philosophy and committment
Written by Rob at 08 Jun 2005 19:08:13:
"... I do think you are faced with a problem
which dawned on me the other night. Most individuals
pre-op will want to deny the condition and most guys post-op
will want to forget all about it."
"So finding post-op guys
who are willing to make long term commitments to the
project is going to be difficult in my opinion."
Even short term or irregular committment would be good.
Maybe long term interest only comes when one sees some deeper purpose in the whole thing ...
like the antis have their practical goal of abolishing RIC ...
I had a priority goal of introducing monitoring in the UK., but I often thought how it must be easier to do this via the USA, with the support of the anti circ groups, but I tried and tried and tried to make sensible contact and they just dont seem interested in what I have to say ... monitoring IS routine in N. Europe. .... maybe the EU could even order monitoring in the UK.
You see right at the beginning of this, and still recorded in Deja news records of the NewsGroups in 1996 is my exchange when confronted with Dr Jacob Osters statistics - and really I must be the first person to have realised the guy influenced the results of his own study ... so, has the English speaking medical world been working simply on the wrong conclusions, ? Is monitoring routine in N. Europe purely because of the untrasnslatable Schoeberlein and Bokstrom?.
There are so many practical questions open. - and I believe no-one else has ever asked them - so what Im saying is its all quite new, its very new, ... have you got a pioneering spirit??
...I dont know how philosophical you can get ... some people couldnt give a damn about breakthroughs in science etc. - but if so, then it depends on how you see the anthropology questions, all of them, the cultural significance of phimosis, this newly described phenomenon. Newly described through my site. I have researched the pre-internet literature, post internet I was and am still obviously leading in my field.
Anthropologically : What I say is thoroughly researched, only Ploss and Bryk have suggested phimosis as origin for routine male circumcision, and its ridiculous what happened to their thinking, and that phimosis was dismissed subsequently as a rarity -
So first, if phimosis is not a rarity, it could have been the original reason for routine male circumcision, and thus the entire surgical tradition in Western medicine. - Theres a few side points here about the Chinese who have shorter foreskins, and theres no surgery in Traditional Chinese Medicine ... and then theres the phimotic Hindu culture, and the infibulated Roman and Greek... there are all sorts of cultural developments which MAYBE can be explained by phimosis (eliminating it, adapting to it, or the lack of it) - .... however, at present anthropologists see phimosis as a rarity.
and then I start wondering ... first, the evolutionary theory : why has phimosis not been deselected? it hinders reproduction so surely it should have been deselected?. - well, if Mother nature cares for us, and its no help individually, then it must somehow have been advantageous or certainly not disadvantageous for the group, if a percentage of male mammals are not in working order genitally --- ...*?* (think about mating behaviour in herds,... isnt the answer too obvious? - see evolution.html)
secondly, in a civilised "mass" culture without circumcision, specifically ours over the last two thousand years in Europe. - I quote myself from anthropology/european.html
" "Circumcision was not common in Europe or North America (except among Jews) until the 1870s and became widespread at the turn of the century" (59).
"When one individual male is limited or frustrated in the intimate relationship with his own body, this has an effect on his intimate relationships with others. This underlying influence magnifies tendencies of a similar nature and undermines healthy qualities. Seen individually, this wouldn't have had any exceptional effect on an adaptable community - but it is when experiences repeat that they establish themselves personally, and culturally.
"How much influence could such a genital disposition actually have had, if it occurred (unrecognised or untreated) at a frequency of one in ten, over a period of 2,000 years or a hundred generations? Could this (for example) be expected to encourage anxiety patterns and inhibitions in the relating behaviour of the culture?"
and now I have Diderot, I would easily argue that in previous generations 25% of the men had phimosis.
________________________
maybe thats all a bit too much for you? - but my God it did me good!!
it boils down to
resolving century old taboos which hinder a realistic appreciation of what it means to be a man
some people could see it as helping other individuals - but I dont think that would sustain long term interest - I often think how it must help change initiation procedures for the next generation.
There are sure to be other points Ive not mentioned. And actually apart from the theories, I think once a bit of a group starts it would be more fun, ... its just at the beginning and theres no beer - no gals - and no party
So otherwise you get an email -- cheers, --- rob
Answers:
