Talk:Circumcision/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Consent 2 We should come to a consensus 3 Cultural attitudes toward circumcision 4 A finding of opinion; A vote. 5 To add to article 6 Female/male 7 Erogenous tissue 8 Schlossberger 9 Unexplained edits 10 shocked by lost NPOV war 11 Mental effects? 12 Prevalence 13 "Prejudice" vs. "opinion" 14 Protection warning 15 Forced circumcision? Otherwise is rare. 16 Protection 17 Not Helping Anyone 18 new link 19 Male circumcision → Circumcision 20 Strange Move 21 FYI, more relevant research results 22 Circumcision in religion 22.1 As divine covenant 23 Regular User Disappointment 24 How to add a link to Russian Wikipedia article? 25 Inappropriate Revision

Consent

@Jakew: When I wrote the section of consent I mentioned that it was "one" of the most hotly debated topics. I did not presume to take it to the level of saying that it was the "most" hotly debated topic. I do not think that a deficit of papers on the subject is enough to dismiss this notion. Afterall if it is not hotly debated it then it is difficult to explain why there is so much emotion, edits and reverts about this. In any case I will let it go because for the most part I am extremely happy with the edits that have happened to the sections I wrote on Emotional Impact and Consent. I believe they have really improved what I was trying to say, and said it clearer and better. Great work all! Sirkumsize 03:47, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We should come to a consensus

Earthbound01 20:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) (not sure if this is a breach in protocol, don't be afraid to delete if so) circumcision appears to be somewhat controversial. I became interested in the issue after hearing myth after myth, reading lopsided articles saying either the uncut man was an ideal lover, or that a foreskin was an open invitation to cancer. Both of these claims are silly. I want good information on the subject. I checked the website of the AMA and they gave a very tepid response, not talking very much about possible downsides of circumcision or possible ethical considerations. I've read the article, and I've read this talk page, and it seems to have devolved into a kind of pissing contest.

What are some objectively verifiable claims? Which culture's attitudes are we taking into consideration? What are the motives and goals of anti-circumcision activists? What are the goals and motives of pro-circumcision activists? And let's be honest about why we hold a particular point of view. I know it is hard to be objective about our perceptions of our genitals, but let's give it a try, huh?

Hello Earthbound01. Seems quite a normal thing to do if you ask me - that's what talk pages are for. You're right, circumcision is controversial - VERY controversial.

Unfortunately, the article has been reverted to a much older and much worse version. This should really be undone, but that isn't possible at the moment, unfortunately, due to page protection. You can find the better version here. It doesn't answer all of your questions, unfortunately. - Jakew 03:03, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cultural attitudes toward circumcision

Someone keeps deleting any of my attempts to balance this section. This person cites a survey showing that women prefer circumcised partners. To balance it out, I cited another survey showing that women prefer uncircumcised partners. But this person deleted it. Surveys coming to the two different conclusions should be cited, or none should cited at all. How could the article possibly be considered neutral if it only shows evidence of women preferring circumcised partners when there is an equal amount of evidence to the contrary? (inserted by Metman07)

• Well your edit includes generalisations and the the surveys you allude to are fatally flawed and cannot therefore be included in the article. See elsewhere for the detail of the discussions. BTW, the history shows only one edit by you (Metman07) so under what alias were you attempting to edit previously? - Robert the Bruce 05:38, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I edited the article previously under no name (I did not have an account). The survey I cited was no more flawed than the survey currently cited in the article. The only difference was that it was conducted in Britain, where circumcision is not the norm. As can be expected, the survey found that British women prefer uncircumcised partners. The article cannot be considered neutral if it only cites evidence that women prefer circumcised men. To balance it out, another survey, which comes to different conclucions should be cited. (inserted by Metman07)

• Actually the survey did not find any such thing. What it found (quite predictably) was that participants recruited from a anti-circumcision newsletter reported prefering uncircumcised partners. The problem is that the results have been repeatedly misrepresented by anti-circumcision activist and oreskin admirers. Trash can stuff, I'm afraid. - Robert the Bruce 17:31, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• O'Hara gives an American email address, actually, so there's nothing to indicate it having been conducted in Britain. And, interestingly, the respondents were recruited from an anti-circumcision mailing list. These tend to be global. By all means include a sentence saying that female anti-circumcision activists, and cite O'Hara as a source. Just don't pretend that these are representative of normal women. - Jakew 20:00, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• How are we to be sure that the participants in the O'Hara study were females? - Robert the Bruce 17:31, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Good point. Since they were recruited by post and email, we only have their word for it. And anti-circ activists aren't known for their devotion to honesty. (additional) Perhaps we should reword as "O'Hara, who campaigns against circumcision, reported on a survey of anti-circumcision activists who claimed to be women..." - Jakew 00:41, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Jake, as a pro-circumcision activist your opinion on the honesty of people who oppose your pro-circumcision POV does not carry much weight. -- DanBlackham 11:40, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To be fair, the Iowa survey was not intended to measure women's circumcision preferences. Rather, it sought to measure the strength of correlation between the decision to circumcise or not, and various rationales commonly given as to why parents decide to circumcise. And it found, the most strongly correlated predictor for circumcision was maternal preference. It wasn't a flawed study for what it set out to determine. It does suffer badly when given partisan spin. Shimmin 02:54, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

A finding of opinion; A vote.

In accordance with Wikipedia's policy of deleting personal attacks, I have removed this section. - Jakew 14:18, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To add to article

On December 17, 2004, the Dutch Ministry of Health announced that it will no longer pay for male circumcisions. The announcement came after a study that revealed that 90% of the 17,000 male circumcisions (8.5% of male newborns) performed in the country yearly are performed for religious reasons rather than health reasons. Female circumcision is outlated in the Netherlands, and parents who travel abroad to have their female children circumcised are subject to prosecution. (From Associated Press, December 18, 2004). Exploding Boy 20:15, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Seems to be going overboard on detail in my opinion, but if you insist. In what section would you propose adding it? Also, we should remove the last sentence, since this article is explicitly about male circumcision. -Jakew 20:52, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My intention was simply to record the information here for addition to the article when it's unblocked. We can quibble over the details then. As for the last sentence, it's relevant because it demonstrates the unequal approach to circumcision in males and females. Exploding Boy 16:37, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

I'd tend to say there is no "unequal approach" considering the nature of Female "circumcision". We could move all such notices and stats on a separate article(s) "Status of Circumcision in X". This would presents only the legal/illegal and such status of Male and Female circumcision in various countries, and thus be fairly immune to the revert wars that seem to plague these articles. --Circeus 05:23, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What "nature of female circumcision"? There's not a whole lot of difference really, its surgically altering childrens genitals. The fact that it is treated so differently is relevant I think.

"Demonstrating" an unequal approach might be relevant if this were an anti-circumcision activist pamphlet, but this is an NPOV encyclopaedia. Please leave your activism at the door, EB. We're talking about male circumcision. Perhaps a "legal status of circumcision in country X" might be appropriate in the "circumcision" page (or, more appropriately, "circumcision and law"), but not here if it's to include female circumcision. -Jakew 23:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not an activist. Demonstrating a difference is not tantamount to pushing a point of view. Calm down. Exploding Boy 17:21, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Jake is correct you are pushing POV. That in itself is understandable and tolerable but what is not is your attempts to state that you are neutral and working towards NPOV and then using your position as a sysop to press your POV. The RfC you stated against me (the the attempts to rally opinion against JakeW) are such illustrations and need to be addressed through Wikipedia channels in due course. - Robert the Bruce 22:52, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Jakew has redefined activism to be any genital integrity perspective, even among those without political relevance (aka Van Howe). Until Wikipedia is pure circumcision advocacy, he will never rest shooting down every attempt at equal time for both points of view. DanP 18:32, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Whether you're an activist or not, EB, we need to ensure a neutral point of view. Comparing two things (female and male circumcision, in this instance) implicitly states that they are similar. You need to understand that the anti-circ cranks use the issue of female 'circumcision' as often as possible, and try to pretend that it is equivalent to male circumcision (in fact, of course, it's a red herring - just about the only thing that they have in common is a name). Now, consider this: would it be appropriate to discuss another surgical procedure in this context? For example, suppose that instead of mentioning female 'circumcision' we comment that tonsillectomies are legal in Holland? It seems wildly inappropriate, right?

DanP, Van Howe is an anti-circumcision activist. Why else would he attend and present at a Strategies for Intactivists conference? - Jakew 18:52, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jakew, tonsillectomies? Are tonsils fifteen square inches of genital tissue? That amount is typically more than female circumcision -- and even by your analogy, nobody is pushing for involuntary non-indicated tonsillectomy anymore. Legality is not the same as a good idea. Even a scratch of a female is forbidden in many countries, and that obvious disparity is simply not a red herring. So I can't understand what you are protesting, since Wikipedia is clearly keeping the two practices in separate articles. I see nothing about Van Howe being an activist for political/legal change. By your definition, do we have your permission to label doctors "activist" when they promote circumcision or state reasons in favor? Strong opinions are not the same as activism. But that is the criteria you're using, but you go farther and use loaded words for one side but not the other. Nice try. DanP 19:23, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Male and female circumcision do have things in common, the fact that the procedure is typically more severe in females notwithstanding. It is significant that people generally react to female circumcision with horror, but defend male circumcision. It is significant, and noteworthy, that, in the above example, the government outlaws female circumcision, even providing penalties for parents who travel abroad to have the procedure done, while it has only recently stopped paying for male circumcisions. In other words, the government still allows male circumcisions, it just won't pay for them any more. I see no problem with placing this information in the article. Exploding Boy 20:40, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

You are speaking of infibulation, which the laws were designed to wipe out (but the laws still keep male castration legal despite reproductive damage). Circumcision proper (if you can call it that) has virtually no gender distinction in scientific data. So although I agree with you that it is relevant in the article, I disagree that just saying "circumcision" is one way or the other gender-wise is truly accurate. A piercing or a nick or a scratch or a drop of blood is not circumcision, but they are still banned if you're a female. These are definitely not infibulation either, so I kind of see Jake's point about context. I think we are in agreement in principle, just not understanding each other's specifics on the wording. I would not say the law "allows male circumcision but not female circumcision", but rather "allows male anything and female nothing" because severity is never even a consideration in the laws. DanP 00:30, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Dan, I thank you for explaining that as EB is becoming a problem user (where as an admin he is pushing his POV bias and misusing the structures available at Wikipedia to attempt to neutralise those he disagrees with). Do you think this particular statement of his was made out of ignorance or deliberately intended to mislead? - Robert the Bruce 00:47, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Neither one. I believe many of our disagreements are in communication only. When anatomy and legal terms get mixed in, there is confusion because we all hear a different meaning. Your efforts in the clitoris article regarding the photo are a good example of such a conflict. But here I only wanted to throw in my two cents that a male/female statement should be all genital mutilation, and not mention severity or single out circumcision because the legislation absolutely does not. Not everyone is aware of that. Chopping two fingers is double the severity of one, but laws do not care or ever specify such things. DanP 01:28, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Alright lets ;eave it there then ... I just wanted to thank you for putting EB right as he is becoming a problem user. - Robert the Bruce 01:44, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please take it down a notch, Robert. Such remarks could be interpreted as a personal attack, particularly since they're clearly patently false. I might add that they're delightfully ironic, given that a significant number of users have identified you as a problem user, some rather vociferously.

Dan, I'm quite well aware that there are differences in what is called "circumcision" when it comes to males and females; that was in large part the reason for my desiring to split the two articles in the first place. Nevertheless, as you say, when it comes to females the (Dutch) government has outlawed any, let's call it "interference," with the genitalia by Dutch parents; when it comes to males, they have only refused to continue to pay for such procedures. It's a significant point.

Robert, in regards to your last edit, I've reverted it: rather than "removing the POV [sic]" as you put it, your edit simply inserted a lack of neutrality. I urge you to reconsider the wording of your edits, and discuss them here, before reinserting them. Exploding Boy 18:37, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Let me explain why you are beginning to become a problem user. It is because you have a specific POV position with regard to this issue and are thus involved both emotionally and in your capacity as a sysop in the debate. The worst of it is that up until recently you have attempted to present yourself as being "neutral". Fortunately (for Wikipedia) people are beginning to recognise your behaviour for what it is and we are now able to consider taking the necessary administrative step to prevent you from misusing your position as a sysop to influence the conduct of the debate on the talk page and the content in the article itself. I notice someone has reverted POV motivated revert in the article. Good. I suggest that you and your soul buddy DanP explain here why that content should be removed as it is you and those who share your particular POV who want it removed. Elsewhere you have alleged that I have created a "new" sock-puppet. Would you please put-up or retract that accusation with a full apology. - Robert the Bruce 03:54, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Exploding Boy, thanks for responding. Again it's not so much about what is circumcision as that specific genital mutilation laws are not binding on males even with entirely non-circumcision. Females are not covered either if you count the ovaries, since forced sterilization is hardly impeded by the law. But if you can emphasize that males are essentially exposed to "any genital procedure, including but not limited to circumcision" that is perhaps the most accurate and I hope Robert can say it is truthful. Obviously there are some boys castrated in India or elsewhere, and they do not get genital mutilation protection any more than the circumcised man. DanP 23:14, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Robert, please identify my "specific point of view position with regard to this issue" and state exactly how I'm "involved emtionally and in my capacity as a sysop in the debate," providing specific evidence to support your claim. Let me caution you that alleging misuse of admin privileges is quite a serious charge. I'll not bother defending myself against what is clearly a spurious charge unless you can provide specific, clear proof of your claim. If you are indeed able to present such evidence, please exercise your right to take the necessary steps to address the issue. Exploding Boy 17:26, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

• You go first. You alleged that I had introduced a new sock puppet recently I asked to you put up or shut up. Would you either produce the proof or retract the allegation. - Robert the Bruce 17:33, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

First, that statement was made on another page in a different context; it has nothing to do with what's going on here (and by the way, I'm not the only user to accuse you of having (multiple) sock puppets; do you read any of the talk pages you edit or just try to get a rise out of other users?).

Second, saying that a user employs sock puppets is not a personal attack; take a look around: users say it all the time. In fact, if you bothered to inform yourself you'd know that having sock puppets is not against the rules (it is, however, frowned upon in certain circumstances, which I'll not bother enumerating here; you can look them up yourself).

Third, I note that you're retreating into your usual mode. If you have something to say, I suggest you say it. Otherwise, stop flinging around wildly false accusations, stop antagonizing other users, stop causing problems wherever you edit (all that would come under the heading of "trolling"; look that up too, while you're at it), and get down to the business of creating a well-written, unbiased encyclopaedia. Or, exercise your right to leave the rest of us to get on with it unhampered. Exploding Boy 00:52, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Look, it is important that you stop pretending that the issue you have with me is anything other than personal. It is documented for all to see. It is clear that the context in which you made the allegation of my having created a "yet another" sock puppet was clearly derogatory and a disgrace for a sysop who seems to demand standards from others that he is unable to maintain himself. Quite disgraceful. It is truly fascinating that you demand accountability from others when you behave as if you are above the application of the policies of Wikipedia. I would suggest that you take a leaf out of Evercat's book. Resign as a sysop, take a wiki-holiday and work through this thingy you have for foreskins and come back refreshed, perhaps then I may even support your nomination for sysop. - Robert the Bruce 06:43, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have no personal issue with you, except for your behaviour. Your views on the nature of my claim that you have (another, new) sock puppet are not supported by Wikipedia rules and customs. I (and others) think you have several sock puppets. Deal with it. Deny it. Admit it. Forget it. Frankly it makes little difference. This conversation is no longer appropriate here, and therefore is over.

Again I invite you to do whatever you can with what evidence you beleive you have of impropriety on my part as a sysop, or, for that matter, as a user. I'm confident you have none and that your threats are just that: threats, threats designed to disrupt, annoy and intimidate. If you wish to make further comments about me, please do so on my talk page, however I can't guarantee I'll respond.

I repeat my request: please let us return to the business of creating a well-written, factually accurate and neutral encyclopaedia. If you'd like to join in, you're welcome--if you can maintain a neutral point of view and a civil attitude. Exploding Boy 18:08, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

• You made the allegation as part of a character assasination that I had introduced "yet another" sock puppet. I would like you to put up or retract with a full apology. - Robert the Bruce 18:17, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Any chance that this can be moved to a user talk page, guys? - Jakew 18:29, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Jake, the point quite simply is that he did not make his comments about me on my user page but rather all over the place. BTW did you notice his hilarious comment about If I can maintain a neutral POV while not doubt suggesting that he is neutral. The man has no shame. - Robert the Bruce 20:59, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Robert: please stop adding inflammatory subheadings to talk pages. You have been asked several times before. Exploding Boy 22:19, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Again this is an example you setting higher standards of behavior for others than you are able to maintain yourself. As a sysop do you really believe that your are immune to the restrictions of Wikipedia policy? Can you explain your mindset why it is acceptable for you to launch sustained personal attacks yet behave like a coy virgin when your disgraceful behaviour is exposed? - Robert the Bruce 10:33, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Where has Exploding Boy set inflammatory subheadings in an article talk page? Failing to show where he has, you are wrong. I don't expect you to be able to do that too. Stop making false and hypocritical accusations against people and own up to your extreme POV pushing behavior for once.

As there is an RFC on this article I have read it and find it to be reasonably balanced as it is. I don't want to add anything to such a controversial page, but if anybody thinks that it would be useful, I have seen it suggested that a possible reason that many groups who practice male circumcision (in addition to the possible reasons listed) are desert dwellers is that it protects against balanitis, which is easily caused by trapped sand and grit. This fits with many religious practices which would originally have had important sanitary advantages; e.g., one can get infested by trichinosis (intestinal worms) from eating contaminated pork (pork is banned by Islam and Judaism); trichinosis is very much more serious than the intestinal worms that can be caught from beef, mutton, and goat. 213.208.107.91 21:58, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Female/male

I have to say it seems obvious to me that male and female circumcision are extremely different procedures which are almost totally unrelated. Male circumcision is usually performed for purposes of hygiene, whereas female circumcision is usually performed in cultures where women are subjugated in order to make sexual intercourse painful and unpleasurable for women in order to preserve their virginity. Male circumcision does not particularly interfere with sexual performance or health, and does not cause pain or discomfort beyond the initial circumcision (if an anaesthetic was not used, which is not generally the case, in Western society at any rate) and isn't generally performed as a ritual of control or oppression. In order to be the equivalent of female circumcision, the entire penis would have to be removed, being the male equivalent of the clitoris, and- I don't know- there's not really any way you can follow that idea so that intercourse is still more or less possible but incredibly painful for males. Some sort of equivalent though would probably be the removal of all male reproductive organs. And that's not really the case, is it?

Earthbound01 19:13, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)I'm not sure of the protocol but I would like to say that this assertion isn't very culturally balanced.

First of all, male circumcision is practiced throughout the world for cultural reasons (rites of passage, religion, etc.) Only in the English Speaking West is it done for reasons of hygiene or medicine on a majority population. To say it is usually done for medicine or hygiene isn't necessarily the case. It should also be noted that the majority of participants of female circumcision come from cultures that believe the circumcised woman's genitals to be superior to that of an uncircumcised, and use a similar set of concepts for the uncircumcised as we do in this culture for men i.e. dirty, ugly.

That's rubbish! I'm not circumcised, and there's no way I'd be dirty or ugly! What's up with those lot? Scott Gall 04:09, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Erogenous tissue

How is calling foreskin erogenous tissue POV? Would it be POV if I also called the glans or the skin on the shaft erogenous? It's fairly intuitive that it's erogenous, just like the other skin on the penis is. To argue otherwise would be very odd, I mean penis tissue not being erogenous, huh?

Agree. It's an undisputed fact that it's erogenous tissue. // Liftarn

Just because something is physically proximal to a sex organ does not automatically make it erogenous. No studies have yet established an erogenous role for the foreskin, and indeed anecdotal evidence suggests that it has none. - Jakew 18:17, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's not just physically proximal, it's PART OF the sex organ. It couldn't be any more obvious. Anecdotal evidence doesn't suggest that at all, have you actually asked anyone with foreskin about it's role? I've never heard a single guy with foreskin suggest anything but it being erogenous. Are we to say that all of the guys with foreskin are liars? What's next, we're going to be doubting that labia and the clitoris on women are erogenous? If you're going to push this "some believe that it's erogenous" POV statement, you better show some substantial evidence that it's not erogenous. BTW, I'm waiting for proof that the glans and shaft skin are not erogenous too, since using your logic we can't know that either. Nathan J. Yoder 18:45, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I refuse to get into a silly argument about whether it's part of the sex organ or not. Yes, I have asked people with foreskins about the role, in addition to observing their reactions (I'm a gay male). I also had a foreskin myself for a considerable number of years, and never found it erogenous (anecdotal evidence again - I'm not claiming special status for my own experience). Saying that it is erogenous is POV. So is saying that it is not. Saying that some believe it to be is NPOV. If I were to respond to your request and provide proof that it is not erogenous, it would be then be free from controversy and this discussion would not be relevant. In terms of evidence that the glans is erogenous, see the references in Yang and Bradley. - Jakew 19:14, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's only because you can't substantiate it. If you took a survey of uncircumcised males, how much do you want to bet that most would say it's erogenous (and spare me any "oh they're lying" crap)? You didn't answer my question about labia and the clitoris. You also threw out the Winkelmann article out of hand without any specific criticism of it. As such, I will decide for no apparent reason to disregard the article you pasted on the glans being erogenous. All those similar nerve endings and corpuscles must just be a coincidence. This discussion is wholly relavent, as a whole bunch of articles on wikipedia, especially the Erogenous Zones one, are directly related to foreskin and it's sexual use. Nathan J. Yoder 19:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I can certainly demonstrate that many guys don't find the foreskin erogenous. But of course that's only anecdotal. I suspect that the same is true of examples you have in mind. I'm not aware of any surveys on the subject - if you are, please supply a reference. My criticism of the Winkelmann reflects a lack of testing each area. If you're going to state a hypothesis, you have to test it. In this example, stimulate the foreskin in a controlled manner, in a reasonably large sample, and note how many become erect. Compare with a control area. If you don't do that, you're just offering an opinion (or, in Winkelmann's case, anatomical discussion of a body part you assume to be erogenous). - Jakew 19:39, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What you are proposing is not feasible. Are the doctors going to fondle the guys foreskin? Or are we going to expect the men to try to get an erection while being watched behind a two-way mirror? Plus, you can never know what gave them the erection (it can be done by thought alone) or what prevented them from getting it (again though alone can cause that). The only way of doing it is asking the men. I'll see if I can find a survey on it, but it doesn't appear from a quick search there is one. Nathan J. Yoder 20:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't seem all that unreasonable. Devices for stimulating parts of the penis have been described in the medical literature previously. True, you don't know whether the erection is due to thought or stimulus, but that's where the control group comes in. I'd partly agree, and would say that asking a random sample of men would be sufficient, though less accurate, for answering the question. Please let me know what you find. - Jakew 21:08, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It appears even the Erogenous zone article lists it as such. The prepuce has mucocutaneous end-organs extending from the distal margin to the point where hairy skin starts. The thin dermis and minimal subcutaneous tissue results in closely set nerve networks. Vater-Pacini corpuscles are present. The mucocutaneous end-organs are formed after birth, with few in newborn infants and many well-organized endings in adults. There's also this article that covers erogenous zones and mucocutaneous regions ( http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/winkelmann/ ). Nathan J. Yoder 19:09, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Then the Erogenous zone article needs to be corrected. And Winkelmann isn't exactly based upon scientific principles, though by all means add in a citation. - Jakew 19:14, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The whole argument about erogenous zones is a little silly as erogenous zones aren't generally purely physical. I'm sure that if, say, hands were taboo in our society, we'd find them more appealing too. I wouldn't call women's labia an "erogenous zone" without its mental connotations. Just touching the labia is certainly no different from touching, say, an arm. There is no special physical reaction. Some people find ears or feet to be erogenous zones. Maybe a guy doesn't like the aesthetic qualities of his foreskin and thus lacks the mental connection making it an erogenous zone. Who knows? It's certainly entirely a matter of opinion. I think even bothering to mention it in the article is unneccessary, since those arguing against circumcision with the loss-of-sexual-ability argument generally focus on the more important issue of the supposed loss of sensitivity in circumcized males. - anon user (69.156.3.63) (note by Jakew)

In my opinion the article should include the fact that a male's foreskin contains a high concentration of Meissner's corpuscles which are especially effective in detecting light touch. -- DanBlackham 09:56, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Yes Dan there is also a high concentration of Meissener corpuscles on the soles of the feet ... do you also maintain that there is an erogenous function for the soles of the feet? - Robert the Bruce 18:12, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It seems intuitive that the foreskin, which is part of the penis, which is a sex organ, has some sexual function. If there is a lack of evidence in support of this argument, is there evidence to refute it? One way or the other, it seems reasonable to include some reference in the article, even if it's just along the lines of "some people believe..." Exploding Boy 18:53, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

There is also a high concentration of Meissner's corpuscles in a person's lips and fingertips. That is why those parts of the body are especially sensitive to light touch. -- DanBlackham 10:34, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What benefit or purpose is there in stating that Taylor is an "anti-circumcision activist" in this sentence: "The anti-circumcision activist Taylor estimated that an average of 51 percent of the skin and mucosa, including the ridged band is removed from the penis." ? Are you suggesting that his study and findings are therefore somehow suspect? Exploding Boy 17:12, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

When submitting a paper to a medical journal, it is customary to declare any competing interests. The reader can draw whatever conclusions he or she wants to, but it is important to ensure that the information is available. For example, learning that a researcher was funded by a tobacco giant might cause the reader to doubt the conclusion that smoking triples life expectancy. Then again, the reader might look at the data and conclude it is reliable anyway. The reader has that choice, because he's fully informed. - Jakew 18:24, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, but in the context of this article it appears as though you're deliberately casting doubt on the findings by stating that he's an anti-circumcision activist. It would be more neutral to counter (or support) his claims with the results of other reputable studies, or to name those who have refuted his claims (or supported them). Exploding Boy 18:48, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Jake is "poisoning the well". I agree that it would be more neutral for Jake to counter Taylor's claims with the results of other reputable studies or to name those who have refuted his claims. -- DanBlackham 10:36, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Taylor isn't actually terribly reliable. He seems to change his story according to need. In one article, he claims that the glans is "by contrast (to the prepuce), insensitive to light touch, heat, cold [17] and, as far as the authors are aware, to pin-prick." [1] (italics my insertion) Later, in an about face, he claims that the nerve endings and consequent sensory capacity in the glans are similar to those in his 'ridged band': "We have postulated that this "ridged band" is designed to respond to movement of adjacent mucosa and the skin of the penis. Similar nerve ending are found in the glans and it seems likely that the sensory and reflex functions of the ridged band are much the same as, but spatially distant from, those of the glans." [2]

• Jake is on the right track. How can one study foreskins of cadavers under a microscope and then make all manner of claims about function? No sane person should. What did Taylor admit to was:

"I've done the anatomy. From the anatomy I can deduce, I can second guess what happens. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to do that. The rest of it, the physiology of it hasn't been done. So, you can only estimate what might happen, either during sexual intercourse or masturbation or whatever, and I think anyone's guess is as good as mine." [3]

There you go then. Taylor says "anyone's guess is as good as mine" and here we have people pushing his stuff as science. The mind boggles. - Robert the Bruce 13:45, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It helps to quote in context Robert, the sentence right before that says: I think most mammals have some mechanism for triggering sexual reflexes—ejaculation reflexes—and in humans, this, I think, happens to be it. He's not referring to whether or not it's an erogenous zone, try again. -Nathan J. Yoder 14:03, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, he is talking about a sexual function: " The structure—it's a little difficult to be sure, of course, as it's the first study of its type and I have to use my own impressions—but apparently it is specialized sexual mucosa. We know that because it has specialized nerve endings in it. These are arranged in a certain way, probably triggered during intercourse. I think most mammals have some mechanism for triggering sexual reflexes—ejaculation reflexes—and in humans, this, I think, happens to be it." (Incidentally, he doesn't know this - he just believes it) The section that I have italicised shows that he's talking about an erogenous zone. - Jakew 14:35, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Yes it does and I posted the whole interview to allow people to get the contex. In this case lets look at the whole paragraph:

" I showed two things. One is that the quality of tissue removed is quite impressive, and the second is the quantity. There is quite extensive loss of tissue, a fair area. So you've got two things missing, one is a lot of skin and the other is a high quality, skin and mucosa. The structure—it's a little difficult to be sure, of course, as it's the first study of its type and I have to use my own impressions—but apparently it is specialized sexual mucosa. We know that because it has specialized nerve endings in it. These are arranged in a certain way, probably triggered during intercourse. I think most mammals have some mechanism for triggering sexual reflexes—ejaculation reflexes—and in humans, this, I think, happens to be it. I've done the anatomy. From the anatomy I can deduce, I can second guess what happens. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to do that. The rest of it, the physiology of it hasn't been done. So, you can only estimate what might happen, either during sexual intercourse or masturbation or whatever, and I think anyone's guess is as good as mine."

It says nothing other than a lot about Taylors rank speculation. - Robert the Bruce 14:20, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of erogenous zones there. What is this `rank speculation' of? -Nathan J. Yoder 14:31, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Schlossberger

The schlossberger study needs to be removed from this article until someone can find a link to the full text rather than just the abstract, in which anyway s/he writes that more study is needed. Random crap from the internet does not make a reliable source. Exploding Boy 17:42, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Why is that? Because you don't like the findings? - Robert the Bruce 04:13, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For reasons which should have been obvious even if I hadn't given them above. Exploding Boy 18:23, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is loaded with random crap from the internet. I find it strange that circumcision and related articles must have a "high standard" (especially when opposition to circumcision is stated, but advocates get a free ride). But then we have crap like balloon fetishism which is about as academic as a loud fart. Whatever we do, all I ask is that both sides be treated equally. Is an abstract good enough or not??? LET'S SETTLE THIS NOW. DanP 19:05, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

While it would be preferable to link to a full text than to an abstract, there are many instances in which a full text is not freely available online due to copyright restrictions, but the abstract is. If the only facts available for the writing of Wikipedia articles, or the only sources that readers can be referred to, are those that are fully and freely available online, then the bulk of human knowledge is excluded. If only being an abstract exludes a source from usefulness, then are we to throw away all our print sources as even more hopeless?

It is good to point readers to sources. Some sources are easier to point to than others. We should point to a source in its most useful form. But it is foolishness to say that only those sources available in a particular form are valid sources. Shimmin 20:30, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Exactly. Of course an abstract is good enough (unless it is of a study by an author who has admitted to methodical flaws in his work). The shrillness of this particular protest should be seen in context with the agenda of the protestors. - Robert the Bruce 03:54, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All articles must conform to a high standard when it comes to sources, not just the ones that are controversial. But it should be obvious even to the most conspicuous dullard that controversial articles need to maintain a particularly high level of reliability and verifiability. I quote from the abstract, adding emphasis where necessary:

    The psychosocial effects of circumcision status on the adolescent male 
    are unclear. This study explored methods for assessing attitudes 
    toward circumcision of early adolescents and differences in satisfaction 
    between circumcised and uncircumcised males that would warrant further 
    investigation . . . Of the study group, 19% (n = 14) were 
    uncircumcised . . . Further research that examines psychosocial
    outcomes of circumcision status is necessary'.
 

A full text is always preferable to an abstract, especially when the abstract itself expresses the degree of uncertainty that this one does. An abstract might be good enough when it has good detail or gives concrete information. Internet sources are in general not considered as reliable as other sources, and I have to say that many of the sources given in this and related articles are highly suspect when it comes to their reliability. But we don't have to use only internet sources. Print sources are, in general, much more reliable.

I repeat: all articles must conform to a high standard, but especially those that are controversial. The only way to eliminate controversy is to provide reliable, reputable, verifiable sources and to present the information in a manner that is consistent with the authors' intentions (ie: not twisting the information to try and fit some larger scheme). Exploding Boy 17:59, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Well, you've got the citation, EB. If you doubt that this study exists, why don't you look it up on the National Library of Medicine's PubMed database? Any Wikipedia user is, for that matter, given all the information needed (through the citation) to obtain the article. What's the big deal? - Jakew 20:43, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't doubt that the study exists, obviously. I doubt its reliability and relevance to this article. I've made that perfectly clear. Exploding Boy 01:05, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Unexplained edits

Robert Blair, please explain the following edits:

• Removal of "and the Northwest Territories pay for the procedure."
• Change of "The major medical societies in Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand no longer support routine non-therapeutic infant circumcision." to "The major medical societies in Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand no longer support elective non-therapeutic infant circumcision." This is untrue, in that they don't recommend routine circumcision but do support elective circumcision!
• Insertion of "Male neonatal circumcision has been downgraded from "routine" to "elective".[4]" -- this is not supported by the link.
• Removal of identification of critics: "This study has been criticized among circumcision opponents[5] for focusing exclusively on the glans."

Hi Jakew:

Northwest Territories Health Insurance Plan stopped paying for circumcisions in the Spring of 2004. That is a very good reason for the deletion.

Routine circumcision does not exist. It is an elective procedure. It is carried out only with at the request and with the consent of the patient/parents. It stopped being routine in the late 1960s when courts started to require "informed consent".

Statements require support. If you can't provide support, it does not belong in the article.

Robert Blair 11:49, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted these changes. -- Jakew 12:02, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And I am fixing that.

Robert Blair 11:49, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence regarding Northwest Territories? If you have, I've no objection to its removal. If routine circumcision doesn't exist, then how can it possibly be downgraded from it? And what statements need supporting? - Jakew 12:09, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Here is the information about North West Territories

http://www.eskimo.com/~gburlin/INTACT-L/archive/0405/msg00089.html

Robert Blair 18:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In future, I'd ask you to provide a more credible source than Association for Genital Integrity, but for now, ok - I've no objection to the removal of Northwest Territories from the article. - Jakew 21:54, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I applaud your efforts to engage this person. Not a moment too soon. How can it be established whether he is in fact a sock puppet of DanP? - Robert the Bruce 17:13, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good one Robert! You're very convincing! Exploding Boy 18:04, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Why the sarcasm? Why don't you use your sysop connections to establish wether indeed Robert Blair and DanP are one and the same ... there are 3RR issues at stake here? Do you care? - Robert the Bruce 18:48, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What "sysop connections" you strange person? I'm pretty sure you and Robert Blair are the same person, and I'm not the only one who thinks so. Even if you're not, you still have a 3RR violation to admit to and receive a temp-ban for. Exploding Boy 21:29, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Your "sysop connections" would be able to assist you in comparing IP addresses. Now while you are getting someone to compare mine with Robert Blair's (which we already know is 207.69.13*.*)[6] why not run a test on your pal DanP to see where he falls in with all this? You are really concerned about getting to the bottom of this 3RR violation business aren't you? Aren't you? - Robert the Bruce 03:06, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

First, DanP is not my "pal." Second, if you have issues with someone, report them to an admin. You know perfectly well that, as a contributor to this article, I cannot use my admin privileges in settling disputes surrounding it. I've told you all this before. Exploding Boy 01:07, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

shocked by lost NPOV war

I am shocked by the turn the NPOV war raging about this article has taken. The arcticle is one big piece of propaganda for male circumcision. Any attempt to bring some balance seems to have been systematically reverted. It almost makes me want to give up contributing to wikipedia. - Woodstone (sig added by Jakew)

Yes, it is distressing. Things have improved, though. You should have seen it a few months ago: Wikipedia read like one of the more rabid anti-circumcision websites! At least things are a little more neutral now, in spite of the flood of anti-circumcision activists who try to subvert Wiki for their own purposes. - Jakew 21:23, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I can't believe that on such a heated article there is no mention at all of the cause of the whole war: The emotional impact of circumcision. That is, unless you want to argue that I was not emotionally harmed by it. 64.229.8.8 11:45, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mental effects?

The article is very poor in regard to the psychical consequences of circumcision. But this topic has not been studied as deeply as it should - the only work I know regarding it is A Psicanálise da Circuncisão ("The Psychoanalysis of Circumcision") by Moisés Tractenberg, MD.

• Unfortunately your man happens to be an anti-circumcision activist. Whatever opinion he may personally hold would have to be interpreted in that contex. Hardly NPOV as the saying goes around here. - Robert the Bruce 02:49, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Robert is a pro-circumcision activist. Any criticism Robert makes of the article or the author needs to be interpreted in that contex. Neonatal circumcision is not medically necessary. No professional medical organization in the world recommends that boys should be circumcised. -- DanBlackham 04:38, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Dr. Tractenberg (who, by the way, is Jewish) became an opponent of circumcision - as explained on the book's preface - because of the circumcision-related problems he witnessed on his patients. That is also a context one has to take in account.
• Whatever. The bottom line is that he is one of them, anti-circumcision activists ... that needs to be clearly stated. - Robert the Bruce 16:18, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I did not know Wikipedia was here for your "bottom line". I object completely to your view that one viewpoint requires a special disclaimer but another (the "Robert-approved" pro-mutilation view) is given the benefit of the doubt. DanP 18:58, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Take it easy DanP. We are looking for truth here. The truth is that your Dr Tractenberg is an anti-circumcision activist. If he is to be quoted then people need to know that. - Robert the Bruce 03:45, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• So being "objective" means never passing judgment, even with all the evidence before one's eyes? And when you say "he is one of them, anti-circumcision activists", you make it sound very "us vs. them". I have a guess about why that is so...

• Tractenberg offers an individual opinion from an anti-circumcision perspective. Any reference in an article should be clear on that. - Robert the Bruce 03:40, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I ran a search for "tractenberg anti-circumcision". Can you cite your source for such a claim? Why not say "single-issue nutcase Tractenberg"? Just as much proof there. Or say "Tractenberg, the archnemesis of the boy-mutilation cause"? Get serious Robert. DanP 01:10, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Oh Dan you really disappoint me. Do you really think I would just "shoot from the hip" in this matter without first getting my facts straight? I come from a different school, obviously. On to our Dr Tractenberg then. The following link to one of the NOCIRC skin-fests describes our good doctor as follows (http://www.nocirc.org/symposia/sixth/symposium.pdf):

"Moisés Tractenberg, MD, psychoanalyst, author, Director, NOCIRC of Brazil. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil"

Need I say more? - Robert the Bruce 04:31, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nice one Robert. I didn't see "anti-circumcision activist" in the list. If changing it is OK, why not use "Tractenberg the NOCIRC skin-fest crusader" in the article then?

A quick reminder: since the book was released in 1972 and NOCIRC was established in 1986, one must assume he was chosen as the director of the Brazilian NOCIRC office because of what he thought about this topic, not the other way around. Oh, and Robert, by the way: when you say things like "skin-fest", you reveal more about yourself than you realize. ;-)

• Can't be too clear in our descriptions nowadays as we need to maintain a level of civility around here you know ... as to what it tells people ... it says that I have my finger firmly on the pulse when it comes to our anti-circumcision activists and foreskin admirers. I could write a book ;-) - Robert the Bruce 11:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good sleuthing, Robert. You really know your stuff. I applaud your vigilance. - Jakew 00:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I makes for fascinating social research. The truly amazing thing is how they all try to deny "what" they are until the evidence is thrust in their faces. Why do you think they would want to deny being anti-circumcision activists ... unless there is a seamy side that they would rather public never found out they were associated with? Makes one think. - Robert the Bruce 11:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For those who are not familiar with the issues related of non-therapeutic circumcision the following quote from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia published in June 2004 helps to put Robert's and Jake's pro-circumcision activism in perspective.

"Infant male circumcision was once considered a preventive health measure and was therefore adopted extensively in Western countries. Current understanding of the benefits, risks and potential harm of this procedure, however, no longer supports this practice for prophylactic health benefit. Routine infant male circumcision performed on a healthy infant is now considered a non-therapeutic and medically unnecessary intervention."

-- DanBlackham 23:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Very nice, DanB, but given that neither Robert nor I have advocated routine infant circumcision, would you care to explain the relevance? There is, I should remind you, a difference between disagreeing with an extremist who says that something is terrible, and being equally extreme and arguing that the same thing should be mandatory. - Jakew 00:40, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jake, both you and Robert advocate non-therapeutic circumcision of children as an acceptable cultural practice. In 2005 the debate is not whether or not all boys should be circumcised. The circumcision debate is now whether or not it is ethical to circumcise any boy without a valid medical indication for the surgery. You and Robert believe that parents should be allowed to circumcise their son for any reason no matter how trivial. On the other hand I believe that there must be a compelling reason before it is ethical for parents to cut off a normal, healthy part of a son's genitals. The fact that you and Robert try to characterize anyone who opposes non-therapeutic circumcision of boys as an extremist is an indication of your own pro-circumcision activism. -- DanBlackham 11:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

At this point it is not so much a matter of who to cite as the best researcher on emotional impact. The current article doesn't even acknowledge that emotional impact exists!!!! Obviously this isn't so, unless I go to a support group for nothing. 64.229.8.8 11:49, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, but writing about emotional impact outside the context of some body of published research amounts to original research, which Wikipedia is not the place for. Shimmin 14:45, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Some time ago a posted a reference to a study of neonatal pain in rats below here on the talk page (search on science or rats). There is a trend towards finding that experiences and environment like this in the fetus and infant can have life long effects.--Silverback 16:40, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Prevalence

Estimates of the worldwide prevalence of male circumcision vary between 15-30% of the male population. Most male circumcisions are performed for religious or cultural reasons. In most of these countries the predominant religion endorses circumcision (see Circumcision and religion, below).

These sentences do not cite any sources. I recommend deleting these unless someone can state where they come from. DanP 20:00, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The 15-30% figure has been discussed in the section of the previous archive ("Edit wars", towards the end of the section). - Jakew 00:03, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Prejudice" vs. "opinion"

As the original writer of the passage in question, I would like to state

• "prejudice" was not at all intended to be a disparaging term
• From the few classical Greek sources that talk about circumcision, it seems that the author's primary objection to it is an aesthetic judgment. For example, Herodotus, in the midst of a passage mocking the customs of Egypt as being "upside down" (i.e., their priorities seem inverted), says that the Egyptians circumcise, considering it better to be clean than comely (i.e., they carry hygience to such an extent that they mar their personal appearance). Hence, an aesthetic prejudice.
• That said, I'm not going to fight over it, but find a better word than opinion if you're going to change it. "Opinion" is awkward in the flow of the sentence.

Shimmin 00:17, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Protection warning

This article, Circumcision/Archive 6, has been listed on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Further disruptive edits, vandalism, or an edit war in progress will cause this page to be protected. Please keep in mind that the Wikipedia has a three revert rule and may cause you to be blocked if you make more than three revisions within a 24 hour period, not counting revisions due to vandalism. The Wikipedia would like to assume good faith, and ask editors to calmly and rationally approach a resolution before the article is protected. Should this page be protected, please request for its unprotection also at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Forced circumcision? Otherwise is rare.

The "Forced circumcision" section is redundant because, in verity, every infant circumcision is forced! I know some people will refuse to see (*cough*Robert*cough*), but this is the unescapable truth: it is a body modification done without consent. 200.195.86.190 (signature added by DanP)

That is not inherently true. Some pro-mutilation folks claim they weren't forced, and who am I to judge? I have no problem categorizing some (or even most) infant circumcisions as forced -- a stuggling restrained infant is proof enough. But we must resist the urge to dump that in here with wild-eyed disregard for those who claim they weren't. Wikipedia requires that we respect their views "not matter how distasteful". So quit saying this nonsense please. DanP 20:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Obligatory Ayn Rand quote: The person who asks "Who am I to judge?" is asking "Who am I to live?".'

If you deny the fact that every infant circumcision is forced, you deprive the verb "to force" from its meaning - that is, something that is done to someone with no consent. What is the bias in stating the obvious fact - that a child can not consent to such a thing? Not that it should matter, though - that would be a symptom of Apotemnophilia.

By the way, think about this: anyone who decided to mutilate any body part from their child would be regarded as a mental case. Except the foreskin. Why? 'Cause that's "holy" and stuff! ...just a little food for thought. 200.195.86.190 (signature added by Jakew)

Consent is not always so black-and-white once the pro-mutilation folks start frothing at the mouth. On the opposite end of the scale, I was mutilated by force, which I have no doubt whatsoever. Nothing is holy about the foreskin. The shift is from sexual violence to sexual bondage for these people. If some guy gets his arm torn off by a shark and says, perhaps eccentrically and after the fact, that it was totally fine with him, I'm not going to quibble about what force means in that instance. Yes, it's true that the denial of the pro-mutilation folks sometimes includes denial of harm no matter how evident -- but it always includes denial of choice and we dare not make the same mistake with broad statements like "every" and "always". DanP 22:46, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To 200.195.86.190: It's not unusual in non-Western cultures to do body-modification, such as ear-piercing or tattooing, on infants or children too young to "consent." And, you're making up definitions as well--"to force" doesn't mean any such thing. In any case, as most people understand it, infants are not capable of making decisions for themselves, so it's hardly relevant if they "struggle" while being circumsized, or PKU-tested, or changed, or any of a hundred other things parents decide for their children and "force" on them. It certainly wouldn't be typical for people to refer to these things as "forced," though they may technically be, any more than "pro-mutilation" could be taken as anything other than an activist neologism.

I'd say a more useful definition of "forced circumcision" is circumcision of someone against their will--at an age where they are old enough to choose. Demi 00:26 27 Feb 2005 (GMT -8)

Since this paragraph (on this protected version) is clearly only about non-infants, why not just state that in the title and in the first sentence. Something like..." Forced circumcisions of adults and older children. Forcible circumcisions of adults and older children occasionally happen in circumcising cultures.... This change would neither exclude nor proclaim the validity of the anti-circumcision view that all circumcised infants are forced. --JimCollaborator 00:19, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

You remember the Rastafarian that was attacked by Xhosas in a field a few kilometers away from a South African airport in July last year? They made him eat his foreskin, and the poor kid says that if God wanted men circumcised, we would have been born that way. And in 2002, there was this Masai kid that got aggro when he was circumcised. Both circumcisions were forced. I bet both of them are still ****ed off about their experiences - I've still got my foreskin. Scott Gall 10:25, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Protection

This article has been protected by Admin Raul654. Should you feel that the article needs to be unprotected, please visit Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. However, it seems that an intervention has been stepped in, and a temporary rewrite is in progress. -- AllyUnion (talk) 13:01, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not Helping Anyone

I would just like to point out that I came here looking for reliable information about circumcision because I would like to make an informed decision about it when my baby is born. After reading through this discussion page, I don't trust any of the information in the article or in the discussion pages. Starfoxy 01:28, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can't say I blame you. I suggest reading the American Academy of Pediatrics' policy statement for an unbiased look at the evidence. - Jakew 01:40, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't like this piece, they never say in the clear "it's good" or "it's bad". They tiptoe to avoid hurting anyone's feelings - even if it means hurting the bodies of helpless children. And this line made my blood boil: "It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision." No, damnit, it is not! You are supposed to take the patients' well-being in account, not whatever hocus-pocus their stupid parents believe in. - 200.195.79.32

But "Patients' well-being includes psychological health and self-confidence. I'm not pro- or anti-circumcision, but the argument goes that your kid's going to feel pretty self-conscious when he realizes that he doesn't look like any of his friends or family. So if that's going to be an issue because your culture always circumcises, then it IS an important factor when considering the patients' well-being. Laura Scudder 00:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Two other good sources of unbiased information are the Policy Statement On Circumcision by The Royal Australasian College of Physicians and the Guidance for Doctors by the British Medical Association. Both of these professional medical organizations are less supportive of non-therapeutic circumcision of children than the American Academy of Pediatrics. -- DanBlackham 11:47, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Legal trivia for you: a court of appeals in Norway ruled that circumcision is body damage. [7] Clear enough? Consider also the circumcision-related complications [8] and deaths [9], not to mention the unavoidable reduction of sexual pleasure... it is just plain logical and objectively true to say that circumcision is a really bad idea. - 200.195.79.32

But of course there are risks associated with circumcising, just as there are in not circumcising. That's why it's so important to have balanced, factual information on the subject (and circumcstitions.com does not even pretend to be balanced, as the intro to the site says). So stick to credible information. - Jakew 20:40, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There are no risks in not circumcising. - 200.195.79.32

see here - Jakew 21:25, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not only Wiswell's research methods are known to be flawed [10] - even if his numbers are correct, that would mean 195 painful, destructive procedures would have to be done to prevent only one infection that could easily be treated with antibiotics. - 200.195.79.32 - (Correction to myself: these are not Wiswell's numbers. His are less precise - "from 50 to 100". The previously mentioned number is from another study; more about it on the same article to which I have just linked.)

I hardly think that criticisms by a rabid anti-circumcision website constitutes "proof" or even "knowledge" of flawed methods, but regardless - that page doesn't even refer to that particular study. Haven't you read the paper? Haven't you seen the data? Or did you just see Wiswell's name and look for ad hominems you can use? - Jakew 23:20, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually it is you who seem to have misread it. The aforementioned piece is very clear and specific in pointing the flaws of Wiswell's research.

new link

Paul's Foreskin Restoration Diary - Pictures and Diary -- mms 16:24, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Male circumcision → Circumcision

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request.

Male circumcision is primary meaning of "circumcision." Neutrality^talk 06:28, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Strongly support. The article on female genital mutilation just barely holds on to its legitimacy at its current title, and as you say, "circumcision" conjures only one image up in most people's minds. ADH (t&m) 08:45, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. As things stand now, the beginning of Male circumcision is missing the word "Male". Both Male and Female circumcision exist. Both are controversial topics. Both have long articles. However, if Female circumcision gets renamed to Female genital mutilation, I would support this move. Samuel Wantman 10:06, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I notice that there are articles for both Female circumcision and redirect for Female genital mutilation, so I will have to modify what I said slightly. If Female circumcision can be renamed to something without the word circumcision, without controversy, I would support the move. But I don't think that will happen, and I'm not sure it should. Samuel Wantman 10:17, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - both exist and both are common. Jooler
• Support. Prima facie case for primary topic disambiguation. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:49, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Estel (talk) 17:40, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Carrp 17:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. violet/riga (t) 19:28, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• COMMENT - isn't "female genital mutilation" as the primary title for "female circumcision", too controversial a title? Isn't moving "male circumcision" to "circumcision" an ethnocentric point of view, not having to do with a linguo-centric POV? 132.205.45.148 19:55, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Moving female circumcision is not under debate at this time; the issue (per Wikipedia:Disambiguation) is whether or not the practice of foreskin removal is the primary meaning of the word, and as it was coined for this very purpose (circumcision, "cutting around"; a clitoridectomy is an excision) I would say that it certainly is. "Linguo-centricity" is meaningless in this context, as all of our titles are "linguo-centric"—this is, after all, the English-language Wikipedia. ADH (t&m) 05:39, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - sorry while common English use is good argument, the literal meaning is gender neutral. Unless there is a creditable case to disprove one type, both must have equal exposure.- Daeron 06:56, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. →Raul654 07:10, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:03, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. ADH has pursuaded me. Jonathunder 03:55, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
• Support. It might be androcentric, but male circumcision is indeed the primary meaning of 'circumcision'. In contrast, "female circumcision" is more commonly called "female genital mutilation" in medical and legal circles these days, at least in most English-speaking countries. - Mark 03:59, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Agree with Mark comments -Trödel|talk 14:53, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• COMMENT Circumcision is genital mutilation for both genders. And though the root of the word means "cutting around" - which could make it not suitable to female genital mutilation - the term "female circumcision" is now widely accepted as synonymous with clitoridectomy. 200.195.86.225
• 'Oppose' Seriously, the two procedures are rather similar, and both are common enough. Either this article should be changed to "Male Genital Mutilation" or it should go back to the way it was.
• Support The primary meaning of circumcision is male circumcision. The introduction has a link to female circumcision to clear it up for those who were expecting an article on both. Also, "mutilation" in either article's title is very NPOV and not the primary names for the procedures in my experience.
• Support--Silverback 00:43, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Strange Move

This was a strange move to gender-neutralize the title. If you run a book search at your local library or at a university for subject=circumcision, most are of the female variant. Run a Google search, and one clearly sees a need for at least some disambiguation when searching. DanP 14:41, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A Google search just enforced to me that it was the correct move – male circumcision being the most prominent results. Female circumcision is linked to in the opening paragraph so I think that it's more than acceptable. Anyway, it's been done now. violet/riga (t) 14:45, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection. But I still think it's strange from a search perspective. DanP 14:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

FYI, more relevant research results

From a Reuters article, on "triple incision plasty":

"Consequently, a number of alternatives to circumcision have emerged to treat phimosis in young children. Results of the newest approach, known as triple incision plasty, are described in the medical journal BJU International. During the procedure, doctors make three separate longitudinal incisions around the tight ring of the foreskin, then suture the incisions obliquely. This results in a looser, slightly shorter foreskin that can move easily up and down over the head of the penis." BJU International, September 2003

From another Reuters article on Gastric suctioning from which more general conclusions were drawn:

"Compared with controls, infants who underwent gastric suctioning at birth had nearly a three-fold increased risk of having a functional intestinal disorder later in life. "Our research suggests that exposure to adverse conditions or noxious procedures during the first few minutes or days after birth, may cause persistent changes in brain development at that time, thus creating a propensity for specific patterns of behavior and an increased vulnerability to various psychosomatic disorders," " Journal of Pediatrics, April 2004.

From another Reuters article based on anatomical and behavior changes observed in Rats:

"Treated rats were significantly quicker to withdraw from noxious thermal stimuli than were untreated rats, and their late-phase responses to painful stimuli occurred earlier than in untreated animals. Furthermore, adult rats with neonatal inflammation exhibited increased evoked firing rates after brush and noxious pinch stimuli, compared with adult rats in the control group, the researchers observed. "Although we have yet to directly link animal research findings to what happens in human infants, one is tempted to speculate that similar changes as those identified in the animals may occur in newborn humans exposed to pain and inflammation," ... Dr. Ruda said, "neonatal pain and tissue injury should be added to the list of neonatal experiences that may have a lifelong impact." " Science 2000;289:628-630

From another Reuters article on transmission of herpes through a type of circumcision:

"Eight infants developed genital herpes following an ancient Jewish ritual of circumcision, highlighting the dangers associated with this procedure, researchers report. All of the infants underwent a form of circumcision in which the circumciser, or mohel, takes wine in his mouth and sucks the blood from the newly created wound, then spits the blood and wine mixture into a receptacle. The circumciser repeats this procedure, known as metzitzah, until the bleeding stops. Currently, only a minority of mohels practice metzitzah, with most now opting for a suction device to remove blood from the wound." Pediatrics, August 2004

--Silverback 09:34, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

Circumcision in religion

As divine covenant

The practice of male circumcision carries religious meaning as a painful rite of passage. Inflicted during a male child's infancy, the experience of pain in the penis is considered in the Judeo-Christian tradition to represent a covenant (or contract) with God; the pain is meant to inspire the fear of God, which is to say 'the awareness of God's power.' The early age at which circumcision takes place serves to place the covenant as early as possible in a child's awareness, and hence above all other social experience save the experience of the mother. (Note that for females, childbirth is the equavalent painful rite of passage.) The experience of early pain serves to initiate the child into their own capacity for courage, and provides a platform for their later experience and awareness of God.

The penis represents the male capacity for love; just as the human male must grow into his spiritual manhood, the above (and other) religious traditions dictate that a man must be responsible for his own emotional awareness and empathy. The 'contract with God' in essence means 'an honor-bound relationship with one's 'God-given gift' of empathy. For one to 'break the covenant' is to say one has become spiritually undisciplined; they have no honor-bound responsibility toward their own capacity for empathy and spiritual love. According to the above traditions, such people are said to be have 'lost the fear or God,' and are perverted or deviant. (See sodomy.)

--Above text for entry later - saving here. -==SV 05:53, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In what religion does the penis represent the capacity for love? Does research show "love" to be the precise meaning, not something closer to "lust", or perhaps "fertility" or "virility"? What is mean by "capacity", sexual frequency, number of partners, ability to please partners? Is it quantitative or qualitative? relative capacity or absolute capacity? Does altering the penis increase or decrease empathy? Does increased empathy represent a feminizing of spiritual "manhood", to incorporate more empathy and love? Hopefully the answers to these questions can be documented by the peer review literature.

Based on a couple of the studies I mentioned above, I must question any positive link between the experience of early pain and capacity for courage. Early pain appears to alter nervous system development to increase the sensitivity to and reactivity to painful stimuli. Since tolerance for pain and indifference to pain are often associated (perhaps unfairly) with virility and courage, pain during these formative years may be perceived as having the exact opposite effect of increasing the capacity for "courage".--Silverback 06:28, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What is the source of this information? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I once read that circumcision is a somewhat reduced form of human sacrifice. Now I can't decide which version - this, or yours - is more disgusting. 200.195.76.167

There should be a bit of clarification here: Circumcision is not a "Judeo-Christian tradition". It is (of the three religions subscribing to the same God) a Jewish tradition, or Islamo-Jewish, anyway. Circumcision is disavowed by Paul in his letter to the Galatians (in the New Testament itself, in other words), which says in essence that it's a sin for non-Jewish Christians to become circimcized, as it belies their new convenant with God. One can dispute whether he meant the part about it being an actual violation of the new covenant as hyperbole, but certainly circumcision is not a Christian tradition, with that as its start.

It's natural to associate a taboo with one's religion, as some Christians have come to do about nudity, dance, alcohol, or "naughty words", but this one is not actually a Christian tradition. In fact, Christians are still almost universally uncircumcised through most of the world, with only the US as exception, and as we all know that's because of a completely irreligious movement in the late 19th century. Hell, at least one of the pivotal figures of that movement wasn't even Christian, himself. Kaz 03:46, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think you're using the wrong word... afaik, "uncircumcised" is one who was circumcised but had it undone. Look into: foreskin restoration / reconstruction. -200.195.79.170

This may be an issue of different words used in different countries, but "uncircumcised" in the U.S. definitely means "not circumcised," and is not used to mean foreskin reconstruction. Of course, it could be regional in the U.S., too...--JimCollaborator 09:10, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above comments on Stevertigo's saved text. This is solely a Jewish and Islamic religious tradition, not Christian. I would like to add my voice to the request for a source of Stevertigo's text, as well. The first paragraph indicates that pain is the primary purpose of religious circumcision. In my (yes, POV) experience as a convert to Judaism and the circumcisions of my sons (and the research leading up to it), the only reason for circumcision in Judaism is, like the kosher dietary laws, because God commanded it. It is one of the core mitzvot (commandments) in Judaism. There is no discussion (that I know of) in Judaism of pain being the purpose for circumcision. Circumcision is painful, of course, but the pain is not the purpose. When converting to Judaism, the convert must have a religious circumcision. If the convert is not circumcised, many rabbinic authorities will have the convert undergo a medical circumcision prior to the religious circumcision, in order to prevent excess pain. If the convert is already medically circumcised, the convert goes through Hatafa Dam Brit, a ritual is performed in which a drop of blood is extracted from the penis, in order to fulfill Jewish law. In my very personal experience, Hatafa Dam Brit was not painful at all (yeah, I was surprised, too!) and sometimes a local anesthetic is used, again to prevent pain as much as possible. Long story, short, pain is not a primary or secondary purpose of religious circumcision. --JimCollaborator 00:46, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

"How can products of nature be deficient so as to require external completion, especially as the use of the foreskin to that organ is evident? The bodily injury caused to that organ is exactly that which is desired...there is no doubt that circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement, and sometimes lessens the natural enjoyment; the organ necessarily becomes weak when it loses blood and is deprived of its covering from the beginning." - Maimonides, Jewish philosopher

And a link for you... [11] -200.195.79.170

And your point is... JFW | T@lk 06:39, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good quote, but not quite what I was saying or what I understood Stevertigo to be saying. And thank you for the web site cite. If it is not already in Wikipedia, someone (yes, maybe me) should make a page on criticism of circumcision by Jews in particular (or Moslems, for that matter). --JimCollaborator 09:10, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Islamic criticism? I have a link for that... [12]

Regular User Disappointment

I, along with surely many other wikipedians, am bewildered and disappointed that this page has had to be locked. There are a many, more controvertial pages on Wikipedia that continue to remain unlocked. Hopefully differences amoung contributors can be reconciled into an informative, neutral and helpful article. Given the growing popularity of wikipedia it is inevitable that more and more people will use this article as a, possibly primary, source of information on this topic. All efforts should be made to ensure the fidelity and usefulness of the article.(P.S. Wikipedia does not give medical advice is not mentioned in the article) Both factions should realize that their combined contributions and mutual cooperation can ultimately produce a far better article than either group could hope to achieve seperately. If arguments cannot be resolved then the regretable step of splitting the article out in seperate articles (for and against) would be the wisest course of action. Wikipedia is not a platform. It's a place where people can share knowladge for the betterment of "everyone". Thanks for your attendtion.

I think this is an interesting suggestion. Let each side write its own best article and let the readers decide for themsleves who has the best information for the health, well-being, and safety of the child. Isn't that what it's really all about? Vanlewis 05:29, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This might be a good idea, Circumcision (genital mutilation), and Circumcision (improvement on God's handiwork).--Silverback 06:17, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Inspired by my initial misinterpretation of the sub-title below, I thought someone was euphamizing "genital mutilation" as "inappropriate revision". 8-) --Silverback 06:28, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How to add a link to Russian Wikipedia article?

Could someone please help to modify the article just to insert a link to Russian version of this article, i.e. ru:Обрезание? Since this page is currently protected I was unable to do it myself.

Done Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 06:37, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Much better pictures of circumcised and uncircumcised penis could be also be found in the Russian version of this article ru:Обрезание These pictures have General Public License. Since the English version of this article is protected it is not possible to improve the pictures...

Inappropriate Revision

Jakew reverted my edits because of 'censorship' I deleted 3 citations criticizing Ohara article because the DID NOT MENTION Ohara article. I condensed some of Jakews points to make it read more cleanly, not to delete them. Please JUSTIFY the articles that supposedly critique Ohara if they do not even mention it.

Instead of the awkward "unspecified several", what's wrong with "many", or even "some"? (It was actually around half - I emailed O'Hara to find out about a year ago to enquire). I'm trying "some", since you obviously object to "many".

I'm cutting out "thermal, pinprick, and vibrational", since we're talking about two different studies here.

I've changed "link is not definite" to "link is hypothetical". The former implies that it is probably true. The latter carries no implication.

Now, the criticisms... Schoen criticised O'Hara[13], writing: "The information he cites regarding sexual enjoyment was collected by an anti-circumcision couple who surveyed a select group of those with their own beliefs and lacks credibility." He in this context is Mr Mermer, whose letter Schoen is replying to, and can be found immediately above Schoen's letter (here's a link[14]). Mermer cites O'Hara as his 5th reference.

As to the circinfo.net page, I must apologise. I gave an incorrect URL. It is now rectified. - Jakew 22:24, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

all of edits are fine; should include some detail on 'pinprick...etc' even if some elaboration is required to take into account two studies. This level of detail is useful. If you have precise numbers on O'Hara, post them but CITE as O'Hara, private communication - your 'many' was imprecise and uncited. Precision is good. The Schoen link is a stretch; it is very hard to make any sense of this discussion, and as a reference it conveys little information. Simply pointing out that XX of YY respondents were obtained from an anticirc list conveys all the information that is useful, and having Schoen or some pro-circ group repeat this statement in a buried sentence in a opinion-piece reference contributes little. All these points seem moot as page has been revised out of existence, though. - Bill Jones

Well i am circumcised and it was certainly for medical reasons. do i beleive correctly that there could be a situation where erection would be painfull ? as the skin would be overstreched or would it grow to accomodate this