breaking the mold

[SoCo Intactivists]

From Boys Deserve Better (https://www.facebook.com/BoysDeserveBetter):

19524

the "mold" shown above is a Circumstraint(tm), a "neonatal restraint device" made by Olympic Medical. Here's a charming description of the Circumstraint and its uses from a medical equipment and supplies web site (https://www.quickmedical.com/olympicmedical/circumstraint/immobolizer.html):


The new Olympic Circumstraint is even more versatile and functional than the popular model purchased by over 11,000 hospitals throughout the world. The new, more compact Circumstraint, always a fast, easy means of immobilizing newborns for circumcision, fits inside a standard incubator or bassinet and is useful for a variety of additional procedures. Now Circumstraint is valuable when used for minor surgery, blood exchanges, catheterization, transfusions or infusions (including scalp IV's), or whenever immobilization is required for a neonatal procedure.

In less than 30 seconds, a nurse can immobilize the struggling infant securely in the correct position with Circumstraint. The immobilizer works on a proven principle of positive 4-point restraint. Soft wide Velcro® brand fastener straps encircle the infant's elbows and knees, depriving him/her of leverage. The child is held safely and securely without danger of escape. Circumstraint's comfortable contoured shape positions the infant, hips elevated, perfectly presenting the genitalia. The platform between the infant's legs provides support for a circumcision clamp. Without pins, towels, plastic shells or the threat of strangulation, Circumstraint snugly and securely immobilizes the infant with their entire torso visible.

More lightweight and compact than before, the new Circumstraint is only 25 1/4 x 13 x 3 1/2 inches and weighs less than two pounds. Always ready for immediate use, the Circumstraint has a hole for hanging in the OR or nursery. Several Circumstraints neatly stack nested on a shelf.

Circumstraint fits infants from 1800 grams to 4500 grams. The straps slide longitudinally in slots to adapt to infant length. Generous Velcro® brand fastener closures adjust to extremity circumference easily, merely press to fasten - peel apart to open.

Circumstraint maintains the high standards of nursery asepsis with minimum effort. Smooth, without cracks or crevices, Circumstraint is made of dense, non-absorbent plastic and wipes clean with any liquid disinfectant. The nylon Velcro® brand fastener straps are quick drying and may be laundered, steam or gas autoclaved or pasteurized.

Hospitals find Circumstraint highly cost effective. The Circumstraint permits a nurse to quickly immobilize an infant in the proper position, speeding procedures and saving valuable time for doctors. Exceptionally durable, Circumstraint gives long service, even with the heaviest use. Proven over many years, Circumstraint has become the infant immobilization standard for modern nurseries.

[Barry]

A question for anybody reading this:

How do you feel about these disturbing images about circumcision being posted and probably presented to you without your choosing, either because they are included in your digest or you clicked on the thread title that purposefully did not indicated the subject matter?

My feeling is that they are not appropriate. Of course Intact Sonoma, just like any other person/group who wants to get their message out thinks everybody should see it, which is something I don't agree with for many reasons.

In this case, I think people should have some say over what they see, especially if it is disturbing. Speaking for myself, I find them very disturbing! I don't support circumcision, though I do think people should have the choice for religious reasons. I struggled with that decision, being jewish, and decided to circumcise if we had a son, but we didn't. If I had to decide again, I wouldn't circumcise my son.

My point being, I already agree with Intact Sonoma's goal, if not their tactics, and I still find it very disturbing. I imagine many other member feel the same way. Given our audience, I suspect these posts are mostly seen by people who already do not support circumcision and are needlessly upset by them.

So I feel I should take some action. I'm considering one or more of the following contraints on posts of this sort:

No images - but you could include a link to page with images if you indicate they can be disturbing
Posting only in the Censored and Uncensored category
Limiting frequency of the posting to something like once every other month

What do you think? Should these posts be controlled?



From Boys Deserve Better (https://www.facebook.com/BoysDeserveBetter):

19524

[WolfCub]

the information is indeed disturbing but it is also a tragic fact that without exposure will remain a standard medical practice. to be a member of wacco you must be an adult, correct? i think censoring truth like this is a slippery slope. if there had been an actual infant in the photo i would agree that the visual would have been too brutal. obviously the point was able to be made without.

in regards to censorship on wacco i have felt that the comments left by some were so mean spirited that i thought they should have their account restricted or eliminated altogether but alas it was not my decision. and beyond that there is this thing called free speech.

I personally didnt feel tricked into viewing the material. i think the title was quite fitting actually.

im curious if you have contacted them directly and communicated your thoughts prior to posting the public inquiry?

as for the wacco community being hip to the realities of circumcision i agree you're probably right most of the folks are likely aware of the controversy but i bet most have never witnessed the instrument of control that the doctors actually use. ill admit it was a first for me. grotesque indeed but it definitely brings the reality of abuse to a more visceral and understandable place. at least for me anyways.


A question for anybody reading this:

How do you feel about these disturbing images about circumcision being posted and probably presented to you without your choosing, either because they are included in your digest or you clicked on the thread title that purposefully did not indicated the subject matter?

My feeling is that they are not appropriate. Of course Intact Sonoma, just like any other person/group who wants to get their message out thinks everybody should see it, which is something I don't agree with for many reasons.

In this case, I think people should have some say over what they see, especially if it is disturbing. Speaking for myself, I find them very disturbing! I don't support circumcision, though I do think people should have the choice for religious reasons. I struggled with that decision, being jewish, and decided to circumcise if we had a son, but we didn't. If I had to decide again, I wouldn't circumcise my son.

My point being, I already agree with Intact Sonoma's goal, if not their tactics, and I still find it very disturbing. I imagine many other member feel the same way. Given our audience, I suspect these posts are mostly seen by people who already do not support circumcision and are needlessly upset by them.

So I feel I should take some action. I'm considering one or more of the following contraints on posts of this sort:

No images - but you could include a link to page with images if you indicate they can be disturbing
Posting only in the Censored and Uncensored category
Limiting frequency of the posting to something like once every other month

What do you think? Should these posts be controlled?

[CSummer]

A photo of an instrument of torture is pretty graphic and understandably disturbing. It's too easy for us to imagine how an infant might have experienced this inhumane abuse. It would be surprising if it wasn't deeply disturbing to those of us who endured this experience - and perhaps those who allowed it to be inflicted on their sons (probably quite innocently, not knowing the potential harm and likely trauma).

It seems very important that everyone be aware of the reality of circumcision - at least anyone who might be in the position of deciding whether or not to allow their son to be circumcised. Once any caring, conscious human gains this awareness, I'm confident they would fiercely protect their child from such cruel treatment (at least if they haven't been mislead by the false claims of "medical benefit").

Despite my strong feelings on this subject, I'm not in favor of tricking someone into viewing something without being forewarned. If the title said what it was actually about (infant circumcision) and warned of graphic content, readers would have more of a choice. I almost never look at posts in the digest - only the titles in the index. But then, it seems this would be a reasonable rule for all posts: the title should say what they're actually about.

CSummer

[WolfCub]

well stated and i totally agree. the title should reference the content.


A photo of an instrument of torture is pretty graphic and understandably disturbing. It's too easy for us to imagine how an infant might have experienced this inhumane abuse. It would be surprising if it wasn't deeply disturbing to those of us who endured this experience - and perhaps those who allowed it to be inflicted on their sons (probably quite innocently, not knowing the potential harm and likely trauma).

It seems very important that everyone be aware of the reality of circumcision - at least anyone who might be in the position of deciding whether or not to allow their son to be circumcised. Once any caring, conscious human gains this awareness, I'm confident they would fiercely protect their child from such cruel treatment (at least if they haven't been mislead by the false claims of "medical benefit").

Despite my strong feelings on this subject, I'm not in favor of tricking someone into viewing something without being forewarned. If the title said what it was actually about (infant circumcision) and warned of graphic content, readers would have more of a choice. I almost never look at posts in the digest - only the titles in the index. But then, it seems this would be a reasonable rule for all posts: the title should say what they're actually about.

CSummer

[SoCo Intactivists]

Some observations on this post and issue:

1. The function of a headline or subject line is to get the reader's interest and induce him/her to read the rest of the copy. On the other hand, it should not be "tricky" or completely unrelated to the product or the rest of the copy. In this case, it was an extract from the copy on the photo. Would a headline like "description of the function and use of the Circumstraint neonatal 4-point restraint device" have been catchy or a big yawn?

If there is any "tricky business' going on, it is on the part of the for-profit fear-based medical industry that we are stuck with, which is one of the points of the post in question.

2. This particular graphic is not really all that graphic -- it is a photo of used medical equipment with a Betadine stain. It is the cultural and emotional associations that make it upsetting, and to some more than others. Would the reaction be the same to a photo of equipment used to cut the genitals of girls? How about a photo of African, Arab or Kurdish girls having their genitals cut? Probably not, because those are "other" cultures and not something challenging ingrained beliefs and our own culture.

3. For technical reasons, it is not always possible to provide a link to the graphic element. This particular image came from Facebook (currently where most of the intactivist action is taking place) and cannot be "linked to" because of FB's structure.

4. Subject lines of previous posts have been straightforward and explanatory, usually including the source of a re-posted blog or op-ed. Videos containing gratuitous foul or adult language have been put in the Censored & Uncensored section. A notation in the subject line that a post includes a photo or graphic content seems a reasonable, can-do solution.

[theindependenteye]

My personal response:

A photo of a piece of medical equipment doesn't seem to me outside the bounds of taste; it's information about the procedure, and the opinions posted with it don't make it any more or less grotesque. If anything, it gives a sense that the medical procedure is at least as efficient and non-haphazard as it can possibly be.

For me, posting a photo of an aborted foetus or a bloody circumsized infant or a soldier with half his jaw blown away would best be done via a link. I understand that for an activist, blaring it into our faces can be rationalized, but if you open the door to that, everybody & his dog are gonna come roaring in.

But as I said at the outset, this photo doesn't sink to that level. YMMV.

Cheers—
Conrad

[Barry]

Thanks for all your comments. :waccosun:

First off I should say that there have been several more disturbing circumcision images posted over the past weeks and months that I have removed and replaced with a link. I have generally notified the poster of the change. The image in this thread was not as bad, so I felt it was a good test case.

In this case, while "breaking the mold" relates to the post, I doubt anyone would expect it to lead to an article about circumcision. Yes, the title is general presented with the poster username, Intact Sonoma, in this case, which gives an unsuspecting user a clue, but still it's not apparent for the un-initiated.

If it were just a matter of posting a more descriptive title that users could choose to click on or not, that would be fine with me. However many readers scroll through the entire digest, so they are not selecting what to see and what not. Nor would a warning suffice for such a modality.

Images can easily be posted to an image hosting service such as flickr or imageshack.us that provide public links.

So my sense is ask you to refrain from posting images. Thank you.

[Peace Voyager]

This image bothered me for the right reasons; reminded me why I'm glad I did not harm my infant son in that way.

The truth is often harsh. When we turn away from these details, it is not served.

Religion should never be used to harm anyone; or justify it.

[treasure]

Thank you for bringing this up, Barry.

I prefer to have a choice in this case, just as I prefer to have a choice about viewing an aborted fetus. The first option you listed appeals to me: click on a link if we'd like to see the image(s).
Tara





A question for anybody reading this:

How do you feel about these disturbing images about circumcision being posted and probably presented to you without your choosing, either because they are included in your digest or you clicked on the thread title that purposefully did not indicated the subject matter?

My feeling is that they are not appropriate. Of course Intact Sonoma, just like any other person/group who wants to get their message out thinks everybody should see it, which is something I don't agree with for many reasons.

In this case, I think people should have some say over what they see, especially if it is disturbing. Speaking for myself, I find them very disturbing! I don't support circumcision, though I do think people should have the choice for religious reasons. I struggled with that decision, being jewish, and decided to circumcise if we had a son, but we didn't. If I had to decide again, I wouldn't circumcise my son.

My point being, I already agree with Intact Sonoma's goal, if not their tactics, and I still find it very disturbing. I imagine many other member feel the same way. Given our audience, I suspect these posts are mostly seen by people who already do not support circumcision and are needlessly upset by them.

So I feel I should take some action. I'm considering one or more of the following contraints on posts of this sort:

No images - but you could include a link to page with images if you indicate they can be disturbing
Posting only in the Censored and Uncensored category
Limiting frequency of the posting to something like once every other month

What do you think? Should these posts be controlled?

[Gayla]

I never watch the (sure to be disturbing) images I get in emails from PETA, but I always send them donations, because I support their cause. Fortunately, they give me the option. If I expected horrible images, without any warning, I would never open their email.

Likewise, if I came across disturbing images while browsing WACCO, that would be the end of my visiting WACCO.

~gayla~


Thank you for bringing this up, Barry.

I prefer to have a choice in this case, just as I prefer to have a choice about viewing an aborted fetus. The first option you listed appeals to me: click on a link if we'd like to see the image(s).
Tara

[SoCo Intactivists]

Thank you everyone for your input and observations on this post and related issue.

Not wanting to be visually assaulted while browsing the Wacco digest is very understandable, and the "slippery slope" is a valid concern. Our goal is to educate and raise awareness, not irritate and raise annoyance. It is analogous to when we do tables at events: we put leaflets, books and the like up front, but the "graphic" material is kept under cover and brought out on request.

A link with context and/or description it will be henceforth -- as it *usually* has been in the past.


... Likewise, if I came across disturbing images while browsing WACCO, that would be the end of my visiting WACCO.

~gayla~