace signs received from the Washington Police Department as well as being asked for Genital Integrity bumper stickers by them and being told that this is the most significant peace action they have ever witnessed are just signs of a world shifting into higher consciousness where our children will be protected from this most disgusting ancient crime and sadistic assault on their genitals that has been performed on so many throughout history. 2008 People’s consciousness is rising in exponential rates in the United States and all over the world. People are finally waking up. More and more men will restore their foreskins to be whole again and to experience their sexuality the way it was intended by God and Nature. The circumcisers loose all ground to stand on. All medical and religious lies are being debunked by facts. The more ethical and smarter circumcisers who realize the early warning signs can see the consequences of this international awakening and movement and they voluntarily will lay down their knives now and admit that they themselves have been victims of those lies and they will start to protect children as well. They also will realize that circumcision is an invention of the evil that throughout history succeeded to spread lies, fear and chaos into this world to keep us away from the angelic beings we are supposed to be. They will stop repeating the old lies and they also will refuse to spread new ones which we all know were only invented to back up the old ones so their malpractice would not appear all that wrong. As people recognize the physical and psychological harm of genital cutting that has been performed on them and on their own children they will call for an absolute end to it. Anybody who shows good will now by turning against circumcision will eventually be spared from the consequences of people’s outrage. The following years are the years where circumcision will be banned all over this globe. Those who are more resilient and not that smart will insist on keeping up their evil child raping practices as they can not project what this international intactivist movement and the expanded love consciousness of awakening people will hold in store for them. But justice will find its way and those who persisted in performing those cruelties are being recorded and they will have to feel the outrage that is growing to unpredictable dimensions. All circumcisers still struggling to continue their malpractice will have to recognize that no money in the world or any other motivation is worth to be exposed to the outrage of very angry people. Circumcision is war and terror performed on children by adults and it is planting the seeds for more war and terror in this world. How can anybody that has been painfully attacked on his genitals as the first sexual experience in this world be peaceful and subconsciously not afraid of the other? The time to lay down the scalpels and torture clamps to give all boys and children across this world their human rights to grow into a world of peace and to enjoy their whole and intact genitals is now. 2012 the end of the Mayan Calendar, the end of all human sacrifices, a new beginning; human beings enjoying their sexuality without fear, a universe of inner and outer truth and love, an intact world, people in peace with themselves and each other. Warrior of Love

Gary December 16, 2007 5:23 pm (Pacific time)

Richard, whoa, you said, "... according to the FBI serial sexual predators are narcissists." Could this be what's behind circumcision, too? Surely one doesn't cut an infant's genitals out of love for the infant.

Avendexora December 16, 2007 5:19 pm (Pacific time)

Ahh Neal – How kind of you to respond to me. I'm touched. I see you're confused. Let me help you clear that up. I advocate for Genital Integrity. This means leaving the penis ALONE! You, on the other hand, seem far too interested in messing with the genitals. Does that help? Do you understand what it means to be focused on penises now? If this is such NONSENSE to you, why are you still here? Your little “Ah Well...” confirms just how pathetic and sickly insecure you really are. So insecure in fact you have to compel others to cut their little boys penises so YOU won't fall into the minority! Move to Israel where 90% of cut happy folks will welcome you. I'd think you'd be happy. Or you can stay in America and help restore our country to the Intact Culture it once was.

flitoo December 16, 2007 4:54 pm (Pacific time)

Neal, Why do you support this? What are your reasons for supporting this? ie: Medical Condition?, Religious Practice?, Cosmetic?, Health Reasons?, Tradition?, Family Peer Pressure?, or do you feel that a parent should just have the right to do this? My take on circumcision is that only the rare exception of an immediate medical condition to me would warrant circumcising a child.

Henry Ruark December 16, 2007 4:39 pm (Pacific time)

To all: What is there left to say but...Ah Well !

Neal Feldman December 16, 2007 4:27 pm (Pacific time)

Avendexora - Ah another unhinged disciple if idiocy heard from. Oh does my little "Ah well..." annoy you? Guess that is just an added bonus and glad to hear it. As to the rest of your lunatic ravings I am not Jewish by religion... was Jewish by birth. I have four kids none of whom are male so circumcision never came up. I do not take part in any circumcisions now (or, aside from my own, ever) and to be quite honest it seems that you are the one of the two of us focussed on penises. I'm focussed on demented morons and pointing out their lunatic ravings for the baseless and factless nonsense they are lest anyone be confused to think such spewings are unchallenged. I don't care what the focus of the mentally and honor deficient is... be it this nonsense here, supporters of Shrub, supporters of the War on Some Drugs or any other prohibition campaign etc... I'm an equal opportunity exposer of the sophistic stupidity many seem to try and foist off as legitimate and without exposure far too many are willing to believe. And at the risk of annoying you into urinating in your shorts or getting your panties in such a bunch your eyes pop out I will end with... Ah well...

Neal Feldman December 16, 2007 4:14 pm (Pacific time)

Tandy - Actually iy is your side of this that seems to be having the childish temper tantrum. There is nothing to debate with lunatics. There can only be reasoned debate when all involved accept the same realities... and those like Van, Jason (you?) et al refuse to accept reality. as such there can be no debate. And don't go trying to put your unreason at my feet and blame me for merely pointing it out. Ah well...

Tandy December 16, 2007 3:02 pm (Pacific time)

Jason, do you actually call what Neal posts "debating"? I see it more like a childish temper tantrum.

Avendexora December 16, 2007 2:14 pm (Pacific time)

Neal, what is with this annoying, "Ah Well..."? Are you really that insecure? Why don't you just admit this obsession of yours for what it really is? Cutting sensitive sexual organs off young boy's private parts is a sick cultural phenomenon. G-d is not an idiot! He didn't create man kind just to allow them to alter His perfect design! Amputated Foreskin is fueling the economy and feeding the EGO of sensitive cut men! All these blatantly militant pro-circ sources are immediately suspect to me! Circumcision as a prophylactic against HIV/AIDS???? Who believes that CR@P??? Oh yeah thats right, mutilated men like yourself who so desperately want to believe in this hoax hypothesis. Thats right, thanks for reminding me Neal just how sick your twisted mind works. Seriously, it takes a SICK mind to want to be attracted to a newborns genitals! An intact grown man will bare his glans when he is in the state of arousal. What compels you to desperately advocate the practice of permanent cosmetic exposure of a child's glans so it can look nice and horny while in its flaccid state???? There is something inherently WRONG about that! Let me remind you, THE FORESKIN IS NOT A BIRTH DEFECT!!! This comes down to equal protection of the Laws. This is about gender equality! The current laws protecting girls from circumcision make no exemption to cultural, cosmetic, hygienic, religion, or medically unnecessary reasons. She also must wait to the age of 18 before undergoing the operation herself. The 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution states that, “…everyone has the same protection under law and shall not be deprived of that equal protection.” It is clear that fully protecting girls from any form of genital cutting but not boys is unconstitutional. Intact genitals are the birth right of both genders, not just females. If a adult man decides on his own that he wants to undergo circumcision after being informed, then he is entitled to make that decision. If that choice is taken from him, then he has been robbed of his basic fundamentals to being an American!

Neal Feldman December 16, 2007 1:33 pm (Pacific time)

Van Lewis - It is not this country that is "delusional, fruit loop, shrilly shrieking, raving lunatic, barking mad, howling at the moon" ... it is nutters like you as has been clearly demonstrated by yo and your ilk here and pointed out by me. Ah well...

Neal Feldman December 16, 2007 1:30 pm (Pacific time)

Van Lewis - Ahain you prove yourself a nutter. Parental consent is not legally valid? Maybe in the tiny twilight zone between your ears but here in the real world on Planet Earth (third rock from the Sun) it clearly is legally valid and only delusional morons continue to claim otherwise after having it pointed out to them as much as it has been pointed out to you. Castration is not amongst those things that generally can be consented to by others as a rule and since you are not now nor ever were my parent your raving about your consenting to anything regarding me is just more of your expressed insanity. It is always nice to see the generally unhinged like yourself demonstrate it so clearly... makes my job that much easier exposing your nonsense as the ravings of lunatics and imbeciles. Ah well...

Neal Feldman December 16, 2007 1:21 pm (Pacific time)

Jason - I have already explained the invalid nature of your alleged points. There is no sane comparison. Deal with it. I see no reason to dignify nonsense by going any further into its disproof than that statement. Ah well...

Neal Feldman December 16, 2007 11:55 am (Pacific time)

Richard L. Matteoli - Well I just know there are a lot of nutters in the world and a lot of them have degrees and prestigious positions. It does not change the fact that they are nutters. And while some try and pull back so far that detail fades into background so that they can generalize about things I have found in my experience that (as oxymoronic as it seems) "All generalities are false". There are always exceptions and the devil is in the details. As to your other response it seemed disjointed, uncoordinated and incoherent. The only Gestapo tactics I refer to are those of Gestapo CPS. As for mandatory reporting I find it does far more harm than good in that most reorts are made not out of real concern that abuse is ocurring but instead as a 'cover your @$$' measure to protect the reporter, for if they do not report anf abuse is later found their career/freedom is in jeopardy. So they err on the side of personal paranoia... but whether they errr in that way or, as the 'child savers' like to claim 'err on the side of the child' the active point is they ARE ERRING. And while it is nice and clean to just gloss over such erring each and every error like that risks tearing apart and destroying an innocent family. And with false claim rates nearly 99% how can any sane person in any way justify such an insane system? Ah well...

Sigismond December 16, 2007 10:06 am (Pacific time)

Some people, and even Juge Gillette, question the fact that circumcision is child abuse but 4 000 years ago, Moses, in the Second Commandment, invented for circumcision the concepts of crime against creation (humanity) and of exception to the statute of limitations: "I am a jealous God who prosecute the crime of fathers up to... great-grandfathers." What more does the judge wants? Cordially yours, Sigismond

Van Lewis December 16, 2007 6:09 am (Pacific time)

Finally! A post from Neal with which I can agree! Except for the part that lumps me in with those nutters! "...Van et al seem of the same psychotic anti-family crew that supports and promotes these and other insanities perpetrated by Gestapo CPS."

Van Lewis December 16, 2007 6:00 am (Pacific time)

Neal: "...want to move the family and one of the kids doesn't want to move... guess you don't move" This is not about playing football or moving to Oregon. This is about genital mayhem. One day this "delusional, fruit loop, shrilly shrieking, raving lunatic, barking mad, howling at the moon" country will get this "difficult" concept through the very dark matter it has for a brain.

Van Lewis December 16, 2007 5:48 am (Pacific time)

Neal: "Oh puh-LEEZE! Assault and battery laws stretched to include circumcision? ... Such might be the case if it was unwanted and without consent." It is.

Van Lewis December 16, 2007 5:39 am (Pacific time)

Neal: "Whether you like it or not parents can give consent for their male minor children to be circumcised." And whether you like it or not such consent is not legally valid. I can give consent to have you castrated, but don't loose any sleep over it. Whenever one person gives consent to another person to violate the human rights of a third person the consent is legally invalid. One day soon the US Supreme Court will agree as regards male circumcision and circumcisers of male children will have to find real jobs just as circumcisers of female children do now.

Jason December 16, 2007 3:55 am (Pacific time)

Neal, you dont plan to explain why my points in those two posts about fgm aren't valid? Also, the lack of respect here is getting too annoying, got about all I can from here, especially with only 1 pro-circer still debating.

Richard L. Matteoli December 16, 2007 3:37 am (Pacific time)

Neal, your retort to Anne was beyond something that would be stated by a woman scorned. Proverbs 25:24 "Better to live on a corner of the roof than share a house with a quarrelsome wife."

Richard L. Matteoli December 16, 2007 1:36 am (Pacific time)

Dr. Catherine Bell is a professor of Eastern Religions, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA. Her academics on ritual are what it is - no more no less. I don't know if she recycles tin foil. She has nothing to do with CPS - Child Protective Services. She does not belong to the Gestapo. Now there is one thing about what Neal said: My brother-in-law was a social psychologist for the State of California and investigated child abuse claims for many years. Though it has no direct correlation about the context of my discussion, he told me there was a time period where about 1/3 of divorce cases occured with women claiming child abuse against their husbands. What do these claims mean psychologically? To obtain power, control and authority through manipulation for domination out of selfishness. Sound familiar??? There are truths on both sides of our discussion, but in the world of Public Relations some connections are Spurious Relationships, thought they be valid if kept separated. Dr. Bell states; "All rituals manipulate an object." I say, the ritual 'object' of circumcision is the genitals. NOTE the word: 'object.'

Neal Feldman December 16, 2007 1:11 am (Pacific time)

Richard Russell - Yeah Dick... let's us US citizens just give up our sovereignty and let the pissant other nations of the world dictate to us how we operate. Thanks but no thanks. This country has pulled the rest of the world's fat out of the fire several times (granted under the current regime we are not doing very well internationally but that is almost over and hopefully the criminals will be made to pay for their crimes). If you like how things are in Finland or Sweden etc go live there and leave us the hell alone to live as WE like. Fair enough? What is it? No nation can defeat us militarily so you whine us to death? Is that it? Ah well...

Neal Feldman December 16, 2007 1:02 am (Pacific time)

Anne - Sorry but accurate description is not name-calling. Their nonsense is not deserving of 'class'. It is deserving of getting spat upon. It insults intelligence and education. It demeans anyone with even a shred of common sense. It is offensive. So why should I 'play nice'? They falsely accuse those who disagree with them in a public forum of being child abusers and sex criminals. At least the terms I use to describe them are accurate. They might not be complimentary, but what they are describing is disgusting. But they have the right to speak out and remove all dount that they are fools. I have the right to point this out, and I choose to exercise that right. Voltaire said it best. Maybe you should take a lesson from him instead of whining that I'm not nice enough to the dishonest offensive nutters. Ah well...

Richard L. Matteoli December 16, 2007 12:46 am (Pacific time)

Neal: And I stand by my statements. The quotes are the quotes. The academics is the academics. I am a Mandated Reporter and have always taken it VERY seriously. It's what I had to work with. To make a better correlation regarding the context of my post, there is a difference between intentional homicide and accidental homicide. And the correlation of "I thought no meant yes" does not apply to my particular explanation either which, as you pointed out, is a real ploy used as an excuse by those people. The comment about Gestapo tactics also does not apply. From my research many of the anti-circumcision leaders are of Jewish ancestry. Maybe Van can give a list. And, there is a difference between proper medical 'Constructive Displacement' and the use of the Nazi doctor's condition of 'Doubling' as defined by Robert Lifton in "The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide." A socio-cultural demand for circumcision like The United Nations' World Health Organization is using has the same psychological indicators as any genocidal activity. Sure there are goofs like one woman who asked her doctor if it was natural to feel pleasure from breast feeding, and the doctor reported it and they took the kid from the mother. But the system is there for a reason. I've seen it too many times. To make another correlation, I totally believe in Medical Marajuana. I practiced with California Indian Health Mendacino County, CA for eight years. That county allows medical use and I don't care how much it grates other people. It works. I took my father to chemo for 6 months in 76-77, the dry heaves while laying on the floor is not a pretty sight - he wouldn't take it and I could have easily gotten it. And, just because some people abuse the system doesn't mean the system of allowing medical use be terminated - just properly used. As for it being a gateway drug for other criminal activity is primarily because it is illegal. I can just see the headlines: "Crime spree of broken into refrigerator's for munchies by cancer patients who need to maintain their weight, health and freedom from discomfort caused by Mary Jane where expensive drugs by industry can be given." Who be that woman Mary Jane??? What be that ritual circumcision??? LUNATIC!!! Ah yes, very existential to the perpetration of circumcision. As Arnold Leiber in "How the Moon Affects You" said: "It's a lover's moon, it's a killer's moon."

Neal Feldman December 16, 2007 12:14 am (Pacific time)

Richard l. Matteoli - On your Bell quote post need we get out the tinfoil hats and look under the sheets for The Illuminati now? Come on! Talk about a load of wannabe highbrow crapola. Seems to me the one who wanted to make a bigshot out of herself appointing herself as an expert is Ms Bell. But I've seen a ton of similar full of themselves BS from the shapers and promoters of anti-family rhetoric and agendas and agencies such as represented by Gestapo CPS and the anti-family child-stealing cottage industry that surrounds it and perpetuates it. Birds of a feather it would seem. Ah well...

Neal Feldman December 16, 2007 12:08 am (Pacific time)

And again Van rants on in lunacy regarding child abuser claims. What harm has he proven, however, other than his inflated lists of 'deaths' which by comparing rates of incidence make taking aspirin 20 times as risky? Are parents who give their kids aspirin child abusers as well, Van? After all, doing so poses 20 times the risk of death as circumcision does. And other than the statistically insignificant number of cases of incompetence (if we believe every claim you make) where is this massive 'harm' caused to those circumcised? I was circumcised as an infant as was not harmed by it in any way that you or anyone else can definitively identify. It is here, especially, that your ravings become their most vapid. Yet you wonder why you get such 'flak' for cavalierly and with reckless irresponsibility throwing around such serious and charged terms and accusations as child abuse and sex crime? Only a complete moron would wonder, Van. So, are you a complete moron, Van (or just an incomplete one)? Ah well...

Neal Feldman December 15, 2007 11:59 pm (Pacific time)

Yes, Van, that is where you misquoted through misrepresentation. And whether you dislike the broader definition, that is how 'misquoting' is used these days. Only those who seek to misquote but try and claim they are not doing so cleave as strongly as you seem to do to the most narrow definition of the concept. For all your wailing against the source I provided you showed nothing to disprove its applicability to the point at hand. You misquoted me, misapplied and twisted my words into something completely unlike anything I would have uttered and then tried to apply it to me as some sort of ill fitting straw man. I called you on it, and I call you on it still. You will, no doubt, continue to bleat your professed innocence, but there is no hiding from the truth no matter gow fart into the twilight zone that harbors your apparent view of the world you might shrink. Ah well...

Richard Russell December 15, 2007 11:57 pm (Pacific time)

Attitudes toward male circumcision in the USA are based entirely on ethnocentric beliefs and knowledge about the topic. It is necessary to take an international perspective to understand why many Americans now oppose circumcision. For example, circumcision has never been practiced in non-Muslim Europe, nor in Japan. This is contrary to implied assertions by American advocates of circumcision that it is practiced in those places. In Finland and Sweden it is considered unethical for a physician to perform male circumcision on infants and children, as it is for them to perform female circumcision on infants and children. Sweden has a new law regulating ritual circumcisions, intended to protect children until a law is eventually passed to outlaw the procedure completely. Finland's Supreme Court has a case before it now that may establish that it is a crime to circumcise a child in Finland. A public prosecutor obtained a conviction of a parent who arranged a clandestine circumcision of a son, based on existing laws against child abuse, cruelty, and neglect. A district judge agreed with the prosecutor, and the parent appealed the conviction. If the Supreme Court upholds the conviction, it will be settled law that child circumcision is a crime in Finland. Other countries in Europe do not have high profile cases before courts and legislative bodies, but clear evidence appears from time to time that the sentiments are the same as those in Scandinavia. In Germany, local OB/GYNs deliver babies in US military hospitals. When this began in the 1970s,they established right away that they would not circumcise infants they delivered, due to ethical considerations, as well as lacking any experience in the procedure. This means sons of US military members born in Germany are growing up with foreskins, as do many of their cohorts born in the US; West Coast states now have circumcision rates around 30%, so the situation in the US is changing toward that of a non-circumcising culture. Is the legal system so out of step with societal change that it has no knowledge of these facts? And can it not see the parallel, nascent human rights issues that will soon be obvious to the American public? I posted that a leading ethicist in Canada has taken the position that infant or child circumcision is not ethical. This comes after several years during which the infant circumcision rate in Canada dropped from around 60% to less than 15%. In Australia, within the past three weeks, the last state to permit circumcisions in public hospitals has now banned the practice. At about the same time, a public official in Tasmania called for a legal prohibition of circumcision nationwide, a call now being seconded by some medical associations in Australia. This comes after several years of a dropping circumcision rate from 90% or more, to less than 10% now. A recent study shows that overall health of boys in Australia has improved as the rate of circumcision dropped. Once the spell of belief in the magic of circumcision is broken, it is possible for a nation to confront the serious ethical issues that cry out for resolution. It seems to be up to the Oregon Supreme Court to establish whether we in the US are ready to move into the world mainstream when it comes to protecting the human rights of all children.

Anne December 15, 2007 11:29 pm (Pacific time)

Again with the name-calling and belittling... we get it that you find their arguments to be beyond reason, but it's a darn shame that you can't seem to manage to conduct yourself with even a shred of class, Neal.

Neal Feldman December 15, 2007 10:20 pm (Pacific time)

Richard L. Matteoli - Ah yes, the ever expanding (into lunacy) definitions oof child abuse and neglect - the road Gestapo CPS loves... and their report lines where over 90-99% of the allegations are illegitimate and most often used as a mode of attack against someone where you can use the fact they have kids as a gun against their head. Yes, real child abuse and neglect exists... and continues to go on while the authorities waste time and money tearing innocent families apart. There have been allegations of child abuse because parents did not fulfill their kids' xmas wish lists to the letter. There have been kids removed from homes because there were a few dirty dishes in the sink. Sorry but Van et al seem of the same psychotic anti-family crew that supports and promotes these and other insanities perpetrated by Gestapo CPS. Ah well...

Neal Feldman December 15, 2007 10:09 pm (Pacific time)

Richard L. Matteoli - I beg to differ. Child abuse is child abuse whether the abuser considered it to be such at the timr of the act or not. Sex crime is sex crime regardless of whether the perp thought it was a sex crime at the time. (How many rapists use the "I thought no meant yes" argument? Are you saying that such an argument SHOULD get rapists acquitted? Really?) I think there is no splitting hairs on this. You tell someone who has done something that what they have done is child anuse and a sex crime you ARE calling them a child abuser and a sex criminal. There is no way around that. and as such you should expect them to react as reasonable innocent people will tend to react when falsely accused of such. Period. Ah well...

Neal Feldman December 15, 2007 10:03 pm (Pacific time)

And actually, Van, what you state regarding consent is way out in the twilight zone. You may dearly wish that it was that way, that parents do not have the right to make decisions regarding their kids without their kids voicing individual approval, but the fact remains that IN THE REAL WORLD, not Van Lewis' delusional fantasyland where up is down and sideways is straight ahead, parents DO have those rights. Whether you like it or not. And so yes, one working definition of a nutter is someone who denies reality or lives within a delusional framework different from the real world. According to your statement that accurately describes you. Alternate would be fruit loop of course. The shrilly shrieking part is the tone and style you choose. Raving lunatic, barking mad, howling at the moon also tend to accurately describe, again whether you like it or not. If you do not wany such terms to accurately describe you or your actions then I would suggest you alter yourself and/or your actions. But the reality of parental rights is not going to change anytime soon if ever. Your kind of loony tunes would have parents having all the responsibilities without a shred of authority or control regarding their kids. Get a great promotion or just want to move the family and one of the kids doesn't want to move... guess you don't move. One wonders what happens if some of the kids want to move and others don't. Or what if the family is fine where they are but one child decides at the age of 4 that the family must move to the Yukon? Families only work in a hierarchal structure. Your nonsense would not even be an Athenian democracy... it would br nothing short of unworkable chaos/anarchy. But again I am talking to someone so deep in the twilight zone Rod Serling doesn't even get to see you much, huh? Ah well...

Neal Feldman December 15, 2007 9:51 pm (Pacific time)

Van Lewis - Oh puh-LEEZE! Assault and battery laws stretched to include circumcision? You are not really trying that lame disproven chestnut are you? Oh, you are. No surprise considering the source. Such might be the case if it was unwanted and without consent. Same with ANY surgury you mind addled nitwit! GEEZ! Richard tries valiantly to bring some semblance of sanity in and here comes Van Lewis with his wrecking ball of insane stupidity. Whether you like it or not parents can give consent for their male minor children to be circumcised. As such the laws you try and misapply and misrepresent (hmmm... Van Lewis misapplying and misrepresenting? No surprise there, huh? LOL!) are not applicable. Better luck next time... maybe you will find an audience composed of clueless imbeciles for that is what it takes for your sophistry BS to fly, Van. Ah well...

Richard l. Matteoli December 15, 2007 9:07 pm (Pacific time)

OK folks. Shamanism vs medicine. This is what's really happening in Africa. There are many deaths with 'in the bush circumcisions of both sexes.' So, medicine is saying they can do better and wants to replace the shaman with themselves as "The Ritual Agent.' Follow the quote from African social collective ritual experience to the American hospital. From: Catherine Bell, "Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice," pp. 131-132, 184, 40-41, 207. "As institutions of specialists take on formulation of reality, there is a decreased need for personal or collective rituals to assume that function. Ultimately, when the strategies of ritualization are dominated by a special group, recognized as official experts, the definition of reality that they objectify works primarily to retain the status and authority of the experts themselves... Specific relations of domination and subordination are generated and orchestrated by the participants themselves simply by participating... it is this type of control that must be understood. These bodies of knowledge act simultaneously to secure a particular form of authority." NOTE THE WORDS: formulation of reality, dominated, objectify, authority, domination, subordination, orchestrated, control, and authority again. NOW: Go to my post of Dec. 9 10:36 PM just above the center where I give the psychological factors of Signature's Desire. This is what ritual is about. This is what serial sexual predation is about. There is a psychological connection of factors that are the same even if the intent is different or even known to the innocent participants who are esentially pawns of big brother/big sister.

Van Lewis December 15, 2007 8:56 pm (Pacific time)

Thank you Dr. Matteoli. The definitions are interesting and helpful. "Intent is not considered in reporting abuse; protection of the child is paramount." I get a lot of flak for saying that circumcising is child abuse. "What? How can you say such a terrible thing about good parents and hard working, sincere doctors?" It isn't about the parents' and the mutilators' intentions. They have nothing to do with it. It's about the real effects these people - good, bad or indifferent - are having on the child. What make child abuse child abuse is not the intentions of the abusers. It is the results they create in the child that makes it abuse. If they injure the child, they have abused him or her. I don't care if it's Mother Teresa or the Virgin Mary, abuse is abuse and it has to be stopped. Genital mutilation is abuse because it injures and sometimes kills the child for nothing, or next to nothing, except for the bill the circumciser sends for the abuse. We don't usually pay abusers, we pay them back, with jail time. It's time we jailed circumcisers for child abuse.

Van Lewis December 15, 2007 8:36 pm (Pacific time)

Neal said I misquoted him. I thought he was using the commonly understood dictionary definition (can you blame me?), "to repeat the exact words of a person as they were said or written" (Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary),but now he says he was using the Wikipedia definition, which is much broader. (After looking at several, I have not found the Wikipedia broader version in any other dictionary, and the page has a pretty powerful disclaimer. "This article does not cite any references or sources. (December 2006) Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed." Using esoteric, uncommon definitions without warning to readers can lead to misunderstandings, as in this case. I contend that I did not misquote Neal according to the dictionary definition of the word. No evidence has been presented that I did. He feels strongly that I did misquote or misrepresent or twist his meanings. I did not do so deliberately. Perhaps I have misunderstood some things he has been trying to say. I think he may have been stung when I used his account of the law of brute force and applied it to circumcision (see below) but I was not trying to say that he was trying to describe circumcision when he wrote it, only that what he wrote applied, from my point of view, perfectly to circumcision. Is this the passage that caused the upset, Neal? Van Lewis December 12, 2007 6:11 am (Pacific time) Neal Feldman wrote, " the natural thing is the biggest guy with the biggest club took whatever he wanted from whoever he could that was unable to defend against it." We should all thank the gentleman for his perfect description of infant and child circumcision. Laws will catch up with increased human understanding and compassion some day, but will he?

Richard L. Matteoli December 15, 2007 8:31 pm (Pacific time)

Pathology report - not necessarily so. They are for diagnosis of disease if the disease is in question. Many things in pathology look the same. But with physicians it usually is standard practice for all excisions, and should be. Not like getting a tooth pulled because of a cavity, hang nail fixed, or hair transplant. Yet there is an issue here. With routine circumcision of either sex, no pathology is present. Again and again, circumcision is not a medical procedure. Medicine has replaced the shaman.

Richard L. Matteoli December 15, 2007 8:09 pm (Pacific time)

From James Monteleone's "Recognition of Child Abuse for the Mandated Reporter," pp. 1 and 34. "Sexual abuse occurs between a child and an adult or older child and is defined as sexual contact or interaction for sexual stimulation and gratification of the adult or older child, who is a parent or caretaker and responsible for the child's care. Sexual abuse is a form of child abuse and must be reported to state child protective services." OK folks, some males have reported erections when performing circumcisions as well as observing a Jewish bris. Ye ol' reaction which is different than: some women, nurses and observers, have reported they enjoy circumcisions and get extreme spiritual feelings coming over them by seeing the glans exposed for the first time. Again, no hairs. Existentialism is for later especially regarding feminism and power relations. Along with the social hair that the procedure is not for the gratification for the performer of the procedure. That satisfaction is for the eventual mate within the social community. Child abuse is often generational within families. My point is that this has expanded into the socio-cultural fabric. Power relations source: Catherine Bell, "Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, " Oxford University Press, 1992.

Richard L. Matteoli December 15, 2007 7:33 pm (Pacific time)

From James Monteleone's "Recognition of Child Abuse for the Mandated Reporter," p. 1. "Child Abuse involves every segment of society and crosses all social, ethnic, religious, and professional lines. The definition of child abuse can range from a narrow focus, limited to intentional inflicted injury, to a broad scope, covering any act that adversely affects the developmental potential of a child. Included in the definition are neglect (acts of omission) and physical, psychological, or sexual injury (acts of commission) by a parent or caretaker. Intent is not considered in reporting abuse; protection of the child is paramount." OK folks, when we make a report it ain't about anybody's feelings. It's about the child's welfare. That's it - done. Then it's up to other authorities who get the report.

Richard L. Matteoli December 15, 2007 7:14 pm (Pacific time)

Joe: re: your post Dec. 15 8:01. You brought up the name Sumerville. I have issues with her. Your statements about what she has written are correct. BUT. I attended a meeting at Oxford University where she gave a speech. Toward the end she made the comment to the effect: 'I see nothing wrong with leaving a mark on the male penis.' To which most of the Muslim women and one Jewish woman present got out of their chairs and gave her the Standing Ovation. The Muslim women had given presentations asking for help in stopping female circumcision. That one Australian Jewish woman had given a lecture about how she sued her Rabbi father for doing "labial feathering" on her. (I will get to labial feathering later). Some Jewish and Christian sects do female circumcision in some kind of form. And less than a third of Islam does female circumcision. Male and female circumcision is not medical, and in fact, not to any Jerusalemic faith - but rather incorporations outside origination from 'a priori' theology. Also, there is a reason why the feminine perception allows for that type of behavior. But we're not into existentialism yet.

Gary December 15, 2007 6:53 pm (Pacific time)

Richard, interesting discussion on consent. Along with that, shouldn't there be a pathology report for any tissue removed from a patient? Is that a common procedure for discarded foreskins? I saw in a video by the Sante Fe nurses that the foreskin was just thrown in the trash. Surely that's not ethical behavior.

Richard L. Matteoli December 15, 2007 6:48 pm (Pacific time)

Neal: OK, I didn't take into account the person being a 'minor' or the procedure was for 'routine' circumcision as defined in your post. Just the admitted moot point that there was non civil military conviction. Ah well, this required separating the fly stuff from the pepper to be complete. For other things here - add water, mix with fly stuff and pepper, voila = mud.

Richard L. Matteoli December 15, 2007 6:28 pm (Pacific time)

Neal answered Van: "calling circumcision child abuse IS calling anyone who has had their child circumcised or participated in the process a child abuser. Calling circumcision a sex crime IS calling anyone who has had their child circumcised or participating in the process aa sexual criminal." Calls for a lot of introspection. I had to. Everything I say is not an Apologia that is stating an opinion or case without guilt, regret or admisssion; but rather, an Apology with guilt, regret and admission. All the doctors and Rabbi's I know who are against circumcision have performed the procedure. The same with the nurses who have assisted. BUT, there is a hair here to split. Allowing something from ignorance is not being a child abuser are a sexual criminal. Ignorance only means not knowing the facts. So, people are always duped by big brother/big sister. The Marines say there is nothing wrong falling down when climbing a hill; but, what is wrong is not getting up and proceeding onward. Once knowing the facts, the unknowing non-criminal person will stop. It is the true child abuser and sexual criminal who won't stop. The FBI profiler John Douglas states they will not stop unless made to stop. And if let out of prisom they will repeat their crimes. Circumcision is a social thing, not a medical procedure so it gets a whole lot of mud covering it. Slavery wasn't a crime until made a crime.

Van Lewis December 15, 2007 5:58 pm (Pacific time)

Neal said (I think), "there are laws on the books that are null and void...". I am not talking about laws that have been repealed. I am talking about laws against assault and battery that all civilized countries have and have not repealed. It is currently illegal under valid statutes to chop up other people's bodies without valid consent. There is no possible valid consent by anyone to subject healthy children to medically unnecessary amputations of healthy flesh belonging to them that always damages them and risks their lives and kills some of them. Consent by one party to violate the human rights of another is always invalid, no matter how close or distant the relationship between the two parties. That is as I see it. I don't think that opinion makes me a "nutter", a "fruit loop", a "shrilly shrieking whateveryoucallit". That kind of opinion has been published already in peer reviewed law and human rights journals. The law grows and changes. Human rights abuses have been notoriously difficult to expunge from society. Law has actually protected them sometimes for hundreds of years before finally being corrected. I don't need to give anyone the list. Progress, real progress toward respect and protection of fundamental human rights has been a long and bloody battle. This thread is nothing compared to the efforts that have been made over the centuries trying to civilize this world. It is taking far longer to get to where we are today than I had hoped when I was jailed at 27 from trying to protect babies and children from this madness, but at 64 I can say we have made progress. I know a young man whose mother "consented" to his circumcision who sued his circumciser and the hospital for his "normal" circumcision. The terms of the settlement are sealed but I saw his face light up when he read what they were going to pay him for the assault and battery they committed against his body without his or any valid consent. Law is slow, too slow for the good of the babies being born today, but thanks to the hard work of dedicated human rights attorneys and clear-thinking judges, progress is actually being made. Two steps forward, one step back, but we're going to get there. And Neal is going with us.

Van Lewis December 15, 2007 5:32 pm (Pacific time)

Neal Feldman December 15, 2007 12:41 pm (Pacific time) "Van Lewis - caught you in a direct lie. You claim I have the position of no deaths by circumcision. ..." Neal Feldman December 15, 2007 1:22 am (Pacific time) "Van Lewis - no denial on my part... my statement stands. No deaths by circumcision. ..." I don't think Neal lied when he said I lied. Maybe he forgot at 12:41 PM today what he wrote at 1:22 AM today. But maybe he has another explanation that keeps me lying, at least in his mind. Neal? I think Neal may be projecting onto others his own lunacy. He seems to be having a very hard time in life. I am very sorry. I wish him well.

Henry Ruark December 15, 2007 2:25 pm (Pacific time)

R.L. Matteoli: Thank you for return to reasonable, rational search for new information of factual, rather than emotional, nature--and willingness to share it in "conversational" manner here. "We needed that...!!"

Neal Feldman December 15, 2007 2:02 pm (Pacific time)

Richard L. Matteoli 0 the civil war case you reference was because it was a non consented to procedure on an adult.. not that the procedure itself was illegal if consented to by those with the right to consent (an adult or emancipated minor or the parents of unemancipated minors). Ah well ...

Richard L. Matteoli December 15, 2007 1:37 pm (Pacific time)

Neal: This topic is extremely emotional. Always is. It's been hard to go through the posts to see what is really being said. Some things need clearing up. Lot of misconceptions. Will dig out a few of my books and give some definitions for a basis to work from. Also, I don't mind if it goes existential from your "we are all terminal" example. It is very appropriate. But, for now, we are far from proceeding to that point.

Henry Ruark December 15, 2007 1:03 pm (Pacific time)

"Anon" behind the tree, there: BUT precise statement by victim indicates there may well be exactly the kind of illegal discrimination you mention as cause...which is why I wrote "MAY" twice. In past, have seen similar situations mutually resolved simply by fact of possible examination by professional agency. Have you ever so participated ? Hope victim moves to determine if mere fact of Letter is sufficient cause. No, I do not see you as a sure "nutter" simply for disagreement, either...just another human seeking some hopefully reasonable explanation for a painful situation, in which two are inevitably involved.

Neal Feldman December 15, 2007 12:59 pm (Pacific time)

Richard L. Matteoli - I would say that in the case of the kidney patient you mentioned he died from medical incompetence. Granted he did so before he would have died from the kidney cancer but the fact remains that if I have a tumor and a week to live and while walking to the store I am struck by a car and killed I died due to being struck by the car... that I was already terminal is irrelevant. Then again we are all terminal... we start dying the moment we are born (if not before) since no one is immortal (at least that has been credibly demonstrated). But existential debate is a bit outside the scope of this thread. (and thank you for noting my politeness) Ah well...

Neal Feldman December 15, 2007 12:53 pm (Pacific time)

Van Lewis - there are laws on the books that are null and void because when a law is superseded or ruled unconstitutional etc it is rarely actually removed from the books.. I consider this a flaw in the process as it lends to confusion such as you seem to be exhibiting. If a law is superseded or ruled unconstitutional the neatest practice would be to remove the offending text. But it just beggars the mind that if there were all these laws banning the procedure that there would not have been even a single successful prosecution... assuming the laws in question were indeed valid and constitutionally sound. The fact remains pretty much everything is legal (in the US at least) if it is not actually proscribed by law. It is therefore reasonable to have the position, as I do, that in the absence of even a single successful prosecution and with evidence of millions of occurrences annually that the procedure is legal. It is your claim against the status quo that bears the burden of proof. And that burden is met with fact and well reasoned logic, not because you or a few other vocal nutters say so. Ah well...

Neal Feldman December 15, 2007 12:46 pm (Pacific time)

Tandy - I refuse to blindly accept any spew thrown my way as legitimate. Their nonsense trying to equate male circumcision to FGM fails the smell test (http://www.wordspy.com/words/smelltest.asp) as such I give it the weight it deserves... (=none). Ah well...

Richard L. Matteoli December 15, 2007 12:45 pm (Pacific time)

Neal: re. your post on 15 Dec, 12:35. Moot point though it is, one doctor during the Civil War was court martialed for performing a non-concented circumcision while in the process of treating the patient for a wound. Not quite a civil court.

Neal Feldman December 15, 2007 12:41 pm (Pacific time)

Van Lewis - caught you in a direct lie. You claim I have the position of no deaths by circumcision. My statement at the time was I had never heard of a single death from the procedure. I still feel that competently done there has never been a death... death due to medical incompetence is death due to medical incompetence in my book. But I have allowed for the possibility recently but stated that the rate is so statistically insignificant that it is (according to YOUR over inflated numbers) about 20 times less likely than death by aspirin usage (previous comment... 1 case per million vs 20-24 cases per million with aspirin usage). But again your flawed critical thinking of presenting 'authorities' rather than reason shows again. I am certain if I wished to I could produce 'authorities' that agree with my side too which is to say such is an irrelevant practice which is why 'appeal to authority; is considered a critical thinking flaw. Ah well...

Richard L. Matteoli December 15, 2007 12:38 pm (Pacific time)

Anonymous et al.: The doctor has a right not to see a patient if they feel they have a conflict. But, that doctor then has the obligation to give the patient a list of other doctors to contact for treatment - even if the list includes the number to the local medical society. Not to do so constitutes Patient Abandonment.

Neal Feldman December 15, 2007 12:35 pm (Pacific time)

Joe - Just because someone is associated with a big agency or in a position of power does not mean they are not nutters. John Bolton and George W. Bush spring immediately to mind. Appeal to authority is a critical thinking flaw. Ah well...

Neal Feldman December 15, 2007 12:32 pm (Pacific time)

Van Lewis - I never said your spewing your lunacy was a crime. I said correctly that it was insulting and a personal attack and false accusation implied against others and as such when you do so you have no legitimate foundation to whine and cry about how those you so attacked are 'not being nice' to you. Get a clue and stop trying to redirect. That is another critical thinking flaw you seem to enjoy practicing... a lot. Ah well...

Neal Feldman December 15, 2007 12:28 pm (Pacific time)

Van Lewis - typical you would use the most narrow definition. I suggest you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misquote specifically the entry for 'misunderstanding' to see the specific flaw in quotation you were guilty of. (The usage of partial sentence followed by flawed, incorrect or erroneous implication). Twist and spin all you like... you were nailed then and remain mailed. Ah well...

Neal Feldman December 15, 2007 12:20 pm (Pacific time)

Nameless - an alleged victim can claim abuse... but that is not the same as it being abuse. Whether it is abuse or not is determined by independent common sense of whic h you clearly have little to none. Your raving here proves you are a nutter. If abuse was proven merely by the allegation oh the chaos that would reign. I could accuse someone on the street of abusing me because I did not like the way they looked at me or that they did not like me as much as I wanted them to, etc... and legitimate abuse is usually actionable so should I be able to sue such folks on such ludicrous claims (akin to your own) of 'abuse'? You are a laugh riot! No wonder you do not use your real name! Ah well...

Richard L. Matteoli December 15, 2007 12:17 pm (Pacific time)

OK guys let's get over this and go on to what circumcisdion is really all about. I remember when I first read of a child dying from a circumcision procedure. I said to myself everything Neal is saying, but not as politely. YES, not as politely. Lot's of expletives deleted. I'm sure everyone who has posted has done the same. Then I researched it. Neal's point of view is correct when saying something similar. "PEOPLE DON"T DIE FROM CANCER." They don't. They usually die from an infection. Thus the conundrum of "WHAT DID THEY DIE FROM?" This is down to picking the fly droppings out of the pepper when ya got a bunch of stuff in the palm of your hands. So whether a person dies from a 1) circumcision, or a 2) a botched procedure is irrelavent. Years ago I knew a young boy 7 years old. He had kidney cancer. Well Kaiser doctors took out the diseased kidney but forgot to unclamp the artery feeding the other kidney. He died. So, did he die from kidney cancer or a botched procedure? All these deaths from circumcision are from botched procedures. Either way, they're dead. Benjamin Franklin said: "The lucky rabbit's foot wasn't lucky for the rabbit."

Anonymous December 15, 2007 12:15 pm (Pacific time)

Henry - re: nameless' doctor issue with his LTTE - doctors can decide to no longer see you for any reason they like that does not violate the civil rights act or other anti-discrimination laws. The fact he dislikes you is sufficient. The fact that he feels you are a nutter can also qualify. Such is clearly what happened. I seriously doubt any medical board would see it differently. (and re my last comment it was to jason not Joe sorry) Ah well...

Neal Feldman December 15, 2007 12:11 pm (Pacific time)

Joe - I answered you. I do not care what you think on the natter honestly the two are not comparable. Period. You have given me nothing I consider yo justify altering my position in that regard. Ah well...

Van Lewis December 15, 2007 9:02 am (Pacific time)

Neal claims that the law "allows" circumcision. "... if the law allows it, by definition, it is not a criminal act." "Allows" is the word in question here. If he's saying that specific laws exist that grant the right to circumcise boys, I ask him to prove it by citing them. If he's saying that law enforcement doesn't prosecute circumcising and that therefore circumcising is legal, the statement is false. I contend that there are many laws prohibiting circumcision that are on the books and have been for ages. Failure of law enforcement to enforce the laws against harming and killing innocent persons does not grant legal permission to violate those laws.

Tandy December 15, 2007 8:55 am (Pacific time)

"Van Lewis - you still just cannot wrap your mind around the concept that male circumcision is not the same as female genital mutilation... it is becoming quite clear to me in this context that the issue is the size of your mind is insufficient to wrap around the concept. Ah well... It is also clear that you REFUSE to actually adddress the concept and information presented to you..ah well..

Van Lewis December 15, 2007 8:24 am (Pacific time)

In any fairly judged contest for biggest nutter between Dr. Margaret Somerville, Founding Director of McGill University's Center for Medicine, Ethics and Law, and Neal Feldman, I am certain that Neal would win. He still claims no deaths by circumcision. He calls "laughable" the public record of such deaths. The parents of the dead children don't laugh. I have a good friend, an Episcopal priest I've known for over 46 years. I just learned about five years ago that he had a baby brother killed by the direct consequences of circumcising, infection that started in his circumcision wound. Neal's contention would be, I think, that circumcision had nothing to do with it, the death was caused by the bacteria. Defining circumcision as innocent doesn't give my friend his baby brother back. He told me mother never got over it. Neal says, " male circumcision is not the same as female genital mutilation". In the USA it is a very popular generality and falsehood that FGM and MGM are totally different from each other. Closer examination reveals that they have relatively unimportant differences, important similarities (see "Male and Female Genital Mutilations - Misconceptions" http://fgmNetwork.org/intro/mgmfgm.html and "FGM vs MGM" http://www.circumstitions.com/FGMvsMGM.html ) , and are in the most important ways, identical. The most important way that FGM and MGM are identical is that they both can and do kill children. What are adults trying to achieve by circumcising children that is worth the risk of killing them? Killing them violates their most fundamental human right, the right to life. These are not fetuses we're talking about. There is no dispute about the fact that born babies are full human beings endowed with all the rights of human beings, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and additional human rights to special protection due to their age and vulnerability that adults do not have. Circumcising them also violates other important human rights, the right to bodily integrity, to security of person, to equal protection of the law, to the highest attainable level of health and human development. It violates these rights regardless of what sex the child happens to have been born. It is only the rankest kind of sexism, unconscious though it may be, that says that FGM and MGM are totally different. They are not. The contention is an absurd and obvious falsehood, but it is a wildly popular one in our male genitally mutilating culture for without believing this heavily promoted falsehood we have to change. And we don't want to. Therefore baby boys must be tortured and injured and killed. And their deaths must be denied. In my book, this is evil. Cutting off a girl's foreskin is a federal felony, regardless of the religious reasons or any other reasons her parents or doctors might want to amputate it. Boys and their foreskins have the constitutional and human right to equal protection. Failing to protect that right can and does kill some of them and injures needlessly EVERY boy (and girl and intersexed child) violated in this despicable and tragic way. When will this sick country wake up to obvious reality? This is the only country in the world where the medical profession amputates the healthy prepuce from the majority of baby boys. It is a sickness that blinds adults to this evil.

Joe December 15, 2007 8:01 am (Pacific time)

Neal - Someone asked a question I provided an answer. Moreover, I'd didn't provide my opinion but the opinion of a very well respect medical/legal ethicist who regularly consults with national, and international, agencies over legal, and ethical, issues and is the founding director of the Faculty of Law's Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University considered one of the top dozen or so universities in the world; hardly a 'nutter'. Now perhaps you didn't read the entire post but you will note that I did preface the reply with the fact that this issue hasn't been examined by the courts (I should say US courts because this has been prosecuted in other countries) but, some legal scholars have been looking very closely at this issue and submitted some very interesting opinions. In fact just last week, the Tasmanian Children's Commissioner, Paul Mason, called for ban on non-medically indicated infant male circumcision and has recently gained the support of the Australian Medical Association, hardly a bunch of 'nutters'. Read all about it here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/09/2113665.htm So in the interest of advancing this debate a bit perhaps you could read why Dr. Sommerville considers it assault and provide a critique of her opinon explaining why you believe she is wrong. I will preemptively point out that "Just because everyone is doing it" would not be a reasonable response. There have been enumerable examples in both our, and other societies, of things "everyone was doing" that where of questionable legal and ethical standing even for the laws of their time.

Van Lewis December 15, 2007 7:59 am (Pacific time)

The concerted attempt to prosecute me for saying in public that infant circumcision is a sex crime failed. The concerted attempt to prosecute me for advocating equal protection for boys and girls failed. Correctly identifying a sex crime as a sex crime is not a crime.

Van Lewis December 15, 2007 7:48 am (Pacific time)

Neal says, "you did misquote me through misrepresentation.." Neal and I appear to be operating on different definitions of "misquote". http://www.thefreedictionary.com/misquote Noun 1. misquote - an incorrect quotation Verb 1. misquote - quote incorrectly; ... So what is the definition of "quote"? quote (kwt) v. quot·ed, quot·ing, quotes v.tr. 1. To repeat or copy the words of (another), usually with acknowledgment of the source. 2. To cite or refer to for illustration or proof. 3. To repeat a brief passage or excerpt from... v.intr. To give a quotation, as from a book. n. 1. Informal A quotation. ... I think Neal is using a non-dictionary definition. Words mean whateverf he wants them to. I did not think he would be able to admit his mistake. This is why ending genital mutilation and the accompanying injuries to and deaths of children from it is so hard. People who do it have high incentive and ability to live on denial. I think I'll leave it at that.

nameless was anon December 15, 2007 7:36 am (Pacific time)

Neal, it's NOT the abuser that gets to decide what is abuse. It's the victim. You are an abuser, pure and simple, since you abused me by calling me a "nutter." The moderator should not be allowing such abuse, but you could always stop at any time. It's the same for circumcision, it's the victim that gets to decide if they were abused, not the abuser.

Henry Ruark December 15, 2007 6:34 am (Pacific time)

Nameless et al: You addressed yours-to-me; so I answer herewith. You wrote: "I have been denied health care because of a public Letter to the Editor that was published in which I called circumcision sexual abuse." Assuming you had no further open discussion on this issue with your doctor, his action in denying you further health care directly because of your opinion, differing from his, MAY --I repeat MAY !-- now constitute unethical medical practice on his part. Your action with medical association should clear the issue, for both of you surely a good consequence. Basic human right to medical care should not --and I do believe does not, legally-- hinge on concurrence on any issue by docton and patient, but on the demonstrated human need...sometimes proven by consequential forced return to the ER, at high cost, often unpaid by victim already hurting economically. This applies even with the sometimes demented, brought there by police action to protect others generally. Which is why society, in its blundering but good will effort, sets up such as the medical association's ethical determination system. It does exist, it does work, as my own personal experience with others has proven for me.

Jason December 15, 2007 2:53 am (Pacific time)

Neal, you never did answer my reply to your message earlier. I think FGM and male circ is closer then you give it credit for. Yes, certain forms of FGM such as clitorectomies are surely worse, but that isn't just what is banned, any and all cutting is. The only difference worthwhile is medical (or so we have to assume since no study I know of researches any benefits to female circ), BUT, these are highly controversial and many, even if fully true are rare. So that said, along with the stuff in the earlier post, I dont think you can say those two topics are so far apart you cant compare them.

Neal Feldman December 15, 2007 1:32 am (Pacific time)

Van Lewis - you still just cannot wrap your mind around the concept that male circumcision is not the same as female genital mutilation... it is becoming quite clear to me in this context that the issue is the size of your mind is insufficient to wrap around the concept. Ah well...

Neal Feldman December 15, 2007 1:22 am (Pacific time)

Van Lewis - no denial on my part... my statement stands. No deaths by circumcision. (I also generally deal in the US, not third world nations where medical services are often medieval at best) - you stretch any death that was even remotely indirectly related to a circumcision as death by circumcision. You also include incompetence on the part of the circumciser... almost any medical prpcedure can be deadly if performed by an incompetent... the death in such cases is due to the incompetence, it is misrepresentative and downright dishonest to try and claim such as death due to circumcision. Same as if a death is due to bleeding out because the medical pros or the parents were too incompetent or plain stupid to cauterize a bleeder. I saw your laughable 'list'. Maybe 3 names from the US... the rest from third world countries where kids die every day from diseases thet contract while bathing... so do you list those deaths as death by bathing and go off on a crusade to ban the practice of bathing because of it? Same deal. This is what yiou refuse to get. You see everything through the anti-circumcision lens... so if someone died in the same city block that within the past month had a circumcision performed therein you would try your best to claim it was a death caused by circumcision. But even using your own grotesquely padded numbers the number ofdeaths is in the HUNDREDS ... when there have been hundreds of millions of circumcisions. That is a death rate of one in a million or less, even by your numbers. You asked me to do the comparison in my aspirin claim. According to the American Journal of Gastroenterology the death rate caused by NSAID/aspirin use was between 21 and 24.8 cases per million patients, respectively. So approximately 1 case per million with circumcision vs 21-24.8 cases per million with aspirin. As I said the data sure seems to show aspirin to be 20 times as deadly as circumcision. Do I list specific names? Nope, don't have to. I never claimed I could or would. I merely stated the fact that aspirin usage has a higher rate pf death than circumcision. Again you are not required to like the truth... but your disliking it does not change it. Ah well...

Van Lewis December 15, 2007 1:17 am (Pacific time)

Van Lewis said, "If it's a crime to mutilate, or pin-prick, a girl's sex organs, then it's a crime to mutilate or pin-prick a boy's sex organs. Duuuuhhhh." Oh! I forgot! According to Neal Feldman MALE foreskins aren't sex organs! (Talk about fruit loops!) How about female foreskins, Neal? Are they sex organs? Here's a way you can find out. Pin prick a girl's and see what happens.

Neal Feldman December 15, 2007 12:59 am (Pacific time)

Van Lewis - calling circumcision child abuse IS calling anyone who has had their child circumcised or participated in the process a child abuser. Calling circumcision a sex crime IS calling anyone who has had their child circumcised or participated in the process a sexual criminal. It is also accusing anyone supporting the activity a child abuser and a sexual criminal. There is no way around it. And since no child abuse law in the US considers male circumcision to be child abuse and no law in the US considers male circumcision to be a sex crime you have zero legitimate basis for making the claim. It is as if I considered eating corn to be genocide and went around ranting and raving that eating corn was genocide. in such a context many if not most would consider me a nutter and rightly so. You may consider it unnecessary, you may consider it wrong. Fine... those are opinions. But to accuse folks of criminal acts when they have committed no criminal act of the type alleged is false accusation, defamation and who knows how many other potentially criminally or civilly liable actions. That, especially made in public, is not just opinion. It is not a defense against a charge of libel or slander or defamation or false accusation that 'it is my opinion'. That I consider you or others like you fruit loops or nutters because of the lunacy you espouse and the irrational manner in which you choose to espouse it IS opinion. I am accusing you of no crime. I'm just stating that in my opinion you are nuttier than a fruitcake. It is my right to do so, and the statements you make and the manner in which you make them supports my opinion. I do not claim any special status nor do I have any special status. There are some who have ranted that 'the only reason I've not been banned is that I am on staff'... when nothing could be further from the truth. I have no special privileges... I have nothing to do with what appears or not on this site beyond my own articles and my own comments which as the little disclaimer at the bottom of the page clearly states are my own and not necessarily the opinion or position of Salem-News.com. I have my opinions and have no trouble expressing them. I do not go out of my way to candycoat what I say, though in text I tend to avoid profanity. I do not treat others as if they are 5 years old. I speak honestly and truthfully and openly... with accuracy, logic and intelligent reason. If what I have to say is uncomplimentary, so be it. I see no reason that everything uttered must be positive. If folks cannot deal with this then it is they who have the problem, not I. Ah well...

Neal Feldman December 15, 2007 12:39 am (Pacific time)

Camellia - I'm sure that the nutters ignored it but I have consistently stated that in the case of a 12-13 (or older) minor their personal wishes should be given weight... pretty much deciding weight in cases such as this. Has anyone even asked the boy? If he doesn't want it then that should be that. I realizr this does not give the nutters basis for rantings (other than the accurate description of them as nutters I guess) but... Ah well...

Neal Feldman December 15, 2007 12:35 am (Pacific time)

Joe - the opinion of one nutter (or many nutters) that circumcision is 'technically criminal assault' is irrelevant,as I challenge you to find any conviction in the US as such... or even a grand jury indictment for routine circumcision. You are just like the nutters who claim the same regarding corporal punishment (spanking) when in fact parents have the right to spank their minor children in every single state of the union. It is making statements like routine circumcision is 'technically criminal assault' that gets your ilk considered nutters. You may want to consider it but 'technically' the law allows it, despite your shrill shrieks. And if the law allows it, by definition, it is not a criminal act. By definition criminal assault IS a criminal act. As such since routine circumcision is not a criminal act and criminal assault is a criminal act routine circumcision is not and cannot be a criminal act. Q.E.D. Ah well...

Neal Feldman December 15, 2007 12:28 am (Pacific time)

Van Lewis - you did misquote me through misrepresentation.. taken snippet of text out of context and then twisted it into something nowhere near what I said or meant. I presented the specific instance. You do not seem to realize that I do not give a fig whether you accept it or not... I saw it, I know it. I also know I had no false hopes that someone like you would ever man up and admit to his BS so thank you for continuing to live up to (or rather down to) my opinion of you. And your continuing to harp on it merely shows how shrill and unreasoning you are. You misquoted, I pointed it out, you demanded proof, I gave it, you refuse to accept it and face the facts, I pointed this out. I also pointed out that I hold out no hopes of you ever admitting you were wrong and I can live with that... so that dropped the subject as far as I was concerned... but you insist on harping on about it... so be it, I will just re-point out the facts as I just did. I doubt I will bother to do so again but I reserve the right to do so if I so choose. I know you misquoted me, you will clearly deny doing so to your grave. So be it. Misquoting is not limited to not repeating back the exact words... there are aspects of context, whether complete statement or idea was quoted plus what you do with the quote (the misrepresentation aspect that is where your act of misquoting occurred) in presenting 'what was said' that is different than the position or statement of the original speaker. You tried to twist and turn around my statement an d apply it in a manner that was not my position... not anything even remotely akin to my position and what I had said. That is a form of misquoting and that is what you did. So you wallowing in delusional denial regarding the issue changes nothing. And I do not care how many agree or disagree with me on the point... right and wrong in such contexts are not popularity contests or up for mob decision. It either is right or it is wrong. And what you did was wrong, pure and simple. That you either cannot see this or simply refuse to admit it does not speak well of you in either case. But no matter to me. Ah well...

Neal Feldman December 15, 2007 12:15 am (Pacific time)

Nameless - I abused no one. You clearly have no idea what abuse is. It is obvious by their response that it is exactly what the doc thought of you. Hence their decision. And your admitted choice to remain ignorant also does not go well for you trying to show you are reasonable. Yource choice. You get to live with the consequences, as you discovered, whether you like it or not. I tried to explain what happened and why but you clearly did not want to hear or learn, you wanted to whine and feel all victimized. Ah well...

Hugh December 14, 2007 11:46 pm (Pacific time)

Neal: "This thread became useless for any kind of rational debate when the whackadoos first started calling (directly or indirectly) anyone who disagrred with them supporters of 'child abuse;' or 'sec crimes'," As Van pointed out, nobody has done that. "when they first claimed that parent do not have the right to make decisions regarding their kids re: male infant circumcision," Why stop at male? Why stop at infant? Why stop at circumcision? What's so special about the infant foreskin that it, alone of all the human body, is something that may be cut off forever at parental whim? (This "Parents make decisions for their children all the time" cliche is a doozy: they don't make any other decisions to cut off a normal, healthy, non-renewable part of the body that every baby is born with. They only have to make this decision because it's pushed upon them. And when they say "No" they're deemed "not to have decided yet", so they get asked again and again.) " when they claimed that 'kids die FROM CIRCUMCISION *all the time*," If they hadn't been circumcised, they wouldn't have died. When someone falls out of a tree and dies, we say they died from falling out of the tree, and don't quibble over whether they bled to death or broke their neck. "Let me look back to when that was... Hugh December 8, 2007 1:46 pm (Pacific time) comment number 8." Neal misquotes me. I said "children do die from circumcision" and they do. The Ontario case couldn't be clearer. The PlastiBell (TM) blocked his urethra, nobody noticed, and he died of septic shock. "evolution had the glans head protected by the foreskin because people are not born with nice soft undergarments. I would think anyone with at least half a brain would realize this." Whatever else evolution was thinking about, it was not undergarments! Circumcised men think the glans is sexually important because that's all they have left. And the frenulum, not noticing that their frenulum is only a remnant of the ridged band, part of the foreskin, that would have given them a much richer experience.

Van Lewis December 14, 2007 10:19 pm (Pacific time)

I want to go back to the beginning for a moment, and not take anything out of context, but take it as it was written, letter by letter, word by word, sentence by sentence. "Neal Feldman December 8, 2007 4:50 am (Pacific time)" "I, too, have never heard of a single baby dying from circumcision." At http://www.cirp.org/search.html enter the word "death" in the search window and click the "Search" button. You will be provided with links to evidence of deaths of hundreds of children caused by circumcising and its direct consequences. Killing children for nothing or next to it is about the worst thing a human being can do. That is why denial of the many deaths is about the only defense possible. As far as I know Neal is still in denial, despite the educational opportunity he has been presented with here repeatedly. Such denial when children's lives are on the chopping block is, in my mind, inexcusable in any adult. "In fact I would bet far more die from aspirin than from circumcision." You haven't given us the name of even one yet, Neal. We've given you the names and locations and dates of many. "This is shrill shrieking about a tempest in a teapot." Try to tell that to the parents of the dead babies. "I was circumcised as an infant and suffered nothing but better hygiene from the procedure." That is false. You seriously need to educate yourself about the structures and functions of the male foreskin at all ages of human development. "Those ranting and raving about 'genital mutilation' are in the same hyperbolic hystrionics boat as PETA usually pilots.. even more so." I asked the State Attorney in my town, a friend from childhood, to arrest the genital mutilators in my town. He said he couldn't, although he was deeply shocked by videos of a female and a male circumcision I showed him. So I asked him what he would do to me if I circumcised a dog in front of the local hospital with TV crews filming the "procedure." He turned a little pale, and begged me not to do it. He said he'd have to send me away for a LONG time. It's not just girls: Dogs and cats and laboratory rats are better protected by our legal professionals that baby boys are. That's the startling truth. "Now in the case of a 12 yr old I would say let the kid decide and leave it at that if you waited that long." Good. That's a start, Neal. So why not let EVERY kid decide for himself when he's an adult? Why just the 12 year olds? Not 11 years and 364 days? What's the magic number, Neal? When does a boy attain the right to his own body? When does he get the same protection that all girls get from the moment of their birth? What's the magic age when a boy becomes a real boy? A human being? "But at the time of the vast majority of the procedures (infancy) it is up to the parents." Not if the child happens to have been born female. Boys have equal rights. Parents have no right to practice medicine on their own children (prescribe cosmetic surgery, for example), and no right to harm their children. "As to cases of Jewish households both parents agreed, when married as Jews, to circumcise their male children so that decision is already made." Unless one of the parents realizes the mistake and changes their mind. It happens. In the case before the Oregon Supreme Court both parents were Christians and decided not to circumcise the boy so "that decision was already made". Then later the father decided to convert to Judaism and now wants the boy circumcised. But it's not the dad's penis and the boy is too young to have any deep insight about what's happening. He's too young to consent to genital mutilation, legally and morally. He deserves protection until he's old enough to understand what sex and his penis are all about and to grant or withhold his own fully informed adult consent. His father has no legitimate business mutilating his son's sex organs. "As for the foreskin being removed being a sex organ that is laughable. The foreskin serves no necessary function for sex. Period." Thoroughgoing and astoundingly arrogant ignorance speaking. That's like saying "The penis is not a sex organ and serves no necessary function in sex." The foreskin in part of the penis, dude. Did your mama and daddy not tell you? Educate yourself. So far you show no sign of being capable of learning anything new about the foreskin. Being ignorant is not a crime. Preferring to stay ignorant is, especially when children's lives are at risk. "As for botched jobs, they happen with all medical procedures." Circumcising healthy children is a sex crime even when it's done "correctly". Every circumcision is botched. There is no right way to do a wrong action. "So should we ban medical procedures altogether because one in ten million is botched?" Circumcising healthy children is not a medical procedure. It's a sex crime. It's sex crimes committed against children and other non-consenting parties we want banned, not valid medical procedures. "That is what civil lawsuits are for." If a boy looses his entire penis in a botched circumcision, what should be his compensation? And who should pay it? But loosing just the majority of nerve endings in his penis is OK? Loosing 15 square inches including the most nerve-dense part of his penis without his consent is fine? No it's not fine. It's a heinous sex crime. "There is so much more important in the world, like getting rid of Emperor Shrub and Darth Cheney, " Only a nation of circumcised people would put up with those two for eight years. "that one has to wonder why there are those putting so much energy into something that really is none of their business in the first place." Whenever anyone injures and kills babies and children for nothing or next to it, it's EVERYONE'S business. Congress made that clear in 1996 with the passage of the federal anti-female genital mutilation act. "Ah well..." Ah men. Circumcising causes brain damage too, Neal. Quit your lunatic shrill shrieking and educate yourself. http://cirp.org/library/psych/brain_damage/index.html

Van Lewis December 14, 2007 9:03 pm (Pacific time)

Neal Feldman says, "... the truth, even if not complimentary, is not necessarily a personal attack." Agreed. Neal: "It is not name calling to identify raving lunatic shrilly shrieking whackadoos as raving lunatic shrilly shrieking whackadoos." Your opinion, obviously. Others may feel differently. If I say "Infant Circumcision is a Sex Crime" (I was arrested in 1970 for carrying a sign on a public sidewalk that said that), is that a personal attack or is it the truth? Is it name calling or is it properly identifying circumcising as the heinous sex crime that it oh-so-obviously-except-to-the-hysterically-blind is? Neal again: "But I would put forth that those (in this thread for example) who directly or indirectly called anyone who disagreed with them child abusers, sex criminals, and any number of other epithets are more guilty of 'personal attack' than anything I presented which was nothing but my own personal opinion of what was being said and the type of folk doing such saying." So when Neal lets fly - for example calling posters "fruit loops", "nutters", "raving lunatic shrilly shrieking whackadoos", etc., according to him it's his personal opinion (in addition to being the obvious truth) to which he is fully entitled and which he is fully entitled to express and express and express and ... . When others who disagree with him express their personal opinions, it's personal attack and name calling? What makes Neal so special? I never called "anyone who disagreed with" me a child abusing, genital mutilating sex criminal. I say circumcising healthy children is a child abusive, genital mutilating sex crime, regardless of what sex the genitally mutilated child happens to have been born, and so people who do it are child abusing, genital mutilating sex criminals. Disagree with me all you like. Disagreeing with me doesn't make you a child abusing, genital mutilating sex criminal, it just makes you disagreeable. :>) It's chopping up healthy children's healthy sex organs without their adult, fully informed, written consent that makes one a child abusing, genital mutilating sex criminal. As far as I can tell, Neal has never done such a terrible thing to a child, nor consented to have it done. I have never called Neal a child abuser, genital mutilator, or sex criminal. If I have, please show me where I did. Neal: "... while my opinions might have raised the hackles of some fruit loops they did not accuse of criminal acts falsely as those who made such false accusations of criminal acts (child abuse and sex crimes are criminal acts) did." If you circumcise a girl child in the USA it's a criminal act, a federal felony. If you don't believe me, try it. You will find out very quickly the tolerance level of this society for female genital mutilators by having the full force of federal law applied to you personally. You don't even have to do it. Just conspire to do it. You'll be in court faster than you can say "Gomco clamp". In the USA boys have the constitutional and human rights to equal protection of the law. Equal means equal. If it's a crime to mutilate, or pin-prick, a girl's sex organs, then it's a crime to mutilate or pin-prick a boy's sex organs. Duuuuhhhh.

Richard L. Matteoli December 14, 2007 9:01 pm (Pacific time)

Camilla: Agreed. And: Misha's circumcision case is a divorce battle. His father is using circumcision against the mother. And, women have used circumcision in divorce battles against husbands. From my post on December 9 this argument is really about Power, Control and Authority through Manipulation out of Selfishness. And this process is in both ritual, whether religious or non-religious, and serial sexual predation. Also, according to the FBI serial sexual predators are narcissists. It's amazing the extent people will go to hurt another. Misha is in the middle of the argument and the "object" in the parental battle. Also, again from John Douglas of the Behavioral Science Unit and one of the originators of criminal profiling: 'Rarely does the perpetrator attack the object of their resentment.' Again, in this case the father's resentment is actually being directed toward the mother. Religion is the incidental and tool.

Van Lewis December 14, 2007 8:03 pm (Pacific time)

Neal Feldman said I misquoted him. He has not provided any proof. Neither has anyone else. It looks like Neal was wrong, but will he admit it? The ability to admit one's own mistakes is a very important one. I wonder if he has it?

Richard L. Matteoli December 14, 2007 7:27 pm (Pacific time)

Jason: If an adult wants to get circumcised with full knowledge that's fine. Yet, as Hitler said: "There is no end of stupid people." (From book on USMC Reading List). Yes Jason I am advocating for the minor against improper medicine and improper Cultural Convention that usurps The Rule of Law. Why else do they have 'Religious Exemptions to Child Abuse Statutes.' Also it may be a form of Deliberate Difference being that women are protected and men not protected which violates equal protection. As for "most women prefer a cut penis" is an entirely different academic discipline in the matter of circumcision from the great mother goddesses Isis and Hathor, to present day gender feminists and Dr. Laura Schlessinger's (sp?) Dark Side.

Richard L. Matteoli December 14, 2007 7:00 pm (Pacific time)

Gary: The real term is "informed" concent. Very few are truly informed, though I realize not all the problems that may arise need be on the concent form that has to be signed. How can someone give concent unless they are not fully informed. Before some law suits physicians used the excuse of 'implied' concent based on their being doctors and know better. (NOT SO, and don't belabor this point. My own experience can fill a page). For an adult, true informed concent for circumcision is not an assault, but neither is it a medical treatment whether that treatment is deemed a treatment for a specific problem - which would make it an improper treatment or whether the circumcision is deemed prophylactic which is also an improper procedure. The thing is circumcision is not a valid medical procedure for anything. Most informed consent forms explain difficulties that may arise from a procedure, not the function of the diseased tissue, and the prepuce is never diseased enough to amputate except for a carcinoma or an even more rare sarcoma. The examples of Palo Alto's CA county hospital, now a part of Stanford Medical school and Kaiser hospital also in Palo Alto telling the parents that they could not take their child home without being circumcised because it was the LAW are not examples of informed consent. This was happening 30 years ago that I know of. Also, having every darned nurse in a maternity ward asking for circumcision does not constitute consent, but rather browbeating and coercion - and this just happened within the last year at Kaiser Sacramento when my grandson was born. My son and his wife are more even tempered than me. This is 'paternalism' which is big brother/big sister crossing all political boundaries.

John-Ca. December 14, 2007 5:37 pm (Pacific time)

Q: What's the difference between strapping down a baby, without his consent, and cutting part of his sexual anatomy off? AND strapping down a man, without his consent, and cutting part of his sexual anatomy off? A: One has a big penis and one has a little penis. Both are being sexually assaulted!

Camellia December 14, 2007 5:27 pm (Pacific time)

I am glad people are realizing this is a highly controversial case. I don't know if the people commenting here know that this child was born a Christian and baptized into the Orthodox Church. No amount of circumcising will change that he is Christian. His father is the one who has become a latter-day Jew and now wants to inflict HIS (father's) religion onto his Christian son by carving G-d's commandment into his flesh. The child is nearly 13 years old! Doesn't anyone hear feel a 12 year old boy has the right to his own body and to decide for himself if he wants to convert to being a Jew?? And since when did Jews start forcing conversion on Christians? I'm appalled that there are Christians out there who don't understand that this boy is being forced to renounce his Christian heritage and have his foreskin amputated for Judaism. How on earth is forcing Judaism on a 12 year old religious freedom? Unbelievable. This is unprecedented. It's just about the strangest situation I can imagine.

Joe December 14, 2007 4:04 pm (Pacific time)

The issue of whether circumcision is assault or battery has been examined, not yet by the courts, but Dr. Sommerville, Founding Director of the Mgill Centre for Medicine, Ethics, and Law (whom you may be aware of) discussed this issue with Dr. C Robin Walker Chief, Division of Neonatology at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario not long after she published her thoughts on the whole issue which can be read here: http://www.intact.ca/canary.htm In particular the question that must be asked is: Is routine male circumcision "therapeutic". From her book: "A medical-benefits or "therapeutic" justification requires that overall the medical benefits should outweigh the risks and harms of the procedure required to obtain them, that this procedure is the only reasonable way to obtain these benefits, and that these benefits are necessary to the well-being of the child. None of these conditions is fulfilled for routine infant male circumcision." In her correspondence with Dr. Walker, she elaborates further on her legal interpretation of the procedure. From: http://www.courtchallenge.com/letters/somer1.html "...you will see that I said that infant male circumcision undertaken for non-medical reasons was “technically criminal assault”. This is correct. All wounding of one person by another person is prima facie criminal assault (indeed, aggravated criminal assault), but it can become justified—that is, not illegal, not a crime—on certain conditions. The most common and important situation in which wounding is not a criminal assault, is when it is indicated as medically required surgery and it is undertaken with the informed consent of the person on whom it is carried out or, if this person is incompetent, of their legal representative (in the case of children, the parents)." Since routine infant male circumcision in not therapeutic, as defined above, it can therefore be properly labled, at the very least, criminal assault. However, once you are an adult you can consent to non-therapeutic cosmetic procedures and the legal standing becomes a whole different complicated mess.

nameless was anon December 14, 2007 3:54 pm (Pacific time)

Neal, I stopped reading when I saw "nutter". You don't have the right to abuse people that that.

Michael Glass December 14, 2007 1:07 pm (Pacific time)

To decide about circumcision, ask who should decide. I say the one with the foreskin is the one to decide. Not his mother, not his father, not his doctor, his imam or his rabbi: the owner of the foreskin should be the one to decide. Follow this simple rule and much of the controversy about circumcision disappears. It would then become like most other bodily modifications, best left until the person is old enough to make an adult decision on the matter.

Jason December 14, 2007 2:03 pm (Pacific time)

Richard, if someone wants to be circumcised and know what they are getting in to, then how is that an assault? If the actual person getting circumcised wants to do it for religion/personal reasons and dont care about side effects, then that is their choice. I could see where you would try to argue that for infants or if the man/parents were simply told a completely biased medical point of view. For example someone saying; circumcision prevents aids 60% of the time, most women prefer a cut penis, sex will feel better afterwards, it is just little flap of skin, is not a fair assessment. Both sides of the issue need to be presented, especially in the case of children and when the issue is so controversial.

Neal Feldman December 14, 2007 2:00 pm (Pacific time)

nameless - you were not 'denied health care'. You were deemed unsuitable by a specific physician who can choose their patients... and honestly if I were a doctor and saw a patient of mine publicly announce they were a nutter and a much higher litigious risk I would drop them like a hot rock too. Might even put a not in their chart about why so when they go to another doctor and have their history transferred the new doc knows what they are getting into. It will be up to them to decide what, if anything, to do about it. You are learning that actions have consequences. Your whining about 'being punished for speaking out' is just one example of this immaturity. You are not 'being punished'. You exercised your right (to speak out) and the doc exercised their right (not to associate with nutters). Why is it that you have no issue with exercising YOUR rights but find fault in others exercising THEIRS? Or do you feel no one has a right to anything you disagree with? That is how it comes across at least. So grow a pair, find another doctor and stop whining, and realize that if you are public with your views on controversial issues you can find your welcome not so warm in some quarters. Ah well...

Michael Glass December 14, 2007 1:42 pm (Pacific time)

Deaths from circumcision do happen. Here is a report on one death in British Columbia in the Canadian Medical Assoication's Journal: http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/167/7/789-a Another death followed a ritual circumcision in London, England: http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,2015266,00.html See also http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html No operation is entirely risk-free. That applies to circumcision as much as anything else.

Gary December 14, 2007 12:38 pm (Pacific time)

Richard L. Matteoli, surely circumcision is not assault if proper consent is obtained, is it? Can the consent be properly obtained without informing the patient of the complete function of the foreskin and the full effects of its removal?

Henry Ruark December 14, 2007 12:21 pm (Pacific time)

Neal: That's precisely what my gurn said was now under test for wider uses, within the Bush cabal. How it works, when it will be more universalized, how much it will cost are all not known today --but it is now on the way. Which should give pause, now, to those who abuse this and many other channels simply as display of their character flaws and psychotic tendencies, and sometimes their malign intentions to defy, deny and destroy if possible the open, honest dialog ("conversation" !) on which democracy has been built ever since the Founders and the Federalist Papers.

nameless was anon December 14, 2007 12:05 pm (Pacific time)

Henry, the problem is, I have been denied health care because of a public Letter to the Editor that was published in which I called circumcision sexual abuse. My doctor didn't want to work with me any longer, which of course is his choice. When people are oppressed by the system, they must find another way to operate. Not only are infants abused sexually by physicians by circumcision, they are punished if they speak out about it.

Richard L. Matteoli December 14, 2007 11:33 am (Pacific time)

Gary. That was the point of the observation. A circumcision, no matter how performed, is an assault as well as a battey. At least how I perceive it. I'm not an attorney though. 'Do No Harm' as the physician's oath says. Hippocrates also stated: "Whenever a doctor cannot do good, he must be kept from doing harm."

Neal Feldman December 14, 2007 11:05 am (Pacific time)

Henry - I'm all for tech advances but if an anonymizer replaces the IP and MAC addresses with something else from the original without leaving a trace of the original remaining how can any tech backtrack that? look forward to your article and hope you can answer that question in it. Ah well...

Gary December 14, 2007 10:56 am (Pacific time)

Richard L. Matteoli, Are you saying that rape, with or without date rape drug is assault? How, then, can we do circumcisions, either with or without anesthesia, without it being assault?

Henry Ruark December 14, 2007 10:54 am (Pacific time)

Last "Anon": From personal experience I can inform you your statement is incorrect. Re quoted passages, agree they a bit tough, but those of us who sign have a bit more reason to lean a bit more heavily when others fire but refuse to stand behind gun. IF you send it, sign it, even with user-name. Previous post this thread makes clear that will soon be no longer feasible way to fire and run behind "anonymous". Would you seek out tree for retreat in real conversation ? Why do so here, where points and issues that much more worth all protection and your sincere sharing with others still learning ?

anon December 14, 2007 7:24 am (Pacific time)

Neal, I see nothing hostile in the 8th posting by Hugh, "Babies certainly do die from circumcision." Perhaps you could clarify. I find your comments in the 5th posting hostile, namely "shrill shrieking", "ranting and raving", and "hyperbolic hystrionics". The only reason you're allowed to comment this way is because you work there.

Henry Ruark December 14, 2007 6:21 am (Pacific time)

To all: For those truly interested in building true learning capabilities into any organization, including this open channel, "see with own eyes" THE basic manual: FIFTH DISCIPLINE FIELDBOOK: Strrategies and Tools for Building A Learning Organization; Peter M. Senge et al; 1994; ISBN 0-385-47256-0 Uses systems thinking to apply four other basic principles for improving and facilitating learning communication among all persons, groups and agencies. Systems thinking is basic tool now broadly used by all sciences and action developing persons, overcoming inbuilt fallacies and failures of usual "linear thinking".

Henry Ruark December 14, 2007 5:00 am (Pacific time)

Neal et al: Recent interest in abuse problem here led me to check with national Internet guru, one of original working contacts on media in D.C.; who informs me entirely possible now to trace out ID from Comment, given time and some dollars. Newest stuff is part of longtime spy development, pushed by Bushies and about to be nationalized for their ongoing purposes. (One commentator says: "To build police state." My guru states techs now developed sure to move out to use in such situations as ours...so question of ID now resolvable; good faith observance thus easier done than ever, sure to come, soon. "Anon" and user-names always sneaky way to avoid truly unavoidable responsibility If you willing to shoot it out, should be willing to sign for it, too. Convenience of user-name appreciated and applicable for decent no-attack stuff, but when we get to real-crap, we must now resolve issue or lose credibilities and values of open, honest channel debased to lowest common denominator. No matter how done, that spells reasonable, rational control, as now exerted in all other media formats, by demand of users as well as for legal and responsible rationality. First Amendment under no threat, given good faith and professional application of known self-accepted rules; acceptance by use of channel, spelled out in Terms of Service. Op Ed upcoming on allathis including detailed report on new tech mentioned. Whole approach must be based on longterm media principles laid on in depth for 20 years, in full detail in FIFTH DISCIPLINE book and working manual in worldwide usage.

Neal Feldman December 13, 2007 8:37 pm (Pacific time)

Henry - And do not forget that the only way you can enforce a ban here is via IP and they can be spoofed or anonymized. As such anyone with even a modicum of internet savvy will be able to ignore any bans as long as they wish to. Not saying it is right, just saying that it is. And Nietzsche has it right so long as you are not already darker than the abyss LOL. Something to shoot for? Maybe. Just saying... Ah well...

Richard L. Matteoli December 13, 2007 6:34 pm (Pacific time)

Jamie stated on Dec. 11 "The AMA says most circumcisions are performed without anesthesia." This begs an observation regarding the use of anesthesia for circumcision: 'If a woman is given the date rape drug so she will not feel or remember the act when it is carried out, then a rape did not occur.' It is the act of violation that must be considered which is the Signature as a genital wounding and a genital assault, not how the act is performed which is the MO.

Jason December 13, 2007 6:27 pm (Pacific time)

Dude, arguing about who started the personal attacks is even less useful then the personal attacks. Everyone needs to cutback on the insults or the same crap will happen all over again.

Richard Matteoli December 13, 2007 6:17 pm (Pacific time)

Neal - A Wiccan Rabbi??? Doubt I'll find a Wiccan Catholic priest either since I forget where the Catholic Churches are. Semper Fi though we will continue to disagree on this subject.

Henry Ruark December 13, 2007 5:58 pm (Pacific time)

Neal: Just found this one in wellknown source, and wanted to share it as last word re abuse of channel as discussed: "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you." ---Friedrich Nietzche

Jason December 13, 2007 5:49 pm (Pacific time)

Ah, less insults, more debate... still not perfect (and you still use that lame "ah, well"), but thoughts were given nonetheless. 1. The thing I was trying to avoid is getting reasons why you support circ that you wouldn't also apply to ANY female cutting since the latter is banned. ie, its cleaner (girls with less labia would also be cleaner and would retain plenty of sensitivity) or because the decision is religious (whether or not it is MANDATED doesn't matter, they are doing it in the name of the religion and is what they believe needs done). The reasons I expected to get are reasons that would differentiate the two practices and explain why one is ok and the other is not. And I dont think the "significant enough religion" reason you gave earlier flys... and there is surely more you believe then just that. 2. Status quo? Maybe "recently" in the US and in Israel and perhaps some other places, but surely not the majority of countries. Yes, something that has been done a long time does carry some weight since it has been accepted for so long, yet it will also be so grounded as "tradition" people will overlook things that dont quite make sense or are hypocritical about it to stay "normal". Such as the "millions" you say do not feel harmed by it... these people have no idea what it is like to be intact, they have nothing to compare with... so although many may be happy with what they have, they have no idea what it would be like intact, would they really prefer it or are they just using the hand they were dealt, see it as normal, and circ their boy? Some may have problems (the men and/or their wives) and just think that is the way things are and never find out their problem was related to their circumcision, whether it was a botched circ, to much skin taken, not enough sensitivity, having to use lotion to fully enjoy masturbation, etc. 3. So you do not recognize the pleasure differences and pain during and after surgery as enough of a negative even if there were minimal/no medical benefits? You dont see it has a rights issue if the medical difference is minimal? You are right many guys still enjoy sex, but so would a girl who simply had some labia removed, and maybe even a girl with piercings, trimmings, and/or the removal of the "foreskin" around the clit removed... but no genital cutting of girls is permitted, the cultural taboo is to great, but is male circumcision so different? Do you have more to add to 1. ? 4. I could see where this question was a bit confusing, I was trying to ask why the many medical reasons used to justify circ in the past which have been disproven dont seem to waver any trust you have in studies relating to circ such as the HIV study? The people with the old studies were crazy?

Henry Ruark December 13, 2007 5:49 pm (Pacific time)

Neal et al: Mine own record re S-J and its policies, not only on open expression but many others, is more than on the record --one might even say that file is bulging, from 30 years of ongoing effort. Re "censorship", that's much different than common sense rules for any open channel, which must exist. We now set them here at nearly wide-open throttle, but eventually will need to slow down, warn, then ban those who continue to force terrific true damage to privilege provided at S-N cost, open to final determination when space, time, staff, dollars, and patience of readers other than our wellknown Woefully Deprived segment are forced into reasonable consideration. Baseball rule should work: Three strikes (at others) and you're out ! Like baseball, screwed up pitch easy to spot, especially for sincere good-will editors proving that principle every day in every story and all the rest of these open, honest, democratic channels. These should be learning threads, open to all demonstrating concern to share and respect others. For those comparatively few continually demonstrating lack of respect, loss of concentration on story issue or problem, and any demeaning personal reference, there should be no more question here than in hundreds of other parallel situations now providing open statement while also protecting all the demanded components, furnished at somebody's heavy costs !! What we seek is simply the civil courtesies demanded of anyone engaging in ordinary conversation - try some of what appears here and hold onto your head !!

Neal Feldman December 13, 2007 4:54 pm (Pacific time)

Henry - censorship is always tricky... as to the ultra thin skinned anything that is not massively complimentary is a personal slight... and the facts is that the truth, even if not complimentary, is not necessarily a personal attack. But I would put forth that those (in this thread for example) who directly or indirectly called anyone who disagreed with them child abusers, sex criminals, and any number of other epithets are more guilty of 'personal attack' than anything I presented which was nothing but my own personal opinion of what was being said and the type of folk doing such saying. We do have the right still to our opinions and the right to express them do we not? And while my opinions might have raised the hackles of some fruit loops they did not accuse of criminal acts falsely as those who made such false accusations of criminal acts (child abuse and sex crimes are criminal acts) did. And who gets to decide whose statement is 'actionable' and whose is not? That is the track the Statesman Journal forums took, banning those they found they disagreed with, and yet the same things that allegedly got some banned there are practiced constantly by others who seem to be immune from any consequences. The SJ due to this blatant and biased censorship has lost all credibility... and their forums have zero value because of it... just being a playground for the privileged. of the Censors. It would be a loss for that to be allowed to happen here. If someone tends to make ridiculous posts and not contribute to the active thread they can just be ignored, they tend to go away in such cases without instituting censorship. But often, as in this thread, as I pointed out just a bit ago, it was the anti-circ side who started the hostilities all the way back in the 8th comment and it went on for some time before I or anyone else specifically voiced objection to it... and our objections only got more of the same. I figure they set the ground rules at that point which is why I find them so feebly pathetic for whining and crying about it now. I guess they are used to pack attacking those who disagree with them with their pet epithets and irrelevant screeds and they don't know how to deal with someone like me who will stand up to their BS, point out their BS for what it is, and not get chased off. So then they resort to crying to the editor/censor to censor those they cannot drive off. I've seen it many times. Like I said I just hope you do not reward such anti-free speech anti-freedom un-American (yes I realize not all posters are Americans but we are) attitudes and agendas. Ah well...

Avendexora December 13, 2007 3:32 pm (Pacific time)

I'd like to remind everyone to refresh your knowledge on the History regarding this practice in America. If you don't know its important to learn the History behind circumcision and always remember it or it will repeat it self! America was once an intact culture. All because of a FEW pro-circ fanatics decided that since they didn't have a foreskin they would compel everyone to cut off their bits so THEY wouldn't be in the minority. This is strikingly similar to the "The Fox who Loses His Tail" Fable. *1832 Claude-Franosis Lallemand circumcises a patient to cure him from nocturnal emission (wet dreams) *1845 Edward H. Dixon declares that circumcision cures and prevents masturbation. *1855 Johnathon Hutchinson publishes his theory that circumcision prevents syphilis. *1865 Nathaniel Heckford claims that circumcision cures epilepsy. *1870 Lewis A. Sayre publishes a paper "proving" that circumcision cures epilepsy. (There was enough hype by this time and people started to believe it! This is when the circumcision rate in America started to rise.) *1870 Lewis A. Sayre declares that circumcision prevents spinal paralysis. *1871 M.J. Moses declares that circumcised Jews are immune to masturbation. *1873 Joseph Bell announces his discovery that circumcision cures bed wetting. *1875 Lewis A. Sayre declares that foreskin causes curvature of the spine paralysis of the bladder and clubfoot. And thats just the beginning!!! Now theres the "Circumcision prevents HIV/AIDS" cr@p! If the foreskin was that bad, man-kind would have ceased to exist A LONG time ago! Circumcision has always been a solution IN SEARCH of a problem!!! The foreskin is not a birth defect people! Those who can make you believe in Absurdities can make you commit Atrocities - Voltaire

Henry Ruark December 13, 2007 3:14 pm (Pacific time)

Neal et al: Recognize, appreciate your unfair, demeaning and desperately uncalled-for plight, from own experiences over more years than I care to confirm. ALWAYS irresponsibles ready to react rather than reason; that's part of linear language problem forcing system-style thinking. New national legislation now underway by group of similar writers to us, setting up some sharp penalties for obvious use of Internet channels, while still thoroughly protecting good faith First Amendment rights. Meanwhile, do believe we should give any/all three-shot limit, starting with first such personal reference or attack without timely addition to story/issue content, barring them for month on 3rd-shot. Ease of surveillance on such content makes it simple to apply, S-N Terms of Service allow ample room. SO all-such should count on one-or-t'other added painful burden for those who will not or cannot learn, and share after learning that learning does not include personal or professional attack via calumny or demeaning reference. Given billions spent to provide such open, honest, democratic channel opportunity, that's the least we can do as responsible, rational free Americans, with same-rights accruing to all others.

Richard Russell December 13, 2007 2:50 pm (Pacific time)

From Neal again: "Dr. Richard L. Matteoli - ah, so appealing to precedent is bad thinking? I guess then all jurisprudence is bad thinking since it is all based on precedent." Dr Matteoli is a very nice fellow whom I met once, but I must warn one and all that his ethnicity permits and encourages consumption of meat and dairy products cooked together in the same utensils. He is a pretty big boy and can probably take care of himself, but he didn't go to law school and get a Juris Doctor degree, so I'm going to help him out here. Caveat emptor. Following precedent is a good thing for law and society. It gives stability over the long term, and helps avoid capricious judicial application of the law to benefit one person, or group of persons who have some special status with a court rather than the law and facts on his/her/their side. But sometimes stare decisis has to bend or fall when human rights would be violated by blind and rigid conformity to precedent. Examples? Upholding laws that require racial segregation was the precedent of the US Supreme Court until 1954. Permitting government to punish gay people for being gay was supported by precedent until a few years ago when the present US Suprme Court said no more; precedent will not protect that part of the law. (It is widely acknowledged that the anti-gay laws were based on the religious beliefs of some zealous groups in the US who wanted to impose their beliefs on everyone else.) Is there any precedent in US law and jurisprudence that might evolve into interfering with those who want to give infants and boys partial penile amputation for religious reasons? Maybe. In the past 50-60 years courts have ruled that Christian Science parents cannot prevent doctors and hospitals from providing life-saving health care to their children, contrary to the parents' devoutly held belief that prayer is the only acceptable "treatment" for illness or injury. The courts have ruled likewise in the case of Jehovah's Witnesses who fervently believe that blood transfusions are contrary to the laws of G-d. And courts have upheld laws that interfere with Appalachian Fundamentalist Christians who want their children under 18 to be able to participate in their most sacred religious ritual: dangling venomous reptiles in ones face to see if his or her faith is strong enough to prevent a fatal strike. Ah, playing with rattle snakes and playing with foreskins with knives. If no one ever died from circumcision, why does Jewish law permit a boy to grow up with his foreskin if three older brothers have died from their circumcisions before he was born?

Richard Russell December 13, 2007 2:13 pm (Pacific time)

Wow, Neal. You just can't help yourself can you? (Have you seen a mental health expert other than yourself about this obsession?) So you can diagnose mental illness? Have you a license to do so? And what do the standards of ethics of your profession say about diagnosing those you have never seen, never interviewed? But actually, I believe you are just calling names without any basis other than the hatred in your dark and malignant heart, so let's look there. Let me get this straight, because someone who is opposed to circumcision has pulled your string and caused you to become uncivil for the first time ever in your life, you have a right to call me all the names that may or may not really apply to that other someone? Just because you believe I may be opposed to circumcision on the same terms or in the same way as that unspecified other? Is that the rule? So suppose that out of tens of thousands of persons I've done business with in a long lifetime, one of them were a Jew who cheated me. Now then, according to your rule, after that I have a right to call every Jew in the world a money grubbing, greedy, cheating thief. Is that the way it works? And then there is this: "Your ravings are diametrically opposed to the law with your ludicrous claims regarding what is and is not the case in law." Tell me one thing I have said about the law BEFORE this posting. You see, you can't do that; you fire riot guns into the crowd, never mind whether it's the right crowd or even whether the person you want to kill is in the crowd. Nice work; maybe you will win the Idi Amin award for debater of the year. I don't think you are winning any friends here for your idea of getting every baby boy in the world circumcised. Even the Muslims have left your building: They circumcise mostly in two age brackets, around ages 5-6 (many Arabic cultures) and around ages 12-13 (Turks and others), while a very few wait until the day before a young man is to be married so future father/brothers-in-law can watch.

Neal Feldman December 13, 2007 12:03 pm (Pacific time)

Henry - This thread became useless for any kind of rational debate when the whackadoos first started calling (directly or indirectly) anyone who disagrred with them supporters of 'child abuse;' or 'sec crimes', when they first claimed that parent do not have the right to make decisions regarding their kids re: male infant circumcision, when they claimed that 'kids die FROM CIRCUMCISION *all the time*, when they berated anyone who is circumcised and does not buy into their proffered status of 'victimhood', etc. Let me look back to when that was... Hugh December 8, 2007 1:46 pm (Pacific time) comment number 8. 8! Since then it has just been 200 comments of one side ranting their lunatic ravings and the other side pointing out that fact. I agree with you that this thread, and those folks, are a lost cause. I will take the advice of one of the whackadoos who had a moment of clarity when they said since they are such an insignificant lunatic fringe element to just laugh at them and ignore their ravings. I just did not want to be the first to point out the waste of space aspect of this entire issue. Thank you for doing so. It frees me to ignore the whackadoos and just laugh at their antics like I laugh at the antics of the shrieking monkeys in the cage at the zoo. Ah well...

Neal Feldman December 13, 2007 11:48 am (Pacific time)

Dr. Richard L. Matteoli - ah, so appealing to precedent is bad thinking? I guess then all jurisprudence is bad thinking since it is all based on precedent. That is the basis of my argument which is entirely sound. That and the constitutional separation of church and state. Those are two points your side will likely find to be insurmountable obstacles to your goals. Don't blame me for it, I'm just the one pointing it out. But your desperate attempt to twist and misrepresent critical thiking rules in this case is very telling. How about appeals to emotion which is the summation of just about all the anti-circ whackadoo arguments? And in that case there is no constitutional protection for lunacy. Sorry. Ah well...

Neal Feldman December 13, 2007 11:43 am (Pacific time)

Dr.Richard L. Matteoli - Geez I wish you freaks would learn to do a bit of research and not make your ridiculous assumptions. I have no Rabbi. If you bothered to check my entry on the staff page it lists a link to my web page on which I clearly identify as a solitary practitioner of Wicca. I was born into a Jewish household. Conservative stripe. That is where the name comes in. Did the who Bar Mitzvah thing. Never really took to the whole judeo-christian-islamic religion set... after investigating options I found my own version of Wicca suits me better... makes more sense. so you go look for a Wiccan rabbi... let me know how that works out for you ok? LOL! Ah well...

Neal Feldman December 13, 2007 11:38 am (Pacific time)

Ah the hue and cry of censorship by those who clearly cannot deal with being accurately identified by their fringe lunacy. I do not call for anyone to be censored... even the greatest of irrational poltroons like Joe as they continue to prove me right every time they post, such as when they prove themselves incapable of reading and comprehending what I say but instead internally translating it into their whackadoo-speak then regurgitating it as if it were what I said (such as when Joe idiotically claims my position is that parents can do ANYTHING with their kids when I have never said any such thing. They can do anything WITHIN THE LEGAL RIGHTS THEY POSSESS with their kids... and while I realize it infuriates your kind clearly past the point of insanity those rights include the right to circumcise their male infant children regardless of your lunatic claims to the contrary or shrilly shrieked factless epithets. As to Jason and your carefully slanted loaded questions I will answer thusly: 1: They have the right to circumcise the males and not the females because they do. Things just are. Why is water wet? Because it is. Female genital mutilation is not circumcision any more than decapitation is. Your continued attempts to equate the two are ludicrous. Besides that in the US male circumcision is protected under separation of church and state and whether you like it or not that is a bulwark of our society that must not be breached for any reason. 2: the age is not what says it is not abuse. It is the fact that in thousands of years it has not been found to be abuse so the burden is upon you claiming it to be such who bear the burden of proof. It is the status quo. And for every man who is circumcised who feels they were 'abused' by the practice there are millions who do not. That is why the ones that speak out as if they were abused are laughed at for doing so. Because they are laughable wimps. 3: There are benefits but even if there were not there are no proven significant risks pf harm to justify changing the status quo or violating the separation of church and state. You see even though I tend, as a rule, to oppose the religious reich and their actions, one of the best defenses against their predations on the rights of those who do not believe as they do is that same wall of separation between church and state, Well, it would be quite hypocritical of me to support the wall in one instance and oppose it in another now wouldn't it? One takes the bad with the good and IMHO the wall of separation between church and state serves much more good than it serves bad. 4: your last question makes no sense. I have no idea what you are asking, and my intellect is considerable. I am sure you think you know what you are asking but it does not translate well apparently into english. Why am I unphased by the factless, emotion laden, shrilly shrieked ravings of lunatics who cannot tell that the world is NOT as they seem to wish it was? Hmmm... let's see... why would I ignore/be unphased by such? How long should I wonder? LOL. As for what whackadoos think of me I could not possibly care less. You see, they already have zero credibility with me, so their ravings have zero relevance or impact. They were the ones who started off the negatives... the irrational namecalling... so I properly and accurately identified them and their BS... to them this makes me a 'bully'. You know what? I could not possibly care less what they think in that regard. They are the 0.001% lunatic fringe. Likely there are more nitwits waiting in fields in their tinfoil hats waiting to be picked up by the Mothership than actually believe fully what these raving loons espouse here. So there are your answers to your loaded questions. Bet you find fault. Oh the shock will be.. nonexistant. Ah well...

Richard L. Matteoli December 13, 2007 11:36 am (Pacific time)

Henry Ruark is correct that the tone developed leaves much to be desired. But, I don't think censorship is the answer. This is a tough subject to discuss yet it will run it's course. Also, many posts are too long to bother reading even though there is a lot of information in them. Separate the issues and post twice or three times.

Neal Feldman December 13, 2007 11:09 am (Pacific time)

Richard Russell - it is you who clearly do not get it. It is not name calling to identify raving lunatic shrilly shrieking whackadoos as raving lunatic shrilly shrieking whackadoos. You can dislike the truth all you like but it changes nothing. And it was your side that started any 'incivility' ... unless yo don't consider shrieking at any who disagree with you that they are inhuman, child abusers, sex criminals or any of the other 'name calling' that your side participated in. At least my identification of your sort has logic, reason and intelligence supporting it. Your ravings are diametrically opposed to the law with your ludicrous claims regarding what is and is not the case in law. But continue to rant and rave and howl at the moon like demented lunatics. Your opinions have no weight having been wholly discredited and identified at the extreme of the extreme lunatic fringe. Ah well...

Ronel December 13, 2007 9:59 am (Pacific time)

Circumcision damages men weather they are aware of it or not.

Patricia Robinett December 13, 2007 9:22 am (Pacific time)

Well, I guess it's time for a circumcised woman from Kansas who now lives in Eugene, to comment. I wrote a book about my own medical circumcision -- chosen by my WASP mother for her WASP daughter in the 1950s. As a mental health professional, my concern is for the mental health of the child -- and his/her participation/contribution to his/her community/world. There are only three cultures that circumcise their young: Jews, English-speaking Christians and Muslims. Get the drift? Three angry, warring cultures -- all circumcise their young. If that is not enough, then add to that my own experience of a lifetime of rage. And interestingly, I have met other circumcised women since I wrote my book -- two in Eugene, without even trying! plus others in other areas of the country -- and they too are very angry women. And no wonder. Unhealed trauma and lack of sexual comfort and satisfaction now. Fortunately, I have been able to heal a great deal of my own angst around my circumcision trauma -- yes, it's the gift that doesn't just hurt on the spot for a moment -- it is excruciating for weeks... and I still experience pain at times. Why do they do it to babies? Because an infant cannot talk about it. When they do it to older boys, ceremonially, they tell them it is a sign of manhood to not experience pain and to not complain... another way of manipulating away dissent. When they do it to older boys or to adults without all the cultural manipulation, they talk. They tell. And they know the difference. And that is how, Neal, the "70%" loss of sensation came about -- it came from men who were circumcised as adults who could compare before and after. At any rate -- you have NO idea the angst of the circumcised infant. You have no idea the decision that wounded child makes about life, about people, about his mother, doctors... If doctors were truly wise they would not circumcise infants because men visit doctors at a far lower rate than women. Why? Since I too avoid doctors, I can tell you -- doctors are not the friend of circumcised people... we know they are 'untrustworthy', that they 'hurt people', that they 'make things worse', that they are 'cruel', etc... all decisions we made long ago, pre-verbally. The costs to the individual, to his family, to society, to the world -- and even to the medical community -- are not worth pursuing the practice of routine medical infant circumcision. It is a 'penny wise, pound foolish' practice. The advertising campaign that sold America on circumcision was short, sweet, and effective. "Cleaner, cuter, easier -- and it doesn't hurt!" Well, 'Double your pleasure, double your fun with double good, double good, Doublemint gumm" and "Brylcreme!" The 'father of public relations' Eddie Bernays also got women smoking, people eating bacon for breakfast, and ran the campaign to get us into World War II. It's not that people are stupid -- it's that they fall for tricks easily. Don't cut children's genitals. Let them have their whole bodies. I wish they'd never cut me. It would have been at least one less, unnecessary trauma.

Van Lewis December 13, 2007 9:15 am (Pacific time)

With all due respect to Henry Ruark, and with some agreement that there may have been at times more heat than light here, I tend to disagree that limits should be set on this discussion. There has been far too much limit-setting on communication about genital mutilation in the past. I think these things need to come out and be discussed fully. No one is required to participate. This is a voluntary discussion. My appreciation to all who have participated, all who are participating, and all who will participate. When babies' lives are at stake, communication before action is vitally important.

Gary December 13, 2007 9:10 am (Pacific time)

Financial issues of circumcision: I'm heartened to read this Rapid Response on the BMJ about financial compensation: Financial issues we should consider [http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/335/7631/1180#183582] 13 December 2007 Laura J MacDonald, stakeholder in the NHS London N1 5SL The current cost of providing for ritual surgery on the NHS is covered above. I wonder however if anyone has carried out due diligence on the FUTURE financial implications of carrying out ritual surgery on non- consenting patients? As a degrading, harmful and painful treatment prescribed on the basis of his gender, his parents religion, or a presumption about his future behaviour, male infant circumcision is a clear violation of many explicit requirements of the Children's Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2006. The loss of highly innervated erogenous tissue is irreversible, and the BMA have accepted this may entail psychological consequences. The compensation awarded to a complainant could run to hundreds of thousands of pounds. Some will consider litigation unlikely but the recent formation of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain shows clearly that we cannot rely on the presumption that a man born to a Muslim family will retrospectively approve his circumcision. If GPs, ethicists and surgeons don't care about the consequences of taking a functional and joyful part from an unconsenting boy, NHS finance managers certainly should.

Henry Ruark December 13, 2007 8:52 am (Pacific time)

To all: Continued surveillance here forces me to withdraw my positive evaluation made previously. Despite that one and a solid guiding comment from Editor Tim, this thread has steadily deteriorate, not helped much by anyone, and desperately damaged by most. Continuance now waste of time for anyone wishing to share-and-learn, and I propose that Editor set finite level by number of comments for such straying from regular and helpful comments by those who wish to communicate on the subject, rather than allow the subterfuge of open-channel privilege for those most interested in verbal combat.

Van Lewis December 13, 2007 7:06 am (Pacific time)

Well, here's an interesting post from "Anon" on December 12, 2007 at 9:30 am (Pacific time). It begins by quoting me: "That's because I believe Judaism is fundamentally about doing justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly with God, not mutilating babies' sex organs. I support all three of those fundamentals. Circumcising healthy children is none of them." Then Anon chimes in: "Oh, I love this anti-Semitic tactic!" For me, it's circumcising babies and children that's anti-Semitic, and anti-child and anti-human. I am not the one injuring for life and sometimes killing perfectly healthy Semitic children. Circumcising is. Anything that always injures and sometimes kills Semitic children seems to me to be obviously anti-Semitic. In trying to defend Semites from this sickness, I seem to myself and feel myself to be pro-Semitic, and pro-human. I won't say that thing that gets some people so upset about some of my best friends being Jewish, but I will say that some of the people I have loved and still love the most deeply and profoundly in this life, male and female, have been and are Jews. That doesn't seem anti-Semitic to me. Anti-Semitism requires hatred of Semites. I don't have it. I do hate involuntary, forced circumcising of anyone, regardless of race, religion, color, creed, national or ethnic origin, etc. For my essay about one of the Jews I love deeply, see http://StopInfantCircumcision.org/crick-wald.htm "Say something nice just before coming up with a completely judgmental and false claim." I do believe I have judged circumcising correctly, as instructed by a Jewish intactivist named Jesus of Nazareth in the New Testament, John 7:1-24. So, "judgmental", yes, about the action of circumcising healthy children. I am trying to learn not to be judgmental about the people doing it. That's for a higher judge, not me. "False", no. The judgment that circumcising healthy children is wrong is the correct one, I believe. "First of all circumcisionis ESSENTIAL in Judaism." Anon is free to believe this but most of the Jews I know don't. "It is the most important commandment." More important than the first, to love God? More important than loving your neighbor? More important than not killing people? I don't think most Jews believe that. "Of all 613, this is THE ONE." The Old Testament says, "But what does the Lord require of thee but to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God." Nothing about damaging and mutilating babies' sex organs there. Circumcising is not mentioned anywhere in the Ten Commandments of Moses, the very foundation of Jewish morals, law and ethics. Moses didn't circumcise during his forty year leadership in the desert, and said not to add anything to the law he gave. Many believe Moses, too, was an intactivist. The second commandment can be read as an injunction against circumcising. "The sins of the fathers against the sons (the fathers' sin of circumcising the sons) will be punished (against the fathers) to the third (grandfathers') and fourth (great-grandfathers') generation." (The great-great grandfathers are all dead, so they can no longer be punished. Thanks to Sigismond in Paris for this amazing insight.) "And that's why this is the only commandment observed faithfully by practically every Jew" Not true at all, as far as I can tell. I am told that only a minority of Jews in Sweden and some other European and South American countries are still circumcising. Most of the Jews I know don't. "and the only one that's encouraged by all Jewish denomination from Orthodox all the way to reform." Certainly not. All of them encourage the Ten Commandments of Moses, and "encourage" is far different from "ESSENTIAL", the earlier false claim. "So yes, Judaism IS about circumcision." Anon can choose that belief, but most of the Jews I know think it isn't, that Judaism is about doing justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly, (some say with God and some don't). "It's what defines Jewish identity" Some mutilationist Jews believe that but Judaism as a whole does not. What determines whether a person is a Jew is whether they were born to a Jewish mother. Here is a quote about that from George Wald, Jewish Nobel laureate Harvard biology professor, who researched circumcision in 1975: "Circumcision is one of the holiest and most universal of Jewish rites, and yet it has its limits. One might think the command to circumcise so absolute as to permit no equivocation. It is astonishing to realize that on the contrary any son of a Jewish mother is fully a Jew, circumcised or not." Anon: "and what has kept Judaism alive throughtout the years despite persecutions, attempts at extermination and assimilation." I think Judaism has been kept alive not by the mutilation sickness, but in spite of it. Think how much more vital and alive and peaceful Judaism and Jewish culture would be (and Islam and Islamic culture and America and American culture) if they weren't afflicted by this terrible genital mutilation insanity. And this world surely needs the Jewish, Islamic and American cultures to become more peaceful than they are today. Abraham's children, physical and spiritual, are still slaughtering each other. The violence for most of his male heirs begins with genital mutilation. "So get your facts straight." I try very hard to. I hope you will as well. Babies' whole lives depend on it. Since babies are the future of the world, the future of the world depends on it. "And stop telling others how they should follow their faith." The U.S. Congress has already told Muslims they can't follow their faith when it comes to mutilating their daughters' sex organs. Jews and the mutilation of their sons' sex organs are next in line. Don't fuss at me. Convince the U.S. Congress and Supreme Court, if you can, that parents have the right because of their religious views to mutilate their children's sex organs. They are the ones who will decide this matter, not me. Convince them. "That's called 'persecution'." Circumcising persecutes. I am trying to prevent persecution, not inflict it. Religious opinions do not give anyone any right to persecute anyone else, let alone children who have the human right to special protection, especially when that persecution always causes proven permanent bodily harm and sometimes death. Again, freedom of religion is absolute only with respect to religious belief, not religious practice, not religiously inspired action. Practice and action must meet the tests of not violating other people's freedom and civil, constitutional and human rights. Circumcising children fails those tests miserably. That's why it's on the way out. Once it's gone, the whole world will be whole again, genitally speaking, and far better off. Ending circumcising of children isn't the only essential task before us. It is not the only job we have to do to establish peace on earth, but we can't establish peace without ending circumcising. It is necessary, but not sufficient. Let's get this job done, it's relatively easy as the passage of the federal anti-female genital mutilation act has shown us, so we can go on to harder jobs, like converting human civilization on this planet to a sustainable solar hydrogen economy. Whole penises are better than partial ones, and peace is better than war, because they're more fun. Peace. "Choose life", the Old Testament says. Foreskins are alive. Don't kill them.

Richard Russell December 13, 2007 2:58 am (Pacific time)

Neal, you just don't get it. Didn't you notice the editor's call for civility, to not call others names? Who is engaging in name-calling here? It is not an ad hominem argument to call a bully a bully, when the bullying is done to advance a cause the bully espouses rather than arguing against the position of the opponent. It is relevant to how the debate is being conducted by one of the debaters. "Bully: a blustering browbeating person" Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. You prove my point when you call me a lunatic shrilly shrieking whackadoo, one of several names you have called others here. That is an ad hominem attack. You are calling your opponents crazy and other "names" in order to get others to disbelieve them, to discredit them, to dislike them. And it can also have the advantage to you of causing some of your opponents to leave the discussion, which improves your position through intimidation of others, rather than through effective presentation of facts and reasoning. Call someone a queer, call her fat, call him a Jew, call him a spic, call him a criminal when it isn't true, call her a whore when it isn't true, call him crazy when it isn't true. True or not, all of these things are generally irrelevant to the issue under discussion, and when they are used to discredit someone they are strong signs of some ugly bigotry inside the person who does the name calling. Sometimes a person's personal interest in the outcome can be relevant, in that it shows a conflict of interest that everyone is entitled to know about. For example, if you are a physician who makes $80,000.-$100,000. EXTRA every year from doing circumcisions, everyone here should be able to know that, because ending infant circumcision would cost you money and that is very likely the reason why you would be here arguing in favor of infant and child circumcision. Then there is the simple fact that some circumcised men have a deep psychological need to shore up their denial about what circumcision did to them; this is the "circumcised mind" syndrome, which means the circumcised man has deeply embedded and essentialized all the reasons he has given himself about why it's alright that someone cut off an important part of his penis when he was a helpless baby. One of denial's closest comrades is projection, whereby one projects onto others his own deepest fears and concerns. For example a man who constantly whines to himself about all the real and imagined wrongs in life, is likely to attribute whining to another person. A person who was raised by a strong mother is likely to often return to mother for solace and comfort when things get tough. I don't live with my mother; haven't since I graduated from high school. I haven't seen her for more than two years. She had no patience for whining and gave no comfort to her children for fear of spoiling them. I'm not running to anyone. What about you? So why are you here arguing so strongly in favor of circumcision? If you truly believe those who oppose circumcision are such a miniscule part of the population, why don't you just laugh to yourself about what they do, and walk away from it? Finally, if you were a bully at school but were not one here, it would be irrelevant for anyone to mention that you were a bully at another time and place. So why don't you make it irrelevant by being a gentleman? By engaging the facts and arguments? By NOT calling others crazy or anything else that constitutes an ad hominem attack?

Warrior of Love December 12, 2007 10:34 pm (Pacific time)

My last post had only the first few words coming through. So here it is again. Anon says: “Well, "Warrior of Love", thank you so much for showing us the cultist side of this "intactivist" movement.” You are welcome! “All I can say is yikes... now that makes you wonder what being against circumcision means and how credible these people are.” Well, everybody has his own way of expressing himself. I do it with visual effects and action to open people’s eyes and by the way, the truth is easy to understand as it gives you a comfortable feeling in your body as it resonates with you once your ego allows you to surrender to your truest self. Unfortunately people are not themselves or do not dare to be themselves and a lot of it has to do with the fact that they have been violated in their sex organs when they were most vulnerable and defenseless. Their ego takes over to rationalize what has happened to them. Just like you, they like to argue with the same arguments the circers use when they torture someone else’s genitals. They wanted you to look and feel the same as they do, so they would not be so all alone and they knew that you would eventually even defend them. They wanted to put you into the same sexual fear as they are and they also wanted you to be in the same subconscious fear of the unknown other; the unknown other that raped them with knives as well. You are in such fear, blinded and obedient to them that you would do the unthinkable and most cruel sexual assault even to your own children and others. Yikes… “Fortunately, as with all cults, the more irrational people join and are outspoken about it (Tom Cruise?) the less respect the actual movement gets.” To be rational, why don’t you take a baby doll, strap it down to a table in public and stick needles in its dick, then take a knife or torch to it and destroy this doll’s little penis. This way you can symbolically express the sexual fear you have and it would not hurt anybody. Try it, it may set you free. “So keep it up!!” Yes I do, especially since I had grown men in tears coming up to me giving me hugs and telling me that they just experienced a revelation that made them feel incredible relief as they now know where their subconscious fear came from. This happened when I displayed that Circumstraint amidst thousands of circumcised men. None of those men came to criticize my art and everybody I talked to agreed and thanked me for bringing the truth to their attention and opening their eyes. Guess what, we burned down that instrument of the evil in the ashes of a temple. If you want to get some credibility, try to find your inner truth and don’t defend that satanic ritual called circumcision as you are hurting alive boys with your words. Thank you. Michael. Warrior of Love.

Dr. Richard L. Matteoli December 12, 2007 9:54 pm (Pacific time)

Joe: Sorry I was incomplete. To me the "Look like father" excuse is less of a Repetition Compulsion than the father's sexual identity fear of 'being less a man'and supported by his wife and family. An identity issue. The fragile male ego. It may apply to Repetition Compulsion also, the trauma issue, but I think a little less. It's a matter of perspective. And everyone is different and react differently. Women who know their sexuality can only think a man who comes up with something like Penis Envy can only come from a frustrated man. In fact, Freud did not have his sons circumcised. He broke the Cycle of Abuse as it pertained to him.

Dr. Richard L. Matteoli December 12, 2007 9:41 pm (Pacific time)

Joe: Yes. Circumcision may be seen as a form of Repetition Compulsion. It is the technical term for what George mentioned. Usually Repetition Compulsion is an individual thing done alone onto oneself like 'cutting' where endorphins are released giving a 'high' like runners get, but circumcision expresses the same thing in a social/cultural context. If you are interested Google these 3 things. Repetition Compulsion Shared Psychotic Disorder Culture Bound Syndrome.

Van Lewis December 12, 2007 9:11 pm (Pacific time)

At 4:54 PM today Neal says, "Van Lewis - You misrepresented my text." Where? Details, not generalities, Neal. "If you are really deluded enough to think what you twisted it to was what I was saying I would pity you if you were not so intellectually offensive." What in the world are you talking about? " I never expected you to actually man up and admit your dishonesty... thank you for proving me right about you. Ah well..." I have not been dishonest in anything I have said on this site that I am aware of and I have not admitted to something I did not do. My theory is that you are purposefully making this discussion as unpleasant as possible in order to try to drive people away from the opportunity to participate in an open and honest dialogue about male genital mutilation. Am I right?

Warrior of Love December 12, 2007 2:46 pm (Pacific time)

Anon says: “Well, ,

Joe December 12, 2007 9:00 pm (Pacific time)

Dr. Matteoli just so I am clear, from your first post, are you saying that circumcises continues in part due to Repetition Compulsion? That's what is seems like to me, particularly when the look like daddy argument is used. I mean what son really cares about that? Rather, seeing an intact son might make the father wonder what he is missing and leaving a son intact might be interpreted as the choice made for the father was not the best choice. It also might explain why it is difficult to get deleterious effects reconized in the US. For example medical organizations outside the US, where circumcision is rare, tend to take a far harsher stance on this issue and actually speak to its ethics whereas ethical considerations are not even mentioned by US agencies.

Van Lewis December 12, 2007 8:52 pm (Pacific time)

Thank you Marybeth Ford. You sound just like my wife talking. Music to my ears. Why can't I write like that?

Marybeth Ford December 12, 2007 8:30 pm (Pacific time)

We should not cut on the genitals of infants. I have witnessed multiple male infant circumcisions and this procedure should NOT be done. If you are a parent trying to decide whether to circumcise your baby, please don't do this to your child. As parents, we do everything we possibly can to protect our little ones. We are careful to hold their little heads so that they won't hurt their necks. We pick them up tenderly and gently so that they will experience the world as a sweet place to live. How could it possibly be appropriate to take a knife and cut the genitals of a tiny little one? In addition to the lack of tenderness involved with the cutting, it damages the infant's ability to bond with his mother. All of us know how hard it is to be open and loving to others when we are distracted by a physical injury. Imagine for just a moment that you are a few days old and your genitals have been recently cut. Then imagine how very hard it would be to be open and receptive to those around you, even your mother, while your genitals are healing. Although there is research that shows how infant circumcision damages an infant's ability to bond, I don't think any thoughtful person needs to see the research to understand. You just need to think about it for yourself. Infant bonding is integral to the infant’s ability to build healthy adult relationships. Again, if you are a parent trying to decide whether to circumcise your baby, please don't do this to your child. Allow them to experience your world as a kind and loving place.

Van Lewis December 12, 2007 8:29 pm (Pacific time)

Joe says to Neal, "Nope, sorry, you are human too, buddy." Are you sure, Joe? How do you know? How can you tell? I have been getting the feeling that maybe "Neal" is really a computer program designed by the mutilationists to try to wreck intelligent discussion of the issues of human rights and constitutional law as they apply to male, female and intersexed genital mutilations. Is "Neal's" whole purpose, whether he's human or software, to get the editor so exasperated that the discussion gets shut down altogether? I wish we could have a discussion with a serious circumcision defender. Where have they all gone? Are there any?

Joe in CA December 12, 2007 8:27 pm (Pacific time)

"You fool yourself if you think I am afraid of you or any of you whackadoos in any way, to any degree or on any level. You may convince yourself that you are relevant but to me you are nothing but a sad joke with a very lame punchline." Aha! I see what you did there. Very clever. Neal you old dog! "So waste all the time and effort you like howling and shrieking... do so with my blessing, it is a free country and you are entirely free to make a complete buffoon out of yourself. Your choice. Ah well..." Neal, you fool yourself if you think that you can tell me you are not afraid. You are afraid. Very afraid. This movement to expose circumcision for the child sexual abusive mutilation that it is threatens your very sanity. Instead of trying to understand and learning to adapt, you use all these irrational alibis to try and justify what was done to you, and what people keep doing to their children. You come on here and you rant and rave about all the whackadoos that are ruining your perfect world. You might try to sound all smug and holier-than-thou, but your desparation betrays your apathy. If you weren't so worried, then you yourself wouldn't "waste all this time and effort" to howl and shriek yourself. There is no need to argue with an adversary who is, as you might say, "hoplessly wrong." What are you afraid of? Why do you have to come on here and counter anything and everything we say against circumcision with vitriolic name-calling? Certainly not because you are so secure and apathetic. There must surely b something behind the points we "whackadoos" raise, otherwise you wouldn't be here defending circumcision tooth and nail.

Dr. Richard L. Matteoli December 12, 2007 8:25 pm (Pacific time)

Technically "Appeal to Precedent" and "Appeal to Tradition - the sacred cow" are False Arguments as well as the "Ad Hominem - argument against the person" so too are the "Ad Populum - appeal to the masses" and "Guilt by Association." So let's have proper discourse while bashing each other's brains out. For a guide, go to: "The Power of Words" at http://www.aniota.com/~jwhite/words.html

Van Lewis December 12, 2007 8:02 pm (Pacific time)

Posted at 3:55 PM today: "Joe - again, since you insist on being mindbogglingly idiotic, male circumcision is not 'child abuse', much as you seem to delusionally wish that it were. It has been practiced for thousands of years and has never been considered abuse. so your entire raving based on that is irrelevant (as well as intellectually impotent). Big surprise. Ah well..." Human slavery was practiced for thousands of years, too, and was not considered abuse until relatively recent times. Abusers don't usually consider their abusive acts to be abuse. They consider them their "right", the proper order of things, God's will, etc. Abusers don't get to define away their responsibility for harming and sometimes killing others and escaping responsibility and accountability for their harmful acts.

Joe in CA December 12, 2007 7:59 pm (Pacific time)

"Ummm my moronic pipsqueak where did I ever claim that nature made man fly? I seem to have completely unhinged you. Not that it took any real effort, you were clearly 99.99% unhinged already. LOL!" Hah hah! "Unhinged!" Cute little pun there. No, Neal, now you are mincing your words. To support your argument that it is possible to improve upon man, and to support your argument that circumcision is such an improvement, you tried to argue how it is not natural for a man to fly, and that people use cars more than their legs. Did you not? What DID you say? Make yourself clear. Show me how this fits into the context of mutilating a defenseless child. Circumcision is to a child as an airplane and car is to human kind? What kind of association is that?

Joe in CA December 12, 2007 7:53 pm (Pacific time)

"And Mead's comment included the word 'thoughtful'... something quite against the whackadoo creed." Keep it up, Neal, soon that day is coming, and you shall see just how thoughtful we "whackadoos" were. "More often, my little dipstick, the 'squeaky wheel' just gets greased or replaced. Very rarely just by being squeaky does it cause reason for an entire system redesign." You mean people banding together and creating movements like the civil and woman's rights movement didn't change a thing?

Joe in CA December 12, 2007 7:52 pm (Pacific time)

"Hmmm... seems to me it was through concerted credible and legitimate effort and reasoned well articulated argument... something you whackadoos have no concept of." Ahem? We are giving you legitimate effort and well-reasoned articulated argument. But to someone with an axe to grind, come-on, say it, you are Jewish and advocate male genital mutilation right?, it is all insanity. How DARE someone question you! "Also being right on a philosophical level which again your side clearly lacks any connection with." I beg to differ. "Same with ending slavery? Again same as above plus add civil war. Same observations regarding your whackadoo tactics." Yes, Neal, the same with slavery. As I recall history, the entire civil war was divided among people who wanted to keep slaves, and people that didn't. I'm sure the slave-keepers had thoughts the same as yours; that anyone opposing slavery has got to be a lunatic whackadoo if they thought that they were going to free his slaves.

Joe in CA December 12, 2007 7:51 pm (Pacific time)

"...since you insist on being mindbogglingly idiotic, male circumcision is not 'child abuse', much as you seem to delusionally wish that it were. It has been practiced for thousands of years and has never been considered abuse. so your entire raving based on that is irrelevant (as well as intellectually impotent). Big surprise." My dearest, Neal, you are running around in circles. Simply telling me that circumcision is not child abuse begs the question, and the fact that a practice is age-old really doesn't justify anything. Like I have said before, slavery and the subjugation of women were also practiced "for thousands of years" and were never concidered abuse too. What's your point?

Dr.Richard L. Matteoli December 12, 2007 7:51 pm (Pacific time)

Mr. Feldman I would like your Rabbi to join the discussion. Your cultural viewpoint is important. As explained to me psychologically circumcision is a mock-death ceremony in which a person goes through a ceremony which represents a death in order to be reborn into the society. Dr. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross wrote the landmark book "On death and Dying." She outlines the process of terminal patients that might apply to circumcision. A terminal patient goes through the following phases: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and finally Acceptance. She also has a chapter on the Fear of Death. This is Freud's Tantalous Theory. So, circumcision may well be a 'born again' ceremony out of the fear of death. There is one thing mentioned before by George about repeatng one's trauma. This also is from Freud's theory of Repetition Compulsion. With the social ritual, whatever that ritual may be, the repetition is not done by the individual to themselves in quiet like cutting, but rather reexperienced through the social context with each new initiate. Part of the purpose for Repetition Compulsion is to psychologically gain a modicum of control over an initial trauma. In other words, by repeating the trauma one feels they have the control over what happened to them because they have the choice of repeating the act - which really doesn't solve the problem.

Joe in CA December 12, 2007 7:50 pm (Pacific time)

Joe in CA December 12, 2007 7:49 pm (Pacific time)

Here are your words to redigest: "A woman decides to dump her children in the bay. The state should not percecute her, for it is a private matter? HER children, HER choice, right? Right." And the word is prosecute, not 'percecute' (sic) (proper spelling of the wrong word you tried to misuse was persecute btw)" EXCUSE ME!!! You make ALL KINDS of typos and I don't call you on them. That is a cheap shot. Gimme a break!!! "and no [pointless name-calling, I know what you think that anyone opposing you is a whackadoo, thank you] a woman does not have the right to dump her born children into the bay... the law is pretty secure on that. But apparently when irrationality has failed you there is an undying need on your part apparently to employ monumental stupidity in its wake." ??? Do explain yourself? I thought you were arguing that whatever parents decide to do is their business, and absolutely no-one should interfere. Obviously not everything a parent does is justified merely because they are the parents. It's devastating to your case, and it's why you have to retort to name-calling.

Joe in CA December 12, 2007 7:48 pm (Pacific time)

"...anyone who could make this statement has serious mental problems IMHO not the least of which being that they must be a certifiable moron to make such a stupid statement." In essence, you are calling me a moron with mental problems for having my opinion. I think that of you, but notice I try to attack your arguments more than I do you personally.

Joe in CA December 12, 2007 7:47 pm (Pacific time)

I will admit, that perhaps I made a mistake. I may have attributed the anti-Semitist name-calling to you, when in fact it was another poster. I admit it. I am human. Sorry... "Which only gives further examples that your position has no legitimacy or credibility..." Nope, sorry, you are human too, buddy. "...just emotion-laded histrionics, dishonest claims and an arrogant attempt to berate anyone who dares stand up to your nonsensical BS as a 'sex criminal', a 'child abuser' or whatever other irrationality spawned epithets your ilk comes up with." Neal, I hate to say it but pro-circumcisionists like yourself are guilty of this very accusation. Emotion-laden histrionic, dishonest claims, YOU are arrogantly attempting to berate anyone who dares stand up againts YOUR non-sensical BS. Sorry, but circumcising doctors are sex-criminals. Circumcision is child abuse. Disprove what I say. Calling me a whackadoo doesn't do that. A child is a defenseless human being. Circumcision is imposed on a child, not because he needs it, but because self-ish parents and/or doctors impose an unnecessary cosmetic procedure on a child that can't even stand up for himself. Doctors get money, and parents get the satisfaction of cosmetically altering their child's genitals. The child has absolutely no say in this whatsoever. Or, how do you define abuse? Is it not the forceful taking advantage of others?

Joe in CA December 12, 2007 7:46 pm (Pacific time)

I only chuckle at Neal Feldman. See, name-calling and ridiculing is what losers do when their argument hasn't a leg to stand on. The funny thing is that name-callers are usually describing themselves; using faulty arguments and grasping at strings and straws to justify what they do. "...claiming what is is not so because it being so undermines your entire position completely..." Oh, you mean like insisting that circumcision is not a sexually abusive mutilation? Because admitting that fact makes you an abusive child mutilator? MOVING ON: "...continuing the disproven attempt to equate male circumcision to female genital mutilation as if the two are interchangeable when they clearly to a sane and rational reasoning person are anything but..." I do not need to attempt to prove the self-evident. A sane and rational reasoning person can see plainly that taking a non-concenting individual and forcefully mutilating his or her healthy genital organs, is, by definition, genital mutilation. Perhaps one form of genital mutilation may be more "severe" than the other, but that is irrelevant. It it takes insanity and irrationality to legitimize the mutilation of one sex, but not the other. NEXT!!!

Jason December 12, 2007 7:01 pm (Pacific time)

Neal... this isn't even a debate anymore, I would be surprised to see more then a paragraph of meaningful, on topic, text in the past few (dare I say dozen) posts of yours... and you seemed to scare the other pro-circers away. So Neal, in an attempt to bring this back on track, I will ask questions here, even though you may have somehow answered them, to make sure we are all on the same page with what you are thinking... there is way to much "crap" to sift through and thoughts may have changed. So Without name calling or other childish insults, answer these: 1. Why do the parents cleary have the right to circumcise their boy (as stated in December 12, 2007 3:45 pm) where they cant do ANY cutting on a girl? (if you bring up medical, first amendment, or religious, elaborate and be sure to keep "ANY cutting of girls" in mind). 2. Why is simply the age of the practice enough to say it isn't abuse (as stated in December 12, 2007 3:55 pm)? 3. Lets assume there are minimal/no benefits of circ, since even now it is highly debatable, is what you said in 1 and 2 (other then medical) still hold true or would your views change? 4. Why do you seem to be unphased by the myriad of reasons that used to be used to justify circ and why, this time, is it REALLY true? Can you redeem yourself with a good argument or just spew more names removing any remaining credibility people might be thinking you have? And yes Tandy, this is my last attempt.

Tandy December 12, 2007 6:45 pm (Pacific time)

Folks, I think we all agree that Neal have some serious issues and is unable to play well with others. In lieu of his seeking therapy, perhaps it would be best to just completely ignore him?

Anne December 12, 2007 5:55 pm (Pacific time)

Editor -- Appreciate the voice of reason, but when will you pull the plug on giving that hostile mess a voice through OpEd on this site? "Trying to be respectful" is clearly not on the agenda for Neal, as he continues to spew hostility, names, and repetitious rhetoric at anyone who dares make an attempt to engage in rational debate, even after your plea for civility.

Neal Feldman December 12, 2007 5:02 pm (Pacific time)

Richard Russell - oh... I'm a bully huh? Isn't that an ad hominem against me from you? Should I whine and cry like you seem prone to do? Bully schmully... I speak the truth about a group of vocal (but numerically insignificant out of the total population) raving lunatic shrilly shrieking whackadoos. I have defined the terms and shown how the terms are accurately applied. You, as I assume one of the whackadoos, does not like it. Tough. Your liking it is not required. But how one can be a bully in this context is unknown. You just dislike that I have your number. Again. Tough. Go run home and cry on Mommy's apron about it. Whining that I'm 'a bully'? That is pretty lame even by whackadoo standards. Ah well...

Neal Feldman December 12, 2007 4:54 pm (Pacific time)

Van Lewis - You misrepresented my text. If you are really deluded enough to think what you twisted it to was what I was saying I would pity you if you were not so intellectually offensive. I never expected you to actually man up and admit your dishonesty... thank you for proving me right about you. Ah well...

Van Lewis December 12, 2007 4:32 pm (Pacific time)

Neal Feldman claimed (falsely, I believe) that I misquoted him. He says my quote at 6:11 this morning proves it. I computer-copy now from my 6:11 quote: " the natural thing is the biggest guy with the biggest club took whatever he wanted from whoever he could that was unable to defend against it. " Now I computer-copy from Mr. Feldman's post of 12:02 this morning: " the natural thing is the biggest guy with the biggest club took whatever he wanted from whoever he could that was unable to defend against it. " Anybody see any misquoting going on there? I don't see one iota of difference. If anyone does, please tell us. Anybody see any misquotes by me of anything Neal has said? Please speak up if so. Give us the details. Thanks to Ed at 11:19 this morning for his input on this question: "Van, I don't think you mis-quoted anybody." So far it looks to me like Neal has made a false claim that I misquoted him. I'm still open to being proved wrong by Neal or anyone else. I do notice that in his 2:51 PM post today he seems to be trying to slide the "misquote" allegation by, through combining it with other less easily disproved allegations: "Van Lewis - proof of your misquoting/misrepresenting/twisting of words". Does anyone here believe I have misrepresented or twisted Mr. Feldman's words? If so, please tell us. I want specific details, not the unsupported and I think false allegations Mr. Feldman insists on repeating ad nauseam. He seems to feel that if he repeats a lie enough times everyone will believe it. I think it just makes him look like the whackadoo that he keeps saying others of us are. Mr. Feldman, if you or anyone here can prove that I misquoted you, I will apologize. If I did, I did so in error,not intentionally, and I will apologize for my error. We all make them. Even you make them, is my guess. Will you apologize to me for your false allegation that I misquoted you if that turns out to be the case?

The Editor December 12, 2007 4:18 pm (Pacific time)

Please remain civil and remember that name calling does not resolve anything at all, and that applies to everyone. Once in a while is unavoidable but I'm asking all of you to please try to let this be an intellectual discussion and debate the merits instead of slinging mud.

Nobody is going to necessarily agree with another person, but there is so much to be learned and discovered by just listening and trying to be respectful. I am totally overwhelmed at the response to this, all of our regular visitors know that few stories have an interest level that surges like this one. Let's be glad that it is out on the table to either agree or disagree with, just please try to be civil.

Neal Feldman December 12, 2007 4:06 pm (Pacific time)

Joe - Ummm my moronic pipsqueak where did I ever claim that nature made man fly? I seem to have completely unhinged you. Not that it took any real effort, you were clearly 99.99% unhinged already. LOL! Ah well...

Neal Feldman December 12, 2007 4:04 pm (Pacific time)

Joe - LMAO!! Oh you poor deluded imbecile... if you were not so intellectually offensive I might actually pity you. Women got the right to vote by irrationally howling at the moon an shrilly shrieking? Hmmm... seems to me it was through concerted credible and legitimate effort and reasoned well articulated argument... something you whackadoos have no concept of. Also being right on a philosophical level which again your side clearly lacks any connection with. Same with ending slavery? Again same as above plus add civil war. Same observations regarding your whackadoo tactics. And Mead's comment included the word 'thoughtful'... something quite against the whackadoo creed. More often, my little dipstick, the 'squeaky wheel' just gets greased or replaced. Very rarely just by being squeaky does it cause reason for an entire system redesign. You fool yourself if you think I am afraid of you or any of you whackadoos in any way, to any degree or on any level. You may convince yourself that you are relevant but to me you are nothing but a sad joke with a very lame punchline. So waste all the time and effort you like howling and shrieking... do so with my blessing, it is a free country and you are entirely free to make a complete buffoon out of yourself. Your choice. Ah well...

Richard Russell December 12, 2007 4:00 pm (Pacific time)

Neal Feldman is a bully. He engages in name-calling and ad hominem arguments against everyone who does not agree with him, with the intention of silencing anyone who dares to oppose his viewpoint. He is the pro-circumcision lobby's counterpart to enfocers of silence in Fascist regimes that tolerate no criticism of the party in power. I don't define the words; I use them to describe what I see: Cutting off more than half the epithelial tissue of a penis is mutilation.

Neal Feldman December 12, 2007 3:55 pm (Pacific time)

Joe - again, since you insist on being mindbogglingly idiotic, male circumcision is not 'child abuse', much as you seem to delusionally wish that it were. It has been practiced for thousands of years and has never been considered abuse. so your entire raving based on that is irrelevant (as well as intellectually impotent). Big surprise. Ah well...

Neal Feldman December 12, 2007 3:51 pm (Pacific time)

Joe - Here are your words.. entire statement from you, no misquoting... anyone who could make this statement has serious mental problems IMHO not the least of which being that they must be a certifiable moron to make such a stupid statement. Here are your words to redigest: "A woman decides to dump her children in the bay. The state should not percecute her, for it is a private matter? HER children, HER choice, right? Right." And the word is prosecute, not 'percecute' (sic) (proper spelling of the wrong word you tried to misuse was persecute btw) and no (I cannot believe I have to say this - how tediously stupid ARE you whackadoos anyway?) a woman does not have the right to dump her born children into the bay... the law is pretty secure on that. But apparently when irrationality has failed you there is an undying need on your part apparently to employ monumental stupidity in its wake. I think I should warn you that you will not have any better luck on that route. Ah well...

Joe in CA December 12, 2007 3:51 pm (Pacific time)

What is frustrating is that a doctor is screwing up on antirely worthless, cosmetic procedure. A child is not sick. A child is not born in need of surgery out of his mother's womb. You are trying to justify your own position. And medicine is a moot point, as it has nothing to do with Mischa's case. I just mentioned it because people like to pretend like circumcision is absolutely riskless. You keep trying to use these out-of-whack analogies. A hair-cut? The trimming of hair which grows back, to the amputation of normal tissue that doesn't? Circumcising an infant is more ackin to circumcising a female, the "risks" and "complications" of bleeding, because of the very nature of the amputating procedure being exactly the same. (They are BOTH amputations of parts of the genital organs, try to slither out of that one.)

Neal Feldman December 12, 2007 3:45 pm (Pacific time)

Joe - I am not, as I stated to Jason, debating with whackadoos like you have proven yourself to be. And in standard whackadoo fashion you employ the delusional denial model (claiming what is is not so because it being so undermines your entire position completely.. for example parents clearly do have the choice to circumcise their male infants whether you like it or not...) and overt dishonesty (such as continuing the disproven attempt to equate male circumcision to female genital mutilation as if the two are interchangeable when they clearly to a sane and rational reasoning person are anything but...) and false accusations ( such as your ludicrous claim that I have called anyone an anti-Semite...) and any number of other standard whackadoo tactics. Which only gives further examples that your position has no legitimacy or credibility... just emotion-laded histrionics, dishonest claims and an arrogant attempt to berate anyone who dares stand up to your nonsensical BS as a 'sex criminal', a 'child abuser' or whatever other irrationality spawned epithets your ilk comes up with. Like I said... typical whackadoo. Ah well...

Joe in CA December 12, 2007 3:45 pm (Pacific time)

"I never claimed humans were born with wings. My analogies are not horrible." Just listen to you misquote me! Your analogy, that nature has made man fly etc., suggests that something is done to humans when they are born so that they can fly. (Or how are you comparing flying to circumcision?) And what are you suggesting mentioning that we use cars more? That we should have our legs cut off? (After all, we no longer use them). Sorry, your analogies are grasps at strings and straws.

Joe in CA December 12, 2007 3:40 pm (Pacific time)

"And you sticking out your lower lip and pouting about it or shrilly shrieking about it or howling at the moon about it with the other lunatics will not change any of these facts one iota." "shrieking and howling at the moon" is what changes things Neal, and I think this is what you are afraid of. It's silly howling etc. that got rights for women. It's silly shrieking that got slavery to end. It's being a squeaky wheel that changes things. "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead~ Neal, your precious "tradition" is under attack and scrutiny, and it may one day end because of "lunatics" like us. That is why you are afraid, and that is why you are guilty of the very frantic disposition of which you accuse the rest of us. Open your eyes, Neal. The day of equal protection under the law for children of both sexes is coming.

Joe in CA December 12, 2007 3:40 pm (Pacific time)

"But parents take jobs, buy homes etc in areas that may have adverse effects on the kids down the road... they make decisions all the time that impact their kids in myriad ways and you know what? They have the right and authority to do so." Being a parent does NOT justify everything you do to them, merely because "you are his parents." When abuse happens, as that is what circumcision is, someone needs to step in. A drunk father beats and sexually molests his daughter. (Circumcision is male sexual molestation, as it is the man-handling of his private sexual organs.) A mother decides to dump her children in the lake. Parents must certainly make decisions that affect their children. But not everything parents do to children is justified merely because "they are parents." It is a flawed argument. "You have the right to like it or not like it but pretty much that is where the extent of your rights ends." Just when do the rights of the child begin?

anon December 12, 2007 3:36 pm (Pacific time)

circumcision is an individual choice that infants and children, as legally incompetent individuals, cannot make for themselves. their parents should not be allowed to make the decision either absent immediate medical necessity, a legally defined necessity that is extraordinarily rare in the context of male genital health.

Neal Feldman December 12, 2007 3:36 pm (Pacific time)

Joe - If you think there is no shrill shrieking from the whackadoo camp then it is you who are deaf as that is about the only thing emanating from that camp. You are also lying again I see. Typical whackadoo. I do not recall using, before now, the term 'anti-Semite' at all, mich less applying it to any argument or person... yet you accuse me of doing so. Just as credible as any of the rest of your whackadoo nonsense. NEXT! Ah well...

Neal Feldman December 12, 2007 3:32 pm (Pacific time)

Joe - I never claimed humans were born with wings. My analogies are not horrible. What is clearly horrible is your utter inability to comprehend analogies or examples. The fault there is with you, not with me. As for following my own advice if I find myself in a hole I will stop digging. (looks around) Nope, no hole. Ah well...

Joe in CA December 12, 2007 3:31 pm (Pacific time)

"Regarding circumcision of infants where both parents are in agreement there is absolutely no credible legal dispute." "Parental choice" is a red herring. Parent's can't "choose" to circumcise their boys anymore than they can "choose" to circumcise their girls. It is medical fraud. Parents can't be making this "choice," and doctors have the duty to stop mutilating children at parent's demands. "Some people sure do need to learn about boundaries, that much is certain." Do tell.

Neal Feldman December 12, 2007 3:28 pm (Pacific time)

Joe - what you described was incompetence, not circumcision. If I took you in to get a shave and a haircut but instead removed all of your skin from the shoulders on up would you blame shaves and haircuts or would you blame me as a complete incompetent. This is the issue here. The raving shrilly shrieking lunatic whackadoos point to cases of incompetence/malpractice or just plain bad luck (there are risks to everything, including getting out of bed) and then trying to misapply it to the procedure itself. As has been pointed out with tens or hundreds of millions of circumcisions a few aberrant outcomes is statistically insignificant and by any credible rational and reasonable guage cannot be used as an argument against. As for the circumstance I would say you were as incompetent as the original operator... as that much bleeding surely requires cauterization well before the point you went in for it. It is amazing you did not let the baby bleed to death... diaper FULL of blood? Are you aware of the capacity of the average contemporary diaper? Either you are exaggerating or there might have been a teaspoon of blood left in the kid. Blood is only replenished so fast after all. Taken at face value from your description I would figure at least 4-6 pints of blood were involved. Does a 3 week infant even HAVE 4-6 pints of blood to begin with? And you wonder why the term whackadoo applies? You really shouldn't. Ah well...

Joe in CA December 12, 2007 3:27 pm (Pacific time)

"Circumcision is a private matter within a family. It is none of your business and lying and misrepresenting through overinflated hyperbole the alleged 'harms' from it far from making your point undermine it completely." Male infant circumcision is NOT a private matter. Just like female circumcision is not a private matter. It involves someone else's private parts. It is a violation of an individual's privacy. A woman decides to dump her children in the bay. The state should not percecute her, for it is a private matter? HER children, HER choice, right? Right.

[Return to Top]

Oregon Courts Have No Right to Force Circumcision

Quick Links

DINING

MUST SEE SALEM

AUCTIONS - APPRAISALS

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

ONLINE SHOPPING

Advertise with Salem-News