# Circlist



## momto3boys (May 15, 2003)

I had never been to that website. OMG! How do people think they are getting good info from there? It was so disgusting. The stories are shocking. It seems these are all stories about boys who hated the fact that they were intact and desperately wanted to be circ'd. But when you read the stories. No fing wonder! The story about the Navy dad who held nightly inspections and would scrub with soap and water on his boys even into the teenage years. ANd if it wasn't clean enough he would beat them. He also gave forced weekly enemas. And when they finally "begged" to be circ'd he talked of how real men have tight circ's and no frenulum would be left. That was the only way! WTF? I s this creative writing or are these real stories? This man should be arrested for assault.

The scare tactics are overwhelming. And this is supposed to be the website Dr. Edgar Schoen recommends? My GOD! How do most people in this country have a chance of getting correct info with dr's like that. I recently met a new ob and he told me that the reason this country has so many problems with intact penis' is not because of dr ignorance. No. American's are biologically different and have different influences causing more infections than Europeans and the rest of the world. Come again? Wasn't it just about the hygeine issue? If that were the case we should never get any infections because we soap and wash everything to death. Talk about talking in circles. Funny because he was really trying to argue me into doing it. I brought up adhesions. Both his sons had adhesions that he forcibly ripped when they were older. They're fine now. So happy to be like everyone else.
I'm having a homebirth!

I'm going to go kickboxing now!


----------



## Sarah (Nov 20, 2001)

Yes- Circlist is fiction a lot of the time- What you discribed was erotic fiction for a genital mutilator. Read the page on here is you have any further doubts. Part of the tension of the story is the fear and domination- that's one aspect which gets them off. Humiliation is another common theme. A domineering mitary man forcefully scrubbing a pubescent boy? Total porn.
http://www.circumcisionquotes.com/fetish.html

Americans are biologically different from Europeans? What? Our water doesn't wash like theirs? Since when? How many generations do you have to be an American before your sex organ biologically mutates beyond tolerability? Yes, I bet American women have vaginas that need episiotomies all the time too. This person is a doctor? Maybe you should report that to the state! Yowza!

Love Sarah


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

Biologically Different????????? The vast majority of us are Europeans for gosh sakes! We are not biologically different! Something like that would be evoloutionary and would take thousands of years or millions of years and the continuing immigration of Europeans here would be continiously setting the evolution back. That's the most stupid thing I have ever heard. How did that guy ever get through medical school?

Frank


----------



## Xenogenesis (May 1, 2002)

Quote:

I recently met a new ob and he told me that the reason this country has so many problems with intact penis' is not because of dr ignorance.
What a load of horse pookie !!


----------



## Sara29 (Feb 18, 2002)

I agree that a lot of the problems intact children/adults suffer are the result of improper care and NOT because the foreskin is a faulty area that needs removal.Another ridiculous site/quote I came across the other day...
http://www.unn.ac.uk/societies/islamic/misc/circum1.htm

Oh goodness there is just so much bad stuff it is hard to qoute one thing.The bottom section is good to quote on the misinfo:

To summarize:

Lack of circumcision:

Is the biggest risk factor for heterosexually-acquired AIDS virus infection in men (8-times higher risk by itself, and even higher when lesions from STDs are added in).
Is responsible for a 12-fold higher risk of urinary tract infections.
Carries a higher risk of death in the first year of life (from complications of urinary tract infections: kidney failure, meningitis and infection of bone marrow).
One in ~600-900 uncircumcised men will die from cancer of the penis or require at least partial penile amputation as a result. (In contrast, penile cancer never occurs in men circumcised at birth). (Data from studies in the USA, Denmark and Australia, which are not to be confused with the often quoted, but misleading, annual incidence figures of 1 in 100,000).
Often leads to balanitis (inflammation of the glans), phimosis (inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (constriction of the penis by a tight foreskin). Up to 18% of uncircumcised boys will develop one of these by 8 years of age, whereas all are unknown in the circumcised.
Means problems that may result in a need for circumcision late in life: complication risk = 1 in 100 (compared with 1 in 1000 in the newborn).
Is associated with higher incidence of cervical cancer in the female partners of uncircumcised men.
There is no evidence of any long-term psychological harm arising from circumcision. The risk of damage to the penis is extremely rare and avoidable by using a competent, experienced doctor. Surgical methods use a procedure that protects the penis during excision of the foreskin. As an alternative, for those who might prefer it, a device (PlastiBell) is in use that clamps the foreskin, which then falls off after a few days, and so eliminates the need to actually cut the foreskin off [20] . For some, cultural or religious beliefs dictate the method.

Sociological aspects

Finally, a brief mention of other findings relating to circumcision in the setting of Australia.

In a survey of circumcised vs uncircumcised men and their partners that was conducted by Sydney scientist James Badger [4, 5] (who regards himself as neutral on the issue of circumcision) it was found that:
18% of uncircumcised males underwent circumcision later in life anyway.
21% of uncircumcised men who didn't, nevertheless wished they were circumcised. (There were also almost as many men who wished they hadn?t been circumcised and it could be that at least some men of either category may have been seeking a scapegoat for their sexual or other problems. In addition, this would no doubt be yet another thing parents could be blamed for by their children, whatever their decision was when the child was born.)
No difference in sexual performance (consistent with Masters & Johnson).
Slightly higher sexual activity in circumcised men.
No difference in frequency of sexual intercourse for older uncircumcised vs. circumcised men.
Men circumcised as adults were very pleased with the result. The local pain when they awoke from the anaesthetic was quickly relieved by pain killers (needed only for one day), and all had returned to normal sexual relations within 2 weeks, with no decrease in sensitivity of the penis and claims of 'better sex'. (Badger?s findings are, moreover, consistent with every discussion I have ever had with men circumcised as adults. The only case to the contrary was a testimonial in a letter I received in the mail from a member of UNCIRC.)
Women with circumcised lovers were more likely to reach a simultaneous climax.
Women with uncircumcised lovers were 3 times as likely to fail to reach orgasm. (These data could, however, possibly reflect behaviours of uncircumcised males that might belong to lower socio-economic classes and/or ethnic groups whose attitudes may differ from groups in which circumcision is more common.)
Circumcision was favoured by women for appearance and hygiene. (Furthermore, some women were nauseated by the smell of the uncircumcised penis, where, as mentioned above bacteria and other micro-organisms proliferate under the foreskin.)
The uncircumcised penis was found by women to be easier to elicit orgasm by hand.
The circumcised penis was favoured by women for oral sex.
Why are human males born with a foreskin?

The foreskin probably protected the head of the penis from long grass, shrubbery, etc when humans wore no clothes, where evolutionarily our basic physiology and psychology are little different than our cave-dwelling ancestors. However, Dr Guy Cox from The University of Sydney has recently supplemented this suggestion with a novel idea, namely that the foreskin could be the male equivalent of the hymen, and served as an impediment to sexual intercourse during adolescence [11] . The ritual removal of the foreskin in diverse human traditional cultures, ranging from Muslims to Aboriginal Australians, is a sign of civilization in that human society acquired the ability to control through education and religion the age at which sexual intercourse could begin. Food for thought and discussion!

Conclusion

The information available today will assist medical practitioners, health workers and parents by making advice and choices concerning circumcision much more informed. Although there are benefits to be had at any age, they are greater the younger the child. Issues of ?informed consent? may be analogous to those parents have to consider for other medical procedures, such as whether or not to immunize their child. The question to be answered is ?do the benefits outweigh the risks?. When considering each factor in isolation there could be some difficulty in choosing. However, when viewed as a whole, in my opinion the answer to whether to circumcise a male baby is ?yes?. Nevertheless, everybody needs to weigh up all of the pros and cons for themselves and make their own best decision. I trust that the information I have provided in this article will help in the decision-making process.


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

Brian Morris along with his cohorts, Thomas Wisell and Edgar Schoen have no hestitation to lie about facts and pervert medical research in order to convince parents to circumcise their sons. Their zeal and publicity seeking at least borders on peversion if not worse. The good thing about the internet is that it is a valuable source of information. The bad thing about the internet is it is a source of bad information or outright lies. This site fits into the latter like a glove.

Frank


----------



## Nathan1097 (Nov 20, 2001)

btw, I have met Wiswell face-to-face. This was November 2000. He was giving his imfamous speech "Pondering the Prepuce" at a Neonatology conference at University of Michigan. I was invited to go to this as a member of NOCIRC - we had a booth of information there. Yes, we knew Wiswell would be there. I can't say much good about the man- he is a liar. You can see it in his eyes when you talk to him. I chatted with him for quite a while about premature babies- JUST to not be talking about circ, so that I could look at him to see what kind of a person he is. I don't have to tell you the answer to that!


----------



## serendipity22 (Sep 19, 2006)

Sara29

Quote:

Another ridiculous site/quote I came across the other day...
http://www.unn.ac.uk/societies/islamic/misc/circum1.htm
All this is a copy and paste from the site of Brian Morris.


----------

