Talk:Circumcision/Archive 22

message: The introductory section is very ponderous, with the repetitious 'non ritualistic elective' phrase occurring repeatedly. I have cut out the worst example. The American Medical Association is reporting on medical rather than ritual circumcisions; the point doesn't have to be laboured.
In another place, I quoted the actual percentage of parents (23.5%) who listed 'health reasons' as their reason for choosing circumcision for their sons. The source did say 'most important', but this was their interpretation of their findings, not the finding itself. I feel it is better to quote their actual findings. Michael Glass 22:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introductory paragraphs

message: The existing edit of the RACP statement is incomplete, missing critical phrases like:
"In recent years there has been evidence of possible health benefits from routine male circumcision"  
"may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit" and, 
"Review of the literature in relation to risks and benefits shows there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcision as a routine procedure in the neonate"
The replaced version adds these phases in context.TipPt 17:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RACP statement 

message: Are people happy with this edit?  The comment was that "The foreskin can be restored through a form of tugging at the penis which encourages cell growth".  If that were true, then I imagine many burns victims and other people scheduled for skin grafts would be very interested to hear it.  At least I'd like to see a citation if that's the consensus. --Nigelj 11:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is called Tissue expansion and it indeed helps many burns victims. 87.160.222.84 01:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The skin is elastic and so can be manipulated to once again overlap the head. Creating the natural anaerobic internal organ envirornment that is naturally suppose to be to protect the glands on the penis. However the numerous nerve-endings is lost in circucision and so extensively reducing sexual stimuli forever. Lord Metroid 21:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Let me explain, Nigel. The original claim is fundamentally true (see foreskin restoration), and it's not particularly difficult to find a source for it that meets Wikipedia's requirements (one possible example is: ). The present claim (that it is "hard to reverse") shouldn't be too difficult to source either. So while I'm quite happy for it to be removed, I don't see any urgency in doing so. I therefore felt that the interests of the article are best served by leaving the claim but requesting a citation. Jakew 14:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreskins grow back??? 

message: I understand that there are several types of circumcision. I have even been told that there are terms for the various kinds in Hebrew (or more recently?, Yiddish derived) for them. The only one I can pronounce (or remember) is 'radical' circumcision. My understnding is that the terms refer to various degrees of removal, and that at various times in history, one or another style was prevalent. Since, in the Western world, the Jewish tradition is the oldest, most influential, and best(?) documented, I would like to have learned something about what the difference is between the styles and how one came to be dropped and another followed. This article is completely silent on any of this. And I think that's not good enough for the Wikipedia. The history section is particulary barren. 
I've looked thorough the astonishing archives (not enought time to read it all!!) and found little to enlighten. Mostly agruments from one ideological position or another, or accusations of bias... This is not very good performance for an article of considerable interest. And the article is hardly as good as it might be either. Wikpedia editors should be able to do better than this. Even on a controversial topic. I note that other controversial topics (eg, Attack on Pearl Harbor) have done better. Why not this one? 67.86.174.12 17:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article medical analysis of circumcision has more of a scientific focus. As for Sweden, you are incorrect - circumcision is legal, but has certain restrictions about how and by whom it may be performed. Please see here. Jakew 21:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing information this article should include -- poor Wikipedia performance generally

message: I think it can be done. See here here. ASD 02:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreskins Restoration 

message: Regardless of the back-and-forth arguments of medical benefits or sexual issues, the most fundamental issue is whether anyone has the right to cut away healthy living tissue from someone else without their consent.
Unless there is a fundamental medical matter that requires neonatal circumcision, it should be left to someone who is an adult to make the decision whether they want to have circumcision performed on themselves. Anything else violates the very basics of medicine and not conducting elective surgery on someone who has not given their consent is important as a basic human right. Jtpaladin 17:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The GIM is referenced in the article. Individual editors such as you and I need to refrain from inserting personal opinions into articles to conform with WP:NOR and WP:NPOV regardless of the strength of our relative convictions and personal interpretations of various jurisprudential precendents. -- Avi 07:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Avi, I agree with you but in the article titled, "Sexual effects of circumcision", that article is very biased towards those that support Circumcision. I think that the subject should be expanded by including studies that demonstrate that circumcision makes sex less enjoyable and that neonatal circumcision is a disruption of the human rights of the child. Jtpaladin 15:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it may be more accurate to say that the verifiable, peer-reviewed, and published data and studies give rise to that perception, not the POV of the editors. -- Avi 20:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is essentially the root cause of the 'problem', yes. Jakew 21:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Rights Issue 

message: Ethical debates arise over the potential complications from circumcision which include; skin-tags, skin-bridges, unevenness, scarring, traumatic shock, seizures, blood flow and nerve development complications, and less often, death. Another concern is the buildup of nerveless cells that grow on the glans of a circumcised penis, called [keratin], toughening the texture of the glans over time.  
 
Whether or not circumcision is justifiable is a matter of opinions, which greatly vary. Wikipedia defines surgery as the "medical specialty that treats diseases or injuries by operative manual and instrumental treatment". Since routine circumcision removes healthy foreskin, not injured or diseased foreskin, it is often incorrectly labeled as a surgical procedure. Logically and technically speaking, it can not be surgery. It is mutilation. That is why, internationally, such practices are referred to as male and female genital mutilation. Some doctors object to it, claiming that it is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath. [www.circumcision.org/ethics.htm] These doctors claim that removing a healthy normal body part, causing bleeding and unnecessary pain, contradicts the oath, "First do no harm." There are plenty of studies claiming that this pain has long-lasting effects and consequences. [www.circumcision.org/ethics.htm] 
The human foreskin has twelve known functions, such as to contact the G Spot.  It is the opinion of some researchers that foreskin can be a tool for intercourse. In the book Sex as Nature Inteded It author Kristen O'Hara argues that foreskin is a natural gliding stimulator of the vaginal walls during intercourse, increasing a woman's overall clitoral stimulation and allowing for the achievement of female orgasm more often and in shorter periods of time.  It is therefore believed by some that the absence of the foreskin and gliding action makes it more difficult, not impossible, for a woman to achieve orgasm during intercourse.
 
Physicians and surgeons earn thousands of dollars per year, performing circumcisions. Some believe that there is a conspiracy behind medical circumcision and that the justifications keep changing rapidly as each theory is disproved over time.  Many believe that circumcision advocates are clinging to the new theories that circumcision can help prevent AIDS. However, Professor Valiere Alcena, MD of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine claims that most of the studies on AIDS and circumcision are controlled trials. He claims that from the start, they are intended to claim circumcision can prevent AIDS when other studies have claimed the exact opposite. Some studies even say that the consequences of circumcision can cause AIDS.  If this is true, then most of what you read about HIV in this article would be completely misleading disinformation, typed by someone who may know very little about the subject and the potential misinformation. In western Europe, where men are not normally circumcised, AIDS is considered uncommon. However, in Africa, where hundreds of millions are circumcised, AIDS is rampant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ShitakiMan (talk • contribs) 01:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it would be better not to add it. Some of it is simply false, most of it non-neutral, and there are no reliable sources. Jakew 11:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  someone add this 

message: First, it may be a religous requirement for many, but the extent of the amputation varies significantly, and is subject to local and historical convention.
Second, cost/beneift studies show little net gain or loss to circumcision.  In other words, the medical benefits roughly equal the risks.  In Wiki, medical benefits are dealt with, in detail, in the first page text ... each with it's own section, and then again in Association statements, and than again covered, in detail, the "main article" text. 
On the other hand, most specific risks and complications are covered in a single paragraph, and Wiki would have you believe that "Virtually all of these complications are preventable with only a modicum of care."
Third, "Sexual" is a joke.  You remove ~half of the relatively erogenous tissue from a penis, but this Wiki section is very short and presents only US medical association statements.  The "Sexual Effects of Circ" is rambling, and the studies are summarized improperly (leaving the impression of "no difference" when "no finding" is proper).TipPt 16:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the Circumcision topic is very pro-circ 

message: The article is way too long because pro-circ editors (cabels) insist on placing medical "beneifts" (reasons commonly cited as reasons to circ) in great depth on the circumcision page, and again in even greater depth it's own "main article," and again in (Canadian) Assoc statements.  I think they seek to confuse the reader.
Jakew refuses to permit summary of "medical benefits" on the first page, and consolication of "benefits" research on its own main page.  That would reduce duplication and greatly shorten the article(net of the sexual effects additions).  He has reverted my attempts to make those changes.TipPt 20:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The circumcision article needs shortening 

message: I find it improper that Jakew has placed his own pro-circ website pages all over in the topic of circumcision.  Propaganda (heavy emphasis placed on the pro-circ studies) is inappropriate in an encyclopedia.  Please see http://www.circs.org/index.html
Anyone else agree?TipPt 22:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The site is used as a source for articles that otherwise are unavailable on the web, similar to "circs.org", an organization I presume is more attractive to you, AND which engages in actually using HTML code to selective highlight passages they like, and ignore passages that counter their position, something CIRP does NOT do. -- Avi 00:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you mean the other way around? :-) Jakew 10:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I did. Sorry. -- Avi 14:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Your presumption is telling.  I did not express preference for source.  Most of those references (where he now uses his website) can be found in unaltered form.  Basically, we should use NIH pages.  Other editors need to know the nature of what's going on in this topic.TipPt 04:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where the full text is available from the original publisher (eg BMJ) or from PubMedCentral, we should definitely prefer that source. In many cases, however, we have a choice between PubMed's abstract and the full text at either CIRP or CIRCS, and it's obvious that the full text gives more value to the reader. Jakew 10:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I wholeheartedly agree with you, Tip, that we should use primary sources, and if you check my few hundred edits on this page, you'll see that that is exactly what I try to do. Whether it is cirp or circs, if I can hunt down the full text elsewhere, I do so. Ofttimes, the full text is unavailable, which is why we have so many links to cirp and circs. -- Avi 14:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I withdraw my complaint, which was partly based on frustration using Jakew's website ... seemed like all the articles I needed to read required me to move the page curser to read all the line of text!  All the pro-circ (I looked at) fit the page.  I might have seen a bad sample (not indicative).TipPt 23:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can editors place their personal website links all over the circumcision topic? 

message: An article in the New Zealand Medical Association website
"Women reported they were about twice as likely to experience orgasm if the male partner had a foreskin.4"
..."women who had experienced coitus with both intact and circumcised men preferred intact partners by a ratio of 8.6 to one.4"
..."more likely to have experienced vaginal dryness during intercourse with circumcised than with genitally intact men χ2 (df = 1, n = 20) = 5.0, p <0.05.5".TipPt 23:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can think of studies with different findings (plus a few others), so I don't think that the firm conclusion in your subject line is justified. I suggest that we locate and identify as many relevant studies as we can, and discuss them at Talk:Sexual effects of circumcision with a view to adding them to that in-depth article. Jakew 16:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know how to write it honestly, and that NZMA studies summary needs to be on the front page.TipPt 16:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just find what you can, I'll do the same, and we'll work together on writing it up for inclusion. But I really think that it belongs in the in-depth article. Jakew 16:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That NZMA article needs to be introduced on the first page ... "There are few studies on sexual partner preference for penises with or without foreskins, and the results are varied. The intromission function of the foreskin may facilitate penetration and vaginal wetness."  In the main article you can delve into your reservations.TipPt 17:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I agree, an article such as this can not be left out. It should be added to the page as soon as its issues, if any, are worked out. - James xeno 10:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circumcision is bad for women 

message: See belowTipPt 03:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual Effects ... Deleted by Jakew 

message: Is it really true that all mohels use Mogen clamps, as stated in the article? Ciotog 07:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed "all" to "some", as http://www.circumcision.net/clamp.htm indicates that it's not common (although the website does indicate strong bias) Ciotog 19:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mogen clamp and mohels 

message: I've asked Avi to fix all the BMA citation links that end up blanks... s/b http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/malecircumcision2006?OpenDocument&Highlight=2,circumcision 
Anyone else know how ... otherwise tomorrow I'll add a bunch of old fashioned links.TipPt 17:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. They are all tied to the first mention when using named ref's, and if that one is deleted, we get a bunch of blanks. -- Avi 18:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BMA link 

message: TipPt, I think you really need a source for this: "Adult circumcisions often utilize both a general and local anesthetics." Did you mean "either a general or a local" by any chance? Jakew 18:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got to go to the library again ... it's common practice in the US to use both general and a ring block.  Pain breakthrough ... "he came off the table when I cut the frenulum" is to be avoided.TipPt 15:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Both forms of anaesthetic

message: The American Academy of Pediatrics states "a survey of adult males using self-report suggests more varied sexual practice and less sexual dysfunction in circumcised adult men. There are anecdotal reports that penile sensation and sexual satisfaction are decreased for circumcised males. Masters and Johnson noted no difference in exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination on the ventral or dorsal surfaces of the glans penis between circumcised and uncircumcised men." The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) states "The effect of circumcision on penile sensation or sexual satisfaction is unknown. Because the epithelium of a circumcised glans becomes cornified, and because some feel nerve over-stimulation leads to desensitization, many believe that the glans of a circumcised penis is less sensitive. Opinions differ about how this decreased sensitivity, which may result in prolonged time to orgasm, affects sexual satisfaction. An investigation of the exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination of the glans of circumcised and uncircumcised men found no difference on comparison. No valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction."
Boyle et al, however, argue that circumcision and frenectomy remove tissues with “heightened erogenous sensitivity,” stating “the genitally intact male has thousands of fine touch receptors and other highly erogenous nerve endings--many of which are lost to circumcision.” Snellman and Stang, in researching circumcision anesthesia and pain breakthrough, conclude that "the highest concentration of nerves in the penis is located in the frenulum on the ventral surface of the penis," and semen gathering in men with anejaculation relies on vibratory stimulation of the frenulum, sometimes together with the glans, to produce orgasm and ejaculation.  Boyle et al claim that damage to, or loss of the frenulum, and loss of stretch potential and nerve receptors in the foreskin and frenulum result in “an inevitable reduction in sexual sensation,” which may “restrict a circumcised man’s ability to achieve arousal.”(pages 10 - 13)
Some have argued that the foreskin may have an intromission function, facilitating penetration, or that circumcision may decrease vaginal wetness and orgasm in female partners. Sadovsky, noting a preliminary study that found decreased erectile function and penile sensitivity but increased satisfaction after adult circumcision, argued that research on adult circumcision, sexual function, and satisfaction should not be generalized to neonatal circumcision. 
TipPt 16:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sexual

message: I have added links to several genital integrity organisations to give interested readers access to a range of approaches in the genital integrity movement. While all genital integrity organisations oppose involuntary circumcision, only some explicitly call for legal prohibitions against infant circumcision. Michael Glass 00:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Genital Integrity organisations

message: Anyone think of a better section title?  Medical costs and benefits?  It's not why most circ's are done, so I guess aspects is ok.
I put a proposed new intro paragraph into medical aspects hereplace.  Note that Ganiats found net costs to circumcision ... both longevity and financial.TipPt 17:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Intro paragraph to Medical Aspects 

message: I am a man who was wondering what womens opinions were any women out there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.105.199.23 (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I prefer uncut, if I wanted something that functions just like a cut one I'd just buy a dildo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.23.32.2 (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  do women like uncut or cut men more? 

message: Here's two sections where content has been lost:
:Boyle et al, however, argue that circumcision and frenectomy remove tissues with “heightened erogenous sensitivity,” stating “the genitally intact male has thousands of fine touch receptors and other highly erogenous nerve endings.” Snellman and Stang, in researching circumcision anesthesia and pain breakthrough, conclude that "the highest concentration of nerves in the penis is located in the frenulum on the ventral surface of the penis," and semen gathering in men with anejaculation relies on vibratory stimulation of the frenulum, sometimes together with the glans, to produce orgasm and ejaculation.  Boyle et al claim that damage to, or loss of the frenulum, and loss of stretch potential and nerve receptors in the foreskin and frenulum result in “an inevitable reduction in sexual sensation,” which may “restrict a circumcised man’s ability to achieve arousal.”(pages 10 - 13)
Becomes (thanks to Jakew):
:Boyle et al, however, argue that circumcision and frenectomy remove tissues with “heightened erogenous sensitivity,” stating “the genitally intact male has thousands of fine touch receptors and other highly erogenous nerve endings.” Boyle et al claim that damage to, or loss of the frenulum, and loss of stretch potential and nerve receptors in the foreskin and frenulum result in “an inevitable reduction in sexual sensation,” which may “restrict a circumcised man’s ability to achieve arousal.”(pages 10 - 13)
The reader looses valuable information that has been properly introduced.TipPt 19:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't bother; he hasn't added anything new there for a long time.TipPt 14:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jakew's back reverting....