#Login Register


  • 14 Vote(s) - 3.21 Average
Home 


Watch and Learn
Anonymous Kritter Show this Post
03-27-2016, 04:21 PM #31
Anonymous Kritter Incognito Anonymous
 
(03-27-2016, 05:23 AM)Jim Rat Wrote:  Circumcision was made mandatory in some states in the US because EXPERTS said it was necessary to prevent spread of VD (STD to you kids). Other EXPERTS said it was necessary for cleanliness. Now, EXPERTS on this board are reporting that EXPERTS say it's genital mutilation, and other EXPERTS say its not of any use at all.

It all depends on which EXPERTS you decide to listen to.

Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer chances.




International physicians protest against American Academy of Pediatrics’ policy on infant male circumcision


http://www.knmg.nl/Nieuws/Overzicht-nieu...cision.htm
03-27-2016, 04:30 PM #32
Kreeper Griobhtha
Posts:10,733 Threads:641 Joined:Feb 2011
(03-27-2016, 03:32 AM)Octo Wrote:  I have to say that I find the US view on circumcisions rather strange.

How can we possibly change the horrendous practice of genital mutilation, because that's what circumcision is, if it's considered normal and natural in the US, the epitome of western civilization.

Mutilation is mutilation.

I think the problem is the use of the word "mutilation". I don't know what happens in female vaginal mutilation, but I am pretty familiar with the results of circumcision. I cut my had with a chainsaw once. THAT was mutilation. And yes, I have a scar on my hand. I was circumcised. Nope, no mutilation there. No scar either. If op is so insistent there are scars then maybe he should consider suing the doctor that botched his circumcision.

Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to poor
03-27-2016, 04:46 PM #33
Kreeper Griobhtha
Posts:10,733 Threads:641 Joined:Feb 2011
(03-26-2016, 11:27 PM)Anonymous Kritter Wrote:  
(03-26-2016, 11:07 PM)Kreeper Wrote:  You seem awful obsessed with the penis.

The only scars I have were cause by braces when I was in high school.


Interesting. Your statement of denial is immediately after I posted a very intelligent post from an intelligent person on the very important topic of male genital mutilation.

Honestly though, would you attempt to stigmatize a woman who was active in informing people about female genital mutilation?

Why is your thinking so debased and puritanical and why are you denying that there is a ring scar, courtesy of the Goldstein Medical Corporation, when there most certainly is?

Would you honestly transfer that denial onto one of your male offspring, so that in your mind, your son can have a 'matching' mutilated penis?

The word mutilation and the reality of what was done to you is a big, bitter pill to swallow, but people really need to stop summarily knife-raping and genitally wounding there male offspring in the US. It's so bizarre, that the victim will defend it and pas the harm on to there own son, as to maintain his own denial.

All I get from you is more of the same old victim card bullshit as the SJUWs. My circumcision can not be compared to female genital mutilation. Removing some extra skin is NOT the same as removing the clitoris and you are a desperate, attention seeking asshole for thinking it is. Comparing the two is no different than feminist twats equating someone disagreeing with them to rape.

What this comes down to is you being obsessed with dick. Maybe there is something else in your life you need to come to terms with.

I am done with you and your trolling. It was fun for a minute, but I am bored with you now. Here's hoping you find an actual life one day.

Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to poor
Anonymous Kritter Show this Post
03-27-2016, 07:19 PM #34
Anonymous Kritter Incognito Anonymous
 
(03-27-2016, 04:30 PM)Kreeper Wrote:  
(03-27-2016, 03:32 AM)Octo Wrote:  I have to say that I find the US view on circumcisions rather strange.

How can we possibly change the horrendous practice of genital mutilation, because that's what circumcision is, if it's considered normal and natural in the US, the epitome of western civilization.

Mutilation is mutilation.

I think the problem is the use of the word "mutilation". I don't know what happens in female vaginal mutilation, but I am pretty familiar with the results of circumcision. I cut my had with a chainsaw once. THAT was mutilation. And yes, I have a scar on my hand. I was circumcised. Nope, no mutilation there. No scar either. If op is so insistent there are scars then maybe he should consider suing the doctor that botched his circumcision.


It's not possible that there is no scar resulting from your "circumcision".

As I stated, the scar is so obvious, you don't even know it's there, because you think it's a normal part of your penis, but it's really not.

You have a problem with the fact that your penis was mutilated, therefore you deny, what definitionally happened to your penis.

Feeling like it's not mutilation, doesn't change the fact that your penis was definitionally mutilated.

I wasn't 'circumcised', I'm intact.

BTW, if you view the circumcision harm page, which I provided a link to, you would be able to identify where the scar on your penis is. Once you see it, it will be like standing in front of the fridge looking for something and realizing it was it was on the shelf in front of you the entire time.





http://www.dictionary.com/browse/mutilate

mutilate
[myoot-l-eyt]

verb (used with object), mutilated, mutilating.

1.
to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts:
Vandals mutilated the painting.

2.
to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.
Anonymous Kritter Show this Post
03-27-2016, 07:30 PM #35
Anonymous Kritter Incognito Anonymous
 
(03-27-2016, 04:46 PM)Kreeper Wrote:  
(03-26-2016, 11:27 PM)Anonymous Kritter Wrote:  
(03-26-2016, 11:07 PM)Kreeper Wrote:  You seem awful obsessed with the penis.

The only scars I have were cause by braces when I was in high school.


Interesting. Your statement of denial is immediately after I posted a very intelligent post from an intelligent person on the very important topic of male genital mutilation.

Honestly though, would you attempt to stigmatize a woman who was active in informing people about female genital mutilation?

Why is your thinking so debased and puritanical and why are you denying that there is a ring scar, courtesy of the Goldstein Medical Corporation, when there most certainly is?

Would you honestly transfer that denial onto one of your male offspring, so that in your mind, your son can have a 'matching' mutilated penis?

The word mutilation and the reality of what was done to you is a big, bitter pill to swallow, but people really need to stop summarily knife-raping and genitally wounding there male offspring in the US. It's so bizarre, that the victim will defend it and pas the harm on to there own son, as to maintain his own denial.

All I get from you is more of the same old victim card bullshit as the SJUWs. My circumcision can not be compared to female genital mutilation. Removing some extra skin is NOT the same as removing the clitoris and you are a desperate, attention seeking asshole for thinking it is. Comparing the two is no different than feminist twats equating someone disagreeing with them to rape.

What this comes down to is you being obsessed with dick. Maybe there is something else in your life you need to come to terms with.

I am done with you and your trolling. It was fun for a minute, but I am bored with you now. Here's hoping you find an actual life one day.

Extra you claim? The human prepuce is "extra" ?

Wow, your denial is so entrenched.... lol


Why make wholly ignorant statements like that?

You are a wounded man in denial and it's quite obvious and you didn't read or watch a single bit of information I posted, because you are dismissing it and in denial, because you cannot handle the cold hard facts.


This is right in front of you. All sourced, factual, sourced anatomical information.

Will you deny all of this info too?



http://www.noharmm.org/advantage.htm


[/The Foreskin Advantage


NOTE: Links with a right-facing blue arrow will take you off this site.

Benefits enjoyed by males who are intact (not circumcised)

1. Full penis length and circumference. The "prepuce" (foreskin) constitutes 50% or more of the skin system of the penis [1]. If unfolded and spread flat, the average adult foreskin measures 60-90 square centimeters (10-14 square inches) [2], or about the size of an index card [see illustration]. The foreskin creates a visibly longer penis, especially when the foreskin extends beyond the head of the penis. Also, the double-layered tissue of the foreskin engorges with blood during erectïon and creates a visibly and sensually thicker shaft and glans.When the engorged foreskin retracts behind the coronal ridge of the glans, it often creates a wider and more pronounced "ridge" that many partners find especially stimulating during penetrative intercourse. The circumcised penis appears truncated and thinner than a full-sized intact penis.

2. Protection. The sleeve of tissue known as the foreskin normally covers the glans and protects it from abrasion, drying, callusing (keratinization), and environmental contaminants. The glans is intended by nature to be a protected internal organ, like the female clitoris [see illustration]. The effect of an exposed glans and resulting keratinization on human sexual response has never been studied. Increasing reports by circumcised men indicate that keratinization causes a loss of sexual sensation, pleasure and fulfillment [3, 4].

3. Ridged bands. The inner foreskin contains bands of densely innervated, sexually responsive tissue [1]. They constitute a primary erogenous zone of the human penis and are important for realizing the fullness and intensity of sexual response [5].

4. Gliding action. The foreskin is the only moving part of the penis. During any sexual activity, the foreskin and glans work in unison; their mutual interaction creates a complete sexual response. In heterosexual intercourse, the non-abrasive gliding of the penis in and out of itself within the vagina facilitates smooth and pleasurable intercourse for both partners [Blue_ArrowD096.gif (140 bytes)see illustration]. Without this gliding action, the corona of the circumcised penis can function as a one-way valve, dragging vaginal lubricants out into the drying air and making artificial lubricants essential for non-painful intercourse [6].

5. Specialized sensory tissue. In addition to the "ridged bands" mentioned above, thousands of coiled fine-touch receptors (Meissner’s corpuscles) constitute the most important sensory component of the penis [1]. The foreskin contains branches of the dorsal nerve and between 10,000 and 20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings of several types, which are capable of sensing slight motion and stretch, subtle changes in temperature, and fine gradations in texture [7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12].

6. The frenulum. This is a highly nerve-laden web of tissue that tethers the inner foreskin to the underside of the glans [see photo]. It is similar to the frenula found under the tongue, the upper lip and the clitoral hood (female foreskin). For many intact men, the penile frenulum is a male "G-spot" that is highly pleasurable when repeatedly stretched and relaxed during sexual activity [13]. Depending on the surgical method used, the frenulum is partially to completely destroyed by circumcision.

7. Proper blood flow. The foreskin contains several feet of blood vessels, including the frenular artery and branches of the dorsal artery. The loss of this rich vascularization interrupts normal blood flow to the shaft and glans of the penis, damaging the natural function of the penis and altering its development [1].

8. Immunological defense. The soft mucosa of the inner foreskin produces plasma cells, which secrete immunoglobulin antibodies, and antibacterial and antiviral proteins [7, 14], such as the pathogen-killing enzyme called lysozyme [15 and Blue_ArrowD096.gif (140 bytes)see explanation]. All of the human mucosa (the linings of the mouth, eyelids, vagina, foreskin and anus) are the body's first line of defense against disease. This benefit of the foreskin could be one possible explanation why intact men are at lower risk of chlamydia and other sexually transmitted diseases [16-21].

9. Langerhans cells. These specialized epithelial cells are a component of the immune system and may play a role in protecting the penis from sexually transmitted infections such as HIV (AIDS) [Blue_ArrowD096.gif (140 bytes)see explanation and 14-16, 18].

10. Proper lymph flow. The foreskin contains lymphatic vessels, which are necessary for proper lymph flow and immunological functioning.

11. Estrogen receptors. The foreskin contains estrogen receptors, whose purpose is not yet fully understood and needs further study [22].

12. Apocrine glands. These glands produce pheromones, nature’s invisible yet compelling signals to potential sexual partners. The effect of their absence on human sexual behavior has never been studied [23].

13. Sebaceous glands. The oils produced by these glands lubricate and moisturize the foreskin and glans, so that the two structures function together smoothly.

14. Dartos fascia. This is a smooth muscle sheath that underlies the scrotum, the entire penis and the tip of the foreskin. It is necessary for proper temperature regulation of the genitals (causing these structures to elongate in the heat and shrink in the cold). Approximately half of the Dartos fascia is destroyed by circumcision [7].

15. Natural texture and coloration of the glans. In the intact penis, the glans normally appears moist, shiney, and pinkish-red to dark purple. These visual cues often attract and excite a sexual partner. The glans of a circumcised penis is dry, rough and often light pink to bluish-gray in color [see photos].

16. Zero risk of serious infection or surgical injury. Unfortunate boys who suffer botched circumcisions lose part or all of their penis from surgical mishap or subsequent infection. They are often "sexually reassigned" by castration and "transgender surgery." They are relegated to a life of hormone therapy and are compelled to live their lives as pseudo-females, the success of which has never been fully assessed [24-46].

17. Zero risk of death from surgery. Every year boy die from the complications of circumcision, a fact that the American circumcision industry ignores, obscures, or downplays [29-31].

18. Zero risk of delayed or diminished maternal bonding. Circumcision, even if anesthesia is used, causes unavoidable operative trauma and post-operative pain that has been shown to disrupt bonding with the mother, which in turn interferes with the first developmental task of every human, that of trust (trust in human contact, in personal safety, etc) [47-51].

19. Electromagnetic "cross-communication." Anecdotal reports suggest that, without the mucosa of its foreskin, the penis lacks the capacity for the subtle electromagentic energy transfer that occurs during contact between two mucous membranes (the vaginal walls and the exposed inner lining of the foreskin). Such contact contributes to the full experience of sexual pleasure. These reports deserve further scientific study.

20. The foreskin is necessary for optimal health and well-being of the male, as well as contributing to fulfillment
in his sexual relationships.]
Anonymous Kritter Show this Post
03-27-2016, 08:01 PM #36
Anonymous Kritter Incognito Anonymous
 
Saying that the foreskin is extra, is like saying that eyelids and lips are extra.


Truly mind-boggling.
Anonymous Kritter Show this Post
03-27-2016, 08:35 PM #37
Anonymous Kritter Incognito Anonymous
 
(03-27-2016, 04:46 PM)Kreeper Wrote:  
(03-26-2016, 11:27 PM)Anonymous Kritter Wrote:  
(03-26-2016, 11:07 PM)Kreeper Wrote:  You seem awful obsessed with the penis.

The only scars I have were cause by braces when I was in high school.


Interesting. Your statement of denial is immediately after I posted a very intelligent post from an intelligent person on the very important topic of male genital mutilation.

Honestly though, would you attempt to stigmatize a woman who was active in informing people about female genital mutilation?

Why is your thinking so debased and puritanical and why are you denying that there is a ring scar, courtesy of the Goldstein Medical Corporation, when there most certainly is?

Would you honestly transfer that denial onto one of your male offspring, so that in your mind, your son can have a 'matching' mutilated penis?

The word mutilation and the reality of what was done to you is a big, bitter pill to swallow, but people really need to stop summarily knife-raping and genitally wounding there male offspring in the US. It's so bizarre, that the victim will defend it and pas the harm on to there own son, as to maintain his own denial.

All I get from you is more of the same old victim card bullshit as the SJUWs. My circumcision can not be compared to female genital mutilation. Removing some extra skin is NOT the same as removing the clitoris and you are a desperate, attention seeking asshole for thinking it is. Comparing the two is no different than feminist twats equating someone disagreeing with them to rape.

What this comes down to is you being obsessed with dick. Maybe there is something else in your life you need to come to terms with.

I am done with you and your trolling. It was fun for a minute, but I am bored with you now. Here's hoping you find an actual life one day.


Who knows, perhaps you're too lazy to Google "circumcision scar" or "Gomco Clamp"?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_scar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gomco_clamp
Anonymous Kritter Show this Post
03-27-2016, 08:45 PM #38
Anonymous Kritter Incognito Anonymous
 
(03-27-2016, 08:35 PM)Anonymous Kritter Wrote:  
(03-27-2016, 04:46 PM)Kreeper Wrote:  
(03-26-2016, 11:27 PM)Anonymous Kritter Wrote:  
(03-26-2016, 11:07 PM)Kreeper Wrote:  You seem awful obsessed with the penis.

The only scars I have were cause by braces when I was in high school.


Interesting. Your statement of denial is immediately after I posted a very intelligent post from an intelligent person on the very important topic of male genital mutilation.

Honestly though, would you attempt to stigmatize a woman who was active in informing people about female genital mutilation?

Why is your thinking so debased and puritanical and why are you denying that there is a ring scar, courtesy of the Goldstein Medical Corporation, when there most certainly is?

Would you honestly transfer that denial onto one of your male offspring, so that in your mind, your son can have a 'matching' mutilated penis?

The word mutilation and the reality of what was done to you is a big, bitter pill to swallow, but people really need to stop summarily knife-raping and genitally wounding there male offspring in the US. It's so bizarre, that the victim will defend it and pas the harm on to there own son, as to maintain his own denial.

All I get from you is more of the same old victim card bullshit as the SJUWs. My circumcision can not be compared to female genital mutilation. Removing some extra skin is NOT the same as removing the clitoris and you are a desperate, attention seeking asshole for thinking it is. Comparing the two is no different than feminist twats equating someone disagreeing with them to rape.

What this comes down to is you being obsessed with dick. Maybe there is something else in your life you need to come to terms with.

I am done with you and your trolling. It was fun for a minute, but I am bored with you now. Here's hoping you find an actual life one day.


Who knows, perhaps you're too lazy to Google "circumcision scar" or "Gomco Clamp"?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_scar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gomco_clamp


"In males who have been circumcised, the circumcision scar refers to the scar after a circumcision has healed. In some cases, the scar can be darker-colored, and, in all cases, it will encircle the shaft of the penis."
03-27-2016, 10:03 PM #39
Jim Rat Member
Posts:144 Threads:1 Joined:Feb 2016
(03-27-2016, 04:21 PM)Anonymous Kritter Wrote:  
(03-27-2016, 05:23 AM)Jim Rat Wrote:  Circumcision was made mandatory in some states in the US because EXPERTS said it was necessary to prevent spread of VD (STD to you kids). Other EXPERTS said it was necessary for cleanliness. Now, EXPERTS on this board are reporting that EXPERTS say it's genital mutilation, and other EXPERTS say its not of any use at all.

It all depends on which EXPERTS you decide to listen to.

Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer chances.




International physicians protest against American Academy of Pediatrics’ policy on infant male circumcision


http://www.knmg.nl/Nieuws/Overzicht-nieu...cision.htm

My point
03-27-2016, 10:04 PM #40
Jim Rat Member
Posts:144 Threads:1 Joined:Feb 2016
(03-27-2016, 08:00 AM)AC Wrote:  
(03-27-2016, 05:23 AM)Jim Rat Wrote:  Circumcision was made mandatory in some states in the US because EXPERTS said it was necessary to prevent spread of VD (STD to you kids). Other EXPERTS said it was necessary for cleanliness. Now, EXPERTS on this board are reporting that EXPERTS say it's genital mutilation, and other EXPERTS say its not of any use at all.

It all depends on which EXPERTS you decide to listen to.

Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer chances.

Circumcision has never been mandatory in any US state.

The CDC, in the last year, simply parroted the AAP's line on circumcision. The AAP is basically the US trade association of pediatricians.

The overwhelming consensus in western medicine, is that not only is routine infant circumcision unnecessary, it's actually constitutes harm.




Circumcision:
Medical Organization Official Policy Statements

http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/

Circumcision was mandatory in the State of West Virginia, at least.
Anonymous Kritter Show this Post
03-27-2016, 10:17 PM #41
Anonymous Kritter Incognito Anonymous
 
(03-27-2016, 10:04 PM)Jim Rat Wrote:  
(03-27-2016, 08:00 AM)AC Wrote:  
(03-27-2016, 05:23 AM)Jim Rat Wrote:  Circumcision was made mandatory in some states in the US because EXPERTS said it was necessary to prevent spread of VD (STD to you kids). Other EXPERTS said it was necessary for cleanliness. Now, EXPERTS on this board are reporting that EXPERTS say it's genital mutilation, and other EXPERTS say its not of any use at all.

It all depends on which EXPERTS you decide to listen to.

Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer chances.

Circumcision has never been mandatory in any US state.

The CDC, in the last year, simply parroted the AAP's line on circumcision. The AAP is basically the US trade association of pediatricians.

The overwhelming consensus in western medicine, is that not only is routine infant circumcision unnecessary, it's actually constitutes harm.




Circumcision:
Medical Organization Official Policy Statements

http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/

Circumcision was mandatory in the State of West Virginia, at least.



That is not correct, although I will quadruple check that claim and get back to you. I cannot say that I am 100% correct, but I'll check and see.


It is quite interesting that you mention that, because West Virginia currently has the highest RIC(Routine Infant Circumcision) rate in the US, at around 85-86%.

It was 86%, as of six years ago, it might be at 85% by now, because the national, consistent downward trend in RIC has been impacting West Virginias numbers in the present day, only proportionately less than other state RIC rates.
03-27-2016, 10:22 PM #42
Jim Rat Member
Posts:144 Threads:1 Joined:Feb 2016
(03-27-2016, 10:17 PM)Anonymous Kritter Wrote:  
(03-27-2016, 10:04 PM)Jim Rat Wrote:  
(03-27-2016, 08:00 AM)AC Wrote:  
(03-27-2016, 05:23 AM)Jim Rat Wrote:  Circumcision was made mandatory in some states in the US because EXPERTS said it was necessary to prevent spread of VD (STD to you kids). Other EXPERTS said it was necessary for cleanliness. Now, EXPERTS on this board are reporting that EXPERTS say it's genital mutilation, and other EXPERTS say its not of any use at all.

It all depends on which EXPERTS you decide to listen to.

Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer chances.

Circumcision has never been mandatory in any US state.

The CDC, in the last year, simply parroted the AAP's line on circumcision. The AAP is basically the US trade association of pediatricians.

The overwhelming consensus in western medicine, is that not only is routine infant circumcision unnecessary, it's actually constitutes harm.




Circumcision:
Medical Organization Official Policy Statements

http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/

Circumcision was mandatory in the State of West Virginia, at least.



That is not correct, although I will quadruple check that claim and get back to you. I cannot say that I am 100% correct, but I'll check and see.


It is quite interesting that you mention that, because West Virginia currently has the highest RIC(Routine Infant Circumcision) rate in the US, at around 85-86%.

It was 86%, as of six years ago, it might be at 85% by now, because the national, consistent downward trend in RIC has been impacting West Virginias numbers in the present day, only proportionately less than other state RIC rates.

If it's not correct, my parents have some 'splainin' to do
Anonymous Kritter Show this Post
03-27-2016, 10:28 PM #43
Anonymous Kritter Incognito Anonymous
 
(03-27-2016, 10:04 PM)Jim Rat Wrote:  
(03-27-2016, 08:00 AM)AC Wrote:  
(03-27-2016, 05:23 AM)Jim Rat Wrote:  Circumcision was made mandatory in some states in the US because EXPERTS said it was necessary to prevent spread of VD (STD to you kids). Other EXPERTS said it was necessary for cleanliness. Now, EXPERTS on this board are reporting that EXPERTS say it's genital mutilation, and other EXPERTS say its not of any use at all.

It all depends on which EXPERTS you decide to listen to.

Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer chances.




Circumcision has never been mandatory in any US state.

The CDC, in the last year, simply parroted the AAP's line on circumcision. The AAP is basically the US trade association of pediatricians.

The overwhelming consensus in western medicine, is that not only is routine infant circumcision unnecessary, it's actually constitutes harm.




Circumcision:
Medical Organization Official Policy Statements

http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/

Circumcision was mandatory in the State of West Virginia, at least.


I checked again and didn't find anything stating that RIC has ever been mandatory in West Virginia.

Did find this though:



http://www.cirp.org/news/1966.07_Foley/


THE CIRCUMCISION NEWS LIBRARY

FACT, Volume 3, Number 4: Pages 2-9,
July-August 1966.



THE UNKINDEST CUT OF ALL

By John M. Foley, M.D.

FACT Magazine, July-August 1966
Ralph Ginzburg, Publisher

"An antidote to the timidity and
corruption of the American press"

Copyright O.U.C.H. 1993. Reprinted with permission.

A West Virginia physician asserts that circumcision, in addition to crippling and killing many infants, may cause increased homosexuality and antisemitism, and reduced sexual pleasure.

On July 20, 1964, the Medical Tribune published a letter from a Baltimore physician who called for the compulsory circumcision of all men seeking to get married. Indeed, he went on to demand Federal legislation requiring the circumcision of "every" male infant within the first 8 days of life.

Now, just why anyone would want circumcision made compulsory may seem puzzling. After all, circumcision is already a routine operation in this country. What need for legislation when 98% of all newborn boys, before leaving hospitals, are circumcised? When Sexology Magazine can maintain that circumcision has become a "status symbol," and when a physician can lament that "one has to lop it off along with the Joneses"? When just about everyone, including physicians who should know better, has bought the myth that circumcision in some mysterious way prevents certain forms of cancer?

One answer, of course, is that if circumcision were made compulsory, the circumciser would be protected whenever he happens to cripple or kill the little boy he operates on — "complication" that is not so very uncommon. Another answer, I think, must be sought in the darker regions of the human mind, because circumcision is simply an unmitigated fraud. It is nothing but wanton and unnecessary mutilation. The annual 2 million assembly-line circumcisions in this country are a monument to the gullibility and stupidity of the American public.

For 60 years, a powerful and articulate minority in our profession has tried to enforce a tabu against any objective discussion of the merits or demerits of circumcision. Over in Great Britain the climate of opinion is decidedly against routine circumcision, but here the operation has become a sacrament: To question its value has become all but unthinkable. The medical literature is virtually closed except to those who drool over the operation's alleged advantages.

Still, once in a while dissident voices manage to be heard. William Keith C. Morgan, M.D., of the University of Maryland School of Medicine has written in the Journal of the American Medical Association that "98 times out of 100 there is no valid indication for this mutilation other than religion. . . . Why is the operation of circumcision practiced? One might as well attempt to explain the rites of voodoo!" Peter Van Zante, M.D., of Iowa writes in the Medical Tribune: "Circumcision of a helpless child is a crime." Elsewhere he has said: "Circumcision is cruel and mutilating and actually should be outlawed." In 1920, a British physician named G. S. Thompson, who had once circumcised himself, later concluded that circumcision was nothing more nor less than "a barbarous and unnecessary mutilation" (British Medical Journal, 1920).

At this point, the reader may do well to examine his own conscience. If he has been circumcised, either ritually or surgically, and is chagrined that anyone would dare question the advisability of circumcising every single male infant, let him read no further. He has about as much chance of being objective as he has of growing himself a new foreskin.

* * *

Efforts to justify circumcision have been made since the very beginnings of history. The desire to mutilate came first; the "reasons" came later, and run the gamut from spiritual through cultural, esthetic, and finally medical.

This process of rationalization has culminated in the supposed relationship between the husband's foreskin and cancer of the genitals — one of the greatest hoaxes in the history of medicine. The theory is that the uncircumcised penis, because it may generate a waxy substance called smegma, can produce cancer of the penis and cancer of the cervix (neck of the womb).

The only widespread evidence in support of this theory is that Jewish men and Jewish women rarely get cancer of their sexual organs.

But granting that genital cancer is rare among Jews, circumcision is almost certainly not the reason. As Dr. Van Zante has observed, Jews in general seem to be more resistant to certain diseases than gentiles and to have a greater longevity: Genetic and cultural factors are probably at work. Thus, Paul Sherlock, M.D., of the Cornell University Medical College, is convinced that ulcerative colitis and regional enteritis are *more* common among Jews because these diseases have a genetic basis (Medical Tribune, 3/9/66).

That the lower incidence of penile and cervical cancer in Jews is genetic or cultural seems perfectly clear when one examines the incidence of genital cancer in other ethnic groups.

In Finland, fewer than one man in a thousand is circumcised, yet the incidence of penile cancer in Finnish men is less than in Americans. Finnish women also have less cancer of the cervix than American women.

In Java, the Moslems are ritually circumcised, yet Java has one of the highest incidences of cancer of the penis in the world.

In Ethiopia, Coptic women have a high incidence of cervical cancer, although 90% of Coptic men are circumcised in infancy.

In India, the Parsees are not circumcised. Yet the Parsees have one of the lowest incidences of penile and cervical cancer in the world.

Further evidence that circumcision is not linked with cancer comes from tests of human smegma. In 1942, the National Cancer Institute conducted careful experiments and found that smegma had no carcinogenic effect whatsoever. This test was duplicated in 1953 on a more extensive scale by Dr. D. G. Reddy and others, with the same conclusions. Negative results have also been obtained in a number of other experiments ("Circumcision in Infancy," Charles Weiss, M.D., Clinical Pediatrics, 1964). In addition, if smegma *were* carcinogenic, the use of a contraceptive sheath would lower the incidence of cervical cancer in women. Studies have shown that it doesn't (Journal of the American Medical Women's Association, 1962).

Finally, control groups of circumcised and uncircumcised gentiles have been studied, and cervical cancer has not been correlated with the presence of absence of the foreskin in male sexual partners (American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1958).

Yet even if circumcision and penile cancer were connected, this might not be justification enough to warrant circumcision. As Dr. Morgan points out, "this is an uncommon form of cancer and generally has a fairly good prognosis. Appendicitis causes many more deaths every year in the United States than does cancer of the penis, but nobody yet recommends routine appendectomy." Dr. Van Zante gives a more graphic analogy: "Why not amputate all female breasts to avoid mammary cancer?"

Well, does circumcision at least prevent venereal disease? Thirty years ago, routine circumcision was being urged for just this reason. Today, our circumcised teen-agers have the highest V.D. rates in history. Dr. Morgan adds: "Any U.S. or British physician with experience in North America or the Levant [where circumcision is common] knows that the Middle East has a venereal disease rate which is second to none."

Does circumcision prevent phimosis, the constriction of the foreskin? The answer is yes, but the fact is that true phimosis, as every physician knows, is extremely rare.

Does circumcision lead to a more hygienic penis? The answer, again, is yes. Except that the ears also collect dirt. Should they also be lopped off? "Soap and water," writes Dr. Morgan, "work wonders with the body's other orifices and appendages, and there would seem to be no reason to doubt their efficacy with respect to the foreskin." And while it is true that genital cancer may someday be linked with lack of cleanliness, Dr. Van Zante points out: "The male should be taught cleanliness, and if he follows this, I doubt that the uncircumcised male will contribute any greater percentage of penile and cervical cancer than the circumcised male."

Dr. Morgan's conclusion is the only conclusion possible: "There are a variety of reasons advanced in favor of circumcision, most of which are unconvincing when critically examined."

* * *

Since circumcision has practically nothing to recommend it, an important question is: Why has it become a routine operation? A few physicians go so far as to suggest that money may have something to do it. Dr. Van Zante asks rhetorically: "Don't you think that the doctor delivering the baby thinks more about the $10 or $15 surgical fee he'll get than the possible after-effects?"

My own view is: Circumcision provides a convenient and socially acceptable outlet for the perverted component of the circumciser's libido. I have had person experience with the psychopathology that underlies the wish to circumcise. The pitiful wails of the suffering infant are all too often the background for lewd and obscene commentary by the obstetrician to his audience of nurses. Several years ago I saw an infant born with multiple deformities. He could not live more than a few months at most, but to add to his miseries, this unfortunate bit of humanity had to undergo a thorough circumcision.

I have seen two medical students fight over the privilege of doing circumcision on the newborn, although these same students showed neither interest nor aptitude for opening boils or doing other surgical tasks.

In 1951, I witnessed an autopsy on an infant who had died from an infected circumcision — a death rendered even more tragic because the mother had tried to persuade the obstetrician to spare her infant this ordeal.

Dr. Alexander Schaffer, a noted pediatrician, tells with horror the case in which an infant was being delivered as a frank breech (buttocks first). Before delivering the baby, and just as the penis came into view, the obstetrician seized it and circumcised it. That obstetrician, I would say, may be capable. He may be an all-round fine fellow. But sexually I say he is a monster. And I say that one of the reasons why circumcision is so common in this country stems from the sadism of the crypto-pervert.

My viewpoint is not very novel, though, for psychiatrists have long agreed that circumcision is basically a punitive act. According to Dr. Menninger, for instance, the original and basic purpose of circumcision was to serve as a symbol of castration, and the practice was initiated by fathers — to punish their sons for whatever incestuous feelings they might have for their mothers.

Another explanation for the prevalence of circumcision: latent female antagonism toward the penis. To quote Dr. Morgan: "Perhaps not the least of the reasons why American mothers seem to endorse the operation with such enthusiasm is the fact that it is one way an intensely matriarchal society can permanently influence the physical characteristics of its males." I myself do not doubt that among the biggest boosters of circumcision are neurotic females, whose unhappy sex lives prompt them to injure a man where he feels it the most.

One could go further and consider the obstetrician: Perhaps the same stimulus that drove him into the traditionally feminine role of midwife is also responsible for his attack upon the penis. However, in all fairness, it should be pointed out that these male midwives know very little about the penis and, of all physicians, are surely the least competent to decide about circumcision. Besides, the obstetricians rarely sees the hemorrhage, the infection, and the deformities that sometimes result from his handiwork — these are the lot of the emergency-room staff, the pediatrician, the urologist, and the plastic surgeon.

Others who can be counted on the side of the circumcisers are:
A. Certain Christian clergymen, who are quick to point out that Jesus Christ submitted to circumcision. (They are not so quick to point out that Jesus also submitted to crucifixion.) The Roman Catholic Church solemnly celebrates the Feast of the Circumcision on January 1.
B. Homosexuals, who — according to psychiatrists — are in dire fear of being castrated. No doubt it pleases them when others, instead of themselves, submit to an operation that is similar.
C. Anti-Semitic Jews, ashamed of their mark and eager to make it universal.
D. All men, including physicians, who have already been circumcised. To paraphrase an expression, they suffer from "foreskin envy." Cut off a man's tonsils and it does not affect his feelings toward his neighbor's tonsils, but cut off his foreskin and his neighbor's foreskin becomes an object of envy and hatred. The circumcised have always behaved as if their circumcision were a stigma of inferiority. Jew, Moor, and Turk forced circumcision on servants, slaves, and whole nations of conquered people.

Because the motivations of the foreskin-phobes are so irrational, these people are hard to combat. The introduction of routine circumcision as a "medical" measure at the turn of the century aroused vigorous opposition within the profession. Dr. Warren Stone Bickham, an eminent surgeon, declared that circumcision was a disgrace and a discredit to the surgeon responsible. Nonetheless by 1930 the opposition had dwindled, and the fanatical circumcisers were in possession of the field. The opponents of circumcision failed because they did not understand the motives of the circumcisers and therefore could not grapple with them.

* * *

So far I have considered the "medical benefits" of circumcision and explored the possible motives of those who favor circumcision. Now I want to consider the harmful consequences of the operation.

The circumcision of a newborn boy is a spectacle so appalling and revolting in its cruelty that, on their first encounter with the ordeal, many robust medical students faint. The infant is tied down securely to a circumcision board, with his genitals exposed. Next, the entire foreskin and much of the penile skin is pulled through a clamp, and as the clamp's screw is tightened, the skin is crushed off. As much as 80% of the total penile skin is removed. In this country anesthetics are rarely used. The infant struggles and screams, and often vomits and defecates, before lapsing into unconsciousness.

As a result of circumcision, some infants die. Countless others are doomed to become sexual cripples. In 1958 a 4-year- old boy underwent surgery for an undescended testicle. The surgeon, noticing that the child still had his foreskin, just couldn't pass up this tidbit. The circumcision failed to heal, and 5 days later the penis sloughed off. The parents sued for $150,000 and settled for $80,000. In a similar case last year, the parents asked for $4,500,000. These are two cases that have come to public attention because of lawsuits. In England and Wales, however, it is known that an average of 16 children died annually from 1942 to 1947 as a direct result of circumcision.

Dr. Van Zante has this to say: "Proponents of circumcision do not mention any of the ill-effects of circumcision. Duf and Ware state, 'Major losses of penile skin are fairly common as a complication of circumcision.' The child may get a meatal ulcer. The sensitive, exposed glans [the head of the penis] sometimes becomes infected with diaper rash. . . . Occasionally a babe, especially of hemophiliac parents, bleeds to death."

Dr. Weiss mentions these other possible complications: sepsis, eczema of the glans and meatus, meatal stenosis, surgical adhesions, interference with nutrition, edema of local tissue, seepage of blood with resulting anemia, and injuries of the glans or scrotal skin.

Dr. John Van Duyn of Georgia, a plastic surgeon, has complained that often circumcisions are performed by young interns, and after they perform a few circumcisions, they are left unsupervised. "Unless the operator is competent and care is exercised," he writes, "there is always the possibility of damage from poor technique."

Dr. Van Duyn goes on: "A short time ago, I was called upon to split-graft the penis of a newborn where too much skin had been inadvertently removed, and in reporting this case found that this error had occurred in a number of other instances. "In another case, involving incorrect use of a circumcision clamp in an infant, the glans was found gangrenous on removal of the clamp and was subsequently lost."

"There is also the danger from hemorrhage, especially if the baby is placed in a prone position and supervision is minimal, In a near fatality from this cause, of which I have firsthand knowledge . . . a growing puddle of blood beneath the baby was not discovered for a considerable time.

* * *

Another hazard of circumcision is the possible diminution of sexual pleasure. Only the circumcised refer to the foreskin as a "useless appendage." The intact penis is an instrument admirably suited for its natural purpose — which is *not* simply to serve as a waterspout.

During a boy's growth, the foreskin protects the sensitive glans. Normally the surface of the glans is composed of a smooth, glistening membrane only a few cells in thickness. The surface cells are alive, and naked nerve-endings are distributed among these cells. After circumcision, this membrane becomes 10 times thicker, and the free nerve-endings disappear. The surface becomes covered with an adherent layer of dead cells, rough, dry, and insensitive.

For the mature man, the foreskin provides a covering during erectïon, and the organ increases in bulk from six to eight times. In coitus, it rolls back to expose the sensitive glans. And especially when the vagina is snug, this elastic covering promotes sexual satisfaction: It enables the penis to penetrate smoothly and without friction.

A number of students have confirmed that the uncircumcised man has a sexual advantage over the circumcised. For instance, Martin L. Edwards Sr., M.D., a Texas physician, writes: "I have counselled with many married men who are circumcised, and this alone has been a great drawback between man and wife."

On the other hand, Dr. William H. Masters and Virginia E. Johnson, in their recent book Human Sexual Response, call it a "phallic fallacy" to believe that the man who is circumcised is at a sexual disadvantage. But a close reading of their book makes their conclusion seem erroneous.

To begin with, they maintain that it is a widespread belief that the uncircumcised man has better ejaculatory control than the man who is circumcised — because his glans is *less* sensitive than the circumcised man's. Medical opinion, actually, is the opposite: The man with his original foreskin has a glans that is *particularly* sensitive.

In their book they also state: "A limited number of the male study-subject population was exposed to a brief clinical experiment designed to prove the false premise of excessive sensitivity of the circumcised glans." Experiments on 35 men in each category demonstrated no "clinically significant difference" in sensitivity of the glans.

Let me suggest that when an experiment "is designed to prove the false premise" of some belief or other, even if it uses a "limited" number of subject in a "brief" experiment, its outcome is really not in doubt.

Aside from its lack of objectivity, the basic fault of the experiment Dr. Masters and Mrs. Johnson describe is that no mention is made of when the circumcised men were circumcised. The fact is that if circumcision is delayed until adult life, degenerative changes are minimal. The glans does not suffer such a profound loss of sensitivity, and the penis gets a "tailored fit." But even if there is no sexual advantage to having one's original foreskin, and even were complications not so numerous, there would still be other dangers attendant upon circumcision — psychological dangers.

The reason that anesthetics are rarely used on infants undergoing circumcision is that — in addition to the possible danger — it has been taken for granted that infants are not sensitive to pain. Recent experiments, and contemporary opinion, however, flatly contradict this.

Charles Weiss, M.D., of the Albert Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia, states: "Experimental psychologists and psychologists who employed the techniques of pin-pricking or applied medical electric shock to different part of the body have demonstrated that sensitivity in neonates increases sharply within the first four days of life."

A Leipzig pediatrician, Prof. A Peiper, states: "I have not the slightest doubt that a newborn infant is definitely sensitive to pain."

A London physician, A. W. Wilkinson, M.D., states: "I do not think there is any doubt that infants in the first week of life are sensitive to pain because, when inadequately anesthetized, they respond very sharply to incision with a knife."

Since infants apparently do feel the pain of circumcision, no wonder that a number of psychiatrists — including Freud — have held that circumcision must leave scars on the personality. Recently, Dr. Rene A. Spitz observed: "I find it difficult to believe that circumcision, as practiced in our hospitals, would not represent stress and shock of some kind. Nobody who has witnessed the way these infants are operated on without anesthesia, the infant screaming in manifest pain, can reasonably deny that such treatment is likely to leave traces of some kind on the personality. This is one of the cruelties the medical profession thoughtlessly inflicts on infants, just because these cannot tell what they suffer."

One possible result of circumcision is impotence: Impotence seems to be frequent in circumcised men, but rare among the uncircumcised. Problem-masturbation is also as common among the circumcised as it is rare among the uncircumcised — the exposed glans explains it.

Then too, homosexuality also seems to be related to circumcision. First to report this was Melitta Schmideberg (Psychoanalytic Review, 1948), who treated two patients, homosexuals, who had been circumcised. In one of them, "The resentment and fear of his mother associated with circumcision was an important factor in the development of his homosexuality." More recently, a study was made of admissions to a large Naval hospital. Of all admissions, 32% had been circumcised. Of all admission with the diagnosis of "overt homosexuality," 100% had been circumcised. Before he died, Dr. Alfred Kinsey intended to investigate the relationship between circumcision and homosexuality.

Unfortunately, one cannot be sure about all the possible psychological illnesses that can be traced back to circumcision. As Dr. Spitz has observed, "Characteristically, no research seems ever to have been done on developmental and personality differences between a group of circumcised and one of uncircumcised infants."

* * *

Finally, in addition to the physical and psychological harm done by circumcision, there is the social harm.

It is a truism in psychoanalytic literature that circumcision is a major cause of anti-Semitism.

Circumcision, in the unconscious, is confused with castration. Thus, in Man Against Himself, Dr. Menninger writes: "I could cite many illustrations from psychiatric practice to show how, in the unconscious, circumcision and castration are equated. Because the fear of cutting in connection with the genitals is so widespread, and apparently so basic in the formation of character, any surgery in connection with the genitals is apt to be associated with strong emotional feeling which psychoanalysts, on the basis of their daily experiences with the language of the unconscious, ascribe to the 'castration threat,' i.e., the fear that the genitals are to be irremediably injured."

How do the Jews fit in? To impressionable Christian children, circumcision is considered mutilation of the genitals — and Jews are identified with the practice. Freud himself thought that the castration complex was "the deepest unconscious root of anti-Semitism; for even in the nursery little boys hear that a Jew has something cut off his penis."

Not surprisingly, in-depth interviews with antisemites have revealed that many of them have a deep fear of being castrated. Some 100 anti-Semitic students studied by Else Frenkel-Brunswik and R. Nevitt (Anti-Semitism: A Social Disease, 1946) betrayed "unconscious inferiority feelings centering mainly about the castration complex." To them,, the Jews, the symbol of the circumciser-castrator, automatically became an object of hate and fear. Dr. Nathan W. Ackerman, and Anti-Semitism and Emotional Disorder (1950), cites a patient who told him: "I can't understand why so many gentiles are circumcised. That's what the Jews did to America. Their mission is to circumcise every single Christian in the country." Asked by a Fact staffer if he had been circumcised, Nazi leader George Lincoln Rockwell became upset: "I won't answer any such degrading question as that." Rockwell evinced his ready confusion of circumcision and castration by adding: "As far as the Jews are concerned, it isn't thorough enough. They should cut about 5 inches more off."

Many psychiatrists, Jews among them, are therefore eager that Jews give up the practice of circumcision. C.G. Schoenfeld, writing in Psychoanalytic Review (1966), acknowledges that because circumcision is a "fundamental tenet of Judaism . . . Jews can hardly be expected to renounce circumcision readily — or indeed at all." But he goes on:

Nevertheless, the tenets of religion do change (consider, for example, the results of the recent Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church). Hence, it is conceivable that knowing that circumcision helps engender anti-Semitism will have an effect upon Jews, and as a result, upon Judaism — especially if Jews also familiarize themselves with certain anthropological and psychoanalytic studies and discoveries regarding circumcision.

For one thing, Jews ought to be aware that circumcision, far from being a uniquely Jewish custom, was once a common practice in ancient Egypt . . . and, in addition, that circumcision is to this very day a common practice among many of the world's primitive peoples.

* * *

To recapitulate: Circumcision has few if any medical benefits. Any link between circumcision and the prevention of genital cancer is at best unproved. Circumcision is not only unnecessary but barbaric. It can cripple children, both physically and mentally, for their whole lives. And as for the motives behind circumcision, psychiatrists are agreed that they are irrational and punitive.

What can be done?

One possible course is to wait until the physicians in this country become well-informed on the subject. However, a fascinating survey conducted a few years ago (American Journal of Diseases in Children, 1963) and 126 physicians in Ohio revealed that 69% favored routine circumcision, 20% opposed it, and 11% were of the opinion that circumcision was not a "medical" decision and should rest with the parents.

The men who conducted the survey — Robert A. Shaw and W. O. Robertson, M.D. — were quick to point out that none of the reasons given were firmly established, and many were imaginary. "The results," they concluded, "cast reasonable doubt on the belief that the decision — 'pro' or 'con' — is reached in any scientific manner."

The authors also were skeptical that the medical men will, in the near future, make themselves better informed on the subject. "One would hope," they write, "the situation might change in the next century — but do not bet on it!"

Another survey the authors conducted was of parents who let their children be circumcised. What were their reasons? I quote a few: "Thought it was a mandatory hospital procedure"; "Because it 'looks better'"; "Thought all males were circumcised"; "Everyone in our family is circumcised"; "I thought it was a law"; and "The doctor just did it."

Still, at the present time I think that it is parents who are our best hope. It is they who can campaign for a more open discussion of the problem. It is they who can prevent their sons from being circumcised. And it is, therefore, to parents that I appeal:

Let us be honest and fair enough to let our sons grow up to decide for themselves if they want to exchange their foreskins for the very dubious advantages of circumcision.

And I would like to remind parents of that perceptive remark of the great historian Henry Thomas Buckle: "Every great reform which has been effected has consisted, not in doing something new, but in undoing something old."


[CIRP Note: John Morgan Foley, M.D. was born in 1918 and died in 1967.]

Citation:
John M. Foley, M.D., The unkindest cut of all. Fact 1966;3(4):2-9.
Anonymous Kritter Show this Post
03-27-2016, 10:53 PM #44
Anonymous Kritter Incognito Anonymous
 
(03-27-2016, 10:22 PM)Jim Rat Wrote:  
(03-27-2016, 10:17 PM)Anonymous Kritter Wrote:  
(03-27-2016, 10:04 PM)Jim Rat Wrote:  
(03-27-2016, 08:00 AM)AC Wrote:  
(03-27-2016, 05:23 AM)Jim Rat Wrote:  Circumcision was made mandatory in some states in the US because EXPERTS said it was necessary to prevent spread of VD (STD to you kids). Other EXPERTS said it was necessary for cleanliness. Now, EXPERTS on this board are reporting that EXPERTS say it's genital mutilation, and other EXPERTS say its not of any use at all.

It all depends on which EXPERTS you decide to listen to.

Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer chances.

Circumcision has never been mandatory in any US state.

The CDC, in the last year, simply parroted the AAP's line on circumcision. The AAP is basically the US trade association of pediatricians.

The overwhelming consensus in western medicine, is that not only is routine infant circumcision unnecessary, it's actually constitutes harm.




Circumcision:
Medical Organization Official Policy Statements

http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/

Circumcision was mandatory in the State of West Virginia, at least.



That is not correct, although I will quadruple check that claim and get back to you. I cannot say that I am 100% correct, but I'll check and see.


It is quite interesting that you mention that, because West Virginia currently has the highest RIC(Routine Infant Circumcision) rate in the US, at around 85-86%.

It was 86%, as of six years ago, it might be at 85% by now, because the national, consistent downward trend in RIC has been impacting West Virginias numbers in the present day, only proportionately less than other state RIC rates.

If it's not correct, my parents have some 'splainin' to do


It's possible that your parents were lied to. It's happened many times. It happens frequently (docs and nurses in hospitals, lying in some capacity about 'circumcision').

It really is a crap-shoot in 2015, in terms of whether you will retain your entire penis and the most important factor/demographic of all is WHERE you will be born a boy in the US.

If a boy's parents are 'on the fence' so to speak about whether or not they will cut their baby boy and are awaiting a physician's advice, statistically speaking, that boy has almost 8 times more of a chance of leaving the hospital with his whole penis, than he would in a hospital in West Virginia.
03-27-2016, 10:57 PM #45
Jim Rat Member
Posts:144 Threads:1 Joined:Feb 2016
Wall of text.

Whenever I see a wall of text I just go outside and look at the flowers, wave.gif



Home 




 



DISCLAIMER / Terms of Service (TOS):
Kritterbox.com - Socialize anonymously, commentary, discussion, oddities, technology, music and more!  This website is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. kritterbox.com shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
This website exists solely for the purposes of exchange of information, communication and general entertainment. Opinions from posters are in no way endorsed by kritterbox.com. All posts on this website are the opinion of the authors and are not to be taken as statements of fact on behalf of kritterbox.com. This site may contain coarse language or other material that kritterbox.com is in no way responsible for. Material deemed to be offensive or pornographic at the discretion of kritterbox.com shall be removed. kritterbox.com reserves the right to modify, or remove posts and user accounts on this website at our discretion. kritterbox.com disclaims all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of any material on this website. Fictitious posts and any similarity to any person living or dead is coincidental.
All users shall limit the insertion of any and all copyrighted material to portions of the article that are relevant to the point being made, with no more than 50%, and preferably less of the original source material. A link shall be visible in text format, embedded directly to the original source material without exception.
No third party links, i.e. blogs or forums will be accepted under any circumstances, and will be edited by staff in order to reflect the original source of copyrighted material, or be removed at the sole discretion of kritterbox.com.
Fair Use Notice:
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science, and technology. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for educational and/or research purposes.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at any time at our discretion.
Copyright © 2011 - 2017 kritterbox.com