Circumcision

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

We're getting all racy in here!

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

From what i've read (which isn't very much) ...

Happy to help you read a bit more then! You may be interested in the following: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1758142/pdf/v074p00364.pdf. The references are especially enlightening, in my opinion.

Quote

In other words, some believe that it does have functions and other people believe that it's vestigial.

I honestly don't know how to engage with this talk about 'beliefs'. Let me try another approach: the internal foreskin is mucous membrane. What are the known functions of mucous membranes?

Edited November 28, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Happy to help you read a bit more then! You may be interested in the following: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1758142/pdf/v074p00364.pdf. The references are especially enlightening, in my opinion.

I honestly don't know how to engage with this talk about 'beliefs'. Let me try another approach: the internal foreskin is mucous membrane. What are the known functions of mucous membranes?

I'm sorry if i was confusing.  Some believe, based on research and study, that the foreskin has functions and other people believe based on research and study that it's vestigial.

I’m just going off what studies have reported, and the consensus that I’ve read is that there are no proven functions of the foreskin.  They are all debatable.  You've provided an article that states one opinion on it, but there are other articles that disagree. 

Here's an article that discusses the differences of opinion by doctors on the subject.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3225416/

Edited November 28, 2017 by bluebell

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Happy to help you read a bit more then! You may be interested in the following: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1758142/pdf/v074p00364.pdf. The references are especially enlightening, in my opinion.

I honestly don't know how to engage with this talk about 'beliefs'. Let me try another approach: the internal foreskin is mucous membrane. What are the known functions of mucous membranes?

Thanks for providing this link.

Formatting precludes me from copying-and-pasting, but the passage toward the end was striking to me as it seems to rebut the advocacy of circumcision in every locale on the grounds that it seems to inhibit the spread of  STDs in Africa. Begin reading at "Although circumcision proponents..." and read to the end of the article.

Preventing AIDS in Africa seems destined to be yet another installment in a long train of ill-fated rationales meant to prop up the indefensible practice of routine neonatal circumcision.

Edited November 28, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

37 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I’m just going off what studies have reported, and the consensus that I’ve read is that there are no proven functions of the foreskin.  They are all debatable.

So the functions of mucous membranes remain unknown and open to debate in the scientific/medical community? Can you show me evidence that reputable scientists/doctors/researchers are openly debating what the functions of mucous membranes are?

Let me try another one: the inner foreskin contains apocrine glands, which produce lysozyme and neutrophil elastase. What are the known functions of lysozyme and neutrophil elastase. Or are these also open to debate and subject to personal beliefs?

Edited November 28, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

So the functions of mucous membranes remain unknown and open to debate in the scientific/medical community? Can you show me evidence that reputable scientists/doctors/researchers are openly debating what the functions of mucous membranes are?

Let me try another one: the inner foreskin contains apocrine glands, which produce lysozyme and neutrophil elastase. What are the known functions of lysozyme and neutrophil elastase. Or are these also open to debate?

Not by me. I can scarcely pronounce them, let alone debate them!

Edited to add:

But through the magic of Google, I can educate myself to a degree. I find that lysozyme is an enzyme secretion that protects us from bacterial infection. Neutrophil elastase is an enzyme that destroys bacteria and host tissue when secreted during inflammation.

Edited November 28, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

So the functions of mucous membranes remain unknown and open to debate in the scientific/medical community? Can you show me evidence that reputable scientists/doctors/researchers are openly debating what the functions of mucous membranes are?

Let me try another one: the inner foreskin contains apocrine glands, which produce lysozyme and neutrophil elastase. What are the known functions of lysozyme and neutrophil elastase. Or are these also open to debate and subject to personal beliefs?

I've already posted multiple studies Hamba, I'm not going to repost them.  I'm no scientist, i've only been posting those studies which were viewed as highly credible.  Those studies showed that there was no impairment of function or sexual satisfaction for men who were circumcised as adults.  If you have issues with the findings, then that issue is with the studies themselves and not with me.  

And besides that, I think i've had all the talk about foreskins that I want to have.  Circumcise or not, I really don't care either way.  I know you feel strongly about it, which is fine.  I've just tried to post those scientific studies that were relevant to the discussion  People can read them (they are abstracts from the studies so fairly easy to read, all things considered) and come their own conclusions.  

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

And besides that, I think i've had all the talk about foreskins that I want to have.  Circumcise or not, I really don't care either way.  I know you feel strongly about it, which is fine.  I've just tried to post those scientific studies that were relevant to the discussion  People can read them (they are abstracts from the studies so fairly easy to read, all things considered) and come their own conclusions.  

One can scarcely assert or imply that a foreskin has no function or that it is merely "vestigial" and not expect such assertion to prompt a rebuttal. I believe it is an important point in evaluating the practice of routine circumcision of newborns, which, for too long, people have summarily accepted without bothering to scrutinize it.

Edited November 29, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

One can scarcely assert or imply that a foreskin has no function or that it is merely "vestigial" and not expect such assertion to prompt a rebuttal. I believe it is an important point in evaluating the practice of routine circumcision of newborns, which, for too long, people have summarily accepted without bothering to scrutinize it.

I was just reporting one what the studies said-that there is no consensus on the purpose of the foreskin.  Believe the studies or don't, I'm fine either way.  Don't shoot the messenger.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I was just reporting one what the studies said-that there is no consensus on the purpose of the foreskin.  Believe the studies or don't, I'm fine either way.  Don't shoot the messenger.

I, like, Hamba, find it hard to believe that medical science can't reach a consensus on the purpose of a mucous membrane or of bacteria-fighting enzymes.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I, like, Hamba, find it hard to believe that medical science can't reach a consensus on the purpose of a mucous membrane or of bacteria-fighting enzymes.

Did you read any of the studies I linked to?  They showed that there was no provable health or sexual reason for the foreskin to exist. Men function the same or better without it.  It seems like that is why there is no consensus.  

Some scientists 

Edited November 29, 2017 by bluebell

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Did you read any of the studies I linked to?

The last one you linked to seems heavily weighted toward reasons for believing the foreskin does have a function. I don't get the impression that it is saying medical professionals can't come to a consensus. Moreover, it is a medical association journal out of Canada, where, if anything, circumcision is less than popular.

Edited November 29, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I, like, Hamba, find it hard to believe that medical science can't reach a consensus on the purpose of a mucous membrane or of bacteria-fighting enzymes.

Even more curious is that they absolutely have reached this consensus regarding, for example, the functions of mucous membranes, but something happens in America, and suddenly the consensus breaks down there ... but only when the tissue is part of a male's sexual organs. Then, apparently, everything that is known everywhere else is somehow open to debate.

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The last one you linked to seems heavily weighted toward reasons for believing the foreskin does have a function. I don't get the impression that it is saying medical professionals can't come to a consensus. Moreover, it is a medical association journal out of Canada, where, if anything, circumcision is less than popular.

The last article had perspectives from both those who believe it does serve a purpose and those who don't.  No consensus.

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Even more curious is that they absolutely have reached this consensus regarding, for example, the functions of mucous membranes, but something happens in America, and suddenly the consensus breaks down there ... but only when the tissue is part of a male's sexual organs. Then, apparently, everything that is known everywhere else is somehow open to debate.

These were studies done in Canada and Asia, if i understand correctly.  But isn't this an example of an attempt to poison the well?  

 

 

 

[ttribe]

57 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

One can scarcely assert or imply that a foreskin has no function or that it is merely "vestigial" and not expect such assertion to prompt a rebuttal. I believe it is an important point in evaluating the practice of routine circumcision of newborns, which, for too long, people have summarily accepted without bothering to scrutinize it.

Edited November 29, 2017 by ttribe

[Hamba Tuhan]

52 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But isn't this an example of an attempt to poison the well?

I have literally no idea how that applies here.

I'm just trying to be accurate.

We know the functions of mucous membranes in general. This is not open to debate or subject to what people 'believe'.

We also know the functions of mucous membranes when they form part of the eyes and ears. This is not open to debate or subject to what people 'believe'.

We also know the functions of mucous membranes when they form part of the digestive tract. This is not open to debate or subject to what people 'believe'.

We also know the functions of mucous membranes when they form part of the respiratory system. This is not open to debate or subject to what people 'believe'.

We also know the functions of mucous membranes when they form part of the female genitourinary system. This is not open to debate or subject to what people 'believe'.

In parts of the world where circumcision isn't a thing, we still know the functions of mucous membranes when they form part of the male genitourinary system. This is not open to debate or subject to what people 'believe'.

In contrast, in parts of the world where circumcision is (or may be) a thing, something breaks down epistemologically when it comes to the male genitourinary system. Apparently people still know the functions of the mucous membranes that line the urethra, bladder, and ureters and also the functions of the mucous membranes that line virtually the entire genital tract. But then, all of a sudden, medical scientists in or from these parts of the world have no idea if the mucous membrane that forms the inner foreskin even has a function. Instead, this is open to debate and subject to what people 'believe'.

It's baffling, to be certain.

Edited November 29, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I have literally no idea how that applies here.

I'm just trying to be accurate.

We know the functions of mucous membranes in general. This is not open to debate or subject to what people 'believe'.

We also know the functions of mucous membranes when they form part of the eyes and ears. This is not open to debate or subject to what people 'believe'.

We also know the functions of mucous membranes when they form part of the digestive tract. This is not open to debate or subject to what people 'believe'.

We also know the functions of mucous membranes when they form part of the respiratory system. This is not open to debate or subject to what people 'believe'.

We also know the functions of mucous membranes when they form part of the female genitourinary system. This is not open to debate or subject to what people 'believe'.

In parts of the world where circumcision isn't a thing, we still know the functions of mucous membranes when they form part of the male genitourinary system. This is not open to debate or subject to what people 'believe'.

In contrast, in parts of the world where circumcision is (or may be) a thing, something breaks down epistemologically when it comes to the male genitourinary system. Apparently people still know the functions of the the mucous membranes that line the urethra, bladder, and ureters and also the functions of the mucous membranes that line virtually the entire genital tract. But then, all of a sudden, medical scientists in these parts of the world have no idea if the mucous membrane that forms the inner foreskin even has a function. Instead, this is open to debate and subject to what people 'believe'.

It's baffling, to be certain.

I was talking about this part, where you imply that studies from America are flawed, just because they are American (leaving out the fact that the studies are not American, and that the WHO is one of the groups that has said that the function of the foreskin is debatable).

"....but something happens in America, and suddenly the consensus breaks down there ... but only when the tissue is part of a male's sexual organs. Then, apparently, everything that is known everywhere else is somehow open to debate."

And I'll say it one more time because I think it was missed, it's not that the scientists involved with the studies don't know what mucous membranes do in general, it's that their studies showed that present or not, the outcome was the essentially the same.  The loss of the mucous membrane had no affect on the man sexually, and can be considered helpful health-wise, calling into question the foreskin's function in the first place.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

The last article had perspectives from both those who believe it does serve a purpose and those who don't.  No consensus.

What I got from it was that over time, one by one, assumptions about the foreskin not having a function or about it being “vestigial” (what’s it supposed to be a vestige of? That’s the weirdest argument I’ve heard yet in this debate) had been rebutted, and the reasoning for the rebuttals was explained. It seemed to be slanted to the anti-circumcision view. Even I can see that, and I’m sympathetic to that view. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

That joke was funny the first two or three times I heard it. 

[ttribe]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That joke was funny the first two or three times I heard it. 

[Senator]

LEAVE OUR PENISES ALONE!!

 

I AM MAN, HEAR ME ROAR!

Edited November 29, 2017 by Senator
Can't spell

[bluebell]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What I got from it was that over time, one by one, assumptions about the foreskin not having a function or about it being “vestigial” (what’s it supposed to be a vestige of? That’s the weirdest argument I’ve heard yet in this debate) had been rebutted, and the reasoning for the rebuttals was explained. It seemed to be slanted to the anti-circumcision view. Even I can see that, and I’m sympathetic to that view. 

These are the ending paragraphs of that paper-

The foreskin may also have certain structural characteristic relating to its barrier function and permeability that make it more susceptible to viral infection. Whatever the reason, the benefits of circumcision are apparent, says Dinh, while the benefits of the foreskin are anything but.

“There are no health benefits to having foreskin,” says Dinh. “Not that I’m aware of.”

If the paper is slanted against circumcision, it's weird that they gave a pro-circumcision doctor the last word.  In fact, you have to go back 8 paragraphs from the end of the article to find an anti-circumcision quote, and even that is immediately followed by a rebuttal to cast doubt on it's accuracy-

“You take the foreskin away and let the glans callus and you end up irritating the hell out of the vaginal mucosa,” says Denniston. “Everyone in the US uses lubricants because the basic function of sexual intercourse has been disrupted.”

Some medical researchers, however, claim circumcised men enjoy sex just fine and that, in view of recent research on HIV transmission, the foreskin causes more trouble than it’s worth."

Again, weird if the article is slanted towards an anti-circumcision view.  I think you might be seeing what you want to see.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Senator said:

LEAVE OUR PENISES ALONE!!

 

I AM MAN, HEAR ME ROAR!

[Scott Lloyd]

On 11/29/2017 at 10:23 AM, bluebell said:

These are the ending paragraphs of that paper-

The foreskin may also have certain structural characteristic relating to its barrier function and permeability that make it more susceptible to viral infection. Whatever the reason, the benefits of circumcision are apparent, says Dinh, while the benefits of the foreskin are anything but.

“There are no health benefits to having foreskin,” says Dinh. “Not that I’m aware of.”

If the paper is slanted against circumcision, it's weird that they gave a pro-circumcision doctor the last word.  In fact, you have to go back 8 paragraphs from the end of the article to find an anti-circumcision quote, and even that is immediately followed by a rebuttal to cast doubt on it's accuracy-

“You take the foreskin away and let the glans callus and you end up irritating the hell out of the vaginal mucosa,” says Denniston. “Everyone in the US uses lubricants because the basic function of sexual intercourse has been disrupted.”

Some medical researchers, however, claim circumcised men enjoy sex just fine and that, in view of recent research on HIV transmission, the foreskin causes more trouble than it’s worth."

Again, weird if the article is slanted towards an anti-circumcision view.  I think you might be seeing what you want to see.

My first car was an old Volkswagen Beetle. It lacked a functioning gas guage. I learned to get by without it by keeping careful track of when my last fill-up was and roughly how far I had driven since. 

You could say I was functioning OK without a working gas guage, but had you asked st the time, I would have told you that the ideal thing would be to have the guage back in working order. I would have jumped at any offer to pay to have it fixed, something I didn’t feel I could afford at the time. 

Edited December 25, 2018 by Scott Lloyd