Difference between revisions of "FRAC 22 - Intactavision"

From Fakeopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(first version)
(Tag: Removed redirect)
Line 16: Line 16:
 
| Host || '''[[User:Geris|Geris]]'''
 
| Host || '''[[User:Geris|Geris]]'''
 
|-
 
|-
| Production || '''[[User:Gaia|Gaia]]'''
+
| Production || '''[[User:Gaia1|Gaia]]'''
 
|-
 
|-
 
| Guests || '''Steven, Luke Artanis, Thought Criminal''',<br>Kyle, '''Carter''', Cody, [[User:Fliegenfuerst|Fliegenfuerst]], [[User:Gaia1|Gaia]]
 
| Guests || '''Steven, Luke Artanis, Thought Criminal''',<br>Kyle, '''Carter''', Cody, [[User:Fliegenfuerst|Fliegenfuerst]], [[User:Gaia1|Gaia]]
Line 38: Line 38:
 
|}
 
|}
  
'''FRAC Podcast 22''' ([[FRAC|FRiday Audio Chat]]), named '''''"Intactavision"''''' is the 22th episode in the [[FRAC]] podcast series, hosted by [[Fakeologist.com]] member [[User:Geris|Geris]], with as guests Steven, Luke Artanis, Thoughtcriminal, Kyle, Carter, Cody, [[User:Fliegenfuerst|Fliegenfuerst]] and [[User:Gaia|Gaia]]. The podcast dedicated to the important fight of [[Intactivism]] aired live on Friday October 4, 2019 for 2:48:43.<ref name=FRAC22 group="R">[http://fakeologist.com/blog/2019/10/05/fac618-frac22-intactavision/ FRAC 22]</ref>
+
'''FRAC Podcast 22''' ([[FRAC|FRiday Audio Chat]]), named '''''"Intactavision"''''' is the 22th episode in the [[FRAC]] podcast series, hosted by [[Fakeologist.com]] member [[User:Geris|Geris]], with as guests Steven, Luke Artanis, Thoughtcriminal, Kyle, Carter, Cody, [[User:Fliegenfuerst|Fliegenfuerst]] and [[User:Gaia1|Gaia]]. The podcast dedicated to the important fight of [[Intactivism]] aired live on Friday October 4, 2019 for 2:48:43.<ref name=FRAC22 group="R">[http://fakeologist.com/blog/2019/10/05/fac618-frac22-intactavision/ FRAC 22]</ref>
  
 
== Summary ==
 
== Summary ==

Revision as of 14:36, 6 October 2019

FRAC Podcast 22
"Intactavision"
André Gill - Madame Anastasie.jpg
Live Friday October 4, 2019
Length 2:48:43
Host Geris
Production Gaia
Guests Steven, Luke Artanis, Thought Criminal,
Kyle, Carter, Cody, Fliegenfuerst, Gaia
Subject Intactivism
Listen FRAC 22 - "Intactavision"
Discuss Fakeologist Discord
Series FRAC
FRAC 21 FRAC 23

FRAC Podcast 22 (FRiday Audio Chat), named "Intactavision" is the 22th episode in the FRAC podcast series, hosted by Fakeologist.com member Geris, with as guests Steven, Luke Artanis, Thoughtcriminal, Kyle, Carter, Cody, Fliegenfuerst and Gaia. The podcast dedicated to the important fight of Intactivism aired live on Friday October 4, 2019 for 2:48:43.[R 1]

Summary

Below you find an overview of links and background information on the topics discussed in the podcast

Introduction
Intactivism

"

Circumcision in the United States of America

In the United States circumcision emerged at the same time as in Britain and for much the same reasons: hostility to masturbation, delusions about congenital phimosis, fear of diseases like syphilis and cancer. But it got its biggest boosts from the two world wars and from the medicalisation of childbirth. The importance of both the obstetricians/gynecologists and the the military in the promotion of circumcision in the USA cannot be overestimated.

Although experts in venereal diseas such as Abraham Wolbarst had called for universal circumcision as early as 1914 [1], it was the obstetricians and gynecologists who were responsible for realising his dream. It may seem strange that the most important advocates of routine male circumcision within the medical profession were experts in women's health, who knew little and cared less about male anatomy, but from the 1930s onwards it was the obstetricians and gynecologists who most vigorously touted the advantages of the procedure and performed most of the operations. Symptomatic of their power was the introduction of the Gomco clamp by the obstetrician Hiram Yellen, who wanted a device that was so simple to use that his colleagues would be able to claim the circumcision procedure from fussy and expensive surgeons who still insisted on anaesthetics and strict control of bleeding. The result was that circumcison came to be seen as part of the birth process, often performed within a day or even a few hours of the boy's arrival in the world - a procedure no more surgical or problematic than tying his umbilical cord [2].

So obsessed did these specialists in women's bodies become with altering male bodies that it was not unknown for them to circumcise the poor boy before he had even fully emerged from the womb. The authors of a book on childhood diseases report: "The practice of circumcision has become almost universal in the United States.... Some obstetricians have made early circumcision almost a fetish, reaching it to a reductio ad absurdum in one instance with which we are familiar in which the operation was performed when the hips been delivered and pending expulsion of the upper half of the body." [3]

Military discipline

The US military was another important influence. Around the turn of the last century, circumcision of infants was still rather rare, though circumcision of older boys was gaining in popularity. During World War I, the military led a concerted effort to circumcise soldiers and sailors because it was believed that this would make them less susceptible to venereal disease; military discipline forced men to submit to a procedure they would never have agreed to had it been left to their own decision. Thousands of men were circumcised in their late teens and early 20s. When these men returned home and became fathers, doctors began asking whether they wanted their newborn sons circumcised. Many, remembering the pain that they or their buddies endured from the operation as adults, said yes, thinking it would avoid having to do it later, when the pain was thought to be worse than in infancy. Most babies, however, continued to be born at home and were not circumcised.

By the outset of World War II, the USA had circumcision rates of about 40-50 per cent and Britain 30 to 40 per cent. Most sources agree that circumcision in the UK continued its climb until just about the outbreak of war. After the Second World War, there was a remarkable split in circumcision rates in the USA and Britain. The UK was absolutely ravaged from war - there were no spare resources anywhere. The National Health Service, which had originally been planned for the 1930s and delayed, finally came into being quite shakily in July 1948. Most people predicted its imminent failure. While circumcision was theoretically "included" in the free procedures, most physicians had real trouble justifying it in the climate of near-poverty. There was thus no financial incentive for unnecessary surgery.

Role of medical insurance

In the USA, there was rapid development and prosperity after World War II. One consequence of this was the shortage of labour for all the newly-created jobs. From the early 1950s, companies began offering lavish benefits packages to lure employees, and it became standard for them to include full, private health insurance as a condition of employment. Thus, there was no need for the US government to even investigate starting a national health scheme as long as there was full employment and companies were falling over each other to provide the most lavish plans.

Almost all of these private insurance packages paid for male infant circumcision, then considered to be quite a progressive and good thing to do. The USA saw a tremendous rise in the number of hospital births after the war, and it became a sign of backwardness to have a child at home. Even the poorest citizens arranged to have their babies in hospital. During the 1950s the rate of routine infant circumcision exploded from about 50 per cent to about 90 per cent. This was also fuelled by the popular press, such as Dr. Benjamin Spock's Baby and Child Care. Nearly every American family had (has!) this bible of child care on their bookshelf. In the earliest editions, appearing just after World War II, Dr. Spock argued that circumcision is a very good idea, particularly if the other boys in the neighbourhood were also cut. Caring for the baby would then be easy, and he'll grow up feeling "regular" (i.e., not eccentric, different or in any other way un-American - it is a very conformist culture). In the 1980s Spock recanted this advice and suggested that being intact was just fine and that parents should leave baby boy's penises alone. But it was harder to stop a trend than to start it.

In 1959 the circumcision rate in the USA was about 90 per cent. It was very rare to see a foreskin in the changing room. Those that did have one also usually had a story: born premature, to immigrant parents, or overseas and came to the USA as children. In Britain the incidence of neonatal circumcision declined to less than 5 per cent by the early 1950s. During this same period, it was skyrocketing in the USA. The biggest difference was probably around 1960, when hardly any British boys were cut and nearly every American boy got circumcised. The difference is illustrated in the contrasting answers given to the question "Should the baby be circumcised?" by the American obstetrician Alan Gutttmacher in 1941 and the British surgeon Sir Daniel Whiddon in 1953.

Although there had always been American critics of the ever-spreading circumcison fashion, they did not begin to have much infuence (as evidenced by a fall in the incidence of the practice) until the 1970s.

A correspondent in the USA reports:

This past weekend I was up in Vancouver, Canada for their last good beach days of the summer. Wreck Beach is one of North America's largest nude beaches, and it sits right on the campus of the University of British Columbia. I've been going there every summer for the past 16 years, and have noticed a marked change in the college students. They guys now seem to be about 50/50 cut/uncut, which is very different from the 80% cut I was seeing in the 1980's. By my estimates, most undergraduates at UBC are now intact, and soon it will be something like 3/4 uncut. This reflects the rapid decline of circumcision in Canada in the early 1980s.

This is such a contrast to the USA for various reasons. One, of course, is that more than a million baby boys still get circumcised every year in the USA - most within the first 24 or 48 hours of life. Second is the fact that "modesty" has reached insane levels in the newly-conservative USA, unlike most other countries. High schools have been ripping out shower rooms with a vengeance during the past 10 years as boys refuse to undress in front of one another, and parents have begun to sue school districts for invasion of privacy (forcing boys to reveal their private bits to one another in gym class). Now kids just stink as they go from gym class to history class. Even the athletes do not shower after practice after-school: they ring Mom to come get them so they can shower alone at home, out of view of their mates. The net effect of this is that most American males born today will never see another male naked in their lives until, and if, they have a son of their own. If they see him at birth they will certainly view his long, tapering penis as something quite strange and probably regard it as unnatural. Even then, quite a few American males will go to their graves never having seen a penis other than their own. My guess is that this is going to turn the country even more neurotic than it is, and makes issues like stopping circumcision more difficult. Whilst the "locker room" argument now holds no water, circumcised men are more afraid than ever of the unknown.

A puzzling situation

Why routine circumcision persists in the USA, long after it has been largely or entirely abandoned by the other anglophone countries which originally took it up, remains a puzzle. How deeply embedded in modern American culture it seems to be is indicated by a story told by the paediatrician Robert Van Howe, who reports that he once spent hours resuscitating and assessing the injuries of a boy who had been born unable to breathe, without a pulse, and with a broken humerus and depressed skull fracture resulting from a difficult forceps delivery. He then visited the mother, whose first question was "When can he be circumcised?"

Such a sense of priorities sharply indicates the privileged place of male circumcision in modern America and highlights the difficulties in explaining what Edward Wallerstein has called "the uniquely American medical enigma". Despite statements from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in 1971, 1975, 1978 and 1983, he noted in 1985 that the practice had abated little. Even today, after further statements in 1989 and 1999, the operation is performed on well over half of all of newborns.

Van Howe suggests seven lines of inquiry. (1) The foreskin is the focus of myths, misconceptions and irrationality affecting medical profession and public alike. (2) Lack of respect for the rights and individuality of children. (3) A contrasting exaggerated delicacy with respect to the presumed sensibilities of religious minorities which practise circumcision for cultural reasons. (4) The reluctance of physicians to take a firm stand against circumcision and to refuse parental requests. (5) Bias in American medical journals, which tend to favour articles with a pro-circumcision tendency and are reluctant to publish critiques, much less developed arguments against. (6) Failure to subject circumcision to the normal protocols for surgery, such as the need for informed consent, evidence of pathology and proof of prophylactic benefit. (7) Strong financial incentives to perform the operation, usually guaranteed by medical insurance coverage.

The last of these points has been stressed by a number of critics. In their analysis of Medicaid funding, Amber Craig and colleagues found that low and declining rates of circumcision correspond to regions where the procedure is not funded, most noticeably in California.

The market for medical services

As David Gollaher and any analysis of the economics of medicine have shown, doctors are not disinterested scientific observers, but professionals selling a service in return for a fee. The rapid spread and obstinate survival of circumcision in the USA may thus be related to a probable chronic oversupply of doctors there, an aspect of the bloated medical industry which the vast wealth of the world's richest nation is able to sustain. American physicians seem have always been short of well-paying patients, sharply on the look-out for little jobs offering a good return, and consequently liable to invent new disease conditionss requiring frequent trips to the surgery. Many of the nervous syndromes of the late Victorian period - hysteria, neurasthenia, spinal irritation, reflex neuroses, congenital phimosis and preputial adhesions in male and female - can be accounted for in no other way. Dr Robert Morris suggested in 1892 that since 80 per cent of American women suffered from adhesions which bound the clitoris to the prepuce and produced many bodily disturbances, female physicians should be required to inspect the genitals of all schoolgirls to ensure that proper separation between prepuce and clitoris had occurred. He was confident that most of the girls would require surgery, and this was a good thing, since it provided work for female doctors: "The separation of adhesive prepuces in young unmarried women should be done by female physicians anyway, and such physicians can be abundantly occupied with this sort of work". [4]

This desperate search for something to do, and someone to do it to (in a word, new and bigger markets for medical services) in turn feeds and is fed by the illusion that universal perfect health is an achievable goal: all that is needed are more funds for medical research, more health services, more doctors, more programs etc. Alas, the goal of perfect health for all is as unattainable as perfect happiness or a perfect partner for everybody: with avoidable medical accidents the eighth most common cause of death in the USA, it is probable that more illness and injury are caused by chasing this chimaera than by accepting the limits of health and beauty that one's genes and environment have determined.

On the inflated importance of both health and sickness in the world today, see:

Frank Furedi, "Our unhealthy obsession with sickness"

Dr Michael FitzPatrick's astringent observations in his health column for Spiked-online

But the times, they are a-changing

Even in the USA, however, more doctors are realising that it is unnecessary, harmful and unethical to deprive baby boys of their foreskin unless there is an immediate medical problem that can only be corrected in that way. For an indication of the trend of American mendicalthinking, see a recent article by Dr Roxanne Allegretti, of Fredericksburg, Virgina.

Notes 1. Abraham Wolbarst, "Universal circumcision as a sanitary measure", Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 62, 1914, p. 92-7

2. Richard Miller and Donald Snyder, "Immediate circumcision of the newborn male", American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vol. 65, 1953, p. 1-11

3. Schaffer and Avery, Diseases of the Newborn (4th edn, Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1977), p. 420

3. Robert Morris, "Is evolution trying to do away with the clitoris?", Transactions of the American Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Vol. 5, 1892, p. 293. Morris had of course been inspired by the argument of P.C. Remondino, in his History of circumcision from the earliest times: Moral and physical reasons for its performance (1891), that this was exactly what evolution was trying to do with the male foreskin - though found itself in need of a helping hand from surgeons like him."

Primary human dermal fibroblasts isolated from neonatal foreskin, cryopreserved at the end of the primary culture.

  • Viability at least 70%
  • ≥500,000 viable cells/vial
  • Capable of at least 16 population doublings
  • Mycoplasma: Not Detected
  • Hepatitis B: Not Detected
  • Hepatitis C: Not Detected
  • HIV-1: Not Detected
  • Bacteria, yeast, and other fungi: Not Detected

The billion dollar beauty industry keeps coming up with new, innovative facial treatments that promise to banish fine lines, smooth out wrinkles, and even out skin tone. From stem cell face creams to prescription strength retinoids, the possibilities are endless. That’s why we found it funny last month when numerous publications were writing about the “baby foreskin facial.”

New York, Refinery 29, and the Huffington Post are just three publications that wrote about the procedure in the past month. But “baby foreskin” being used in beauty products is nothing new. In fact, the active ingredient in an Oprah-touted skin cream from SkinMedica uses “foreskin fibroblasts” that are used to grow and cultivate new cells. Just one foreskin is said to be able to grow these cells for decades. But it’s not just skin creams that use the ingredient. Foreskin fibroblasts are also used to help treat burn victims, help cover diabetic ulcers, and more.

Now, you can get those same properties in a facial. The HydraFacial, which has been around for some time and offered at nearly every spa up and down Newbury Street, has changed up its serums to incorporate the fibroblasts in its procedure.

First, the five step facial system uses high-pressure water to cleanse, exfoliate, extract impurities, and hydrate. Then, the same machine is used to push “antioxidants” deep into the skin. LED lights are then used to enhance the treatment by fighting acne-causing bacteria and to stimulate collagen production. The light helps with skin resurfacing to diminish the appearance of fine lines, wrinkles, enlarged pores, and dark spots, but without using a harsh laser.

But what exactly is in the “antioxidants?” And where does the foreskin come in?

“It’s growth hormone,” says Jane Aransky owner and aesthetician at La Residencia Spa in Newton, which is celebrating its 40th anniversary this year. “We put it in an ampule. It’s an extra $75 add on to the basic Hydrafacial.” The HydraFacial machine blasts the growth hormone into the skin, she says.

Dr. Gail Naughton, an expert in regenerative science told New York:

[The] growth factors captured from the donated foreskin of a baby (just one can generate over a million treatments) are at their peak ability in promoting rapid cell turnover. Applied topically, they spur adult skin cells to regenerate. This is said to have a smoothing effect on the skin.”

So there you have it. The next time you are invited to a Bris, it may change the way you think of your skin.

Starts at $149; 336 Elliot Street, Newton Upper Falls, 617-244-2280, laresidenciaspa.com

"'Intactivists' claim the cosmetic use of neonatal foreskins is fuelling a tissue-sale underworld, with hospitals and governments in on the act. Do they have a point, or is this trend no more than skin deep?

From snail mucus to bee venom, the cosmetic industry is known for using off-kilter ingredients on its never-ending quest to bottle an infantile glow. The latest unexpected ingredient to tip into public consciousness is neonatal foreskin fibroblasts. That is, foreskins acquired from freshly-circumcised babies.

A few weeks ago, Cate Blanchett told Vogue about a treatment she received at Georgia Louise, an upmarket New York salon which is so expensive that it refers to itself as an atelier. "She gives what we call the 'penis facial' and ... there's some enzyme in it, so Sandy refers to it as the 'penis facial,'" Blanchett said. The quote was discreetly removed from Vogue’s website, but not before spurring a series of “penis facial” headlines.

Blanchett was referring to Georgia Louise’s “Hollywood EGF Facial”, which according to Louise’s website involves a serum “derived from the progenitor cells of the human fibroblast taken from Korean newborn baby foreskin”. Her prices aren’t advertised online, but Business Insider reports that the treatment costs $650USD and has a two-year wait list.

Meantime, a UK company called Vavelta is hoping to rival the billion-dollar Botox industry through neonatal foreskin fibroblast injections, while Hydrafacial is another company lauding the auspicious anti-aging ingredient. And as far back as 2013, Oprah inspired headlines after promoting a product from the brand SkinMedica developed with these cells.

Putting a baby’s foreskin on your face might sound more suited to a satanic ritual, but here’s how it works. Kind of like the human-flesh version of yogurt, a fibroblast is a piece of skin that is used as a culture to grow other skin or cells. Baby foreskins are the golden standard. Firstly, they’re young, meaning they’re unadulterated and untouched by free radicals and environmental toxins. Plus they’re impressionable: because their identifying proteins haven’t fully developed, they have many applications. In a medical setting, they’re used for growing skin for burn victims and diabetics with ulcers, as well as in eyelid replacement and skin graft surgeries.

Baby foreskins have been of interest to doctors since the 19th century; Dr. Peter Charles Remondino wrote in 1891 text The History of Circumcision, “For skin-transplanting there is nothing superior to the plants offered by the prepuce of a boy.” Stem cells are pretty common in the cosmetic industry, but they’re usually derived from plants, not penises. The idea behind the more contemporary use of foreskin fibroblasts in skincare is that they’re thought to secrete large amounts of human growth factor proteins, which stimulate cell regeneration and collagen production, making the skin appear younger.

Is there any proof that foreskin fibroblasts leave your skin looking as fresh as a baby’s… bottom? “I am highly skeptical. I have not seen any evidence in a peer-reviewed medical publication supportive of this claim,” dermatologist and University of Sydney lecturer Dr Deshan Sebaratnam tells VICE.

Despite this, some say the hype has contributed to an increased market demand for foreskins, their commodification, and in turn a whole host of ethical transgressions. Anti-circumcision advocates—some of whom, it’s worth noting, have come under fire for comparing male circumcision to female genital mutilation, their MRA affiliations, and misinformation—are particularly charged about the issue of foreskin use in products, arguing that neonatal circumcision is a violation of a child’s rights, as they are too young to consent to the procedure. In their eyes, profiting from this is doubly reprehensible. “Once amputated, the foreskin can never be regrown. Circumcision leaves a profound scar that is anything but superficial,” says Dr. Chris Coughhran, an anti-circumcision advocate, tells VICE.

Another anti-circumcision activist, paediatrician Paul M. Fleiss, writes in What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About: Circumcision that a single baby foreskin contains enough genetic material to grow over 23,000 square metres of skin—or hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of fibroblasts.

InVitro Technologies, a company based in Australia, sell neonatal foreskin fibroblasts online, via a supplier called ATCC. One millilitre will set you back USD$427. While “skin aging” is listed as one of its applications, an InVitro spokesperson declined to answer questions about the sourcing of their product, telling VICE, “All the ATCC products distributed through us are used for research purposes only. At this stage, that is all we are able to comment on.”

Babble.com, a parenting magazine and blog network, reports that instead of being discarded with the rest of the medical waste after birth, some hospital sell foreskins on to third parties, and that “companies will pay thousands of dollars for a single foreskin.” However, this information isn’t available to the public.

Dr. Mary Walker, a Research Fellow in Philosophy at Monash University who has an interest in bioethics and health policy, hasn’t heard of any hospitals in Australia selling foreskins. She says that in Australia it’s illegal to trade in human tissue, although it is legal to sell products derived from human tissue. “Some have argued that tissue may be donated, though not sold, and this is consistent with thinking that the donor could retain some rights over what the tissue is used for post-donation,” she says.

Either way, Dr. Walker says, having profits returned to the parent, circumcised child, or the doctor who removed the foreskin would contravene the Human Tissue Act. The National Health and Medical Research Council is currently reviewing and updating its guidelines surrounding the sale of organs and tissues, she tells VICE.

Circumcision rates have dropped in the western world (even in America, where rates are high compared to countries like the UK and Australia). Current Australian public policy suggests that despite its overall safety, there is no medical reason for circumcision in newborns (religious and cultural reasons are now key drivers) and it’s estimated 32 percent of Australian men under 30 are circumcised.

Parallel to this downwards trend is an increasing bio-technological interest in foreskins, which according to anti-circumcision activists is keeping the practice alive. “The use of newborn baby foreskin cells in biotechnology—for various purposes, not all of them cosmetic—has been a driver of male circumcision since the early ‘90s,” Dr. Coughhran, the anti-circumcision advocate, tells VICE.

Dr. Coughhran believes this western demand could even be encouraging circumcision policies in developing countries (although the World Health Organisation states that circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60 percent). “This [demand] may be of relevance, for example, in deciphering the Kenyan government’s recent proposal to shift its anti-HIV strategy from ‘voluntary’ to [mandatory] ‘infant’ male circumcision,” he says.

A 2011 article published on South African news site TIMESLive echoed concerns that African baby foreskins could potentially be sold to the global cosmetics industry, instead of being incinerated, as per the country’s legal requirement. "Africa may be viewed as the new source of discarded virgin foreskins to sustain a multi-million-dollar industry. Discarded human foreskins are used in the cosmetics industry, in the manufacture of insulin and artificial skin," the Medical Rights Advocacy Network wrote in a letter at the time to the department of health.

If private companies are profiting from baby foreskins, who receives the proceeds? George C. Denniston, an American physician and anti-circumcision advocate who founded Doctors Opposing Circumcision, says profits aren’t seen by parents or their sons. “Certainly, none of the boys whose foreskins are being harvested for commercial exploitation receive any share in the profits generated by their unwitting contribution. We have yet to ask whether our most basic birthright should become a source of corporate income,” he writes in Male and Female Circumcisions: Medical, Legal, and Ethical Considerations in Private Practice.

The use of foreskin fibroblasts is part of a more complex debate than the lightweight headlines about “penis facials” let on. For the likes of Dr. Coughran, “The commercialisation of male circumcision is a much larger story than ‘skincare product X’—it involves billions of dollars of public and private investment, on a transnational, intergovernmental scale.” But while the 'intactivist' movement undoubtedly purports an agenda—to end circumcision entirely, let alone any industry around it—legal and ethical ambiguities around harvesting for cosmetic use exist either way."

  • Luke Artanis:

"I also have an interview with this man who had a job transporting freshly stolen/amputated foreskins to be "donated" at the Boston Burn Center for medical research." - Photo

"Regardless of your stance on circumcision, some people choose to have it done, and that isn't a debate I'm interesting in getting into for the billionth time. But what I do want to talk about is where those foreskins go.

Unlike a lot of things, they're generally not tossed out with medical waste, and sometimes you even sign a release form for the selling of the skin when you consent to the circumcision (and you read the paper before you signed it so you know that, right?).

So, where exactly do these foreskins go?

First, you have to understand why they're used at all. Like embryonic stem cells, not all cells are fully "dedicated" or haven't fully developed their identifying proteins, meaning they haven't quite decided for good what they want to be when they grow up and therefore are much more versatile. This means that they can be used to help cultivate skin and skin byproducts (like collagen) with very little chance of rejection.

So with those foreskins, or more accurately, the fibroblasts from the cells of the foreskin, collagen can be lab-created, and where do you put collagen? On your face! Penis wrinkle cream, anyone? Oprah's beloved SkinMedica product? Yup! Foreskins! One foreskin can be used for decades to grow thousands of fibroblasts.

Another use for foreskins is to create bio-skin grafts for burn victims and ulcers and other large-area open wound sites. Apligraf and TransCyte are two well-known products that use embryonic or foreskin fibroblasts for creation of their bio-skin. One of the biggest risks for burn victims is entry of infection or stress to the body from the large open wound -- adding a temporary or even permanent real skin "band-aid" has shown amazing results in not only reducing complications and recovery time, but in even saving the lives of burn victims who otherwise had a very good likelihood of dying. It's used for open ulcers much in the same way, giving the body a live cell band-aid that it easily accepts.

A third use is cosmetic testing -- rather than using animals, a lot of companies pay thousands of dollars for one foreskin to begin replicating to perform their cosmetic tests on. Not only does this give much more accurate results since it's human skin, but it saves the lives of normally tortured animals. They also have discovered they can use "sick" skin the same way, replicating the sickness to help create formulas for specific sensitive skin types.

There's a lot of argument whether or not the whole promotion of benefits of circumcision, even proposed prophylatic benefits, is actually just a conspiracy to make money from the sales of foreskin. Arguments have also been made that that the foreskin should only be taken from still-birth infants, but again the arguments of "mutilation" and conspiracy of profit arise. But with all the amazing technology and lives saved and bodies healed from the unique cells a single foreskin can create, there's got to be a good common ground somewhere.

What do you think about foreskins being used to create bio-skin technology?"

See also

References

Research

Mainstream

Podcasts

Further reading

  • 2005 - Robert Darby, "The sorcerer's apprentice: Why can't we stop circumcising boys", Contexts magazine (USA), Vol. 4, No. 2, Spring 2005. Expanded version available on this site
  • 2004 - Robert van Howe, "A cost-utility analysis of neonatal circumcision", Medical Decision Making, Vol. 24, 2004 (December), pp. 584-601 Read here
  • 2003 - Sarah Waldeck, "Using male circumcision to understand social norms as multipliers", University of Cincinnati Law Review, Vol. 72, Winter 2003, pp. 455-526 Read here
  • 2002 - Geoffrey P. Miller, "Circumcision: Cultural-Legal Analysis", Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, Vol. 497, 2002, pp. 497-585 Full text available here
  • 2001 - Lawrence Dritsas, "Below the belt: Doctors, debate and the ongoing American discussion of routine neonatal male circumcision", Bulletin of Science and Technology, Vol. 21, 2001, pp. 297-311 Read here
  • 1997 - Frederick Hodges, "A short history of the institutionalization of involuntary sexual mutilation in the United States", in George C. Denniston and Marilyn Milos (eds), Sexual mutilations: A human tragedy, New York, Plenum Press
  • 1994 - David Gollaher, "From ritual to science: the medical transformation of circumcision in America", Journal of Social History, Vol 28, 1994, pp. 5-36 Read here
  • 1985 - Edward Wallerstein, "Circumcision: The Uniquely American Medical Enigma", Urologic Clinics of North America, Vol. 12, 1985, p. 123-32 Read here
  • Robert Van Howe, "Why does circumcision persist in the USA?"
  • American Sexuality Magazine

External links