ARC 4
enter your offers, ideas, comments, or just show your interested helpful presence.

Home Site: The Origins and Consequences of a Taboo |

| Male Initiation and the Phimosis Taboos Thanks to Parsimony Forums | ARCindex disclaimer

ARC Forum 4 Index

> # RIC, Oster, BMJ, Ploss and Bryk
Written by Robin at 27 Jul 2005 22:25:24: As an answer to: Re: philosophy and committment written by Nick at 07 Jul 2005 20:25:37: Re: philosophy and committment RIC, Oster, BMJ, Ploss and Bryk Anyone reading this who wants to follow up my references, would be well advised to go to www.male-initiation.net/zip.html and load down the initiation.zip Hi Nick, Well youve given me a bundle of nice questions - and if you follow up all my references, then I doubt I will hear anymore from you for about 6 months ... I suggest you dont try and answer it all at once. RIC, in my opinion, is mainly a human rights issue. It is incoceivable in the modern world to excise something from a new born before the mother has held him in her arms. RIC in the USA is cold and clinical and without cultural relevance, merely another method of repressing the foreskin (compare to the cultural care and significance of the traditional partial circumcision), I discuss the subject on /routine.html The problem is that rights issues tend to accentuate fanaticism - and the anti circs dont just want to abolish RIC they want to abolish all circumcision - (show me an anti circ site which is just against RIC and I will support them). And, as blissed out fanatics will, they not only want to abolish circumcision, but also phimosis (the most common diagnosis leading to circ). They were always saying phimosis is a rarity, and I notice recently how Shankar and Rickwood (BJU 1999) brought out a study called the Incidence of Phimosis where figures of 0.6% are given. Figures that are now being requoted in anti-circ sites without second thought - (my criticisism of this study is on /library/medicus/rickwood.html) You ask the reason why the American anti-circ movement are not interested in what I have to say? - well ... I discuss phimosis and circumcision as if they were realistic phenomena. >I am also concerned that a new factor is set to influence our culture in a negative way and that is the fear that parents have of being accused of child molestation ... This is another reason why monitoring will be hard to establish in the USA. They are in a dilemma - imagine it - I cant see how they can resolve it - unless maybe ARC discovers a solvent for adhesions.... __________________________ Yes monitoring is routine in Northern Europe - I know for certain Germany and Sweden. So we are not talking about Poland etc., its only the richer N. European countries. >That begs the question, what is significant anthropologically about Northern Europe in comparison to the UK? I like the question, but dont think British prudishness has anything to do with the answer, (although maybe its somehow connected with our upper classes having a sort of tradition about routine circ. (Prince Charles etc. are all circd at birth), - maybe its a sort of backlash, - I know some regions, or some doctors routinely circd infants in the UK previous to 1950) . Also the incidence of phimosis is pretty much the same all over Europe, (give or take a few million immigrants, in that Africans and Indians and Chinese have different foreskins and/or religious ideas) But I think the reason we dont monitor in Britain is simpler than this, In our British medical history, the first name is Gairdner in 1949, he spoke against RIC (I think he said 16 boys a yr. in the UK die from RIC), and, he spoke for the release of the foreskin after the age of 3 yrs. old. The paper caused an outcry when it came out. But is rarely quoted these days. I find it an excellant paper, totally in our direction. Its probable that Gairdner stopped RIC in the UK - (should still be at CIRP library http://www.cirp.org/library/general/gairdner/ - I must do a summary of it - its on my list) The confusion starts with Oster (1968 - BMJ). Oster studied in Denmark, his study was translated in English.- I have collected 13 subsequent studies which repeat his findings without criticism, (and there are many more). �ster studied a group of boys over a period of 7 years. He wrote "Phimosis is seen to be uncommon in schoolboys, and the indications for operation even rarer if the normal development of the prepuce is patiently awaited." However, �ster influenced his own study. He tells us "the boys received regular instruction about preputial hygiene" coupled with this the boys were physically examined every year. This caring attention and instruction started previous to puberty. He calls them an "unselected" group which means a random group. I argue they were an extremely fortunate selected group: My interpretation is that it appears that phimosis occurs at a rate of 2.4% in 17 yr.olds when these boys have been examined and educated for the previous seven years. Osters "patiently awaited" is always interpreted to mean "do nothing" or "leave the penis alone" - one modern medical text even went as far as to interpret Oster as meaning simply "ignoring" such conditions and their symptoms. (Gordon and Collin (1993 BMJ) - my criticism on /library/medicus/gordon_and_collin.html) �ster's original text is at CIRP library, probably still at http://www.cirp.org/library/general/oster/ The entire structure of my site depends on my reinterpretation of Oster, it would be very much more difficult to argue for monitoring if my interpretation is wrong. I have no doubt that it is correct. Check /re_oster.html then check the original at CIRP (I have never ever received any criticism from anyone, except one anti circer on the NGs who agreed with what I said, and shortly after stopped contributing - Steve was his name). (My original NG posting is simple, entertaining and online at - /library/archive/re_oster.html) To my knowledge Schoeberlin (1966) & Bokstrom (1944) wrote the last studies which urgently recommended routinely checking children for potential problems. Schoeberlein studied 3,000 young men and found an incidence of 8.8% with phimosis. Bokstrom measured 20,361 conscripts in the Swedish army, and showed 4.1% with phimosis, (with so many men, I presume he was checking for only obvious forms of phimosis). Compared to the amount Oster is requoted, Schoeberlein is never mentioned and Bokstrom only once. Schoeberlein is German and I understand every word, (maybe I should translate it), Bokstrom is Swedish, and I can only understand his English summary. I know monitoring was established in Germany in the early 1970s by the government, so one can imagine Schoeberlein had something to do with this. I dont know when monitoring was introduced in Sweden. If you want to check these studies, /re_oster.html is in itself a summary of various statistics, added to this you will need /statistics.html __________________________ In my opinion, I will speak openly for the first time on this, Gordon and Collin, Rickwood, and several more, Taylors 2 studes (the 21 or 22 corpses), and Bigelow and others we havent discussed yet, are all published in the BMJ (or sister magazines, eg. BJU), in my personal opinion these are all the most biased anti circ literature in circulation. Im sorry to say but I believe the proof board for new papers on circumcision on the BMJ has become extremely anti circ biased. I dont know why Britain has never routinely monitored, but I doubt there can be any change with the BMJ publishing such material. _________________ yes, Phimosis has been identified for generations, but the sexual effects, even that it influences erection, is only occasionally reported. see Wabrek (1975) and Alexander (1993) two short examples well worth reading, linked at the bottom of /medicus.html ... Just that these incidents are worth a medical journal printing .. that it takes so long for a few isolated individual cases to be reported, ... I have maybe 70 such extreme case histories online ... It is really only the anthropologists (Bryk and Ploss) who had a fair idea of the sexual consequences of phimosis. . You dont know much about Ploss and Bryk - that will change if you hang around here much longer. I love both Ploss and Bryk - I love them because they were my forefathers. (maybe you will allow me to be just a little psychotic) ... This is another big subject, I will try and give you a potted version :- firstly you say >Surely there is no doubt that RIC was related to phimosis, I am surprised that you suggest there is doubt. What other reasons have been suggested in the past? I am unfamiliar with this area. It is a massive area. My Origins of Routine Male Circumcision, starts with this "The anthropological and psychological theories on the origins of the practice of routine male circumcision, discuss if this began as a manifestation of cultural requirements (e.g. hygiene, initiation, fertility, tribal mark, sacrifice, sexual advantages); or the expression of unconscious tendencies (e.g. castration complex, menstruation envy, regression)." This is only the start of the suggestions for the origins of the practice, - the site discusses all these. Firstly to get to understand the fully unbiased subject matter - Hastings Encyclopedia (1910) is universally recognised, probably even by anti circers, noone has ever called this biased. Its about 4 hours reading, ... well worth the time if youve got it .. /anthropology/hastings.html ... (and sorry but I need to go through with a spell checker, its on my list), maybe just look at the section headings, section (o) and (p) are probably the only ones relevant to us. Anthropologists and psychologists never found an answer to the origins question - there is no one factor which could always apply. Modern researchers never mention phimosis, but tend to agree that the origins were probably due to a mixture of causes, - (ie. sometimes hygiene, sometimes initiation, sometimes fertility, and menstruation envy). - (modern writers with the exception of Bigelow and Warren (BMJ 1994) who maintain that it was sacrificial reasons, - obviously without any research, - blood sacrifices belong to the cultivating cultures (to ensure new crops) ie. post 10,000 BC, routine male circ stretches back to the hunting tribes maybe around 40,000 yrs. ago, ... see /anthropology/sacrifice.html) ______________________________ Phimosis was discussed by both Ploss (1876) and Bryk (1931) "Das Kind" (the Child) by Ploss was first published in 1876, it was reissued in 1882-84 and Ploss died in 1885. In 1912, Renz revised his work (as is the practice with anthropological encyclopedias). Since then the updated version from Renz has been frequently reissued, (2 copies are easily available in Hamburg Libraries) - meanwhile the original version from Ploss went out of print. I had to wait a year for an original borrowed from Gottingen Library (Germanys "Cambridge") From 1889 onwards there was a heated disucssion started by Richard Andree, a respected anthropologist and publisher, -- Andree supported Plosses fertility theory, and then 3 other names Ive forgotten discussed if fertility could have been the reason for routine male circ. ...etc. etc. In the 1912 revised version Renz concludes Plosses Andrees etcs thoughts as follows: " ... we may then assume, that the common practice of circumcision rests on an erroneous over estimation of its effect on fertility..". Renz then even elevates the theory to suggest circumcision was part of a fertility cult. However Ploss actually only directly mentions fertility in connection with the Jewish practice; his main discussion concerns other aspects of sexuality. Ploss: "The purpose and intention of this operation lies, in my opinion, in the endeavour to correct nature. To help her with her supposed "mistakes" and to bring about a state on the sexual organ which one considers to be normal in adults." he mentions phimosis as "causing difficulties during sexual activity", "as being more or less an obstacle to coitus", even "the enjoyment of sex" is noted, (which must have been quite a liberal unscientific thought in the 1880s.) Read his original yourself, takes half an hour, and Im open to criticism, I may be biased, (but I guarantee the translation is accurate - checked by 3 Germans in the difficult parts). My summary /ploss.html now seems disjointed and needs rewriting. The original text is at /anthropology/ploss_eng.html Also we could note it was only Hastings encyclopedia which led me to start thinking that there was more to the original Ploss than Renz had seen. (Why werent the origins to do with fertility?:- Some of the tribes who practice circumcision (studied around 1900 and 1930) have no idea of the connection between the penis or semen and babies, they believe it is a spirit baby) (Regardless religious ideas (which were very different then), my explanation is spontaneously that the hunters and gatherers didnt just have animalistic sex, even chimps and gorrillas cuddle, and 40,000 yrs. back we were far more advanced than yer average ape - One imagines they felt love and one can maybe imagine the feeling that two hearts together could make a baby - maybe particularly for the woman, the guardian of such wisdom - and shortly after this feeling, they have intercourse, just for fun ... I merely speculate - I have absolutely no idea how our forefathers felt - but I think this explanation may help ...) /anthropology/fertility.html. is another file for the rewriting list, it is all very jumbled, but two short field reports are at the page bottom) ____________________ Bryk is another kettle of fish ... Bryk has a detailed knowledge of paraphimosis phimosis frenulum, sexual and health problems and even probably the first recorded incurable inferiority complex due to late phimosis in a young anthropologist he knew. It seems Bryk had such great respect for his scientific colleagues, that he simply accepted their idea that actually phimosis cant be the reason, because its so rare : - so he added a few other ingredients and called it all the "foreskin complex" (his whole theory is a book long, and it was also connected with the tendency to retraction of the foreskin or "denudation" which he observed in many young tribal peer groups, fascinating reading). He quotes respected colleagues: "Cases of the sort where the opening is so small, that making love causes pain, and even urinating is not easy occur so seldomly that our discussion does not need to take them into consideration." " .. such random and always only sporadic and transient ailments of the foreskin, such as Gonorreah, phimosis and paraphimosis, as well as the rupture of the ligament do not demand such a generally practised preventative measure" Neither he nor any other anthropologist ever refers to a statistical study. (I believe there were no statistics available at this time). Bryk then concludes: "it contradicts the primitive way of thinking to anchor this occasional operation in the cultural practice." Dont read the original Bryk for a while, there are 120 pages of his book in good translation online, but I think my summary /bryk.html is well worth reading - a half hour - and please especially here but always, I hardly ever get direct feedback, : tell me if what Ive written is understandable. What happened to Bryks theories on the "foreskin complex"? his book was translated to English by Berger in 1974, but its a tedious translation, with various mistakes, which Ive taken ages correcting and recording the corrections. Bryk appears to have been simply ignored by later researchers. Felix Bryk - I imagine the name is Jewish, and this was his last book in 1931, so I imagine the NAZIs put an end to his thinking. In my opinion phimosis has been suggested twice as origin of routine male circ. by the two most renowned researchers, but Ploss was misinterpreted by everyone and Bryk was simply written in German at the wrong time, badly translated, and noone ever seems to have put together his thinking like I have on my summary ... am I biased??. ... These days modern writers never even give phimosis a mention as being a viable idea (Bettelheim, Elaide, all texts after Bryk cease to mention phimosis) and the ONLY reason for this seems to be that phimosis is considered a rarity. Far too great a rarity to even be considered by any sane person .... Lets understand the significance of this discussion: If routine circumcision had initially been introduced for this most obvious reason of eliminating difficult foreskins; then the importance of an alternative modern method suitable to our culture's attitudes in this day and age would be clear to everyone. _____________________________ >there is little we can do about a taboo which has existed for eons, Taboos are there to be broken, lets try it "Join ARC and help break taboos" - but I realise youre wanting some practical thinking. Maybe the BMJ needs confronting. But, somehow Im against the idea simply because I believe you cant confront a taboo directly, its bigger than us, we have to employ judo and other skillful means to fight a mighty enemy. And also its only another conspiracy theory and I think that spreads the wrong attitude. (Also maybe Im biased again, I tried to get a paper published in the BMJ (a variation on re_oster) and the same paper was rejected twice, once because the information wasnt "new enough", and when I complained they said I had "insufficient evidence" ). Maybe I should try to publish in one of the other medical journals but then Id quite like a Dr. MBE dip. psych. med. to sub-write the article - or at least let people on ARC rewrite it - on a private list maybe (because things for the journals cant be published anywhere else beforehand) -- I have a draft. Must admit, my practical side is at present being fulfilled by building ARC. - I feel ARCgroup is the basis for any real progress - and for example I just reread ARCmanifesto, and somehow found it boring, so next I just want to rewrite that - and then update and redraw ARCindex. There are many ways to the goal .. there always are ... please refresh me - maybe Im lost in my own cul de sacs - think of the simplest possibilities ... Cheers Robin Answers:

|  | Join ARC and help break Taboos |  |