Monday, February 12, 2018

How is it possible that we are led to believe a circumcised penis is more attractive than an intact penis?

Take a look at this photo comparison then answer the question in the title?

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/foregen/pages/48/features/original/Figure6.png?1431537702


Saturday, January 20, 2018

Cancer of the genitals much more common and more deadly in women that in men

Here are the statistics from the American Cancer Society:

In the United States, vulvar cancer accounts for nearly 6% of cancers of the female reproductive organs and 0.7% of all cancers in women. In the United States, women have a 1 in 333 chance of developing vulvar cancer at some point during their life ( an d apparently more common in younger women).

The American Cancer Society's estimates for vulvar cancer in the United States for 2018 are:

About 6,190 cancers of the vulva will be diagnosed
About 1,200 women will die of this cancer.

The American Cancer Society estimates for penile cancer in the United States for 2018 are:

About 2,320 new cases of penile cancer diagnosed
About 380 deaths from penile cancer
For statistics related to survival, see Survival Rates for Penile Cancer.

Penile cancer is rare in North America and Europe. It is diagnosed in less than 1 man in 100,000 each year and accounts for less than 1% of cancers in men in the United States.

Cancer of the genitals appears to be part of the human condition, but definitely on the more rare side of things.  When pro-circumcision propagandists use penile cancer prevention (predominantly in elderly men)  as a reason to circumcise baby boys, it is a fear tactic and predominantly uses to scare parents into circumcising their boys.

At least in the case for women we practice ethical medicine and don't recommend female circumcision to prevent cancer of the vulva.

Wednesday, December 13, 2017

Interview with Gay Man about Circumcision vs Intact

In 30 plus years of clinical work in Australia this is the first time this subject was initiated by a patient, prompting me to declare my interest in the subject and requesting if  I could ask some questions.

Patient A a gay man, is suffering from Major Depressive Disorder, and having problems in his relationship.  The Same Sex Marriage vote, prompted his partner to propose marriage.  Rather than jubilation, he felt more depressed.  Much time was spent trying to ascertain the cause of worsening depression symptoms?  Was it a biological exacerbation of symptoms and a deterioration of a clinical disorder vs environmental, was there something wrong in the relationship?

In conducting an audit of the relationship, he stated sex wasn't as good as he would like it to be.  He himself is Intact but his partner is circumcised.  He stated he always preferred to be with intact men, but that his partner was the first man that he felt a deep connection with, and didn't think the circumcision was a deal breaker.  He stated the biggest negative about sex with a circumcised man was receptive anal intercourse, it tended to be much more painful than pleasurable, when compared to being with an intact man.  He stated that other forms of sex with a circumcised man were good and enjoyable, though just slightly better and more pleasurable with an intact man.

In conclusion, Treatment is ongoing, and the biological symptoms of the disorder appear to have deteriorated making his perceptions much more negative than usual.  He believes he will accept the marriage proposal, as the person he loves is far more important than the sex.


Saturday, December 2, 2017

Egyptian Doctors Claim Uncircumcised women have smelly vaginas which are prone to infection

The following is a text I copied from the website below.



My understanding is these were Egyptian Doctors asked to comment on this subject. This is what these Medical Doctors believe about the health benefits of female circumcision, and I will post my comments in Bold Italics


Mentioning some of these benefits, Dr. Haamid al-Ghawaabi says:

The secretions of the labia minora accumulate in uncircumcised women and turn rancid, so they develop an unpleasant odour which may lead to infections of the vagina or urethra. I have seen many cases of sickness caused by the lack of circumcision. Lack of circumcision or poor hygeine?, nothing a good wash couldnt cure I'm sure!  

Circumcision reduces excessive sensitivity of the clitoris which may cause it to increase in size to 3 centimeters when aroused, which is very annoying to the husband, especially at the time of intercourse. I doubt its annoying to the husband, but really has it got anything to do with the husband, what about the woman? Does she not count here? She might enjoy a sensitive clitoris it might give her pleasure, to me it sounds paternalistic controlling and mysoginistic, but then again I'm just a humanistic westerner what would I know?

Another benefit of circumcision is that it prevents stimulation of the clitoris which makes it grow large in such a manner that it causes pain. PAIN? Sure you not mixing that up with PLEASURE?

Circumcision prevents spasms of the clitoris which are a kind of inflammation. I think spasms of the clitoris are what is commonly known as an orgasm! Inflammation, I think its called AROUSAL where I come from!!!!!!

Circumcision reduces excessive sexual desire. This is the real reason for female circumcision, the control of female sexuality?

Then Dr al-Ghawaabi refutes those who claim that female circumcision leads to frigidity by noting:

Frigidity has many causes, and this claim is not based on any sound statistics comparing circumcised women with uncircumcised women, except in the case of Pharaonic circumcision which is where the clitoris is excised completely. This does in fact lead to frigidity but it is contrary to the kind of circumcision enjoined by the Prophet of mercy (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) when he said: “Do not destroy” i.e., do not uproot or excise. This alone is evidence that speaks for itself, because medicine at that time knew very little about this sensitive organ (the clitoris) and its nerves. I geuss these are deeply held religious beliefs and I wont comment further.

From Liwa’ al-Islam magazine, issue 8 and 10; article entitled Khitaan al-Banaat (circumcision of girls).

The female gynaecologist Sitt al-Banaat Khaalid says in an article entitled Khitaan al-Banaat Ru’yah Sihhiyyah (Female circumcision from a health point of view):

For us in the Muslim world female circumcision is, above all else, obedience to Islam, which means acting in accordance with the fitrah and following the Sunnah which encourages it. We all know the dimensions of Islam, and that everything in it must be good in all aspects, including health aspects. If the benefits are not apparent now, they will become known in the future, as has happened with regard to male circumcision – the world now knows its benefits and it has become widespread among all nations despite the opposition of some groups. Sound like excellent rationalisations if you want to believe that sort of thing, just a minor ommission, HUMAN RIGHTS!!.

Then she mentioned some of the health benefits of female circumcision and said:

It takes away excessive libido from women Surely a human rights issue!

It prevents unpleasant odours which result from foul secretions beneath the prepuce. Heard this before, nothing a good rinse with fresh water couldnt cure.

It reduces the incidence of urinary tract infections Is this truly the case? If so, UTI's are easily treatable without circumcision.

It reduces the incidence of infections of the reproductive system. Is this truly the case? If so, Conventional medicine can treat without circumcision.

In the book on Traditions that affect the health of women and children, which was published by the World Health Organization in 1979 it says:

With regard to the type of female circumcision which involves removal of the prepuce of the clitoris, which is similar to male circumcision, no harmful health effects have been noted. Is this truly the case? This whole argument that female circumcision has health benefits sounds just the same as the male circumcision arguments from the USA. If you are truly offended by reading these firmly held beliefs, then you and I are similar. However, if you are offended by these arguments yet believe they are valid in the case of male circumcision, then I say you are a hypocrite, and inconsistent!

As a closing statement I'd like to say, That these arguments in favor of female circumcision might sound primitive, barbaric and simplistic, & easily countered as I have done. But to me the arguments in favor of male circumcision sound just as primitive, barbaric & simplistic I see no difference. So as those that practice & defend femcirc sound from another planet, those that practice & defend male circ sound exactly the same to me (from the planet Uranus).

Friday, December 9, 2016

Have you been brainwashed about circumcision? Take the photo test!

Look at these two photos then refelct upon whether you've been brainwashed? (NSFW)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OPguRFO4ulM/UaRd-H5r3xI/AAAAAAAAH7M/76jojDaGwt4/s640/Intact+%2526+Circumcised+Adult.jpg

This is an instance where a picture tells a thousand words, and can inform your beliefs

http://www.suckmywords.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Capture15-624x662.png

Friday, November 18, 2016

Tribal Psychology of Circumcision

Psychology of Tribe borrowed from=  http://www.writingsonthewall.net/morality-of-groups-1

The psychology of tribes as it is applied to circumcision with my additions in bold italics:

1.When acting in ways which relate primarily to their membership of a group, a person’s behaviour changes to reflect the beliefs and aspirations of the group rather than those of the individual. Therefore if the group cuts the genitals of its members to denote group membership, male or female, the aspirations of the group will take precedence over the aspirations of an individual, who may not want to have his/her genitals cut.  This is what leads to infant male circumcision, and FGM of female children. You find parents and in-particular mothers from circumcision cultures handing over their male newborns to be cut, and their girl children to be cut, even when it goes against their  maternal instincts to protect their baby or child from harm..

2. Tribal Psychology, is an important trait from hunter gatherer times when strong tribal identity was essential to survival, but it’s necessary for any group to find ways to emphasize the characteristic of group membership because it’s that identification with the group which helps promote cooperation and selflessness in the behaviour of its members.  In genital cutting cultures, circumcision is then seen as a ritual which not only denotes tribal membership, but at some level is seen as essential to the survival of a group.  This makes it very difficult to go against group tribal identity rituals.

Negative Elements of Tribal Psychology with my additions in bold italics include:

  1. Grandiose tribal self image: one’s own tribe has certain positive characteristics. Eg Look at Pro-Circumcision Propaganda: Circumcision makes the tribal members more hygienic and clean; Circumcision looks better; Circumcision is better for sex; Circumcision is healthier.  When the tribal propaganda is Contrast  with the actual evidence that no medical organisation in the world recommends routine circumcision for the above reasons, and people from non-circumcision EU & Japan are healthier, live longer have lower hiv/sti's, and view the intact penis as healthy and normal, its left looking like just tribal mythology.
  2. The tribal shadow: other tribes are evil and inhuman.  Pro-Circumcision propaganda abounds with the demonization of the foreskin and the uncircumcised.  
  3. Group polarization Tribal identity gains dominance over that of an individual’s self identity in situations of tribal conflict and competition.   Pro-circumcision cultures emphasise the group and the continuance of the practice of circumcision, and when anti-curcumcision groups emphasise individual rights that it should be the individuals choice, the circ tribe says "no" it should be the parents choice.
  4. Group think: humans have evolved a tendency to conform to the predominant beliefs and opinions of groups to which they belong. Holding opinions contrary to the consensus engenders stress in the individual, and carries with it the risk of social exclusion. Look at Pro-Circumcision propaganda how it promotes circumcision as the normal healthy thing to do, and labels intactivists, as foreskin fetishists, evil people, and extremists.

The essay drew following conclusions and I add my interpretation in bold italics:

  • Tribal group environments have been important in the evolution of the underpinnings of human     psychology, and for that reason people are powerfully influenced by factors which reinforce group identity. Therefore we have a difficult task ahead of us to convince those that believe circumcision is important to group identity.  WE need to select and use our strategies carefully, and slowly emphasise that genital status has nothing to do with group identity in a modern world.  That observance of individual human rights in the modern world, helps us belong to the world of civilised & moral human beings. Obviously one strategy to get there is to use education and informed discussion to educate. The arguments that reinforce the essentiality of circumcision for survival have to be debunked, because they are such a powerful reinforcer, and why the ProCirc’s use fear as a motivator to circ.  Also note how some Jews themselves have abandoned the circumcision for the brit shalom a non-cutting ceremony to admit membership to the jewish community.  So you dont have to cut to be a jew.
  • Identification with a group polarizes divisions between the group and a category of others who form the group’s enemies. WE need to be careful if we are to persuade that we are not the enemies.  We can educate & say that belonging to the group of humanity or any social group is completely independent of genital status Cut or UnCut.
  • Individuals are inclined to conform their thinking to that of the group, even against their personal self interest. This is where individual human rights have to be emphasised, that group think cannot allow the violation of these rights. Note individual psychological defence, “I;m so glad I was circumcised as a baby” never matter they were denied their functional anatomy and they never had a say.
  • Leaders understand how to take advantage of this psychology with jingoistic posturing and celebration of romanticised historical icons. This creates a narrative for the group which engenders heightened levels of polarization and group think. This is where we have to Challenge medical organizations and their leaders, law-makers and politicians, to emphasise individual human rights over that of group cultural rights.

Where this process of Tribal Psychology may have been an advantage to the survival of a tribe or the individuals which made up that tribe, it is clearly not in the interests of the individuals in the modern world. For that reason it is essential that individuals become aware of this psychology and insist that politicians/medicos/law makers refrain from. We need to challenge the belief that Circumcision of babies and children male or female is important for the survival of any cultural group, and that instead it is a violation of the individual human rights of that individual.  The modern world needs to give pre-eminence to individual human rights particularly of children, and that they be protected from genital cutting practices.  If adults want to choose to have their own genitals cut, that is an individual choice they can make for themselves.



Tribal Psychology has the potential to directly conflict with individual human rights.  AMEN

Friday, December 18, 2015

Thankyou for 100,000 page views of my anti-circumcision blog and Goodbye

Thankyou for 100,000 page views of my anti-circumcision blog.

My working life is about to change, the needs/demands of my profession mean that Iwill expand my Private Consultancy, and my workload will probably double in 2016, so my work in the anti-circumcision campaigns of social media will be severely restricted.  Its now time for others to make their contributions.  I hope that I have made a difference.

Some background information:

My main recent motivation has been to counter the predominant pro-circumcision views in America, while my initial motivation was to counter our own Australian procirc fanatic Brian Morris.

I had been content that routine infant circumcision (RIC) had been overwhelmingly abandoned by both the medical profession and parents of Australia in the 1970's and 80;s, though still stubbornly high with statistics in 2015 showing about 11 to 12% of boys still being circumcised.  In the early to mid 2000's I began to notice the beginning of an incessant media campaign by Brian Morris et al, to reinstate routine infant circumcision in Australia.  I did some research and found that Brian Morris had been a long-term pro-circumcision campaigner who had fought against the abandonment of RIC, he had been condemned for his views, and he had even made dire predictions about the genito-urinary health of Australian males because of the abandonment of circ, which in the end have all proved to be false.  I thought I must add my medico-scientific voice to counter Morris et al.  I initially wrote to the RACP, and was assured by their response about the circumcision of infants, and they informed me that Brian Morris was not a member of the RACP and anything he said in media did not represent the views of the RACP.

I then discovered social media sites like Twitter and Facebook, and found that Americans had a much bigger problem than Australians.  I found myself puzzled by America's high infant circumcision rates, and wanted to understand why, and also help support the American anti-circumcision movement. Further research helped me to understand that circumcision had infiltrated the American psyche and was part of their cultural identity and that they would fight very hard to retain the practice.  I was amazed but not really surprised that even the American Academy of Pediatrics was willing to subject themselves to international shame and ridicule to defend the right of their practitioners to continue the practice (What a shame they didn;t put the same effort into defending the rights of their real patients "infant boys").

I can proudly say that most page reads have come from America (52,306), so I have had some influence in the USA even if only small.

I have spent a lot of my very limited spare time in this endeavour, though my writings have predominantly been rushed, and were not for academic publishing or peer review.  When I re-read them, most of my blog posts do read rushed, and are not fit for scientific publishing.  However, that was never my intent, my intent was for these blogs to be read by ordinary people, and to be motivating pieces which would encourage further reading. 

There are many great academic/scientific writers in this field who are worth reading, and a good follow on from my works, such as:

Dr Robert Darby of Circinfo.org http://www.circinfo.org/index.php 
Dr Brian Earp Brian Earp, Proposed CDC guidelines on male circumcision: A critique (at Academia.edu) 
Morten Frisch. Time for U.S. parents to reconsider the acceptability of infant male circumcision.   Prof David Forbes. Circumcision and the best interests of the child. Journal of Pediatrics and Child Health 51 (March 2015): 263-265. 
Source: Brian Earp and Robert Darby. Does science support infant circumcision? A skeptical reply to Brian Morris. UK Skeptic, 10 June 2014.

Best of luck to my friends in this endeavour!