Re: philosophy and committment
Written by Nick at 07 Jul 2005 20:25:37:
As an answer to: philosophy and committment written by Rob at 08 Jun 2005 19:08:13:
Hi Robin,
I found it interesting to read your post on the philosophy of this subject with which we are concerned. I consider that drive and motivation comes best from a feeling of satisfaction and I am in no doubt that helping to change initiation procedures for the next generation would provide that level of satisfaction. Your post did indeed force me to consider the topic in much greater depth than I had done so previously since I will admit to not having read the site in it's entirety.
Your initial goal of introducing monitoring in the UK does not seem to me to be unrealistic although I appreciate that you could not achieve that alone. I can't understand why the American anti-circ movement are not interested in what you have to say. It is sometimes obvious that their motivation for abolishing the RIC in the USA is less to do with anatomical correctness and more to do with protecting their human rights. They are probably not interested in the medical reasons that circumcision is performed and can often see no further than the end of their own dicks.
I am surprised by your statement that monitoring is routine in Northern Europe when it is not here. That begs the question, what is significant anthropologically about Northern Europe in comparison to the UK? Maybe the incidence of Phimosis and associated conditions was a great deal higher in Northern Europe or maybe their culture is less prudish. I certainly believe that much of the problem in the UK is our reluctance to talk about sex and the human body, I never saw my parents without clothes on and we never talked about the birds and bees. I guess that was because my grandparents had brought my parents up that way and probably their parents were the same. So I wonder what affected our culture in past generations and resulted in the situation today. 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 since the recent hype about this kind of abuse in our country. Surely this is a bad thing for our culture and could plunge us further into a prudish state. Even more reason to try and establish monitoring of boys as a medical necessity.
So why do you say that Osters influenced his own results? I think you are saying that the basis of our understanding on the significance or incidence of Phimosis in English speaking countries came from Oster's study which was basically incorrect or inaccurate. Are you then saying that Schoeberlin & Bokstrom performed a much more valid study which concluded that Phimosis was much less rare than osters believed and that because their study was in German (presumably) the English speaking medical world never really considered the significance of their study. So had they have done so, maybe monitoring would have been established right across Europe. I am not familiar with either of these studies although should probably become so.
So I see that this is all fresh ground and really that comes as a big surprise since Phimosis has been identified for generations. It is inconceivable that ignorance still prevails. I am quite interested in the philosophical significance of the subject although I am cautious not to begin considering information which is irrelevant. I am all too aware of the presence of research which is flawed before it has begun and I guess that with a subject such as this which is surrounded by taboo it is likely that some research needs to be considered with a pinch of salt. It is also important not to get detracted from the real present day issues, after all there is little we can do about a taboo which has existed for eons, surely the important thing is to try and change that for the better. How much of these ancient studies can we actually believe, how valid were the methods they employed given that this is a subject surrounded by Taboo?
So again you quote the names of researchers, Ploss & Bryk, I know little of their work so please forgive me. What happened to their thinking then? You describe it as ridiculous. It is an interesting point you make about Chinese medicine having no surgery although I guess it makes sense if it is true about the short foreskins. 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.
When considering your views on evolution and your theory of natural selection, I am drawn to consider Darwin's theories on the subject. An interesting one that....I shall give this more consideration at a later time.
I reckon you're right that once a group is established we could have more fun.
Cheers
Nick
Nicholas Spruce
www.male-initiation.net
Answers:
