Better is One Day

About the Blog

2099-04-20T23:44:00.000-07:00

If you are reading this for the first time I will explain how I blog. Rather than each blog being its own separate entry, I make several in a row on the same topic before I switch to a different topic. The topics I have blogged on are displayed on the right side of the screen. This is to encourage readers to read about an entire topic rather than just one little piece of it. I wish I could set up the order of blogs in chronological order, but sadly it really isn't worth the effort of modding all of the html. As a result this and one other blog will be displayed on the homepage. The other page will include links to my recent updates.

Because there isn't an option of listing my blogs in chronological order, I artificially put them there. I cannot do this well on the homepage, so I do all of my blogging on the topics pages. All of the topics are in chronological order except for the Stories blogs. I make an exception for those blogs for obvious reasons.

On a separate note, I often post blogs in pairs. When my blogs are strictly Biblical, I will post the passages that I am discussing in a separate blog with the same title as the one that is my own words.

New Updates

2098-04-21T00:12:00.000-07:00

Circumcision
Secret Societies

I am going to have to take a break from blogging. Finals are more important. After I finish up on circumcision, I am going to start secret societies. I also have a global warming conclusion blog that I won't be able to write for awhile. That ought to keep me busy for awhile.

Al Gore's Warming

2085-04-02T17:30:00.000-07:00

So I finally got around to watching An Inconvenient Truth. I must say that he was pretty convincing, although I'm not convinced yet. I feel that he got off to a bad start highlighting politics and the 2000 election. It just makes him look like a sore loser. Bashing the Bush Administration doesn't make him look better either, even though Bush isn't popular. I am also not big on the cartoon shown. It just seems too silly.

Next he started talking about measuring CO2 in college. He talks about how he and his professor were among the first ones to do so. It did look very clear that the CO2 was trending upward sharply, much further than it normally is. I even checked the graphs and the axis were labeled correctly, and not misleading. He goes on to show graph after graph with an upward trend in temperature. When he shows graphs of CO2 and temperature side by side they look perfect. Sweet it all looks good. The only thing that could stop you is your data being wrong.

Alright now things start going downhill again. He shows the impact of Katrina as if to say that none of that would have happened it if wasn't for global warming. Truth is nature happens. Bad storms will come. Next he goes over the 2000 election again. Dude if you make this about you it's going to be less effective. It makes you look bad. It makes you think that he has other motives for pushing Global Warming.

Well I pulled out most of the bad things and only a fraction of the good things he said. I just thought I would throw that out there. I just didn't seem to think it necessary to comment on every single graph he showed. Again I am not necessarily convinced one way or another. I think both sides lack credibility. I just thought I would offer my analysis as it is a school project and all.

Abortion and Stem Cells

2083-03-30T19:27:00.000-07:00

Well I have had one busy weekend, but I said I was going to blog this weekend so I'm going to do it. Abortion and Stem Cells is the easiest to do so I'll start with that. Abortion in particular is easy. Everyone agrees that killing a baby is wrong. If you stabbed a 6th month old infant in the back of the head, you would be the lowest of all humans. The question is not is it moral to kill a baby. The question is when does the embryo become life? The answer is that we simply do not know. Some claim that it doesn't happen until birth. Others claim that it is as early as conception. My personal opinion is that claiming to know when an embryo becomes life is a fundamentally arrogant task. Also, as we do not know when an embryo becomes life, we should ere on the side of caution. I would rather protect an embryo that is not life, than find out later we killed millions of babies at the very dawn of life.

Next on the scuttlebutt is stem cell research. Now, I find that most people really don't know what stem cell research is so I will explain the gist in English. So you have a man and a woman sleeping with each other for awhile and they wonder why the woman can't get pregnant. They go to a doctor, and to doctor takes around 10 eggs from the woman and sperm from the man. Out of the 10 eggs, 3 just don't work, and 7 are suitable. The couple picks one egg to be their new baby. The other 6 are stored in a freezer and will be thrown away in time. Now people that support stem cell research say that we should use these embryos to help people who need new organs. People against it say that they should be protected. Now on one hand, if you are going to throw them away you might as well get some use out of it. On the other, that just doesn't feel right.

Southwest Virginia

2070-04-28T13:39:00.000-07:00

I just got back from a bonfire next to the New River, by McCoy. I can
say that is was one amazing thing to experience. First the silhouette
of a mountain in the background automatically makes it a beautiful
image. This coupled with the moonlight striking the water just by
your feet, and the sound of the rapid upstream makes this absolutely
breath taking. Add smores, friends singing, swimming, and warming up
by the fire, and you have a pretty sweet night.

Just upstream you can rent an tube and have fun floating all day. Less
than a mile further down the road there is a cave, that goes back
a mile and a half. It takes over an hour to get all the way to the
back even going very quickly. I challenge anyone to do that and say
its not cool.

If you like country drives just take Roanoke Street and really take
it. Once you get past Blacksburg it is the quintessential of a
country road. It goes on for about an hour and there is not a single
stoplight or stop sign. You pass a few churches along the way that
can't possibly hold more than 20 people, yet the entire town clearly
worships there.

As far as hikes there are about half a dozen good mountains on the AT
worth doing. There is also the Cascades. Mcaffees knob is simply
breathtaking, and that is only one of them. I can't put into words
how amazing the area is around VT is. I cant' believe that any other
college in the country has it as good as we do.

Brevity of Life

2069-04-08T19:08:00.000-07:00

I am a flower quickly fading
here today and gone tomorrow
A wave tossed in the Ocean
A vapor in the wind
-Casting Crowns

This is absolutely right. Our lives seem to mean very little in the grand scheme of things. What society tells us is important is our social status. We need to get rich, have a trophy wife, and live in a mansion. That is success. It is a status symbol to carry you through life.

What about after life? What will your legacy be? Your money will not last. It will be squandered or become useless. Your mansion will wither away and fall. Your social status will be forgotten. From a long term perspective, achieving worldly status is utterly useless. What does matter is how we leave this world. One of the most important things to me is to leave this world a better place than how I found it. What would I not give to be George Bailey, getting the tour of Bedford falls without me. My only fear is it would look too much like the world with me. I have been thinking, and I cannot think of anything tangible that, would be better off if it were not for myself. For something so important to me, this concerns me deeply.
*leaves to ponder past experiences*

Oh and just for kicks, as this post is about brevity, I feel that this blog should be short.

Weekends are Insane!!

2068-04-06T15:23:00.000-07:00

What A manly weekend!!! So it started off early Friday with the Men's Advance, because real men don't retreat! It was interesting to say the least. First we all gathered in an Auditorium for a talk. At the end of the talk we all wrote a letter to one of our female counterparts in the chapter. Getting all of the guys to be serious and inspirational on the spot is a sight to behold. Next up was a trip to a Gym in Christiansburg. Games would include, basketball, knockout, frisbee, dodgeball, and wrestling. When we were done with the Gym we went to a local house and spent the night. Activities there included food, rock band, food, poker, food, and food.

Alright fast forward to Saturday afternoon. It was apparent that Sunday was going to be one of the best days in months. Naturally we were going to take advantage. Jeff took votes and oddly enough caving won. On the nicest day ever, we went to a place where the weather was the same all year. Go figure. Anyway, caving was amazing as usual. We ended up taking a completely different way through the cave that no one had ever seen before, even though our destination at the waterfall was the same. I ended up banging my knee on a rock which hurts VERY good, and we all came back dirtier than Mike Rowe (Dirty jobs)

The Life of Jim

2067-03-30T09:18:00.000-07:00

So in addition to writing about topics that make people angry, I like to tell stories. This one comes from this past weekend. As background information, I am more of an adventure type of guy rather than a sightseer. Rather than a trip to Europe or Yellowstone, I would much rather go backpacking, rafting, or caving. Caving is exactly what we did last weekend.

So to start, I finally bought my first car. It is a 2000 Toyota Celica GTS. It is dark blue and running perfectly. This car is definitely my baby, and I am working hard to keep her happy. Now becuase we didn't have enough cars, I ended up driving over there. Needless to say the car wasn't happy about it. The good news is I was at least able to clean her out and she is back to normal.

For those familiar with the area we went through the New River Cave. If you don't know where that is, we took Prices Fork, to the little village of Prices Fork. Then we took the road to McCoy and turned right at the road that parallels the river. Now when you get there, the cave isn't right by the road. You have to climb half-way up a mountain that doesn't have a trail. This mountain is so steep that you are on all fours most of the way up. Its so wet that at any moment you could slip and slide all the way back down. For me, this was fun.

Now when we got into the cave the story gets pretty simple. Caves have obstacles, and we come up with creative ways to get around them. One of the guys that went with us was quite a bit larger than the rest. He quickly came up for a name for these tight squeezes, "Obese Filters." You must be this skinny to enter. There is one part of the cave where you are army crawling for a pretty good amount of time. In the middle of the path is the mankiller rock. If you didn't know why it was called the mankiller rock you quickly found out. When you get to the end there is a hole in the ceiling that you have to push yourself through. In the words of another caver, "Its like being born."

Next on the itinerary came the plunge. The plunge was about 15 feet straight down rock climbing. Not bad except that we don't have anything keeping us safe if we do happen to fall. Luckily enough, using spotters and helpers, so one got hurt. Pretty soon we came to the slide. The slide is a long reasonably steep incline that is covered with slick dry dust. We decided that the most fun way to get down was to slide and let gravity do the work.

After about an hour and a half of working our way through the cave, we came to the waterfall. As the goal of our journey we stayed for a little while and enjoyed the view. Mark took a shower.

Well its never an adventure until someone gets hurt, and this time someone did. On the way back one of the girls slipped and fell into a 10 foot hole. She laid there for a few minutes and insisted she was okay. We all breathed a sigh of relief. Then she stood up and there was a puddle of blood where she was lying down. It turns out she had split her head open. We were still at least 45 minutes away from the entrance so we really had to make sure she was okay. Buzz did a pretty good job of patching her up. In order to clean the wound we used a lot of water which made it look awful as it stained her entire shirt red. So we went up the assent, braved the reverse slide, and crawled back into the womb in a hurry so she didn't lose too much blood.

Getting out of the cave was interesting too. There really wasn't a good way to get down as it was really steep with mud and small rocks. It was basically sliding down the mountain and trying to grab hold of glass to stop yourself. FUN TIMES!!! So that is the end of my tale!! I hope you enjoyed reading about it as much as I enjoyed experiencing it.

Its not an option

2009-03-21T21:05:00.000-07:00

In order to be forgiven for your sins, you must forgive others for theirs. Its as simple as that. The Bible makes no secret of this as it is mentioned in every single gospel with the exception of John. (If you find it in John let me know)

At first this seems to contradict what we are taught in church. "All we need to do is accept Jesus and his act of sacrificing himself on the cross will be enough to forgive us." Well this isn't wrong either. Yes if you accept Jesus his act of sacrificing himself is enough to forgive you, but how realistic is it to expect God to forgive you for the transgressions committed against him, when you cannot forgive the infinitely smaller transgressions committed against you by others. The situation is the same as the unmerciful servant in Matthew. A master cannot be expected to forgive a massive debt, when that debtor cannot forgive a smaller one himself.

For those with their sights on heaven this makes more sense than you might think. Heaven is supposedly paradise. It is a place where everything is perfect when we will engage in fellowship with each other and the almighty. IF this is indeed what heaven is like, than there is no room for grudges or personal conflicts. If we hold grudges against fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, fellowship with them will not be friendly. If we are indeed stuck for all eternity with people whom we have not forgiven then Heaven will become Hell for the occupants. This creates obvious problems. In order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, one must be at peace with everyone present, and everyone that is yet to come.

This brings up an obvious question. Why don't we forgive? I can think of three reasons.

1. We feel that they have done something so bad, they cannot get away with it.

2. We feel that if we forgive, we are letting them off the hook.

3. We feel that we are somehow hurting the person if we don't forgive them.

The first two run together very well. The beauty of reality is that we are not letting them off the hook. "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord" When we forgive the person, the debt still stands for God. When we sin against another person, we also sin against God. Just because you have given your forgiveness doesn't mean that they are blame free. Obviously if they repent before God, they will be forgiven, but that is irrelevant. Vengeance is God's, not yours.

The third is completely false. When we don't forgive others we are not hurting them; we are hurting ourselves. If we live with bitterness, we will become bitter. Our entire outlook on life will become bitter. The pain you take with you will linger as long as you carry it. To put it simply, if you cannot forgive for others, forgive for yourself. After all, not forgiving is hurting you more than the offender of the sin.

Its not an option(biblical passages)

2009-03-21T19:33:00.000-07:00

³⁷"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.
Luke 6:37

¹⁴For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
Matthew 6:14

²⁵And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins."
Mark 11:5

²¹Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?"

²²Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.

²³"Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. ²⁴As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. ²⁵Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.

²⁶"The servant fell on his knees before him. 'Be patient with me,' he begged, 'and I will pay back everything.' ²⁷The servant's master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.

²⁸"But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii. He grabbed him and began to choke him. 'Pay back what you owe me!' he demanded.

²⁹"His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.'

³⁰"But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. ³¹When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened.

³²"Then the master called the servant in. 'You wicked servant,' he said, 'I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. ³³Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?' ³⁴In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.

³⁵"This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart."

Matthew 18:21-35

biblegateway

Great Debt(Biblical passages)

2009-03-21T17:43:00.000-07:00

^{I am posting this to complement my previous blog.

36}Now one of the Pharisees invited Jesus to have dinner with him, so he went to the Pharisee's house and reclined at the table. ³⁷When a woman who had lived a sinful life in that town learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee's house, she brought an alabaster jar of perfume, ³⁸and as she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them.

³⁹When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is—that she is a sinner."

⁴⁰Jesus answered him, "Simon, I have something to tell you."
"Tell me, teacher," he said.

⁴¹"Two men owed money to a certain moneylender. One owed him five hundred denarii,^d]">[d] and the other fifty. ⁴²Neither of them had the money to pay him back, so he canceled the debts of both. Now which of them will love him more?"

⁴³Simon replied, "I suppose the one who had the bigger debt canceled."
"You have judged correctly," Jesus said.

⁴⁴Then he turned toward the woman and said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. ⁴⁵You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. ⁴⁶You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet. ⁴⁷Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little."

Great debt

2009-03-21T16:19:00.000-07:00

He who has been forgiven much loves much in return

"Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little."
Luke 4:47

It makes complete sense. If you are forgiven a lot you feel obligated to love the person who forgave you. Likewise, if you have not been forgiven much, you have no reason to love your forgiver. This seems to be a contradiction. God wants us to love him more than anything, but he wants us to live as sin free as possible. If someone who has been forgiven little loves little, than those who have sinned little should love little.

I believe that we are looking at this the wrong way. Rather than look at how much we sin, look at how much we recognize our own sin. We as humans tend to make distinctions between people based on our levels of sin. Many Christians consider themselves righteous, and they consider others to be sinful or evil. In God's eyes, we are all sinners, and we equally need his forgiveness. If we look at it this way, it is not to what extent we have been forgiven. It is to what extent we realize we have been forgiven. After all, how much would you love if you grossly underestimated the amount that you were forgiven?

I would also argue that this concept plays well into my previous blog. In addition to loving much in return, he who has been forgiven much forgives much in return. If you believe that you have lived a perfect life, you expect others to live perfect lives in your eyes. Their sins are seen unforgivable. If you have committed monstrosities and have been forgiven, you are more likely to forgive others transgressions. Again this is not to say that the more we sin the better Christian we are. On the contrary, the aim is not to sin. However, if we recognize our sins, we become much better Christians for a variety of reasons. For one we are less likely to repeat those sins in the future. For two we would realize how in debt to God we are for his forgiveness and love him more. Finally, after we realize the extent to which we have been forgiven, we will be more likely to forgive our peers.

Forgiveness

2009-03-16T21:32:00.000-07:00

Picture yourself in 3rd grade Sunday School. You have just had a talk about why forgiveness is important, and you are discussing its finer points. Toward the end of the discussion the teacher adds that there are those whom it is difficult, neigh impossible to forgive. She then asks the question, "Who is it difficult to forgive?" After a few tense seconds one brave 10 year old raises his hand. "Hitler" comes his answer. Another hand flies into the air. "Stalin" comes the next answer. The list goes on and on until every perpetrator of mass murder that these kids have heard of is on the list. Many adults still try to hide behind such easy answers, and really don't admit who they really have the hardest time forgiving.

Everyone knows the history of Germany during WWII and the atrocities that Hitler and the 3rd Reich committed. We are horrified that humans are capable of such acts. However, very few people who are alive today were directly effected by these events. Very few survivors are still alive from those concentration camps. While the rest of us feel anger and disgust at these events, they don't overwhelm our emotions for long periods of time. They don't consume our lives to the point where functioning is difficult. They are not our first waking thoughts, nor our final thoughts as our head hits the pillow. They simply do not directly effect us.

Even the atrocities that effect us are relatively easy to forgive. Picture a bully from High School. This is the guy that would pick on you every day until you wanted to cry. This is even harder to forgive than the distant mass murders, because they are closer. This strikes home. This directly effects you. However, it is still possible to forgive. Usually these people were always mean to you. You never expected any more from them nor did you receive it. After contact ceases, they are no longer important to you. The bullying has stopped; the problem is over. You can go on about your life.

The hardest ones to forgive are not the mass murders, the bullies, or any criminal. The hardest people to forgive are the ones who mean the most to you. Lets go back to the Hitler example. I was not captured and sent to the camps. If I was I would understandably feel some sort of anger toward Hitler and the guards. They were causing all this pain afterall. However, the ones I would be most hurt by were the ones that turned me in. Those were the ones that I had trusted with my life and had betrayed me. Neither the guards or Hitler himself could inflict a wound so deep.

The people that have the capacity to hurt you the most could be parents, siblings, friends, girlfriends, or boyfriends. These people had your trust. When push came to shove they were supposed to have your back. Your parents might not have protected you when you were younger. You parents might not have shown that they were proud of you despite your best efforts. Your friends might not have stood up for you. Your girlfriend/boyfriend might have cheated on you. Whatever the situation is, it is the sins committed by the ones most loved that cut the deepest and are hardest to forgive. Nothing else can cause such deep searing emotional pain. Nothing else can cause those long sleepless nights. Dante wrote that the deepest circle of hell was reserved for traitors. For the longest time I though he was much mistaken in his classification of sins from a human perspective, but the more I ponder it, the more I believe he was right.

Introduction to Circumcision

1997-05-10T12:05:00.000-07:00

I thought I would post this link at the top of my topic, becuase I am so impressed by it. It does a very good job of telling the pro and anti circ position of most of the issues regarding male circumcision, and then it gives a very reasonable explanation of what is and what isn't. It even grants some points given from the pro circumcision crowd. link

One of the most serious issues I want to talk about is circumcision. I like this topic for a number of reasons. It isn't one of the same tired controversial issues that everyone gets bored about. This topic also makes people very uncomfortable. Getting people out of their comfort zone is always fun.

This is going to be a very long and complicated issue. It breaks down into so many subcategories, and I feel like I need to cover all of them to really do this issue justice. I will do as best I can to pack in as much relevant information as possible in such a small space. The amount of information on the subject is overwhelming. I will do my best to try and walk the line between not giving you a complete picture and providing unnecessary information. For your viewing pleasure this is what you have to look forward to.

I. Circumcision from a Biblical perspective

II. History of circumcision

III. Female Circumcision vs Male Circumcision

IV. Medical reasons to circumcise(conclusions)
A. UTIs
B. Cleanliness
C. Cancer
D. Phimosis
E. STDs/AIDS

V. Cultural reasons to circumcise
A. Religion
B. Social

VI. Why not circumcise
A. Benefits of intactness
B. The procedure itself

VII. The legality of circumcision

Well as you can see this is going to be a long topic. I will publish each topic whenever I can find time to do so. Time is hard to come by. Also lets try to be mature about this. Whenever we talk about down low giggles and laughter tend to follow.

Lastly I don't want to blog using videos, but I thought this one was particularly interesting. This is an abridged version of a documentary done on circumcision. It is anti-circumcision, but it is one of the only documentaries I have seen that lets both sides have their say.

video

Circumcision in the Bible

1997-04-20T20:55:00.000-07:00

As most of my friends are Christians, I figure I ought to devote a blog to the Biblical aspect of circumcision. What are we as Christians supposed to feel about circumcision?

Out of all the issues presented in the Bible, few are harder to deal with than circumcision. Different passages seem to contradict each other. The first part of the Bible deals with the creation story, including the creation of people. The first chapter of Genesis claims that all of God's creations are "good" and that we are "made in God's image." Paul later claims that, "God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be." 1 Corinthians 12:18 Paul speaks frequently in the New Testament that "circumcision is useless," or "circumcision is nothing." He goes so far as to call circumcisers "mutilators of the flesh" Philippians 3:14.

Why would God then command his chosen people to circumcise themselves? (Genesis 17:10-14) This is a rather difficult question to answer. It is clear that the New Testament is adamantly opposed to the procedure, yet God commands his chosen people to circumcise. It is a mystery that I have been struggling with and cannot come up with a logical answer. Then again, this isn't as bizarre as requiring a raper to marry their victim. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) The one thing that is clear on the subject is that circumcision is not required for Christians. If anything circumcision is discouraged and seen as a way of not accepting Jesus.

History of Circumcision

1997-04-15T10:56:00.000-07:00

In order to understand circumcision as it is today, it is first necessary to know how it came to be. Most people start believe that circumcision started off in ancient Israel, yet it is clear that circumcision started long before that. It is also clear that the origins of circumcision are lost in antiquity. Many trace circumcision back to Egypt using this picture.

While this picture has virtually become the logo for those that advocate for circumcision, the original picture looks more like this.

*Note that the man on the left is being held down.

Even though this provides some evidence of circumcision in ancient Egypt, to date no circumcised mummies have been found, but some statues show what may be a superincision (cutting a slit in the upper side of the foreskin, or dorsal slit). (1)

The most common historical circumcision that we think of today is Jewish circumcision. However there is evidence that the procedure is radically different than the one performed today. In ancient times, only the skin that was past the glans was cut. Today the skin is cut all the way behind the glans, and often removes the frenulum. (1)(2)

Throughout much of history, circumcision was limited to Muslims, Jews, and no one else. In the 18th century, sexual enjoyment was seen as sinful, and had potential negative health consequences. Masturbation was seen as the worst of all forms of sexual enjoyment. (1) Doctors believed that insanity, vision and hearing problems, epilepsy, and mental retardation were all caused by excessive masturbation. In the late 19th century a cure was found for masturbation.(or at least they thought) Circumcision was seen a miracle procedure that would help rid the world of masturbation. Of course circumcision did not cure masturbation at all, but its proponents used it nonetheless. (2)

In 1877 John Harvey Kellogg helped to popularize modern circumcision in America. Unlike the previous versions, this was specifically performed to do harm. He is quoted that the procedure should be associated with punishment and is best performed without anesthetic. (3)

Even though masturbation was dropped as a medical problem, doctors have continued to support circumcision for health reasons. According to historian Fredrick Hodges, there is a trend in American medicine. It turns out that whatever disease is feared at the time, circumcision advocates will use circumcision as a cure. During WWII when Venereal disease was a big concern, there were several quite frankly racists articles written about how it came from black people. It explained how they could not be trusted to clean themselves and should therefore have forced circumcisions. In the 50s and 60s Cancer was the national scare, circumcision was used as a cure. During the 70s and 80s when AIDs was the big concern, naturally, circumcision was used. (4)(6)

What most people don't realize is this was not limited to males in this time. Up until the late 50s, female circumcision was promoted in reputable health journals, and it was used for the same health benefits as male circumcision.(5)(1) At the time doctors would remove everything they assumed was non-essential. They would remove the appendix, tonsils, the clitoris, and both the male and female foreskins of health individuals. Of these, only male circumcision is left as a solution looking for a problem. (5)(6)

In the post WWII world every civilized nation in the world dropped circumcision with the exception of the United States. Today if you are circumcised, statistically speaking, you are Jewish, Muslim, or American. (1)

Well this obviously brought up a lot of topics that I will discuss later. At least that is a vague overview of the issue.

(1) Marked in your Flesh - Glick
(2) Questioning Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective - Ronald Goldman Ph.D.
(3) Circumcision the Hidden Trauma: How an American Cultural Practice Affects Infants and Ultimately Us All - Ronald Goldman Ph.D.
(4) AAP policy Statement
(5) Rape of Innocence - Robinett
(6) Whose Body Whose Rights, Dillonwood Productions

Female Circumcision vs Male Circumcision

1996-04-18T15:00:00.000-07:00

Cliffs Notes

The horrors of female circumcision reverberate all throughout today's mass media. Male circumcision is often dismissed as nothing or not even talked about at all. Often in conversations people will tell me that "it is impossible to compare male and female circumcision." Well as the definition of a compare is "to consider or describe as similar," I believe I can. In both male and female circumcision part of the genitals are being amputated. Eureka! Now that we have determined that they can indeed be compared lets be a little more serious about the matter.

One reason we have such a hard time getting through to African cultures about female circumcision is they think we are all hypocrites. We criticize them for circumcising a female in such horrible conditions, when a male is next in line. They also see us circumcising a large percentage of our males, so they see no reason why we have any room to talk. This leaves the most common argument that female circumcision is so much worse than male circumcision. Well in some ways they are right. The kind of circumcision that you see in the news is much worse than what is commonly practiced here. However, the situation is much more complex than that.

Before I start, there are some people whom this will not satisfy. They will point out some differences in what I am trying to compare. Notice I say they are "similar" not identical. Also to help satisfy those people who get angry when I do this, I am not downplaying female circumcision. I agree. It is sick. That isn't the point at all. The point is to find parallels.

note: I have gotten some complaints that I don't talk about other complications from the procedures (death from the procedure, infections, and infant mortality) This is much harder to do, but I will try and do it quickly. As far as deaths go, more men die in circumcision than women. This is becuase many more men are circumcised than women. It is true that a greater percentage of circumcised women die or have infections. However, those women are operated on in mostly 3rd world countries with a shard of glass. This happens to the men there too and they also die in large numbers. The discrepancy in the percentage of infections/deaths comes from the US, where we have a trained medical staff and sanitary conditions. As a result it is hard to have any meaningful data. As far as childbirth goes, well Men don't deal with that at all obviously. As most anti FGM posters rarely talk about it, information about the subject was sketchy at best from my sources. While I am sure FGM contributes to deaths in childbirth and infant mortality, who is to say that the death would not have happened had she not been circumcised? As I stated earlier, another reason for lack of prevalent data is that FGM activists don't concentrate on it.

1. The most mild form of female circumcision is a prick or simple bloodletting. This is actually more common for girls than most people think. A prick is also becoming more and more common for Jewish boys, becuase their parents want a "bris" without putting their child in the most pain he has ever experienced. These two actually compare really well. Baring infection, neither has any long term damages. Both are mildly painful. Both are done for religious reasons. Neither serves a practical purpose.

2. Removal of the female prepuce is next on the list. Contrary to what most people think, this is actually the most common type of female circumcision. This type of circumcision may include the labia or clitoral hood. They both serve a similar function as the male foreskin and are biologically homologous organs. The purpose of this tissue is to cover the glans. For the female this is the clitoral glans. For the male, this is the head of the penis. Either surgery will have the same result. Both will dry the exposed glans out and leave it calloused. Unlike the female prepuse, the foreskin acts as the males main lubricant and has many more nerve endings than the female prepuce. Both males and females can usually experience sexual pleasure and orgasms, but it is often greatly reduced.

3. Clitorectomy. This procedure is hard to compare to anything for the male. Many angry women will chant that "Its like removing the entire penis you sexist pig!!!" While I am sure they have the best of intentions, that notion is absurd. A woman who has had a clitorectomy can have sex and has often been able to have orgasms. A man with a penectomy cannot function in any way sexually. He cannot even have sex let alone have an orgasm.

Some people say that a very tight circumcision is the equilivant of a clitorectomy. A very tight circumcision removes a similar amount of tissue as a clitorectomy. It can also make normal living difficult as well as normal sexuality. Some poor circumcision jobs have make erections painful and can even tear the skin causing bleeding. It would also remove all sensitive areas around the glans such as the frenulum, and frenular band. This is probably a little less severe than a clitorectomy for the simple fact that a man would still have his glans and the woman would not. As they are biologically homologous structures, this discrepancy cannot be ignored. There is a very rare procedure called a glansectomy that would remove the males glans. This procedure is so rare that there is very little information about it, but given that this procedure would take away all of the males sensitive tissue, and would relocate the end of the urethra, it is probably more sever than a clitorectomy. A clitorectomy would remove most of the sensitive tissue, but it is nearly impossible to remove the entire thing, as well as many other internal sexual organs making some sexual pleasure still possible. In conclusion the clitorectomy is probably somewhere in between the two.

4. Infibulation or Excision of all the external genitalia followed by sewing the remaining tissue together so that a small opening is left for menstruation and urination. Now the comparisons get harder and harder. I would compare this to a penectomy, but again, a male without a penis cannot function in any way shape or form sexually. Both procedures make urination interesting to say the least, but women who have had infibulation done can still have sex, especially after the part that is sown shut is opened. It might be very painful, but it is still possible. I would have to say this is somewhere between a glansectomy and a penectomy, although probably closer to a penectomy.

One a side note, a penectomy is uncommon but not unheard of after a botched circumcision.

I introduce topic for two main reasons. One reason is I find that we tend to accept our cultural norms without question and reject others cultural norms. One classic example of this is the difference between male and female genital cutting. Through our western eyes the male version seems like a little snip while the female version seems unthinkable. However when you break it down to its core, it is very similar. While each stage of genital cutting does not have a 100% match, they all have a close cousin. The other topic is very simple. I make comparisons to female circumcision occasionally in my other blogs. Anyone who reads those blogs without first taking time to read this would probably be very confused.

The information of female circumcision comes from these sources. The male equivalents comes from further research which I will elaborate on in subsequent blogs.

http://www.fgmnetwork.org/index.php (October 2008)recognizes types 2 – 4

Mason, Christine, Exorcising Excision: Medico-Legal Issues Arising From Male and Female Genital Surgery in Australia, Journal of law and Medicine, Aug 2001, Vol 9, no 1: 58-67

Lightfoot-Klein, H. Pharaonic Circumcision of Females in the Sudan (1983) 2 Medical Law 253 at 357 quoted in Mason, C., (2001)

Female Circumcision vs Male Circumcision(culture)

1996-03-01T21:14:00.000-08:00

(This isn't a finished product yet. I am looking for opinions on this in combination with the first FGM MGM post as well as the conclusion. If you are going to attack me for this blog please read the first blog that compares female and male circumcision. Everyone seems to only equate female circumcision to infibulation which gets people angry at me and just leads to a whole mess of problems previous post
Conclusion )

The more I read my post and comments about female circumcision vs male circumcision, I realized that my first post was grossly inadequate. While I will not apologize for anything I said, I do realize that it was incomplete. The main thing I left out was the culture of each practice. I completely neglected why the procedures were performed. While I would like to deal exclusively with culture, the physical side and the cultural side are not completely separable. I will try to concentrate on the cultural aspects, but a reasonable amount of physical effects will make its way here. Lastly, before I begin, I would like to share two comments about the last blog that I feel are very relevant to this one.

"I am not fond of all of this comparison to assess which genital mutilation is worse than which. We shouldn't need to do it. Unfortunately, it is a pillar of male circumcision supporters that the male and female varieties are completely disconnected. Support of genital integrity for everyone requires disproving that lie when it is asserted."

"That is a good answer to the oft heard comment "you can't compare male vs female circumcision" which, when said, really means: "I want to complain about a barbaric act in another culture without having to own up to my own culture's barbarity. If I looked at male circumcision with a critical eye, I might learn that similar cultural forces are at work but that would be work and it's just so much more fun to not have to think."

I really like how each is phrased. The first gives a very good reason for making this comparison which I would not have formulated on my own. The second focus on the ethnocentrism of Americans. It really is amazing how we as Americans can criticize other cultures without realizing that we are not so very different. In all honesty comparing Male and Female circumcision for which is "worse" is silly. Which is the worse, torture, murder, or rape? Who really cares? They are all disgusting. Anyway, I thought I should share before I get into the comparisons.

In my opinion, one of the most interesting things about female and male circumcision is how similar their histories are. Perhaps the most central argument of most Americans about female circumcision is that it is a procedure of male dominance over women to decrease their sexuality. That is that the entire purpose of a female circumcision is to decrease sexual pleasure for women. This is fascinating as I still haven't heard anyone use this as a reason in a specific case. In all the articles I have read defending female circumcision, the females in the family are the ones supporting it and performing it. (ie (2))(3)(4) There is no mention of sexuality. Rather you usually hear things such as: it is cleaner, it is a rite of passage, it is a part of our culture, you will be like the other girls. It is quite odd that these reasons seem eerily familiar. Now I am not at all dismissing that female circumcision exists to limit sexuality at all. There is truth in that. No doubt it is the origins of the custom for many cultures, and it is still the underlying reason. Despite this, advocates of female circumcision never use this as an argument. Also, while this is relevant to some cultures that perform female circumcision, it by no means covers all of them. What is interesting is that the female circumcision advocates do indeed have evidence that it does in fact help prevent STDs. They didn't make it up as many Westerners would like to believe. (1)(2)

I detail all of the cultural reasons in my History of Circumcision post and in my Culture post so I will not spend to long talking about the male side of the story. The current reasons you know well. Male circumcision is supposed to prevent x diseases. Male circumcision will make you son more comfortable around others. Male circumcision is just what you do. Your suspicion that secular circumcision started as a medical procedure is correct. However, the disease that it cured was masturbation. Circumcision was known to cause pain, difficulty of masturbation, and reduced pleasure. Masturbation and sexual pleasure were seen as evil during the Victorian era and circumcision was used as a treatment for both. This implies that the secular use of circumcision started to perform harm to a male's sexuality.

Now when you look at the two side by side they are so similar that even a blind man can't ignore it. Both originated to curb sexuality and sexual pleasure. Both became a cultural decision rather than a rational one. Both are supported by the victims of the practice. Both are justified by supposed medical benefits. Culturally these procedures developed on a remarkably similar timeline despite having evolved, for the most part, independently.

This is where we diverge a little. Female circumcision does not describe a specific surgery. There are all different levels involved. Infibulation is commonly thought of as the worst, and Sudan can be thought of as the infibulation capital of the world. This actually is one of those cultures that does want to limit female, as well as male promiscuity. Males are merely meant to abstain from sexual contact. Female are intended not to enjoy sex. Women that show sexual arousal and enjoyment are seen to be "animal like." One western team of researchers traveled to Sudan to interview women who had been through the procedure. They would not discuss sexual experiences at all in front of others, but when they were taken aside where they could speak freely, they would often talk about how much sexual pleasure they had, and that they did experience quite fulfilling orgasms. They could not show that they felt pleasure, but based on their glowing faces it was apparent that they did. This led the researchers to conclude that western views of the effects on female circumcision are "grossly exaggerated". Now before all you women jump all over me and call me a misogynistic pig, this entire story is posted on fgmnetwork.org.(5) They do not in any way attack the research. On the contrary they are supporting it.

It is very difficult to compare the to two culturally. Male circumcision has two cultures. You have the religious culture with Jews and Muslims, and you have the secular and pseudo medical procedure performed in the US. The culture behind female circumcision is much more varied. However, as I describe above, all forms of female circumcision have more in common with male circumcision than most Americans would care to admit.

(1) Study on AIDS
(2) Muslim website designed and intended for Women
(3) Women wanting a circumcision
(4) New York Times
(5) FGM network

Female Circumcision vs Male Circumcision (conclusion)

1996-02-03T21:21:00.000-08:00

As I hope you have read in the previous couple of blogs, male and female circumcision are indeed linked. That is not to say that they are one and the same. They are very similar. They do much of the same things for much of the same reasons. There are obviously many differences. They are performed in different cultures. One is secular one isn't. Male circumcision (other than botches) is at least relatively uniform. Female circumcision has some variety.

One of the obvious comments that comes up with this discussion is "female circumcision is far worse than male circumcision." Well it may or may not be. This is up for debate. However, it really isn't important when you stop and think about it. Is rape ever justified because it is better than murder? Of course not. Why then is one procedure justified because it could have been worse? In other words, it's not a competition. The take home message is that these procedures are linked, not identical. When you look at the cold hard facts you cannot possibly deny it. There is just no getting around it.

Now why do I even post this? American's think very little about other cultures. We are among the worst in the world at judging other cultures by our cultural norms while we remain oblivious to the similarities. Think on a bigger scale. What are the driving forces at work here? Why are we in the situations that we are in? How different are we really?

Circumcision and UTIs

1995-06-19T10:40:00.000-07:00

Well that last post sure stirred some things up. I doubt these will do the same but we shall see. Next I am going to tackle the reasons to circumcise. I will only concentrate on the ones commonly used today, becuase going over all of them will take the rest of my life. The first thing I am going to do is concentrate on the medical reasons to circumcise. I will post these from most absurd to, well kinda sorta. Next I will talk about the cultural reasons to circumcise. First up, obviously, is UTIs.

This is one of the less touted benefits of circumcision, but it is still worth addressing. Many claim that circumcision in males lowers the risk of urinary tract infections, or UTIs. One problem in defending against this claim, is that proponents of circumcision cannot agree on what exactly circumcision does for UTIs. Many studies seem to indicate that circumcised males are less likely to get a UTI but only in their first year of life. Other studies claim that the odds are reduced for the circumcised male's entire life. One study even found that Jewish circumcision performed by mohels actually increased the odds of UTIs. (1)(2)

UTIs are much more common in females than males. A typical female can expect to have one UTIs in her lifetime statistically speaking. Roughly one in one-hundred males will ever experience a UTI whether circumcised or uncircumcised.(*) When anyone gets a UTI they usually take this neat new pill called an antibiotic. As a UTI is a bacterial infection, antibiotics work wonders. Doctors are supposed to perform the least invasive, effective treatment which mean that pills > surgery. I hate to be so unbalanced on this, but performing surgery to prevent a rare, minor, easily treated condition is silly. First off, you are preventing something that the vast majority of people will not get. 2nd, even if they do get it, it really isn't a big deal. Pop some pills, and everything will return to normal in a few days.

(1)Prais D, Shoov-Furman R, & Amir J. Is ritual circumcision a risk factor for neonatal urinary tract infections? Arch. Dis. Child. published online 6 Oct 2008.

(2) article about Jewish Circumcision and UTIs

(*) Like any other statistic, different sources quote different numbers. The general concept that females are much more likely than men to get a UTI is the same.

Circumcision is Cleaner

1995-04-20T00:00:00.000-07:00

This is the argument used mostly by the uneducated. They don't know specifically what circumcision helps, so they just say it's generically cleaner. Most anti-circumcision advocates will dispute this and say that you can easily keep it clean by yourself. Well they are both right. If you cut something, it is going to be cleaner. There is no denying that. However, if you use this logic and really apply it, we would all just be torsos with heads.

Many people maintain that the foreskin is "dirty." This is again mostly uneducated people. Generally speaking, doctors don't argue this. The foreskin is no dirtier than any other skin that is cleaned. The main theory behind the foreskin being dirty is that the area between the foreskin and the glans is warm and moist. That is a good breeding ground for germs. The main argument against this comes from a well known quote from Doctor Dean Edell. He says, "If a foreskin is dirty, than a vagina is dirtier. If cleanliness is a good reason to circumcise males, than we have a better reason to circumcise females. Water is the solution"

In reality circumcision for ease of cleaning is more of a symptom of culture than medicine. Many women today think of a foreskin and immediately think "ew gross," in the same way that many men in Africa will see an intact female and think the same thing. Both are based in culture rather than reality. Assuming proper hygiene is maintained, cleanliness is a non-issue in both males and females. As we trust females to clean themselves, it shouldn't to too hard to extend the same trust to males, especially considering cleaning a female is much harder than cleaning a male.

Circumcision Cures Cancer!!!

1994-05-21T00:05:00.000-07:00

Penile Cancer and Cervical Cancer are just what they sound like, cancer of the penis and cervix respectively. Circumcision has long been used to prevent cancer, yet there is almost zero evidence to support it. The rate of penile cancer in the United States is much higher than in Europe, which is mostly intact. For various years between 1966 and 1972, the annual rate of new cases of penile cancer was 0.8 for the United States (which circumcises), and 0.5 for Finland, 0.9 for Denmark and 1.1 for both Norway and Sweden (all of which do not). None of these differences are statistically significant. Further, within the same time frame, both France and the United States had the same rate, 0.3, of deaths due to penile cancer. Many 3rd world countries that have a large percentage of their population circumcised have a huge risk of developing penile cancer.(2)(3) Conclusion: Cleanliness not Circumcision prevents penile cancer.

The notion that circumcision in any way prevents cancer has been completely dismissed. Circumcision was used to prevent cancer because smegma was believed to be a carcinogen. (4) This claim was supported by a very old study that took the circumcision status of males as well as their penile cancer status. A much greater percentage of intact males had penile cancer. Eureka! Circumcision cures cancer! Well actually it turns out that most of the elderly were intact at the time and penile cancer is an old man's disease. When a greater percentage of circumcised males reached old age they got penile cancer in similar numbers as the previous generation. Anyway, back to smegma. There have only ever been two studies regarding smegma and both have found it to be completely harmless. This is very fortunate for women as they produce several times the amount that men do.

Up until recently the AAP claimed that circumcision did prevent penile and cervical cancer. The American Cancer Society reprimanded them with a letter. This isn't some no name organization filing a complaint. This is the American Cancer Society.

Dear Dr. Rappo:

As representatives of the American Cancer Society, we would like to discourage the American Academy of Pediatrics from promoting routine circumcision as a preventive measure for penile or cervical cancer. The American Cancer Society does not consider routine circumcision to be a valid or effective measure to prevent such cancers.

Research suggesting a pattern in the circumcision status of partners of women with cervical cancer is methodologically flawed, outdated, and has not been taken seriously in the medical community for decades.

Likewise, research claiming a relationship between circumcision and penile cancer is inconclusive. Penile cancer is an extremely rare condition, affecting one in 200,000 men in the United States. Penile cancer rates in countries which do not practice circumcision are lower than those found in the United States. Fatalities caused by circumcision accidents may approximate the mortality rate from penile cancer.

Portraying routine circumcision as an effective means of prevention distracts the public from the task of avoiding the behaviors proven to contribute to penile and cervical cancer: especially cigarette smoking, and unprotected sexual relations with multiple partners. Perpetuating the mistaken belief that circumcision prevents cancer is inappropriate.

Sincerely,

(signed)
Hugh Shingleton, M.D.
National Vice President Detection & Treatment

The ACS reaffirmed their position in 2006 stating that penile cancer is a very rare disease and circumcision is not a valid procedure to prevent it.(1) Simply put, circumcision to prevent cancer is completely false and a myth.

Another interesting thing about the cancer argument is that men are much more likely to develop breast cancer than penile cancer. If the goal was to prevent cancer, the removal of the breasts is a much more medically sound procedure. However, this procedure was not widespread at the time, circumcision was. Conclusion: The solution circumcision was invented before there was a problem for it to treat.

(1) 2006 Penile Cancer

(2) Hyman AB; Brownstein MH. Tyson's "Glands," Archives of Dermatology, vol. 99, no. 1 (January 1969): pp. 31-37.
(3) http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/
(4) Wolbarst A. Circumcision and Penile Cancer. The Lancet, vol. 1 no. 5655 (January 16, 1932): pp. 150-153.

Circumcision and AIDs/STDs

1994-04-02T17:17:00.000-08:00

For the purposes of this blog I will only be talking about AIDs. The information available about other STDs as they pertain to circumcision is very limited. Also, the debate about whether or not circumcision should be mandatory is largely due to AIDs. Throughout the last 30 years of the twentieth century, medical associations all over the world were in agreement that there is no medical reason to circumcise. Almost all medical associations still believe this to be true. However there is a new study done that has opened the debate once more. Just do a simple search of circumcision on the WHO's website. You won't see anything about cancer, UTIs, phimosis, or other STDs. All they talk about is the heterosexual acquisition of AIDs.

There were three major studies done in the past decade to determine the effect of circumcision on HIV. The studies finished early due to the success, and resulted in a relative risk reduction of 53% 55% and 60%. The first reaction is to say, SWEET!!! Circumcision can be used to prevent AIDS. Everyone should be circumcised. Well like everything else in life its a little more complicated than that.

First it is important to know what this study says and what it does not say. This study makes the assertion that circumcision can prevent HIV acquisition of males who engage in heterosexual sex. There is zero evidence that circumcision protects women in any way, or men who engage in homosexual sex.

While the relative risk of circumcision looks to be beneficial on that scale, it hasn't worked out that way in large countries. The first row is a list of countries with the percentage of adults living with AIDS. The 2nd row is other countries where most of the population is intact with the rates of AIDs. (3) Information from CIA world factbook.

United States 0.6% Iran 0.2% Israel 0.1% Saudi Arabia 0.1% UAE 0.2%

Germany 0.1% Chile 0.3% U.K. 0.2% Australia 0.2% China 0.1%

As you can see, there isn't a lot of difference. With the exception of the United States, the uncircumcised figures are slightly above the circumcised countries. However, the circumcised countries tend to be the most sexually conservative societies on earth. Furthermore, with the exception of the United States, all countries that circumcise more than half of the men are almost entirely Muslim or Jewish.

Another aspect to consider is the reality of AIDS outside of Africa. In Western cultures, AIDs is mostly a phenomenon of gay men and drug users. In 2006 in Australia there were 854 new HIV diagnoses for men, of which only 77 (9 percent) were for men who were infected through sex with women. (1) In the United States only 11 percent of those diagnosed with AIDS were in men who had contracted HIV through sex with women.(4) This is significant because even if these studies are accurate, circumcision would only help to protect roughly 10% of those who are at risk of becoming HIV positive. As the relative risk was quoted at 60%, only 6% of those who are at risk would be protected. As the study covered a time span of less than two years, the percentage of those protected becomes less and less until it is statistically insignificant.

Alright, so something has gone seriously wrong. This study that was supposed to be this great cure for AIDS really isn't working very well. Even in the United States where historically the vast majority of males have been circumcised, the rate of AIDS in still abnormally high. In fact, the United States has the highest rate of AIDS in the world with the exception of Africa.

Let's go back and take a closer look at these studies. Oddly enough, the only place I have been able to find the raw data is from an anti circumcision site. You would think that the pro circumcision sites with be parading the raw figures around as this is their main argument. This blog isn't very friendly to big tables so the table can be found near the bottom of this page. The first thing that stands out to me is out of 11,000 people tested, only 73 were "protected" from HIV. The reason for this is the number quoted is the relative risk reduction, not the total risk reduction. 2.49% of the control group became HIV positive during the test. 1.18% of the circumcised males became HIV positive during the test. This resulted in an absolute risk reduction of 1.8%.

The most famous study was conducted by Auvert. This is the one that found the 60% relative risk. In his study conducted over 21 months, 49 circumcised males and 20 intact males contracted HIV. In theory, 29 people were protected. Using this study, Auvert concluded that he could prevent "(1.1−3.8) million new HIV infections and 0.3 (0.1−0.5) million deaths over the next ten years in sub-Saharan Africa." (5) So as a result of 29 people not getting HIV, partially due to abstinence, you can extrapolate to prevent half a million deaths? I'm not buying it.

One of the major problems with this test it some of the testing procedures used were flawed. For the first several months the circumcised group was instructed to abstain from sexual activity while they healed, giving the intact group a head start in getting infected. After several months the rates of infection were becoming closer. Suddenly when the rates stabilized, the study was called off early. (6) Another aspect to consider is that the HIV test doesn't check for the HIV virus. It checks for antibodies for the HIV virus, which can take months for your body to produce. If one member circumcised group waited 3 months to heal, and became infected 2 months later, the test would not come back with a positive result until one full year after the study started. A study in New Zealand simply took a sample of males born between 1972 and 1973 and tested them for STDs. They found no statistical difference between circumcised and intact males whether or not they adjusted for socioeconomic status and sexual behavior. (7) This supports the claim that circumcision is probably not beneficial in the long term.

(1) John Murray, Circumcision no barrier to HIV, "The Australian"

(2) Circumcision and risk of sexually transmitted infections in a birth cohort

(3) CIA world factbook

(4) CDC.gov

(5) findings

(6) See table in the other blog or here.

(7) New Zealand study

Phimosis

1992-04-02T19:49:00.000-08:00

Yet another reason given for circumcising your son is Phimosis. Phimosis is a condition in which the foreskin sticks to the glans and cannot retract. Circumcision actually does treat Phimosis. If you cut the foreksin off it won't stick to the glans. (Well most of the time, but now we are just splitting hairs)

Well I am going to be honest with this. It is a very hard topic to blog on. When it comes to phimosis everyone is different when it comes to what is normal. It is really something that needs to be done on a case by case basis. For this reason I am not even going to bother with the citations and just use ubiquitous knowledge.

Most of the people who are circumcised becuase of phimosis are circumcised at an early age. They are typically diagnosed with childhood phimosis. The problem is childhood phimosis, as doctors usually diagnose it, doesn't exist. That is the way males are born. The foreskin is usually unable to retract until age 1 at the earliest and can be as late as age 13. If the foreskin is able to retract before that it usually means that someone forced it, which is potentially dangerous as it can lead to infections. The reason that this happens is not a conspiracy theory. It is simply an ignorance from American doctors because the last time a majority of males were intact was before WWII. American doctors simply don't know how to deal with a male that has not been cut at birth.

To put it in another way, the skin bonds to the glans in almost the exact same way that your fingernail bonds with your finger. It stays this way for quite awhile. The time frame varies from person to person, but it is not a problem unless it persists until puberty. I don't think you have ever had a doctor that wanted to remove your fingernail simply becuase it could not detach from your finger. If your doctor has done that, you should probably find a different doctor.

Another obvious point this bring up is cleaning. You don't force your fingernail open to clean underneath. Neither should you force your babies foreskin back to clean underneath. Don't get me wrong, after the skin is able to retract, cleaning is necessary, but until that time, if he doesn't retract it, you don't retract it.

Now that we have gotten past that, lets talk about real phimosis. Like pretty much all disorders that circumcision is supposed to cure, phimosis is pretty uncommon as less than 1% of males will ever have it. If you are so unfortunate, steroid creams and stretching techniques are usually very effective in a short amount of time. If it doesn't work there are other less drastic methods available that essentially pry the foreskin off the glans. Normally this is incredibly unhealthy, but if the body doesn't do so on its own its needs to retract at some point. The last method is effective almost 100% of the time, which would make circumcision to treat phimosis silly as it is a much more radical procedure.

If it helps you get the concept better, think about getting your teeth pulled because you have a cavity. The only thing that makes circumcision to treat phimosis more credible is phimosis is the only thing that circumcision actually treats. For everything else you are just trying to prevent something. Everything else is like having your teeth pulled to prevent the cavity. For phimosis you are actually treating cavity, (to go along with the analogy)even though it is a bit of an overreaction.

Another condition that gets thrown into the this category is one where the skin at the urethra is too narrow to allow urine to pass through. Sometimes stretching and, small cuts are used. Often doctors remove the entire foreskin. This is one that makes zero sense to me. You have an opening that is 1 mm in diameter. You need it to be 5mm in diameter. In order to achieve this we are going to cut off 15 square inches of skin. What? Who came up with this logic? Why don't you simple perform stretching techniques, or cut off a small portion of skin to allow urine to pass? Its the bureaucratic mentality I swear. (insert sarcasm) Oh well. I say again, All of these conditions are very rare.

Medical Benefits of Circumcision

1992-04-01T21:15:00.000-08:00

If you haven't read the blogs breaking down all of the benefits, read those before you read/comment on this. (Well unless you are just in it for the cliffs notes.)

After a careful review of all of the medical benefits, the case for circumcision is rather poor. There isn't clear evidence than circumcision significantly impacts any of the disorders that it is supposed to treat for. Also, the odds that a male gets any of these disorders is less than 1% - 2%.

Oddly enough the rate of complication tends to be quoted between 1-3%, depending on what you count as a complication. Some people who quote extreme pain and other stress placed on the newborn place the complication rate at 50-75%. Either way, circumcising for medical benefit doesn't seem medically valid.

The most convincing benefit seems to be the prevention of AIDS. I broke this down earlier to show that the benefit was minimal at best, and non-existent at worst, but let's just assume that the studies are 100% accurate. Your newborn isn't going to get AIDS through sex. If your reason to circumcise is for your baby not to get AIDS, than he can make that decision for himself. If he is old enough to consent to sex, he can consent to a circumcision.

The main point, is circumcision for medicine is silly. It really doesn't make sense when you break down all the proposed benefits, and plot out what really happens. I hate to tell all of the mothers this, but the circumcision performed on your son doesn't do him any more good than the procedure used to remove his tonsils. The only three things I can see where circumcision is justified is frostbite, gangrene, and cancer.

Culture

1991-04-06T22:23:00.000-08:00

Before this post I have mostly tried to just stick to the facts and not get into too emotional topics. I have no choice but to make this post subjective given the topic. Now, ONWARD!!!!

Circumcision has been so successfully ingrained in our culture, we typically don't think about it anymore. It is even a taboo topic of conversation making the questioning of this practice even harder. As a result, circumcision is no longer a logical decision anymore. It is simply, "Oh its a boy. Circumcise him like everyone else." Given the information I already posted about the benefits of an intact foreskin, the less than substantial evidence of medical benefits, and the actual pain of the procedure, this thinking should be all but gone. However, some cultural concerns still remain.

One popular reason to circumcise babies is so they will match their father. I have even read several blogs on WebMD that recommend that parents make the son match the father. The theory is that the boy will be traumatized if he ever sees his circumcised father naked. If parents believed this, I could see how they would want this done as quickly as possible. The only problem is that this reason is nonsense if you think about it. So when exactly will father and son sit around naked comparing penises? And shouldn't you be worried if your girlfriend told you "wow! You look just like your dad!"?. In all seriousness, a child's genitals looks nothing like an adult's genitals. Another hole in this argument is that most children rarely if ever see their parents naked anyway. It is actually the parents that see the child's genitals all the time during changing and bathing. Maybe making the boy match the father is more for the father than the boy?

Another similar reason to circumcise a son is to avoid awkward situations in the locker room. This is one of my favorite arguments. It goes something like this. "Everyone is doing it so we did it too." Don't you just feel like telling your parents, "Well if everyone was jumping off a bridge would you do that too?" Parents hate it when you justify something by, "Everyone is doing it" yet that is exactly what many parents do themselves. Another reason this argument is silly is your son won't be alone in the locker room anymore. Five years ago the circumcision rate was between 55-60 percent in the United States. This number has been steadily declining over the past several decades. If you use a linear regression analysis, the current circumcision rate is about 50 percent. It is hard to find data about current rates, so 50-55 will have to be close enough. In addition to this, showering in public is becoming rarer and rarer. The vast majority of public showers have curtains.

Some people will not talk about how traumatized their son will be when he sees circumcised men. Instead they just say that the circumcised penis looks better. They did it for cosmetic reasons. I apologize, but this deserves a rant. How sick are you? You performed an extremely painful cosmetic surgery on a newborn so his penis would look better? Do you want your child to turn you on? Really. A parents perception of beauty shouldn't matter when circumcising their son. It is after all his body. Should he not do with it as he sees fit? How do you know that his future wife has the same view of beauty that you do? It is just completely moronic and shallow. Why don't we give all girls breast implants? We want our girls to be attractive to. End rant.

Religion

1990-04-12T13:35:00.000-07:00

Alright last but not least is religion. This subject is a lot tougher to deal with. Many Christians feel that they are commanded to circumcise, but if you look closely they clearly are not. (see Circumcision in the Bible) Muslims have adopted this procedure as well even though it is not mentioned in the Koran. Bizarre, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they are commanded to do it. Jews are the only ones that are clearly commanded to circumcise their males.

Many people are under the belief that if a law ever did pass banning circumcision there would have to be an exception for Jews and Muslims. This is completely false. As long as harm is demonstrated, circumcision can be banned regardless of religion. Freedom of Religion is limited. Many ancient religions practiced human sacrifice. Obviously, human sacrifice is illegal regardless of religion. This is an extreme example but it serves the point. For a closer example, you can look at female circumcision. Female circumcision of a minor is illegal for any reason, including religion. Many Islamic sects require circumcision for the exact same reasons that they require male circumcision. We allow one but not the other.

Religion has been a sticky point in the circumcision debate for quite some time. It is true that many anti-Semites will jump on the anti-circumcision bandwagon to attack the religion. Jews know this, and are understandably against a movement that discourages their commandment and wants to make it illegal.

Personally, my belief is that religion should be ignored in this. Many Rabies will admit than "anyone who does this who is not in the covenant is committing child abuse." That is a direct quote from a Rabi. They know the amount of pain that these babies go through. If we use this logic and outlaw child abuse for all boys, Jews should not be an exception. If indeed circumcision amounts to child abuse than letting Jews continue is letting them get away with child abuse. Why should a Jew be forced to undergo an abusive procedure simply for being born to a Jewish mother? The anti-circ movement has been all about providing boys the same rights that girls enjoy today. Denying that right to Jewish boys would go against everything that the movement stands for.

Many people will see this and say, "If catholic minors can drink win during communion, why can't Jews circumcise?" Well from my point of view, they are only loosely related. The point of alcohol controlling laws is to prevent the abuse of alcohol by minors. For one, many minors do not really know what they are putting into their systems. For two, it takes less alcohol for a minor to get drunk. However, no one is going to get drunk from communion. It just isn't enough alcohol. For two, you aren't going to get yourself into trouble in the middle of mass. For three, in most cases, they are doing this in the presence of their parents. As a result, the purpose of the law is still upheld.

In the circumcision debate, the point is whether or not circumcision is harmful enough to warrant protecting boys as well as girls. If the answer is yes circumcision is harmful, than Jews and Muslims should be just as protected as everyone else.

Introduction to Secret Societies

1979-04-07T10:47:00.000-08:00

So once I have more time I will start talking about Secret Societies. I tend to like to have fun with this particular topic as we are dealing with a conspiracy to take over the world for God sakes!!!

Here is what you have to look forward to

I. Knights Templar
II. Freemasons
III. Skull and Bones
IV. Bilderberg
V. Council on Foreign Relations
VI. Trilateral Commission
VII. Illuminati

That is certainly subject to change, as I will probably add something somewhere about the symbols on the dollar bill, and masonic signs around DC etc...
I'm not sure exactly what this is going to look like, but don't worry I am not a conspiracy theorist. I just think this is among the more interesting conspiracy theories out there. This should be more fun and laid back than my other topics.