cringe
July 7, 2004 12:19 PM   Subscribe

THIS IS NOT WHY WE WANTED ROBOTS
tinyurl used so as not to ruin the joke, link is to gizmodo, safe for work, but may cause a freakout.
posted by Capn (65 comments total)
 
I mean seriously, does anyone think it's a good idea to arm our future robot masters like this?
posted by Capn at 12:21 PM on July 7, 2004


Linky no workie.
posted by elwoodwiles at 12:26 PM on July 7, 2004


Amen, stop the mutilation!
posted by PigAlien at 12:26 PM on July 7, 2004


they'll have to pry my foreskin out of my cold, dead hands!
posted by crunchland at 12:27 PM on July 7, 2004


Linky worky just fine for me.

And yes, that is scary. Does the robot automatically attempt gender reassignment if it fails?
posted by falconred at 12:28 PM on July 7, 2004


Very confusing.

Did you mean: SmartKlamp?
posted by hama7 at 12:28 PM on July 7, 2004


This is the link, since tinyurl seems to not work for some.
posted by Capn at 12:31 PM on July 7, 2004


Why is everyone so up in arms over circumcision?
Does it really matter so much?
posted by the fire you left me at 12:32 PM on July 7, 2004


I'm torn: this will either make my job very, very easy, or make me redundant.
posted by uncleozzy at 12:34 PM on July 7, 2004


tfyl: It's not the circumcision (in this thread), it's the whirling robot death blades clamped on to your lil' Capn.
posted by Capn at 12:35 PM on July 7, 2004


I'm bored.
Not sure what to do on a Saturday.
Yes! I will turn to my trusty "end-user" circumcision device.
My days are now filled with joy...and limping.
posted by fluffycreature at 12:39 PM on July 7, 2004


Eh, same thing I said for bottle openers: real men use their teeth.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 12:45 PM on July 7, 2004


I wonder what would happen if this was used on someone that was already circumcised...
posted by skechada at 12:48 PM on July 7, 2004


i circumcised myself with my talking homer simpson bottle opener.
posted by quonsar at 12:49 PM on July 7, 2004


it's the whirling robot death blades clamped on to your lil' Capn

This is very funny. You're quite the cut up.
posted by the fire you left me at 12:50 PM on July 7, 2004


From the SmartKlamp website:
* The foreskin is completely rolled back
* Then the tube of the SmartKlamp is placed on the top of the penis
* The foreskin will be rolled over the tube
* The clamping mechanism is placed over the tube and the skin and the foreskin is trapped.
* The trapped foreskin is being cut by a scalpel and removed; very little blood is visible
* The circumcision is ready!


So I'm missing where the "robot" part comes in. It's basically a plastic guide to to make a nice, even excision.
posted by 4easypayments at 12:56 PM on July 7, 2004


The clamping mechanism is placed over the tube and the skin and the foreskin is trapped.

*shudders sympathetically for my Mefi Y chromosone brethren*
posted by jokeefe at 1:01 PM on July 7, 2004


Why is everyone so up in arms over circumcision?

you should tell that to the guy with the Honda Civic on Fulton St. with the bumper sticker that reads Mohel = Mengele.

actually, this might be the guy, although he has way more than six bumper stickers by now.

lots of people are very strongly against circumcision.
posted by mrgrimm at 1:02 PM on July 7, 2004


That'd be your li'l Capn, Capn.

Then again, if I knew it was gonna be that kind of party, I'd have stuck my chicolet* in the blender.

*a pseudonym.
posted by chicobangs at 1:06 PM on July 7, 2004


I just wish I'd had a say in whether I kept my foreskin or not.
posted by Hackworth at 1:32 PM on July 7, 2004


AAAAARGHHH!!! MY JOHNSON!!!!
posted by carter at 1:39 PM on July 7, 2004


OH SHIT
posted by Keyser Soze at 1:54 PM on July 7, 2004


Nope, Keyser. Try the other end.
posted by chicobangs at 2:05 PM on July 7, 2004


I'm torn

TMI TMI!
posted by dflemingdotorg at 2:28 PM on July 7, 2004


I just wish I'd had a say in whether I kept my foreskin or not.

I wish my mom had've made bacon with Clark Gable.
posted by dflemingdotorg at 2:32 PM on July 7, 2004


Mmm. Bacon.
posted by yerfatma at 3:00 PM on July 7, 2004


the fire you left me:

my girlfriend says it makes a difference. she'd never been with someone who hadn't been circumcized. past gfs have had the same reaction, though they often comment that it "looks weird" at first.

as if vaginas aren't strange-looking. :)
posted by gkostolny at 3:18 PM on July 7, 2004


I'm going to have to pee sitting down for a week, because Wee Willie is currently hiding behind one of my kidneys and he's still looking for the way further up.
posted by Dipsomaniac at 3:48 PM on July 7, 2004


What do you call the result of a circumcision using pinking shears?









A frilly dilly.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:59 PM on July 7, 2004


the fire you left me: It's no big deal provided it's your own choice. It becomes a big deal when parents decide to do it to their kids when they're too young to understand the concept or make a proper decision about it.

Nobody on the planet has the right to alter my body for cosmetic or religious reasons without my permission. Not even if I happen to be your baby; I call child abuse in that case. How can anyone think otherwise? :/
posted by Freaky at 5:18 PM on July 7, 2004


For cosmetic or religious reasons without permission.. sure if were talking a nose job here, or a tatoo of some religious icon. But what we're talking about here is something that most of the medical community is in agreement on as being a heath benefit. I'm not Jewish, but my penis is?! Hardly. My penis is simply less likely to be infected, get cancer, or even contract stds. Plenty of info on google. Might start here

As for the machine... certainly isn't a pleasant thought, but then again neither is the thought of a doc with scissors near my wang. And I'd rather it be done long before I was forming long term memories.
posted by woil at 5:48 PM on July 7, 2004


I really really really hope that all the men that state that no one has the right to alter their body via circumcision are also pro-choice.
posted by agregoli at 5:59 PM on July 7, 2004


I'm not following that bit of logic about how not circumcising your kid and being allowed to have an abortion are related...? I'm not taking a position on it; I just don't see the connection.

Woil, I thought there are just as many doctors, papers, & info about how circumcision DOESN'T provide a health benefit?
posted by danny the boy at 6:03 PM on July 7, 2004


Nobody on the planet has the right to alter my body for cosmetic or religious reasons without my permission. Not even if I happen to be your baby...

I guess those babies born with cleft palettes or club feet are shit out of luck until they're 18, then, eh?
posted by five fresh fish at 6:22 PM on July 7, 2004


ouch ... do i need to say more?
posted by pyramid termite at 7:12 PM on July 7, 2004


After my initial reaction (cringing), I had to admit that the device does make sense; it makes it harder to botch a circumcision, and that's a Good Thing.
posted by hattifattener at 9:08 PM on July 7, 2004


I, for one, welcome our precisely-circumcising, robotic SmartKlamp-wielding overlords.
posted by Fofer at 9:34 PM on July 7, 2004


But what we're talking about here is something that most of the medical community is in agreement on as being a heath benefit.

Hmm, that is an odd and largely incorrect belief, why do you say that?

In 1971 and 1975 the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) took a stand against the routine circumcision of newborns on the basis that there are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period. The Canadian Paediatric society sees no observable benefit to the procedure over leaving things alone.

Every modern study I have read seems to say there is little if any benefit. Certainly not enough of a benefit to genitally mutilate a child that cannot say no. Leave it until adulthood, then let the child decide.

FWIW, most of the push to circumcise children in the US came from victorian morals as espoused by Dr. Harvey Kellogg. A man rendered impotent by a war wound encouraged all parents to remove their sons foreskins to prevent masturbation. This was important as Dr. Kellog, among others in his day believed that ill health was due to sexual excess, and erotic dreams masturbation or sexual activity more than once a month would doom one to poor health.

according to Dr. kellogg:

A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment. In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement.

Do you want the remnants of this quacks misguided teachings to guide you to remove a perfectly functional part of your male child's sexual identity? The victorian era is over, lets drop this junk science and move back to the most accepted body image in the world for men. The one that doesn't require childhood trauma and a lifetime of missing bits.
posted by jester69 at 10:41 PM on July 7, 2004


Thus spake woil: For cosmetic or religious reasons without permission.. sure if were talking a nose job here, or a tatoo of some religious icon. But what we're talking about here is something that most of the medical community is in agreement on as being a heath benefit.

Oh?!? Is that why NO major medical organization in the world recommends it, and many recommend against it?

I'm not Jewish, but my penis is?! Hardly. My penis is simply less likely to be infected, get cancer, or even contract stds. Plenty of info on google.

Yeah, 'cause if some goof throws up a web page, the information in it MUST be accurate and objective.

Again, if there are all these great benefits to routine infant circumcision, why does NO major medical association recommend it? Why does most of the world NOT do it?

And five fresh fish then spake: Nobody on the planet has the right to alter my body for cosmetic or religious reasons without my permission. Not even if I happen to be your baby...

I guess those babies born with cleft palettes or club feet are shit out of luck until they're 18, then, eh?


Noooo . . . those are both bona fide medical conditions that cause impairment in swallowing/breathing and locomotion, respectively. Having a normal penis is not abnormal, by definition. I have to conclude that cutting off normal, healthy, non-pathogenic tissue to decorate your kid, without the kid's permission, *is* abnormal.

A better example would be breast or penis enlargement for a child, because the parent "prefers" bigger organs or thinks they look "nicer." That would be comparable, and would be just as abhorrent as a parent cutting off healthy tissue to suit personal aesthetic preferences.
posted by wdpeck at 11:02 PM on July 7, 2004


isn't "smartclamp" (in this case) an oxymoron?
posted by josephtate at 11:07 PM on July 7, 2004


Sexual mutilation of infants is wrong - regardless of the infant's cromosome set. That's really all there is to it.
posted by spazzm at 11:59 PM on July 7, 2004


The Royal Australasian College of Physicians says "there is no medical indication for routine male circumcision".

The connection between circumcision and reductions in cervical cancer has been questioned for methodology by the American Academy of Family Physicians who in the same link also set out most of the plus/minus health benefits and give a pretty extensive literature review.

The American Cancer Society, we would like to discourage the American Academy of Pediatrics from promoting routine circumcision as preventative measure for penile or cervical cancer. The American Cancer Society does not consider routine routine circumcision to be a valid or effective measure to prevent such cancers.

The American Academy of Pediatrics says: "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided."

The Canadian Medical Association suggests "Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed."

Lots of other links here.
posted by biffa at 2:42 AM on July 8, 2004


There are so many other things that should demand our attention and energy that I'm surprised circumcision remains any sort of issue. It's just so fucking inconsequential!

I say this, of course, as cut fellow with a very fulfilling sex life. I have no memory of being cut, no experience with hoodie sex, and no disappointments with the equipment I have. It always surprises me that anyone could give a good goddamn about circumcision...
posted by five fresh fish at 9:28 AM on July 8, 2004


When bottling homebrew beer, I always thought of the bottle capper as a good prototype for an automated circumcision device. I wanted to market it as Bris-O-Matic.
posted by infidelpants at 9:52 AM on July 8, 2004


Define "good," infidelpants.
posted by chicobangs at 11:45 AM on July 8, 2004


I'm not following that bit of logic about how not circumcising your kid and being allowed to have an abortion are related...? I'm not taking a position on it; I just don't see the connection.

The secondary site posted talked about how no one has the right to peform a medical procedure on a man without his consent - the link I made was that no one should have the right to force a woman to have a baby - thereby controlling her body in a similar manner. The idea is - our bodies, our decisions.
posted by agregoli at 2:14 PM on July 8, 2004


I guess those babies born with cleft palettes or club feet are shit out of luck until they're 18, then, eh?

A better example would be breast or penis enlargement...


An even better example would be foot removel or cleft enlargement for an otherwise normal infant, based simply on the predilections of the parents.
posted by piskycritter at 2:49 PM on July 8, 2004


A yet even better example might be a haircut or fingernail trim.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:04 PM on July 8, 2004


An even better example might be introducing them into an artificial environment in order to introduce foreign concepts like math, science and literature into their impressionable little minds.
posted by chicobangs at 8:31 PM on July 8, 2004


THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
posted by five fresh fish at 9:34 PM on July 8, 2004


five fresh fish: There are so many other things that should demand our attention and energy that I'm surprised circumcision remains any sort of issue. It's just so fucking inconsequential!

Oh, horseshit. That's a lame, fallacious argument. By that logic, cruelty to animals is inconsequential in the cosmic scheme of things, so SPCA members should disband and focus on something else. Do you think it's beyond the ability of our complex intellect to care about more than one issue at a time?

I say this, of course, as cut fellow with a very fulfilling sex life. I have no memory of being cut, no experience with hoodie sex, and no disappointments with the equipment I have. It always surprises me that anyone could give a good goddamn about circumcision...

I say this, of course, as a cut fellow whose "routine" circumcision went routinely wrong (meatal stenosis occurs in approximately 20% of routinely-circumcised babies), and ended up having corrective surgery at age 16 to fix what wouldn't have been broken had it been left the hell alone. Oddly, though, I used to think routine circumcision was still a good idea even after living through my own botched one -- until I started working in a pediatric ICU, and saw some truly horrific post-circumcision results. After seeing these over and over, it always surprises me that anyone could still support lopping off part of a baby's penis because they "think women will prefer it when he grows up," or so "we won't have to clean it." Do people not read? Do they not understand that western, non-Jewish routine circumcision was contrived to stop masturbation (worked well, hasn't it?), and has remained a "cure" in search of a disease for over 100 years? Are people really that ignorant?!? I guess they are, as the American circ rate continues to hover around 60%.

I guess you're right, fff -- routine circumcision shouldn't remain an issue, because any educated person should be able to read and determine that it is not a medical procedure, it is not a "cure" or preventative for anything, and has no purpose other than to decorate boys' penises according to the aesthetic whim of their parents. It is genital cosmetic surgery on babies. That's bizarre. It should stop. Then it wouldn't be an issue any more.
posted by wdpeck at 11:22 PM on July 8, 2004


fff: A yet even better example might be a haircut or fingernail trim.

Except for the fact that hair and nails grow back spontaneously, yeah, that's a brilliant example. Do you really believe any of what you're saying, or is it just a try at being a witty contrarian? 'Cause, if so, you're missing it and just coming off as willfully ignorant.
posted by wdpeck at 11:27 PM on July 8, 2004


A yet even better example might be a haircut or fingernail trim

Except hair and nails are made of dead, non-vital tissue. Try again.
posted by piskycritter at 6:04 AM on July 9, 2004


True that it doesn't grow back, and I'm not supporting circumcision, but you can't really call a foreskin "vital tissue."
posted by agregoli at 6:50 AM on July 9, 2004


I've found that all arguments pro male sexual mutilation can also be used pro female sexual mutilation, just as all arguments versus female sexual mutilation can also be used versus male sexual mutilation.

Example:
A: Female sexual mutilation is worse, because it is done under unhygenic circumstances.
B: So if female sexual mutilation was done in proper circumstances (like male sexual mutilation) it would be ok?

Discuss.
posted by spazzm at 7:18 AM on July 9, 2004


I guess you're right, fff -- routine circumcision shouldn't remain an issue, because any educated person should be able to read and determine that it is not a medical procedure, it is not a "cure" or preventative for anything, and has no purpose other than to decorate boys' penises according to the aesthetic whim of their parents.

Exactly. Would I have my child circumcised? Hell, no!

Do I bear undying hatred toward my parents for allowing the doctor to circumcize me? Hell, no!

Do I think circumcision is a poor decision these days? Hell, yes!

Would I get all hot under the collar should someone else decide to circumcise their kid? Hell, no!

Do I think most anti-circumcision activists and arguers are making much ado about nothing? Hell, yes!

Sorry about your meatus stenosis, but I think you claim of 20% is purest bullshit. If one in five children required an operation on their penis to correct a fouled-up circumcision, attitudes would be changing a helluva lot faster.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:07 AM on July 9, 2004


you can't really call a foreskin "vital tissue."

It's alive. That's what "vital tissue" means.
posted by kindall at 9:07 AM on July 9, 2004


I was reading the other version of vital, meaning necessary to survival. There are two ways to read that.
posted by agregoli at 9:39 AM on July 9, 2004


I've found that all arguments pro male sexual mutilation can also be used pro female sexual mutilation,

If you really think they're comparable, then you don't know shit about female circumcision.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 10:29 AM on July 9, 2004


Thank you, inpHIlltr8r.
posted by agregoli at 11:01 AM on July 9, 2004


Anyways, back to the robot:

hella idea if it works.

damn scary if it doesn't.

won't ever see it near my groin.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:47 AM on July 9, 2004


've found that all arguments pro male sexual mutilation can also be used pro female sexual mutilation

No. Female sexual mutilation is part and parcel of a larger system organized to oppress women. The entire purpose of female genital mutilation is to assist in the oppression of women. Unless you're going to argue that the US or Jewish culture are examples of radical tyrannical matriarchy, the comparison doesn't hold water.

The better comparison to male circumcision are societies in which kids get tribal/ethnic tattoos, minor decorative scarification, stretched earlobes, or other minor body modifications.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:13 PM on July 9, 2004


I don't get up about parents deciding to circumcise their kids, even if it is stupid.

I do get upset about parents overfeeding their kids to the point of childhood obesity.

I also get upset with high-pressure parents who live vicariously through their children, ie. typical of those who enroll their kids in hockey.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:13 PM on July 9, 2004


fff: I think you claim of 20% is purest bullshit. If one in five children required an operation on their penis to correct a fouled-up circumcision, attitudes would be changing a helluva lot faster.

And you can refute this claim because . . . oh, wait. You can't because you're apparently too lazy to open a new browser window and google a phrase. Fine. I'll help you along, as you seem particularly cognitively impaired on this topic.

First, eMedicine on meatal stenosis, among other sources available, but eMedicine is probably the most readable for a lay person. 9-10% of cases are correctly diagnosed, as a complication of circumcision. Many cases are missed (symptoms are not identified because the child is preverbal and can't relate symptoms to the parents, or it is misidentified and mistreated as a UTI -- which accounts for many of the inflated UTI numbers the pro-circ'ers crow about). Therefore, according to several studies and meta-analyses1,2,3,4, the total incidence of meatal stenosis in circumcised boys is approximately 20%. That you can't, or won't, bother to do a few minutes of simple research on your own doesn't change this fact.

1. Williams, N. Kapila, L. (1993). Complications of circumcision. British Journal of Surgery. (80),1231-1236.
2. Patel, H. (1966). The problem of routine infant circumcision. Journal of the Canadian Medical Association. (95),576.
3. Gairdner, D. (1949). The fate of the foreskin: A study of circumcision. British Medical Journal. (ii),1433-1437.
4. Mackenzie, A.R. (1966). Meatal ulcer following circumcision. Obstetrics and Gynecology. (28),221-223.

Second, I didn't claim that all boys with meatal stenosis required corrective surgery; that was your invention. fff: "note to self: weak point, pound pulpit."

Third, regarding changing attitudes -- do you remember the old "Our Gang" shorts from the 40's? Remember how all the kids had their tonsils out? Wonder why we don't do that today? We don't do it because physicians and researchers studied the outcomes of kids who routinely had their tonsils out vs. those who kept them in, and the risk of surgery, minor though it was, did not justify the supposed benefit. Just like the AAP and AMA and ACOG and ACS and CPS and RACP and AAPS and many other major medical organizations have concluded regarding routine neonatal circumcision. So why do people still cling to this bizarre genital decoration when NO major medical association recommends it? Today, a kid gets tonsillitis and it is treated with antibiotics (if it's treated at all). But God forbid a boy should have a UTI; that's grounds for cutting off hundreds of other boys' foreskins to prevent having to treat one other potential UTI with antibiotics. And double-God-forbid anyone should have to teach their son how to wash his penis; no, let's just cut part off of *every* boy's penis. Never mind he'll still have to wash it -- ask the parents of any young circumcised boy if his penis isn't routinely in need of care in the bath or at diaper changes -- so I don't know how circumcision supposedly improves hygiene.

It's cosmetic surgery; it has nothing at all to do with preventing or curing anything. Why is this so hard to admit? Why has routine circumcision been a "cure in search of a disease" for over 100 years?
posted by wdpeck at 1:20 AM on July 11, 2004


Hard to admit? You have actually read my posts, right? I state flat-out that it's a silly and unnecessary procedure. I don't offer "disease prevention" as an excuse.

And I do not buy the 1-in-5 argument, and indeed I did go look up some stats before firmly concluding you were quoting bullshit:
"The most comprehensive study of complications from circumcision remains Gee's and Ansell's 1976 report of 5,521 males circumcised between 1963 and 1972 at the University of Washington, half with the Gomco clamp and half with the Plastibell device (described below).17 The study found complications in 2% of patients, with a significant complication in 0.2%, or I patient in 500."
Said 2% includes all negative outcomes, not just meatal stenosis.

Linked article also includes some stats re: "it has nothing at all to do with preventing or curing anything." There are positive medical outcomes. Whether those outcomes should be used as a pro-argument is up for debate. I personally don't think they're a convincing argument at all.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:04 AM on July 11, 2004


« Older Rodin Museum   |   Heinz hate America. Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments