Talk:Foreskin restoration

Psychiatric Aspects

Perhaps this aspect can serve as a case study. Here we have a study being posted which dealt with certain psychiatric aspects relating to foreskin restoration. The POV edits have concentrated on discrediting this study. Nothing has been done about it. This should tell a story of its own. Lets watch the progress on this one. - Friends of Robert 16:39, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This should be changed. "Psychiatric" is a clear negative POV. Many feel chopping away at little boys is the disorder, so if psychiatry is left out of articles on voluntary circumcision, leave it out here too. I also feel that inclusion of who or who isn't homosexual is not essential, and has some homophobic intent. The same profession and journals continued to categorize and report on homosexuality as a mental disorder until quite recently. We should not cast negative POV on psychiatrists, gays, or any circumcised men in general. DanP 18:02, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Changed maybe, but deleted? You just deleted the whole thing. Let us wait and see what Theresa and the other admins have to say about that. In the meantime it should be clear that the study is valid no matter how "unkind" the findings may be. It should be reintroduced into the article in a NPOV manner but without the CIRP type embellishments being added later. - Friends of Robert 00:33, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The whole thing was not relevant to any foreskin restorations, based on the psychiatric and homophobic nature of the article. I can find an endless supply of "psychiatric analyses" of circumcision and post them too, and there are similar studies by psychiatrists in the same time period bashing gays as "mentally ill". But posting a narrow, isolated study of troubled men is pure POV. Any person (gay or not) who is pursuing a change in status (intact to cut, or cut to restored) is doing so for their own reasons. I think this is a fair defense of the deletion, so you can leave it there or delete it. However, if claims of psychiatric illness are in this article, you can bet there are articles identifying child mutilators as mentally ill, documenting what is clearly pedophilic excitement of the circumcisor. We probably both want to avoid such irrelevant side issues I hope. I believe it is better to stick with the topic, and not include mental illness either article. Let me know your thoughts. DanP 16:36, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I read the article and consider somewhat homophobic but mostly stupid and arrogant in the way that only psychiatric professionals really know how. But I think it does show attitudes among the medical profession at that time. (and let's remember that 1981 wasn't that long ago). You've already said that the study was discredited.Feel free to expand on this explanation if you like, why not put some of explanation in this page into the article itself? Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 19:54, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't say it was discredited, that was someone else. The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of a mental illnesses in 1973, reluctantly saying homosexuality "does not necessarily constitute a psychiatric disorder". The World Health Organization (WHO) didn't remove it from the list until 1994. We can go on and on, with some psychiatrists still dragging their feet today. Dredging up mentally illness judgements is probably not relevant to most men involved in restoration. If you think it is, I can gladly post articles judging the mental conditions of those who carve us up in the first place. I would rather not do that, as up to recently, both circumcision and restoration articles describe the practice and its history, not a stereotyped mindset of the participants. Do you really want to change that? DanP 21:27, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, the pro-mutilation zealots have decided to try to delete the circumciser article, brushing off the occupational charactistics and drives of the serial mutilator. Apparently, those who carry out and defend such a practice cannot even stand a "light of day" of any degree at all. Tolerance is not their strong suit. But the foreskin restoration article goes on with its homophobic implications. On the other hand, the clear pedophilia of flesh-harvesting circumcisers does not merit any inclusion according to their agenda. This is their nice way to define Neutral point of view as "my opinion, but not yours". When will this all be made neutral? DanP 18:33, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

When we have you ranting as to how we are all pro mutilation and we have Robert Brookes (Now calling himself "friends of robert") Telling us as to how we are all biased against circumscision, then I have to say, we probably have it somewhere about right. If you want to stop the cicumciser article expand it from the dic def it is now into a proper neutral stub. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 18:45, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The deletion attempt is not motivated by it being a dic def. It is motivated by elimating all inspection of the mutilator's mind. If it were otherwise, there would be a motion to merge info with some other article. I do not accuse you of being pro-mutilation, but rather striving to censor both sides. That is against NPOV too! I might side with Robert as to some of you being "biased against circumcision", as that is no better in this context. Although so far, even the proponents have been halfway "biased against circumcision" in that they push gender-selective mutilation of 50% of the population. Rather than hearing both sides in many articles, which is NPOV as I read it, many of the folks with feigned-neutrality seem to lean toward suppression (whether guided by extreme POV or "center" it makes no difference). You see this filled with emotional POV like "just live with it", accusations of trolling, and popularity-contest-style framing of NPOV. I found this under NPOV:

" Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view as being correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. "

Let's look at that. If a proponent of childhood genital cutting can stick homophobia and unproven mental illness in this article, then opponents should be permitted to stick pedophilia or other psychological observations in other articles. That seems like both sides are presented, without asserting or claiming accuracy of one view, or the other view, or some "center" view. But then again, I opposed this whole psychiatric basis for encyclopedic knowledge from the beginning, if you recall. DanP 19:35, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

History - Lack of foreskin

I quote from the current article: "an absent or undersized foreskin was considered obscene or humorous". This was atributed to an article by Robert G Hall [1]The article contains only a statement with no supporting information so must be considered to be mere speculation. The article must be ammended accordingly. - Friends of Robert 05:35, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Emphasis

Last I checked, CIRP did not say they were anticircumcision anywhere on their site. Indeed those loaded words are often an attempt to confuse this with adult circumcision. We do not say breast reconstruction is "antimastectomy", so please leave out pro and anti judgements. Including CIRP as part of men's health issues is fine, nobody is saying they are right or better than anyone else. So I see that as NPOV, I hope we can agree that emphasizing circumcision one way or the other is not relevant at all in this article. DanP 23:54, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well I don't see that CIRP has to actually say they are anticircumcision for it to be' anticircumcision, but I do take your point that it is irrelavant on this article. I'll remove the disclaimer. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 05:25, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Heh heh heh ... nice logic there, Theresa. Sorry to say it doesn't work though. Once again you POV pushing becomes apparent. Sad, really sad. - Friends of Robert 17:00, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Whatever! I've reverted you addition because I agree with DanP on this issue. It's fine by me to have a cirp disclaimer on the circumcision article, but it's not relavent here Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 21:13, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is this the trade off to keep this incarnation of "Dan" happy? Robert once tried to set up a universal CIRP Disclaimer but was rudely slaped down by one of the admirers of the foreskin with sysop powers. Maybe we should try again and attach it to all CIRP cites? You, being ever so NPOV and all would maybe like to try a draft of a suitable warning in this regard? - Friends of Robert 04:08, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Whether a person is an admirer of foreskin or a mutilator of young boys has little relevance in this article. If CIRP posted a recipe for oatmeal cookies, you'd slap "anticircumcision" on the page hinting that the cookies were awful. Bottom line here is that many men who restore their foreskins have chosen circumcision voluntarily or had a genuine medical need to cope with. Many of them knew their situation before circumcision, and preferred it. I hope you agree that this article is primarily about after the cut is done for whatever reason. It should not judge an individual's circumcision one way or the other. If you want to mention that men engaged in foreskin restoration also tend to oppose circumcision of infants, that is a fair addition. DanP 17:16, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep in appropriate categories

The scientific basis of neurochemistry is no less relevant than a far-fetched glans study which has no mention of restoration. Pertaining to actual restoration, you can see before and after photos of glans texture. And this theory than the glans does not keritinize has been debunked time after time, as mucous membranes all respond in a similar manner in the body to severe dryness. In any case, leave the glans study out, or put it back, I don't care which. But if you include it, then you have to allow science of neural response to be discussed. The study, flawed as it is, total neglects nerve impulses and focuses only on certain physical parameters. DanP 17:56, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Revert wars

Although this article has been edited 40 times in October alone, very little has changed and not much progress has been made. Perhaps instead of continuing to rollback and revert changes to a few sections of this article so that it essentially cycles between two different versions, we could discuss the disputed sections here and find a solution.

If other editors are interested in discussing the disputed parts of this article with a goal of coming to a factually accurate version that is backed up by scientific evidence, please comment below. If necessary, we can take the dispute to Wikipedia:Requests for comment or even hold a vote, but anything is better than what's happening now.

Acegikmo1 04:51, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Circumcisiosexuals keep trying to tell the world what motivates us to restore. We know what motivates us better than a circumcisiophiliac ever could.

The circumcisiosexuals tell the world what they believe our goals in restoration are. I say that restorers know what our goals are better than the circumcisiophiliacs do.

The circumcisiosexuals say that restorers are insane. The restorers say that circumcisiophiliacs are insane. I have questions about the sanity of restorers:

¿Is a woman who lost a mammarian gland to cancer insane to want reconstructive surgery?
Is a person who lost a nose to cancer insane to want a prosthetic nose?
Is someone who lost an eye insane to want a glasseye?

Maybe two polls would be a polls would be a good idea. These are just mockups for working out the kinks:

| Mockup For Comment -- Not A Real Poll | ¿Should either Præputial Restorers or Circumcisiosexuals state both the motivations and the goals of Præputial Restorers? | / Mockup For Comment -- Not A Real Poll |

Comments

Yes

No

| Mockup For Comment -- Not A Real Poll | ¿Is it sane to want to be normal and whole? | / Mockup For Comment -- Not A Real Poll |

Comments

Yes

No

Groundrules:

No Anonymous Contributes can vote
No user registered after 2004-10-01 can vote
Only one of the accounts of Robert Brookes can vote
Everyone including anonymous editors, people registered after 2004-10-01 can, and all of the accounts of Robert Brookes can comment

¿Is this acceptable?

Ŭalabio 07:21, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

The last poll you try to hold had no takers. Why should this be any different? People are getting wise to what floats the collective boats of foreskin restorers and it is increasingly at odds with what these sad people try to sell as their motivation. We need to include in the article the dubious motivations behind the need to hang weights from their penises. No sugar coating can be acceptable. - Robert the Bruce 09:58, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sure and I can write an article about what motivates circumcisiophiliacs. The thought ogf a glansbeing exposed for the first time and forever is very stimulating to circumcisiosexuals. Circumcisiophiliacs like to have all glandes exposed. ¿Why do circumcisiosexuals want to cut children? ¿Why do circumcisiophiliacs go to masscircumcisions as tourists? ¿Why do groups of circumcisiosexuals pay intact narcotics-users money to masturbate one last time by means of the præpuce before circumcising him so high and tight that we probably will never orgasm again? ¿Why do circumcisiophiliacs like to fellate baby-boys after sexually mutilating them? I would not sugarcoat my article about you.

Post Scriptum:

You are lust mad that you lost the poll.

Ŭalabio 17:58, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

This does seem to be getting silly. Why are some contributors to determined to cover up (no pun intended) relevant scientific evidence? - Jakew 10:12, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I see two problems with your argument:

You cite Google-Group-Posts as evidence
You rewrite the reasons Præputial Restorers give for restoring and what our goals are

1. For every Google-Group-Post you cite, I could cite two Usenetnewsgroupposts, which you could counter with three saved IM-chats, which I could counter with four pictures of graffiti scrolled on a wall.

2. Only restorers know what motivates restorers. Only restorers know what our goals are. If a newspaper rewrote the stated motivations and goals of someone, people would say that the newspaper is worse than CBS and Fox. Ŭalabio 17:58, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

Not true. Many people who care to read up on the issue know what floats their boats. Take this "gem" for example ... "My Russian roommate a couple summers ago had the tightest possible foreskin spout. I'd love to imitate his look if it is possible." Now a simple question. Is that psycho sexual or what? Now no one would really mind these people hanging weights from their penises if they kept to themselves but when they challenge other peoples religious and cultural practices in order to attempt to make their rather dubious practice respectable they need to be challenged themselves. Obviously they do not like people digging into their highly suspect motivations. Sad, very sad. - Robert the Bruce 05:18, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am not the one into cutting infants. Restorers do not want forced restoration of all sexually mutilated men. You, on the other hand, want forced nontherapeutic medically unnecessary circumcision of all minors.Ŭalabio 07:58, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)

I am? Nah. What I believe is that male circumcision is a perfectly acceptable parental decision as a result of religious, cultural or medical considerations. Now do be careful, if you carry on with the personal attacks you will shortly have Theresa in stepping again to cover your tracks. - Robert the Bruce 08:26, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

¿Whose body? ¿Whose rights? ¿Is the baby property of the parents? ¿Do the parents have to live with results of the sexual mutilation? The parents should keep their hands off of the genitals of children.

Ŭalabio 09:49, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)

I have not covered anyone's tracks. We have a policy of removing personal attacks here, and when i see someone making personal attacks i remove them. The tracks are perfectly visible in the history. Anything that anyone says is in the history somewhere and can be used in evidence against them at disciplinary proceedings later on. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 08:55, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps one can be forgiven for seeing such urgent interevention which was not followed up by any disciplinary procedings as suspicious? Not very evenhanded you must agree. Anyway now that you are back ... no feined neutrality please. - Robert the Bruce 09:22, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Disputed sections

Since people responded to my comment above, I think we should get to work and start looking at the disputed sections.

Under "Overview", the disputed text is, "Some circumcised men want their foreskin restored to try to regain lost sexual sensitivity, while others have different reasons such as comfort, appearance, or a sense of completion." I believe this is disputed because the issue of whether foreskin restoration actually improves sexual sensitivity is contested. What do people think of the following compromise: "Some circumcised men want their foreskin restored because they believe it will improve the appearance of their penis, give them a sense of completion, or provide them with greater comfort and sexual sensitivy."

The next disputed section of the text is, "Unlike circumcision of minors, this process of restoration is generally carried out by adult men on a voluntary basis." While this is true, it doesn't seem very relevent in context. Perhaps we could say, "Many men who undergo foreskin restoration were circumcized as minors. While they generally oppose the circumcision of minors, they embrace foreskin restoration as a voluntary process."

Under Physical Aspects, the disputed text relates to sexual sensitivity and keritanization.

- One version reads, "Some men have also reported decreased levels of keratin of the glans due to this process...A widely reported effect is improvement in sensitivity. The coverage of the glans tends to allow the glans texture and sensitivity to be restored to a quality similar to that of natural genitalia. ...In addition, the new foreskin is usually very sensitive in itself, which cited as a benefit separate from changes in glans sensitivity. In either case, the majority of men who have restored their foreskins feel satisfied with the process."

- The alternate text is "Despite evidence that circumcision does not lead to increased keratinization [2] and a reduction in sensitivity of the glans [3] some foreskin restorers make claims of increased sensitivity and reduced keratinization through foreskin restoration."

Unless the first version can be supported by evidence, I think we should go with the second version for now. Some time ago, DanP challenged the Bleustein study. He stated,

An important discovery is that the touch receptors in the glans are no longer stimulated thoughout the day by contact with clothing. Touch-sensitive nerves are mechanoreceptors, and have the property that constant stimuli can diminish the action potential over time. With genitals, this can have an effect on how touch, or in some cases sexual response, is interpreted by the brain. This effect is not easily measurable, and is much the same as the perceived elevated sensitivity of covered skin in general. For example, when skin is tightly bandaged or covered by a cast for a sustained period of time and then exposed to the air, the skin can feel more sensitive to the touch.
Therefore, it is probable that the perceived sensitivity gains of foreskin restoration may not include a physical change in glans sensitivity, except for men who have extreme scarring and keritinization to cope with. Instead, changes in glans sensitivity may be qualitative and neurochemical in effect.

If he can support this by external resources, I don't object to it going in the article (though it could probably be simplified). I'm interested in what people have to say about my proposals.

Sincerely,

Acegikmo1 17:21, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for the screwedup merge after our editconflict (check history if you want to see what happened). Your ideas are good, but one thing not addressed is the circumcisiophiliacs telling us and the world what our goals and motivations are. We can speak for ourselves. Another issue is that the circumcisiosexuals want to make us look insane for wanting whole intact complete normal bodies.

Ŭalabio 18:14, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

Regarding DanP's comments, I highly doubt that he'll be able to provide supporting evidence for something that he claims is "not easily measurable". Still, we'll see.

Regarding Ŭalabio's comments, firstly please be respectful towards those who disagree with you, and avoid such name-calling as 'circumcisiophiliacs' and 'circumcisiosexuals'. Secondly, restorers may know their own motivations (though not always), but they may not know those of others. It's very easy to assume everyone is like ourselves, isn't it, and sometimes this can trick us. Perhaps we can resolve this by scouring the literature for documented motivations? Finally, nobody wants restorers to look insane, and that is not the purpose of Wiki. The purpose is to provide accurate information, so that people can make up their own minds. - Jakew 18:39, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

2004-10-18T18:39 (UTC), Jakew:

Regarding DanP's comments, I highly doubt that he'll be able to provide supporting evidence for something that he claims is "not easily measurable". Still, we'll see.

I disagree. Anecdotally, most of us have had casts removed. We can attest that skin feels more sensitive. On the side of mechanoreceptors going numb from overstimulation, I present what OSHA has to say about the subject. Unless you wish to challenge both the accounts of people who had casts removed and OSHA, I plan to include the information.

Regarding Ŭalabio's comments, firstly please be respectful towards those who disagree with you, and avoid such name-calling as 'circumcisiophiliacs' and 'circumcisiosexuals'.

¿What would you like one to call your group? ¿What would you like one to call members of your group? At any rate, both circumcisiophiliacs and circumcisiosexuals are accurate terms.

Secondly, restorers may know their own motivations (though not always), but they may not know those of others. It's very easy to assume everyone is like ourselves, isn't it, and sometimes this can trick us. Perhaps we can resolve this by scouring the literature for documented motivations?

If you want to add motivation from the literature, fine. Please stop changing the stated reasons for restoring from restorers. I want to be whole complete intact and normal with better sexual function.

Finally, nobody wants restorers to look insane, and that is not the purpose of Wiki. The purpose is to provide accurate information, so that people can make up their own minds. - Jakew 18:39, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

¿What about that junk your camp slipped in about restorers being homosexuals with psycho[sexual problems (that description better describes your camp)? I am a heterosexual man. I suffered from circumcisiogenic anorgamia. I suppose that your solution would be to get a subincision. I decided to restore -- not further sexually mutilate myself. Thanks to restoration, I can do amazing feats such as preform manual prostate-maintenance without lubricants. Much more importantly, I can make love now. I am psychosexually more health now than in a decade thanks to restoration:

Loneliness and sexual frustration did not leave me in the best psychological state. Now, I am more content than anytime in over a decade.

Ŭalabio 09:40, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)

Your proposed changes to the first two sections look good. However I suggest adding the word "non-therapeutic" to the second sentence in the second section. "While they generally oppose the non-therapeutic circumcision of minors, they embrace foreskin restoration as a voluntary process." -- DanBlackham 07:34, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Acegikmo1. Your efforts are not very helpful. All it seems you are hoping to achieve is to keep the pot boiling. A few points which seem to be lost on you.

There is no physiological evidence that any reported improved sensitivity results from foreskin restoration. It is therefore merely psychosexual, psychosomatic and an example of the placebo effect, with no real change in glans sensitivity. This in itself is fine as long as it is recognised and that you do not draw or promote the drawing of such a conclusion that there was any sensitivity depravation to begin with.
It is obvious that men embarking on foreskin restoration (rather than undergoing) would have been circumcised. Dah. Any efforts to elaborate on this is merely an attempt to get in a cheap shot about routine neonatal circumcision. How low do you want to go?
The physical aspects section should be left as is other than if you wish to state that a "big" reason some of these restorers want a foreskin is through their attraction to the item as a sex toy. My best advice is therefore to leave it be as to do that would surely open a can of worms which will make the restorers apoplectic.

Finally, I suggest it is time you drop the pretense of being an "honest broker" in this. State rather you POV openly and resist the temptation of trying to POV push by stealth and misrepresentation. - Robert the Bruce 09:19, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)