text:
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Dr. Oz on Circumcision
I tuned in today to the Dr. Oz Show to see what he was going to say about the proposed San Fransisco Circumcision ban. The measure, which requires 7,000 signatures to make it on to the ballot next November, would make it a misdemeanor to "circumcise, excise, cut, or mutilate" the genitals of all minors, and does not make exceptions for religious reasons.
On the show today, circumcision was brought up in the context of this bill during a segment (that I gather is a recurring one) called "The Pulse," which addresses the "hottest health news" with a panel of experts to weigh in with their opinions along with Dr. Oz. He introduced the three other doctors: a Psychiatrist, an OB/GYN, and a Pediatrician. Then, he started by saying, "Here's the deal: circumcision reduces the liklihood of receiving and transmitting sexually transmitted illnesses during unprotected sex." He proceeded to bring a woman wearing a turtleneck onto the stage, had her pull the neck up over her head, effectively turning her into an intact penis. He then dumped a jar of large paper confetti on her to illustrate "bacteria, viruses, other issues that might get into a penis," showing that some of it gets trapped under the pretend foreskin. After that, Dr. Oz pulled a thread out of the turtleneck which removed the top portion of the neck of the shirt, effectively "circumcising" her and exposing all of the "issues" that the prepuce trapped inside. Voilà! All is well in the world when we circumcise.
The experts weighed in on what they thought about the issue (I will summarize). The Pediatrician said it's a personal choice people have to make for their own family, but that we don't want to propagate disease, that's the most important thing, and finally that kids want to look like their dads. The Psychiatrist said that parents need to make those choices, but we don't want to give a false sense of security about circumcised penises. The OB/GYN said that with respect to how it affects women, it's an issue for them because they'll have to make these decisions for their children, it's a sexual health issue because of exposure to disease, and it's a cosmetic issue. The segment ended as they all seemed to agree that the decision was a personal one and should not be interfered with by the government.
They brought up a few main points: circumcising to prevent spread of disease, circumcising so the child will "look like Dad," and circumcising for cosmetic purposes.
Disease Prevention
First, and this was the one that was emphasized over and over on the Dr. Oz show today: prevention of infection by and transmission of sexually transmitted infections. From Birth Sense: "The World Health Organization, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention state that circumcision provides minimal protection and does not eliminate the need to use a condom to prevent transmission of HIV." Some studies have shown a decrease in STDs and HIV in uncircumcised men, but not all studies have supported that circumcision decreases STD transmission.
One of the problems with these studies (particularly the ones focused on infection with HIV) is that they've been done on populations that aren't directly comparable to the general American public. For instance, one widely-publicized study on HIV transmission was done on African men in developing countries. The study looked at men who were circumcised as adults as a measure to protect against HIV infection and transmission, and it found there was a decrease in infection, but with a 40% failure rate. Even if the studies were statistically sound, which they were not, the failure rate is much too high to support the use of circumcision to prevent STDs. For comparison, the failure rate of a male condom is 3-14%, and in those instances, infection is merely possible, not guaranteed.
Other studies, however, have shown the exact opposite: that HIV infection in adult African men was greater in those who were circumcised (purportedly because of a decrease in condom usage among this population, since they thought they were "protected" by being circumcised). It's not scientifically sound to compare two populations that are not alike (adult men from developing countries and infant males in developed countries). Even if circumcision of adult men in developing countries prevents the spread of STDs, that's not sufficient evidence for routine circumcision of infant males in developed countries.
Let's assume for a moment, that circumcision does, in fact, prevent the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. Then, logically we could conclude that populations with the highest percentage of circumcised men would have the lowest incidence of STDs, right? Wrong. As Peaceful parenting points out, the United States has the highest circumcision rate and also the highest incidence of STDs (including HIV) of any Western nation. "Developed nations where 98-99% of their boys/men remain intact have the lowest rates of STDs (including HIV). If circumcision "protected" against diseases,... we would not see these figures to such an extreme and obvious degree."
Frankly, I think the key here is that we're talking about unprotected sex...which no one should be having unless: 1. They're in a committed relationship with 2. someone they trust and are 3. alright with getting pregnant. Everyone else should be using condoms when they have sex. Every single time.
Condoms prevent the spread of HIV and other STDs, as well as being faithful to one partner or abstaining from sex. Circumcision does not.
Looking Like Dad
I have to say, this is one reason I've never understood for circumcising babies. Infant and little boy penises don't look like adult man penises, no matter if they have a foreskin or not, because they're not sexually mature. So why would we perform non-medically-indicated surgery on babies to make them "look like Dad"? By the time their genitals have the potential to look like their fathers', they're probably not going to be seeing each other naked.
I imagine that the moment when an intact child realizes he looks "different" from his dad isn't that big of a deal. The son asks "Why?" and the father says, "Because I'm circumcised and you're not. We kept you whole." Then, the moment is over. What's the big deal about having "matching" genitals? We don't surgically alter baby girls' labia to match their Moms'!
Furthermore, we all look different from each other in lots of ways. In my mind, there's no reason to subject newborns to unnecessary surgery in order to ensure that they look more like their fathers...but just in the pants.
Cosmetic Reasons
Routine infant circumcision is pretty much a uniquely American thing. In the United States last year, the circumcision rate dropped to 33%, down from 56% in 2006. If you're worried your kid is going to be made fun of in gym class (I was never naked in gym class, and I'm sure they're even more strict about it nowadays) know that he'll be in the minority if you get him circumcised. He'll be even more in the minority if you ever travel out of this country, even to Canada. There are millions of sexual partners of uncut men worldwide who can attest to the fact that there's absolutely nothing off-putting or sexually unattractive about a penis that hasn't been through cosmetic surgery.
You can be arrested for tattooing your children. Experts question whether teens are too young to undergo cosmetic surgery for a crooked nose or ears that stick out. So why are our newborn infants old enough to have perfectly functioning body parts amputated for cosmetic reasons? And more importantly, how can they give consent?
Obviously, they can't. We wouldn't give a brand new baby a rhinoplasty ("nose job") simply because we thought maybe some day someone might make fun of her, or a future romantic partner wouldn't find her as desirable. If the reason we're circumcising our babies is because it's prettier that way, why not let our sons decide what they think of their own penises when they are old enough to elect to have the surgery and then consent to it without a parent's signature.
I am obviously anti-circumcision for many reasons, not just those I've outlined here. My husband and I chose to leave our son whole.
I think The Dr. Oz Show did a poor job of providing the American people with accurate facts on routine infant circumcision. I believe that, since Dr. Oz is an influential person and a medical professional, he has an obligation to provide people with the most accurate and balanced information available, regardless of his personal opinion on the subject. This is especially true when he's advocating for a medical procedure that is not recommended by the Centers for Disease Control or the American Academy of Pediatrics. In fact, no medical organization in the world recommends routine infant circumcision.
We now know that babies do feel pain that is unrelieved by simply giving them sugar water. (Surprising, I know, but now we have research to prove it!) Anesthetic is not required to be used for infant circumcision surgery, and that's wrong. A 2006 study revealed that of programs that taught administration of topical or local anesthetic for circumcision surgery, only 84% used anesthetic "frequently or always" when the procedure was conducted.
We can do better by our sons, and I think we're beginning to. Americans are obviously starting to come around to realize how unnecessary this procedure really is, as evidenced by the sharp decrease in circumcision rates over the past few years. Many Jewish families are opting for a Brit Shalom (Covenant of Peace) in lieu of the traditional Brit Milah (Covenant of Circumcision), since they feel circumcision is unnecessary. Here, read a Jewish father's letter to his son about their Covenant of Peace.
What I've written here is in no way meant to blame or look down upon those who have chosen to circumcise their sons. I know several families who have multiple sons, the older of whom are circumcised, and the youngest of whom were left intact. This perfectly illustrates where I think (and hope) we're moving with circumcision: we thought it was alright, but now we know it's not.
Maya Angelou once said, "Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, you do better." I know we're all doing the best we can. But now we know better. Let's do better.
For more information on circumcision in general, check out Code Name: Mama's series on researching circumcision: Part One, about the functions of the foreskin, Part Two about the circumcision procedure itself, and Part Three, about common concerns/myths about circumcision. For more resources about Judiaism and circumcision, visit Peaceful Parenting.
66 comments:
Dr. Oz's parents came from Turkey where circumcision is an almost universal practice. Dr. Oz almost certainly is himself a victim of circumcision.ReplyDelete
We know that many circumcised men have an emotional need to justify their personal mutilation and loss of sexual skin. Circumcised medical doctors are not immune from emotional issues caused by circumcision. We see this at the AAP constantly.
Dr. Oz is using pseudo-medical science to present a one-sided picture in favor of circumcision. I am aware that several people have provided Dr. Ox with correct information, which he has chosen to ignore.
I suggest that everyone ignore what ever Dr. Oz says about circumcision.
Well written post! Dr. Oz gets a lot right. Unfortunately, he does not get how wrong infant circumcision is. I am sure part of the reason is his culture: a Turkish man who is most likely circumcised. There is no medical reason to circumcise an infant that cannot wait until the boy is sexually active. As for the cosmetic reasons - Huh? Everyone is outraged if a child is given a tattoo, but cutting the boy's sex organ is OK?ReplyDeleteReplies
I was not circumcised as an infant. Because of problems experienced after becoming sexually active with my girl friend and later wife, I submitted to the procedure. After learning the differences between the vascular structure of an infant and adult male, I wished the procedure had been done when I was an infant. By the way. My sex life has never been better. And, I do not feel mutilated. PS. I have known several men in my 70 years who were circumcised as infants. Not one of them ever complained about being mutilated or expressed any emotional problems as a result. A few people looking for ways to be seen as victims should not be reason enough to go to the days of more staff infections for young women and greater instances of life threatening conditions when those young ladies get older.Delete
I am disgusted that these "experts" continue to teach lies to the public, who so often rely on the "experts" instead of doing their own research. No wonder routine infant circumcision continues to be so popular.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousDecember 1, 2010 at 11:44 AM
I watch Dr. Oz often. I was very angry yesterday, seeing the comments that Dr. Oz chose to make, and the arguments for circumcision. The one doctor completely glossed over the issue of whether or not it's better for the woman, in fact, she said "no". Oh yeah? Says who? Many women say that an intact penis feels better, and slides smoother, and also, the partner can go slower and last longer. Okay, thank a lot OZ for your unbiased (NOT!), unbalanced presentation.ReplyDelete
I am SO glad that I never had my son mutilated. All of my friends did, however. They all circumcised their sons. I think that it's a sign of an uninformed parent, which does not bode well for the future choices which the parent will make as the child grows. I'm really fed up with Dr. Oz.
Incredibly well put. Thank you.ReplyDelete
- HeatherDecember 1, 2010 at 12:23 PM
While I agree that the ban is wrong and every family needs to decide what is best for them (including considering religious beliefs) I absolutely DETEST people using their credentials to circulate faulty information. As far as I'm concerned it is medical malpractice. All of those doctors have the ability and responsibility to conduct better research before speaking as experts on such a topic.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousDecember 1, 2010 at 12:30 PM
Circumcision works for me and my son, don't care what comments you make. I am glad we did it!ReplyDelete
- AnonymousDecember 1, 2010 at 1:25 PM
I find that Dr. Oz is biased on most of his topics - and often going against accepted medical practices. He either is out of date or promoting something not yet proven. Too erratic for me!ReplyDelete
- AnonymousDecember 1, 2010 at 3:12 PM
One cannot expect anything different from a person who comes from a culture that literally has made a fetish of the act of circumcision.ReplyDelete
But to have that same person claim to be a medical professional, one should expect him to BE more professional and not use dubious medical claims to promote infant genital mutilation.
But, alas, he is indicative of most in the medical industry--promote the unethical to ensure the cash flow--and to hell with the well being of their patients (victims?).
- AnonymousDecember 1, 2010 at 3:14 PM
"Circumcision works for me and my son, don't care what comments you make. I am glad we did it!"ReplyDelete
The paramount question is WHY you are glad to have damaged him sexually for no proven or rational reason?
It looks like he's neither a urologist or pediatrician. He's a cardiologist, which means he is in absolutely no position to be giving any advice on the normal, healthy development of the human penis. What's more, he's Turkish, where circumcision is an important rite of passage to his culture. Can we say "conflict of interest?"ReplyDelete
This "doctor" does little else but promote bias and myth. That turtleneck "example" also works for female circumcision. Little is talked about the inner and outer labia, not to mention the long moist tube that is the vagina that can "trap bacteria and disease." I guess being "bacteria and disease free" is only important in boys, but not in girls... And he doesn't talk about showers... do they not shower in Turkey? Apparently not...
"Circumcision works for me and my son, don't care what comments you make. I am glad we did it!"ReplyDelete
Here is the bottom line question when people talk about "parental choice": How was it ever a parent's "choice" to begin with?
In order for a doctor to perform surgery on a person, there needs to have been established a medical indication. Doctors can't just be removing body parts "just because."
When a doctor makes a mistake and performs the wrong surgery on a patient, he can be sued for malpractice.
If he knowingly deceives a patient into paying for a procedure he doesn't need, then he is committing medical fraud.
The million dollar question is, if there is no medical indication to circumcise a healthy newborn, how on earth can he be performing circumcisions, let alone give parents any kind of "choice?"
Most other operations, appendectomies, gall-bladder removals, etc., are medically indicated. They require immediate action and a parent most definitely has to make a choice.
But the foreskin isn't a medical problem. It is not a birth defect, it is not a genetic anomaly, it is not a deformity. The foreskin is normal, healthy tissue that every male child is born with.
So then, how is it that doctors are performing non-medical surgery in non-consenting individuals?
How is it that parents feel entitled to this "choice," when doctors shouldn't even be performing circumcisions in healthy newborns?
Sooner or later male infant circumcision is going to be exposed for the hoax it is, and parents and American men are going to have to realize that they've been had by opportunistic charlatans.
Something to think about; for better or for worse, female circumcision is also often seen as a "religious tradition" by those who practice it. It is also seen as a god-given "parental choice." When defending the double-standard of strong support for male circumcision in the name of "religious freedom" and "parental choice," but complete opposition of female circumcision because it's "genital mutilation," activists often cite how much "worse" female circumcision is, citing THE WORST kind of female circumcision (there are varying degrees).ReplyDelete
Male circumcision is often compared to "infibulation," where a woman's inner and outer labia are removed, along with the clitoris, and the opening is sewn shut so that it heals into a small hole for menstruation, otherwise known as a "pharaonic circumcision." But little is mentioned that there are quite a few variations of female circumcision, and that only about 15% of FGM cases comprise of infibulation globally; the rest is not so "severe." Not all female circumcision happens to adolescent girls in the bush, by amateurs using rusty blades or broken glass shards. A common alibi used to defend male circumcision, but oppose female circumcision is that "boys are circumcised at an age when they don't remember, they are circumcised in the hospital, and by trained professionals." But nothing at all is mentioned about Muslim circumcision, which takes place between the ages of 7 and 13 years old approximately. And nothing is mentioned about female circumcision in Malaysia and Indonesia, where it is performed on baby girls by a trained professional at a hospital. Here too, baby girls "won't remember."
But we digress when we begin talking about "severity" and whether or not the children remember; when an action is reprehensible, does it really matter that a child cannot remember the act? Why does "not remembering" work for boys, but not for girls? Isn't "severity" a matter of opinion? Because I believe that male infant circumcision is quite severe, in and of itself. Inclusively, there are forms of female circumcision that are far less severe. This May, the AAP advocated a so-called "ritual nick," which doesn't remove anything at all, but we as a nation have decided that not even a "ritual nick" will be allowed, and there will be no exception for religious reasons.ReplyDelete
The question is then this: Jewish groups argue that a ban on male infant circumcision violates their "freedom of religion" and "parental choice." But if this is about "religion" and parental prerogative, then why aren't they up in arms about the fact that there is a federal ban on female circumcision, no matter how "less severe" it is, and with no religious exception? If we are going to defend "freedom of religion" and/or "parental choice," shouldn't this be done across the board? Or are some people's "religious freedoms" or "parental choices" more important than others? Where do we draw the line?
The conversation will always inevitably be shifted to the "severity" of female circumcision, and the "intentions." (Female circumcision is often intended to decrease a woman's sexuality... this is not news, since those were the "intentions" of those who began the practice of male circumcision in the US. In fact, the US practiced female circumcision up until the 1970s, and insurance companies such as Blue Shield covered them. Incidentally, studies show that not even infibulation can elliminate a woman's ability to orgasm. This is all hyperbole to downplay male circumcision, while blowing female circumcision out of proportion.)
But the bottom line is this: Either parents have "religious freedom" and "parental choice" to do WHATEVER they want to their children's genitals, no matter what sex, or they do not. Concessions for one religious group, for one sex is biggotted, racist, and sexist.
@Joseph: I agree with you that FGM and MGM are equally terrible things to do to innocent children, no matter what their age, and that the laws and opinions on circumcision are sexist and one-sided. I appreciate your passion!ReplyDelete
I would like to point out, to your first comment, that nothing was said on the show about using condoms to prevent the spread of disease. Since when is routine surgery on infants the preferred method over a cheap, painless, reversible (removable) piece of latex?
As a reminder to everyone, let's all please refrain from personal attacks and generalizations/insults about large groups of people, as it detracts from the discussion rather than augmenting it. Thank you!
"Circumcision works for me and my son, don't care what comments you make. I am glad we did it!"ReplyDelete
You may be, but will HE, when he is old enough to use it?
Dr Oz's demonstration is about as scientific as the demonstration that ink sinks into chalk proving something or other about toothpaste.
And many scientific studies have shown NO protection of circumcision against STDs.
SO well written! Thank you! Dr Oz is a total joke.ReplyDelete
As for boys wanting to look lilke their fathers, intact boys all constantly nag their circumcised fathers to have part of their willlies cut off, so they can look like them, yeah right.ReplyDelete
It's the fathers who are insecure about their sons having more in the penis department than them.
- AnonymousDecember 1, 2010 at 5:43 PM
Amy, great article but I have a few things to add:ReplyDelete
The studies about circumcision and STDs simply do not stand up to scientific scrutiny. They have claimed a 60% protective effect and that does not show in the real world results. The Polio vaccine has similar efficacy but how many cases of polio have you heard of lately? How many AIDS cases? It just doesn't work!
You said you found a 2006 study that found 84% of infants recieved analgesia/anestetics. I also found a study that found just the opposite. Only 16% recieved analgesics/anestetics! That is a horrifyingly low number and amounts to abuse. I once found a discussion site for doctors and what I found there seemed to confirm the 16% statistic. The primary reason they didn't provide analgesic/anesthetics? They required too much time!
Prior to the 1990's, there was no place for parents to learn about this but the internet has changed all that and it's showing in the plummeting circumcision rate. People are not using their computers just for playing games.
@Anonymous (the most recent one): Thanks for your additions!ReplyDelete
I was trying to indicate that the STD/circumcision studies aren't accurate while saying that even if we assume that they ARE, that's still not a good enough evidence to promote routine infant circumcision with no medical indication.
Similarly, even if 84% of babies DID receive anesthesia, that's not enough. NO ONE should have to undergo surgery without anesthesia.
Great post. I saw the show too and was incredibly frustrated by it. So much misinformation! It's all been said now, and I really just feel sad that so many people are going to be misled by one man - when so many of us are trying to educate people and will never reach that amount of people.
Anyways, the positive thing is that this movement of people who are against circumcision is growing and becoming more visible - and that means it IS going to be harder for people like Dr. Oz to just say outright lies and get away with it.
So thank you for taking the time to write about what you saw, and explaining to your readers the problem with what he did on his show.
That is really important!
- AnonymousDecember 2, 2010 at 7:25 AM
The whole FGM VS MGM argument is a nothing but a distraction..an evil is not made acceptable by simply finding another evil one believes is worse than the original one.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousDecember 2, 2010 at 8:12 AM
VERY well articulated, thoughtful, factual and compassionate. Thank you so much for this post Amy!! Cynthia www.bloomchildbirth.comReplyDelete
- AnonymousDecember 2, 2010 at 8:40 AM
My thinking is that even if they do recieve some sort of anesthesia, it continues to hurt during the healing period. I've had surgery, and it continued to hurt for awhile. I was able to endure it because I knew the reason. How can you explain to a newborn that their genitals hurt because something unneeded was done to them? People who get cosmetic surgery are given painkillers. Babies are given vaseline.ReplyDelete
Yeah, I used to like Dr. Oz until I saw this. Thank you for writing this!ReplyDelete
FABULOUS post, very well said. I'm flabbergasted by the "look like daddy" reasoning for circumcision. As you said, by the time son and father have any chance of *actually* looking similarly, they likely won't be comparing penises anymore. My 2.5yr old (uncut) son has taken showers with his (cut) father many times, has never mentioned anything about noticing any difference. No one would EVER consider putting their infant under a knife to make any other superficial changes to look more like mom or dad, I do not understand why it's acceptable in this case.ReplyDelete
Great post! I always love finding another informed parent. I can't wait to read more of your writing. I disagree with circumcision on all levels but to me, the most important reason to ban it, is that removal of a person's gentalia (male or female) without their consent is a denial of their rights as a human to genital integrity.ReplyDelete
I don't see any difference between FGM and MGM and RIC. They all are a violation of human rights and surgery on a minor that cannot consent.
I sent an email to the show. It doesn't surprise me that a circ'ed MD would want to encourage parents to do it. There is tremendous money in circing and doctors have a great incentive to push it when they can. It is saddening that he has so many viewers that will buy anything that he is selling.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousDecember 2, 2010 at 3:58 PM
After seeing this, I am even more convinced that DR Oz is a Tool.ReplyDelete
I have an intact son and a Circumcised husband, My son does not notice any difference other than "daddy is much bigger than him" Cosmetic reasons needs to go to hell, it is the lamest most shallow excuse to cut off part of your sons penis. Cosmetic reasons is heartless, and cruel. I get if you are misinformed and think there are benefits.. but eww cosmetic, so he looks like daddy? eww. my son has a different nose than his father, should we get him plastic surgery so he looks the same?
I am so sick of the std excuse, they did one study, and it was flawed, not to mention that once a boy is sexually active he most likely is retractable, so here is a novel idea, shower and pull back and clean. obviously a non retractable toddler or preschooler is not having sex, at least we hope. They also make these great things, called condoms, generally if you are having sex and are not married and don't want to knock the girl up and contract a desease, they do a lovely job at preventing those things.
Overall this was so biased and nothing factual was said. VERY sad. I am so glad the #'s are going down, parents these days are researching before they harm their sons, and that makes me happy.
- JeniferDecember 2, 2010 at 5:44 PM
What else can we expect from Dr Mainstream bought-and-paid-for Oz? All the comments are great, I have nothing else to add except that my father, husband, and son are all uncircumcised, and none has experienced any problems. DUH, WHY would boys be born with something that needs to be cut off? Logic here, Dr OZ!ReplyDelete
The Wizard called Oz is a fake and a fraud.ReplyDelete
The Bottom Line
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons ... shall not be
violated ..."
Constitution of the United States of America, 4th Amendment
"... part of what our core Constitution -- constitutional values promote is
the notion that individuals are protected in their privacy and their bodily
integrity ..."
-Barack Obama
21 April 2010
The bottom line on this issue is that according to long-established US law
based in British Common Law and the US Constitution, and international law
based in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, and earlier and
later law, all human beings have the unalienable human right to bodily -
including genital - integrity. In other words, it is no one's right to chop
off or out ANY of your healthy, living body parts without your fully
informed, adult, written consent. The same is true for every human being on
the planet, including especially infants and children. Most of us were
taught this basic ethical and legal principle of complete respect for other
people's bodies before we were allowed to enter kindergarten. It is not
rocket science.
People who amputate healthy, living body parts from infants, other children
and other non-consenting persons are committing obvious, blatant, criminal
acts, no matter what excuses or "reasons" they give - or refuse to give -
for doing so, be they "medical", "scientific", "religious", "cultural",
"ethnic", "tribal", "aesthetic", perverted, sadistic or otherwise.
Amputating other people's healthy, living body parts is a crime against
humanity, "human vivisection", the same crime against humanity that licensed
German doctors were convicted at Nuremburg after World War II of committing
- and jailed for committing - against Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and others
during the war.
Jews more than anyone else on the planet should understand that violating
people's unalienable human rights to bodily integrity and making light
of such violations - circumcising kills Jewish and other children frequently
in the USA and other clueless countries around the world - is not in the
best interest of Jews or anyone else.
What counts is not the adult mutilator's pathetic excuses for their
unethical, unconscionable, illegal, inhuman, diabolical mutilations. What
counts is their intended victims' human rights to be free from them, and
whether the rest of us have the nerve to protect and defend their human
rights and their person, their physical body. It's theirs. No one else's.
Adult mutilators and mutilationists do not respect human rights, obviously,ReplyDelete
but that does not mean that human rights do not exist. The mutilators and
mutilationists cannot obliterate human rights as they do human sex organs,
try as they may. Human rights are un-obliteratable. That's what
"unalienable" means. They cannot be taken away, cannot be stolen and
destroyed as sex organs can. All the mutilators can do is violate
unalienable human rights, and violate them they do, freely, rampantly,
criminally, in several grossly and disgustingly barbaric places around the
world, including the USA, the only country in the entire WORLD where the
medical profession mutilates the sex organs of the majority of male babies,
or did until 2009 when the rate fell to 32.5%. Finally, people in all walks
of life and from every religious and ethnic group in the world are waking up
to the horrendous reality that we have been unnecessarily, unjustifiably,
grievously mutilating, damaging, crippling, and sometimes killing our own
children, for nothing. We now are refusing to do it any more or to allow
others to, no matter what their inhuman excuses are.
The mutilators will be held accountable for their horrific, heinous, hideous
crimes of torture, mayhem and mutilation, no matter in whose or what's name
they commit them. "Medical science" will not protect them. "God" will not
protect them. "Culture" and "religion" and "aesthetics" will not protect
them. Ignorance on the subject is rapidly disappearing and soon will no
longer protect them. Only JAIL will protect them from the mighty and
righteous wrath, delayed though it may be, of their millions of sexually
mutilated victims, time-bombs, each and every one, fused, ready to ignite
and explode.
Obliterate circumcising, not sex organs.
How did otherwise intelligent human beings ever get so
hyper-self-stupidified about their own and other people's sex organs?
Having mutilated genitals makes it impossible to experience sex normally so
I guess that goes part of the way toward explaining how people can be so
stupid about circumcision/genital mutilation as to advocate or actually pick
up knives and cut babies' perfect sex organs (what sex the child happens to
have been born is 100% irrelevant, of course), but not, I think, the whole
distance. There has to be an ungodly dose of voluntary denial mixed in with
the involuntary genital/sexual mutilation to make someone as psychopathic on
the subject of sex and human rights and babies' real needs as the people
who do the evil crime with their own hands. Protect babies from ALL the
mutilating and mutilationist psychopaths! Like the one dissected in this
wonderful video:
Cut circumcising, not foreskins!
I strongly suspect that the show's producers force the participants toReplyDelete
limit the boundaries of debate beforehand to "it's a parent's choice",
regardless of the pros and cons. I think this is why they all
re-iterate this statement, to avoid divisiveness, which I presume
would be bad for ratings because it would offend some viewers.
I watched "TheDoctors" speak of circumcision (link: bit.ly/ex9FJR)and
they all said the same thing ("it's a parent's choice") as though
repeating a holy mantra, even if they were opposed to circumcision.
This prevents questions like "why should a parent have the right to
mutilate their child's genitals?" from being raised and avoids real
discussion of the brutal reality of circ. In the context of a bill to
ban circ, this makes for inadequate debate.
- AnonymousDecember 3, 2010 at 4:54 AM
By the way, I would have never allowed a boy to go near me with out a condom circ'd or intact, when I was in high school or college before I married my husband.. (not that there were all that many partners lol)ReplyDelete
Somehow OZ the cardiologist knows more about the anatomy, development, and function of the normal male genitals than do the specialist committees assembled by the world's health bodies? NOT ONE national medical association on earth (not even Israel's) endorses routine circumcision.ReplyDelete
The turtleneck demo proves OZ knows nothing about the function of the foreskin. It doesn't terminate past the head. It's a continuous slinky sleeve of pleasure-receptive skin that doubles back and in his example would be attached below the neck. Cutting it leaves TWO raw edges that would be sutred together (unless the victim is an infant, in which case they are usually left to heal to each other haphazardly).
And he doesn't bother explaining WHY he believes his confetti salad of cooties doesn't stick to the newly exposed mucosa; it's because those surfaces dry out and callous in response to the lack of protection, just like eyeballs would without eyelids, just like female genitalia would if stripped of all but the essentials. OZ also fails to note that the normal adult foreskin is easily rolled back so the head can be cleaned, and that the child's foreskin is fused to the glans precisely so the cooties can't get in.
His obstetrician friend adds nothing intelligent to the mix, and why should she? She represents the OB/GYNs, who do 70% of the circumcisions in the US. WHY are they doing surgery on babies? They're not pediatricians. Their patient is the mother? Why? Because they got there first, and that baby's foreskin is like a coupon for $200 hanging off the child just waiting to be stolen.
Just Google "circumcision damage" to see all the evidence OZ won't acknowledge about how infant circumcision harms.
HIS body, HIS decision.
I very much agree with Deniz, "I strongly suspect that the show's producers force the participants to limit the boundaries of debate beforehand to "it's a parent's choice", regardless of the pros and cons."ReplyDelete
The homogenized flavour of the discussion whether it comes from Oz, or "the Doctors" TV shows feels like a decision has come down from the producers to maintain the status quo, pro-circumcision stance, "Up to the parents to decide." It felt that way when Oprah had a discussion about FGM and pre-empted any possible discussion a
At one time we might have heard even an attempt to appear balanced, allowing the idea that there are those opposed to circumcision, but the panel of experts were well rehearsed, no chance of anyone to dispute the celebrity "experts."
I was reminded recently that all of these so called TV "doctors" all have products to push, books etc.
- bobbie truthDecember 3, 2010 at 6:21 PM
There is something obviously very sick in the minds and heart of doctors wanting to chop tens of thousands of sensory receptors off of millions of other males' perfectly normal perfectly healthy penises.ReplyDelete
Not to "scare" at all, but I would comment calmly that the day will come (and sooner than we expect) when victims of involuntary, non therapeutic circumcision will be filing lawsuits against physicians and medical institutions and even their own parents just as often and just as effectively as the victims of sexually predatory priests have taken actions (and won judgements $$$) against the Roman Catholic Church.
Any excuse (medical or health reasons) come up with by people trying to make money out of circumcision of baby boys is false. The lies and misinformation we have had to listen to over the years as the circumcisers invented more and more reasons to carry on their illicit harvest of children's foreskins.
As soon as one benefit is disproved, they invent another one to take its place.
Routine circumcision is unheard of among the civilisations of continental Europe, Great Britain, South America, and non Muslim Asia. Most Europeans-including European doctors-are shocked to learn that routine circumcision goes on in America. Most refuse to believe that such a thing is possible in a civilised, Western Country.
Fleiss: The fact that there are tens of thousands of sensory nerves in the normal foreskin explains why foreskin amputation is so excruciatingly painful and why modern medicine has repeatedly failed to develop a technique of local anaesthesia that is completely safe and effective.
The message should be very clear: Any procedure that causes that amount of pain to an innocent newborn babe is clearly a mistake. A baby's agonising and frenzied screams of pain are the only way he has to tell us to leave his penis alone and that he needs his foreskin to enjoy life as a complete male.
The principles of medical ethics require that we protect our babies from pain and trauma. If it is illegal to subject laboratory animals to painful experiences, what does it say about society that would provide greater legal protection to lab rats than to its own children?
In investigating the deaths of babies killed by circumcision, one must realise that the litigious malpractice mileau existing here makes acurate reporting of such deaths very unlikely. It would take great courage and honesty on the part of a circumciser to report a circumcision death when the circumciser knows that the surgery has been deemed unnecessary by every Medical organisation in the world with a policy about it, and that he may be sued for malpractice.
A stunning relevation about circumcision deaths came from the celebrated Pedriatrician Dr Sydney S Gellis who revealed that
"It is an incontestable fact at this point that there are more deaths each year from complications of circumcision than from cancer of the penis."
Explaining how circumcision deaths are covered up , Dr Gellis states:
"A number of deaths from circumcision are signed out as deaths due to sepsis(blood poisoning)"
Circumcision deaths are also disguised as deaths due to "complications of anesthesia" without mentioning in the death charts that the baby had been anesthetised for no other reason than for unnecessar routine circumcision.
Circumcised males have been robbed of a normal body part. They have also been robbed of a normal level of sexual sensation. Just as a person whose lips were amputated could never really appreciate the sensation that lips can convey, so a circumcised male can never understand what his genitally intact friends experience. This helps explain why some circumcised males like Dr Oz defend circumcision so vehemently. They have no idea what was taken from them and are psychologically unprepared to deal with their loss.
- AnonymousDecember 4, 2010 at 7:19 AM
Dr. Oz is another two bit tv doctor who relies on century old practice and doesnt listen to medical evidence. He may be horrified to know that the circumcision rates in the US have fallen to 33%. He needs to get a clue. If he wishes to explain how my dad, my son and I are intact and never had a problem let him contact me. And if his answer is good genetics, my reply is I was adopted.ReplyDelete
Terry Difazio
- Jim from CalifDecember 4, 2010 at 11:12 AM
Where is consideration for the thoughts and feelings of the baby boy? That baby will be the one to live with the consequences of having lost half of his penile skin, 20,000 pleasure giving nerves, and the exquisite feelings of having a foreskin glide back and forth over his corona during sexual activity. Does a parent really have a moral right to deprive his son of that? Does not morality supersede even the law?ReplyDelete
How does one explain acceptance to a circumcised man who cannot reconcile his loss? The psychiatrist failed to address this very real situation of men who mourn the losses of their foreskins for life. Does anyone doubt this? I would dare you to attend a meeting of one of the various NORM chapters around the world where such topics are discussed by the victims. They can be located through www.norm.org. While you're at it, take a good look at www.noharmm.org.
In addition, research the prevalence of foreskin restoration and its results. Google "foreskin restoration." It is estimated that the number of men involved in personal foreskin restoration is well into six figures. The movement is now 25 years old and has produced numerous websites, blogs, newsgroups and an entire industry which manufactures equipment to facilitate stretching of the penile skin.
Personal testimonies of circumcised men who have successfully restored their foreskins overwhelming conclude that sexual gratification and satisfaction are much higher with foreskins than without. Restoration work can take years to complete. The driving force behind such an undertaking comes from the initial results discovered within the first month of foreskin coverage when several layers of no longer needed tissue are shed from the glans. Those layers were nature's defense (callusing) against the unnatural exposure of delicate mucosa which is designed to remain sensitive for sexual activity. Once the man knows he's experiencing something far greater than he could even have known in his exposed state, he'll do whatever he can to finish the job he started.
Dr Oz has never known the pleasure of having his own foreskin. As a victim himself, and without ever having examined his own loss (denial), he is no different from any other victim of childhood sexual molestation. Evidence nearly always shows that such victims mature into perpetrators, and that is why he so vigorously endorses the practice. Until he admits his own loss and addresses it for what it really is, he will undoubtedly continue to find satisfaction in encouraging the victimization of other males.
This hideous practice needs to be abolished by law. The damage is far beyond what is seen in the physical realm. addition to the permanent psychological damage done to the victims, we are permitting parents to carry out mutilation rites on their sons. If they cannot legally tattoo them, why are we permitting them to maim their most private parts? Even dogs are protected by law against tail docking! Do we not find more value in our sons than in our dogs?
American routine infant circumcision is a silent sexual train wreck we are only beginning to understand.ReplyDelete
Some adult men and women have unhappy or boring sex lives, because he's circumcised. There are young men whose sexual style is little more than date rape, because circ has so desensitised their penises that they cannot ejaculate by having intercourse in a civilised way. Some middle aged men suffer from ED and PE because they are circumcised. Some circed men have inappropriate partnersex because they cannot obtain release via masturbation. When a man is intact, a woman can perform 100% safe sex with him, called the handjob, She does not need to disrobe. The extra nerve endings intact men have can make them less reluctant to use condoms. I suspect that the sexual part of women's minds have evolved so as to enjoy playing with the loose moving penis skin.
The Grand Old Lady of American female sexuality, Betty Dodson, has written at some length about how she came to discover that she enjoyed intact intercourse a lot more. I have exchanged Email with women who have confided in me that they climax easily with an intact partner, and not at all with a cut one. Two of these women never married baby boomers, because every man around their age is circumcised.
There is hope. The internet does not (yet) censor graphic images of the penis. Internet plus broadband has made it possible for women to explore explicit images of the intact penis, in the privacy of their home offices. More and more American women have discovered that they are not put off by the penis As Nature Intended it to Be.
Mother Nature deserves the benefit of the doubt.
You are right. Dr Oz, along with many other USA doctors, simply does not get an important sexual point that is obvious to more and more American and Canadian women.ReplyDelete
The only people really qualified to compare cut and uncut are gay men, and women free spirits who have had extensive experience with both kinds of penises. Most North Americans who qualify and are willing to post about it, have come down in favour of intact. Ladies, thank you from the bottom of my heart.
The comments about intact sex being far superior to cut sex is affirmed by the O'Hara study which asked women experienced in both to rate them..they OVERWHELMINGLY preferred the normal, intact variety (85%) in ALL aspects.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousDecember 11, 2010 at 6:29 AM
First of all, I am willing to bet that the majority of you have never witnessed a circumcision performed by a physician in a hospital. You are envisioning screaming babies being mutilated. I've seen circumcisions, the skin is numbed and many babies even sleep through the procedure.ReplyDelete
It does reduce the risk of STD's, whether or not you want to believe it. My best friend works as a Disease Prevention Specialist and she works to prevent the spread of STD's. She lives in a huge city and is swamped with cases. The fact is, the majority of men/boys carrying STD's that live longer outside the body, such as chlamydia, gon. and hep C (not really HIV though) are uncircumcised. Now, obviously anyone can have unprotected sex and pass on a disease, so this shouldn't be the ONLY reason you circumcise your son, in my opinion.
And finally, I don't watch Dr. Oz. But he is a physician and spent at LEAST 10 years in school training, and probably spent a few more years specializing. I am guessing the majority of people commenting on here do not even have a Master's degree. So to call him a fraud, and other names, is unbelievable to me. Of course he is bias, he isn't God. He gave you the facts the best he could, the way he sees them, and you would do the exact same thing if you had a show. You would present the facts against circumcision, even if facts showing that it's a good idea appeared.
Oh, lord that tired old "it reduces STD's.ReplyDelete
I am sorry, but circumcisers are living in some fantasy land concocted by them and supported by dubious studies contradicted by empirical evidence in the real world.
It might be wise to check out the US & European rates of all conditions circumcision claims to eliminate, cure, or reduce--intact Europe has the same or LOWER rates of all of than the circumcising US.. This is called failure to fulfill prediction and eliminates the claims as scientifically valid.
In fact, there is not a single VALID excuse for circumcision..find me any one that actually is found in the real world.
Of course Oz is a fraud--a doctor is supposed to keep current and to critically analyze the recent information--he has completely failed to do this--so, if not a fraud, at least incompetent.
His job is to provide all valid evidence, not just cherry-picked questionable evidence.
- AnonymousDecember 13, 2010 at 2:51 PM
Thanks for writing about the Dr. Oz segement - I was extremely disappointed listening to his 'experts'completely fail to address the issues which you and many of the posters have mentioned here.ReplyDelete
Having been circumscised at birth and in the process of 'restoration' I can attest to the loss of what I and generations of American men and women never knew. My wife and I both enjoy a much more satisfying sexual relationship with the increase in skin, which a foreskin naturally provides. The increased sensitivity is amazing.
Wow, that's really making me mad. And it kills me that people will see these "experts" on TV and believe them. Grr. That turtleneck example is ridiculous. Why not throw sticky stuff against the outside and claim the foreskin protects from that? It's all just showiness and not fact, which is that foreskins serve a purpose and there's no reason to remove them routinely. I'll be another voice saying that an intact penis (my husband's) functions better sexually than a circumcised one.ReplyDelete
I wish I had known before I had my baby. I did it because my husband was adamant about it since his brother had an infection as a toddler which they blamed on not being circumcised, like my husband was. At least my baby was given anaesthesia. But now I feel like I've altered two lives: his and his future wife's. Sometimes I hate sex because of how raw I feel during and afterward, even with lubricant. I thought it was my fault, but now I wonder if it isn't. Thank you for getting the word out there!ReplyDelete
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
p.s. Whether or not circumcision helps stop STDs, the best way to end them is through monogamy! Why don't we encourage that instead?ReplyDelete
We don't encourage monogamy because this does not fill the coffers of the medical industry in the US.ReplyDelete
"I did it because my husband was adamant about it since his brother had an infection as a toddler which they blamed on not being circumcised."ReplyDelete
The chances are it was not an infection, but simply the normal sequence of the separation process.
IF indeed an infection, it was likely caused by the parents or doctors stupidly retracting the foreskin prematurely.
In intact countries where ignorance of the foreskin is not prevalent, they find that only 6 in 100,00 are ever circumcised, and even most of these can be treated medically and not by amputation.
BTW, your soreness and rawness is NOT your fault..it has been shown that the reason for this is circumcision.
Francesca, here is an article that might explain circumcised sex to you.ReplyDelete
Guest Article
By Dr. Christine Northrup © 2004
- AnonymousJanuary 6, 2011 at 8:45 PM
I am a mother of 3 children, 2 of which are boys. When I found out I was having a son the question of circumcision was a big one for me. I had never thought of it before then. So I asked my husband who was circumcised as a baby as is traditionally done around where I am from. He was pro circumcision 100% As a circumcised man he wanted his son(s) to be as well. I don't know if it will help them from getting std's or not. Hopefully they will always use protection but in both of our families and the majority of the people we have talked to about it do circumcise their boys. As far as the physical education situation at our school we did take showers and yes we were naked. My husband did also. So yes the boys who are not will be different.ReplyDelete
The one person I knew who was not circumcised was my grandfather. As a grown man in his late 50's or early 60's had a medical situation (I'm not sure exactly what it was) that caused him to have to have to be circumcised at his late age. He was in a lot of pain and many times told my husband that he wished it was done when he was a baby.
With all this being said, I do believe it is a parental choice.
Parental choice? WHY? It is not their penis and not their body.ReplyDelete
BTW, circumcision has NO proven benefit, but PROVEN harm and risks.
Unnecessarily harming infants and their body qualifies as a gross violation of their most basic human right.
Lemming behavior does not justify harming infants
Unwarranted paranoia over a slight chance of something adverse ever occurring does not justify damaging an infant's penis.The damage done has a 100% chance of occurring.
I will wait for a rational reason why this should be a parent's choice.
- JessicaJanuary 15, 2011 at 12:45 PM
Excellent post and I agree with every single thing you said. :)ReplyDelete
I would like to add something about the "look like daddy" argument. What if the father of your child is circ'ed and then something happens? He dies, or you divorce? And then you remarry a man who is intact while your child is still very young, and who participates in potty training, bathing, etc, and who is followed to the bathroom by the child as a preschoolers are wont to do? Would your son then be distraught if his penis was cut and his stepdad's was not?
I know that sounds like a silly game of "what if" but that is my situation. My ex agreed we would not have our son circ'ed, and then on the way to the hospital to deliver he tried to convince me to change my mind using the "I want him to look like me, he will feel weird if he doesn't" crap. I didn't fall for it. And then he left us when our son was only a couple months old. I have a new husband now, and he is intact. My son has visitation with his biological father as well now, and I know that they sometimes have showered together. Never once has my inquisitive son who is just enthralled by his penis ever asked any of us why he looks different from biodad, or why biodad and stepdad look different. They have different features everywhere else...I suppose he is not surprised or bothered that their penises look different.
- JessicaJanuary 15, 2011 at 12:49 PM
BTW, I'd like to add that my husband was never teased in school for his penis being natural because boys would rather do almost anything besides admit they looked at another guy's genitals. Or maybe their parents taught them to be decent human beings and not make fun of people for their bodies. Also because *gasp* there were other guys in school who were intact! True, they were a minority, but they were there.ReplyDelete
"True, they were a minority, but they were there."ReplyDelete
According to the CDC, the circumcision rate has dropped to 32%, so now the cut men are the minority.
Dr. Oz talked about a few years ago on Oprah, touting it as lowering the transmission of STD's, more hygienic, etc. I wrote to him (something I never do!) to ask why - even though he constantly reminds people that the body is a machine, with each part having a specific purpose for our health - he would promote circumcision. I never heard back, of course. Here's the Oprah link:ReplyDelete
- AnonymousJune 23, 2011 at 12:50 PM
"First of all, I am willing to bet that the majority of you have never witnessed a circumcision performed by a physician in a hospital. You are envisioning screaming babies being mutilated. I've seen circumcisions, the skin is numbed and many babies even sleep through the procedure."ReplyDelete
REPLY. Not using local anesthetic is still common in many USA hospitals. This should be criminal.
"It does reduce the risk of STD's, whether or not you want to believe it. My best friend works as a Disease Prevention Specialist and she works to prevent the spread of STD's. She lives in a huge city and is swamped with cases. The fact is, the majority of men/boys carrying STD's that live longer outside the body, such as chlamydia, gon. and hep C (not really HIV though) are uncircumcised."
REPLY. Rampant STDs is a primarily a problem in the USA underclass. Many underclass men are intact, either because they are Latino or because Medicaid would not pay for routine circ in the place and time they were born. Middle and upper class men have much lower rates of STDs, not because they are circumcised but because they are more likely to use condoms and frequent a healthier sort of women.
"Dr. Oz is a physician and spent at LEAST 10 years in school training, and probably spent a few more years specializing."
REPLY. Oz trained in cardiology, not urology, pediatrics, or STDs. American doctors are sadly ignorant about many sexual issues. The vast majority of USA doctors are circumcised, or married to circumcised men. Hence they do not understand the intact penis.
"I am guessing the majority of people commenting on here do not even have a Master's degree."
REPLY. Sorry, but I have a Ph.D.
"He gave you the facts the best he could, the way he sees them, and you would do the exact same thing if you had a show."
REPLY. If I had a show and spouted my opinions, I would accept the fact that those who strongly disagreed with me would comment accordingly on the blog for my show. Oz has the right to speak his mind, and we have the right to dissent vigorously.
"You would present the facts against circumcision, even if facts showing that it's a good idea appeared."
REPLY. That is less than fair.
- AnonymousJune 23, 2011 at 12:56 PM
Some comments above have been ladies revealing that they prefer intimacy with an intact man. Thank you very very much for revealing this. In my opinion, such revelations are the most powerful intactivist statements there are. I have yet to encounter a single circ advocate who challenges women who reveal this.ReplyDelete
When it comes to serious health issues, circumcision does not "prevent" anything; it is only claimed that it improves the odds. All those health problems can be prevented by daily showers, condoms, and best of all, confining sex to faithful marriage. It's corny, but it works. If you live right, having foreskin will not be a problem. Do we really want to alter the most sexual parts of a man's body in order to let him get away with murder in the bedroom??
Siempre habrá una razón por la cual podrán comprar Bolsas Michael Kors Precios de los minoristas en línea. Los compradores de hoy que estén interesados en comprar Michael Kors Rebajas podrán descubrir cómo pueden obtener los mejores resultados que siempre quisieron simplemente haciendo ruido con lo mejor de Bolsos Michael Kors Outlet que ofrecen más allá de precios asequibles.ReplyDelete
Dessutom med så många alternativ att välja mellan, har det blivit praktiskt taget omöjligt för köpare att ta reda på hur de kan köpa Designer Michael Kors Väska Rea online utan att behöva investera för mycket pengar eller tid i scouting den lokala marknaden som annars skulle tyckas omöjligt att göra först . En riktig äkta Michael Kors Rea skulle kunna ge dig tillbaka tusentals dollar och det är något som de flesta inte har råd med. Du kan faktiskt köpa Michael Kors Plånbok online.
Maintenant, la question se pose de savoir si vous pouvez réellement trouver en ligne authentique Longchamp Soldes bon marché qui sont vraiment authentiques et la réponse est oui, vous pouvez! Un des sites les mieux notés et les plus populaires pour localiser le Sac A Main Longchamp en ligne parfait pour votre collection personnelle est eBay. Rappelez-vous, juste parce que vous êtes en mesure de magasiner en ligne Sac À Main Longchamp sur eBay à des prix incroyablement bas ne signifie pas qu'ils sont faux ou de qualité bon marché.
yeezy boost 350
mbt shoes
adidas zx flux
nike air max 95
michael kors uk
yeezy shoes
michael kors outlet online
golden goose outlet
michael kors handbags outletReplyDelete
michael kors handbags
jordan shoes
nike air max 97
nike sneakers
michael kors outlet online
supreme clothing
yeezy 700
yeezy supplyReplyDelete
golden goose outlet
bape clothing
supreme clothing
curry 7 sour patch
off white
supreme hoodie
supreme clothingReplyDelete
moncler jackets
retro jordans
curry 6
kyrie irving shoes
golden goose slide
jordan 11
supreme hoodie


text:
Windows Phone 7 is finally here. The good is that there's lots of hardware varieties to choose from, much like Android. Also in the good news category is the slick and easy to used polished user interface that comes standard with WP7. The bad news is that many features are notably missing -- hot swappable SD memory, copy/cut/paste, and true third-party multitasking.
But there's hope yet for those who have purchased Windows Phone 7 handsets, or are thinking about it. Microsoft is rumored to be planning a massive update to the young operating system according to wpcentral.
The news was leaked by overexcited Windows Phone 7 developer Chris Walsh, who couldn't keep quiet about the update's inclusion of copy/cut/paste, free voice-guided Bing navigation, custom ringtone support, a third-party multitasking solution, and more.
The update is rumored to land as early as January, in time to go head to head with Google's Android 2.3 "Gingerbread" and Apple's iOS 4.3.
If indeed all those rumored features make it to the finished product, Microsoft would unleash a wicked competitor on the market. As one Twitter poster put it, "MS took 3 months to do what Apple did in 3 years."
Another poster comments, "Let's just say, they could have called it Windows Phone 8."
Let's just say Google and Apple are doubtless watching closely how this one plays out.
Source: DailyTech

subset: commoncrawl


text:
To celebrate the Arizona Fall League's 20th anniversary, we asked you, the fans, to select the best player from each of the league's past 20 seasons. From a young Mike Piazza in the league's first season, back in 1992, to Bryce Harper and Mike Trout just a year ago, you helped decide the AFL's 20th Anniversary Top 20.
Throughout the Arizona Fall League season, the winner from each class was revealed at the series of games below. The first 500 fans in attendance at each game received an oversized trading card of the player being honored that night.
At 21, Trout has already put himself into the discussion for AL MVP, and he may very well take home the award with his dazzling five-tool ability.
At 19, Harper is already a NL Rookie of the Year candidate for 2012. He was taken first overall by the Nationals in 2010.
A 2007 Draft choice of the Red Sox, Middlebrooks has seemingly established himself as Boston's third baseman of the future with a solid 2012 campaign.
A second-round Draft choice of the Rockies in 2009, Arenado hit .298 with 20 homers for Class A Advanced Modesto. He is currently with Double-A Tulsa.
The first overall choice in 2011, Cole has ascended the Pirates' Minor League ranks quickly, already a strong right-hander for Double-A Altoona.
After dominating at Double-A Jackson with a 1.19 ERA, the Mariners' top pick in the 2011 Draft has already progressed to Triple-A Tacoma.
A stellar rookie campaign put Hosmer on the map in 2011. The third overall pick in 2008 should be a power threat for a long time for Kansas City.
After a solid rookie campaign in 2011, the Mariners infielder has established himself as a force at the top of the Seattle lineup.
Belt's ability to get on base is unquestioned, as is his defensive ability at first base. He's a crucial piece of the Giants' future.
An important part of the Cardinals' 2011 title run, Rzepczynski has become a reliable lefty reliever in his four big league seasons.
The Indians' second-round pick in 2009 has already paid huge dividends as a line-drive hitter who can run and play a solid second base.
Signed by the Red Sox in 2009, Iglesias remains one of Boston's top prospects. He made his big league debut in 2011.
One of the most highly regarded young power arms in a long time, the righty Strasburg appears poised to anchor the Nats' rotation for years to come.
The 2010 NL Rookie of the Year, Posey made an immediate impact in the Giants' 2010 title run. He was voted into his first All-Star Game in 2012.
At age 22, Castro, who led the NL in hits in 2011 and is a two-time All-Star, is seen by many on the North Side as the future of the Cubs.
With arguably the best strikeout stuff in baseball, Kimbrel led the league in saves in 2011 and has become a dominant closer for the Braves.
A constant power threat, Davis is hoping to anchor himself in the middle of the Mets' batting order after three seasons in the big leagues.
The right-hander has become a force out of the Washington bullpen since he was drafted 10th overall in 2009, logging 73 appearances and a 2.75 ERA in '11.
A solid rookie season in 2011 put Trumbo on the map, and an impressive 2012 cemented the Angels slugger as one of baseball's best young stars.
A two-time All-Star, Wieters has developed into one of the AL's best catchers. He's played a vital part in the O's 2012 turnaround.
Stubbs' speed/power combination early in the lineup poses a huge threat for opposing teams. He played a key role in the Reds' 2010 division title.
In three seasons with Detroit, Jackson has become one of the best center fielders in the American League, both offensively and defensively.
The Braves are consistently among the league's top pitching staffs, and Hanson's production through four seasons with Atlanta is a big reason why.
The 2009 AL Rookie of the Year and a two-time All-Star, Bailey was one of the most reliable bullpen arms during his first three seasons.
Perhaps best known for his Wild Card-winning walk-off homer in 2011, the three-time All-Star Longoria is one of the game's elite third basemen.
One of the game's truest five-tool players, McCutchen, a two-time All-Star, broke out in 2012, thrusting the Pirates into playoff contention.
Andrus followed a solid rookie campaign in 2009 with two World Series appearances. In 2012, the Rangers' shortstop earned his second All-Star berth.
Consistently among the AL's stolen-base leaders, Gardner has become one of baseball's best speed/average threats as the Yankees' left fielder.
Known for his fearless play in the outfield, Fuld has developed into a reliable outfield option for the Tampa Bay Rays in 2012.
Traded to Pittsburgh from Toronto midseason, the 24-year-old Snider figures to be an important piece of a young Pirates lineup moving forward.
The 2011 NL MVP, Braun has established himself as arguably the most consistent hitter in baseball. Braun earned his fifth All-Star appearance in 2012.
In 2010-11, Tulowitzki won a pair of Gold Gloves, Silver Slugger Awards and All-Star berths. He's arguably the best all-around shortstop in baseball.
After four solid seasons in Oakland, the two-time All-Star Gonzalez developed into a staff ace in his first season with the Nationals in 2012.
The Red Sox center fielder established himself as one of the game's best with a 2011 campaign where he hit .321 and finished second in AL MVP voting.
One of the game's most energetic players, Pence, a two-time All-Star, made his first playoff appearance in 2011 for Philadelphia.
One of baseball's most consistent players, Headley may be best known for his ability to reach base. He's the heart of a young Padres lineup.
There may be no better athlete in MLB than Kemp, who came a homer shy of a 40-40 season in 2011. He's developed into a five-tool center fielder.
The 2010 NL MVP, Votto has made three-straight All-Star games, and deservedly so. He's consistently among the leaders in average, OBP and doubles.
The lanky right-hander has developed into a perennial Cy Young threat in the AL. He's won at least 10 games in all seven of his big league seasons.
Perhaps the face of the Nationals' franchise in its eight years of existence, Zimmerman has become one of the game's best third basemen.
The two-time All-Star has established himself as a force in the middle of the Dodgers' order. Ethier picked up a Silver Slugger Award in 2009.
A three-time All-Star, Uggla has been a consistent power threat and run producer at second base in his seven seasons with the Marlins and Braves.
Philadelphia's powerful first baseman has twice won the NL home run crown and was the NL Rookie of the Year in 2005 and NL Most Valuable Player in '06.
The left-handed-hitting outfielder, who is a three-time All-Star, hit a career-high 41 home runs last season with the Yankees.
The diminutive second baseman, who helped guide the Red Sox to the World Series title as the 2007 American League Rookie of the Year, was also the 2008 AL Most Valuable Player.
Atlanta's staple behind the plate has slugged at least 18 home runs in each of the last seven seasons while being named to six All-Star teams and winning five Silver Slugger Awards.
The 2005 American League Rookie of the Year with Oakland, Street has racked up 20 or more saves in six of his eight big league seasons.
The Dodgers' steady first baseman played in at least 158 games in each season from 2008-11 and has averaged 83 RBIs per year over that span.
The first baseman, who was the first overall pick in the 2000 Draft, has played on four All-Star teams and has won three Gold Glove Awards.
A six-time All-Star and four-time Silver Slugger winner, Holliday paced the NL with a .340 batting average, 216 hits, 50 doubles and 137 RBIs in a distinguished 2007 campaign with the Rockies.
The Mets third baseman has played on six NL All-Star teams and has taken home a pair of Gold Glove Awards.
An All-Star in 2010, Swisher is well on his way to his eighth straight season with at least 20 home runs.
The second overall selection in the 2002 Draft, Upton has topped 40 stolen bases on three occasions and 25 triples five times.
The second overall pick in the 2003 Draft, Weeks was a National League All-Star with the Brewers in 2011.
The fifth overall pick in the 2001 Draft, the two-time All-Star has belted at least 20 home runs in each of his 10 Major League seasons, while winning four Gold Glove Awards.
A five-time All-Star, Utley scored 100 or more runs for the Phillies -- his only team in 10 Major League seasons -- each year from 2006-09.
The 2006 American League Most Valuable Player, the four-time All-Star with a smooth left-handed swing has been a staple at first base for the Twins since 2003.
The two-time All-Star and three-time Gold Glove Award winner has been a rock for the Reds at second base since joining the club seven seasons ago.
The Flyin' Hawaiian, who has made two All-Star teams and won three Gold Glove Awards, led the NL in triples in 2009 and '11.
One of the game's most successful sinkerballers over the last decade, the three-time All-Star won the 2006 National League Cy Young Award and notched 22 wins in 2008.
The first overall pick in the 1999 Draft, the 2010 AL Most Valuable Player is a five-time All-Star and tied the Major League record with four homers in a game in May 2012.
A four-time All-Star, the speedy outfielder has led the American League in steals and in triples on four occasions.
Cuddyer, who has played every defensive position save catcher and shortstop, finally made the American League All-Star team in 2011, the last of his 11 seasons in Minnesota.
The slick-fielding infielder, who was a 43rd-round Draft pick in 1997, has been named to two All-Star teams and has been the recipient of four Gold Glove Awards.
The right-hander racked up at least 27 saves in each season from 2006-10 and was an American League All-Star with the White Sox in 2006 and '07.
The man nicknamed "Pronk" slugged an average of 34 homers per year from 2004-06 with the Indians, the team with which he has spent 10 of his 11 big league seasons.
What hasn't "The Machine" accomplished in his 12 big league seasons? The nine-time All-Star and three-time National League Most Valuable Player led the Cardinals to two World Series titles.
A three-time All-Star and three-time Gold Glove winner, Rollins won the National League Most Valuable Player Award in 2007, when he tallied 30 homers, 38 doubles, 20 triples and 41 stolen bases.
The 2005 American League batting champion, Young has spent all of his 13 big league seasons with the Rangers, who he has represented in the All-Star Game on seven occasions.
The pesky second baseman, a two-time All-Star and longtime Oriole, stole 50 bases in 2007 and has hit 50 or more doubles in a season on two occasions.
Known for his all-out style of play, Byrnes contributed to the perennial playoff teams in Oakland in the early 2000s and led Arizona to the NLCS in '07.
The 2002 Rookie of the Year, Hinske had his best year as a newcomer with the Blue Jays, when he hit .279 with 24 homers and 84 RBIs.
The fifth overall selection in the 1997 Draft has been chosen to three All-Star teams and has won three Gold Glove awards, while spending most of his career in Toronto.
The first overall pick of the 1998 Draft, Burrell slugged 292 home runs in his 12 big league seasons and won World Series rings with the Phillies in 2008 and Giants in '10.
The diminutive infielder was the World Series MVP for the Cardinals in 2006, one of two seasons in which he was named to the National League All-Star team.
The well-traveled outfielder, who was an American League All-Star in 2008 with the Rangers, suited up for eight big league clubs during his 12-year career.
A two-time All-Star, Penny has won 10 or more games in six seasons, including 2006, when he paced the National League with 16 victories.
A southpaw workhorse, David topped 200 innings in four seasons and made 33 or more starts in four of five seasons between 2005-09.
The right-hander, who has topped 20 wins on three occasions, has been elected to eight All-Star teams and has won the Cy Young Award in both leagues.
The former first-round pick in the 1993 Draft has starred at the plate and in the field, with four All-Star Game selections and nine Gold Gloves.
The seven-time All-Star and four-time Silver Slugger winner had a 40-40 season with the Nationals in 2006, but has spent most of his 14-year career with the Yankees and Cubs.
An All-Star in 2008, Drew spent the first six of his 14 years in the Majors with the Cardinals, who selected him with the fifth overall pick in the 1998 Draft.
"El Caballo" slugged 20 or more home runs in each season from 2000-10 while being named to three All-Star teams and winning two Silver Slugger Awards.
The first baseman, who spent the first seven of his 14 years in the Majors with the Twins, clutched the baseball at the completion of the Red Sox's first World Series triumph in 86 years in 2004.
Nicknamed "The Mayor," Casey was a fan and teammate favorite with five clubs, making three All-Star teams (1999, 2001 and '04).
Kotsay, an exceptional talent at Cal State Fullerton, was a first-round pick of the Marlins and played for seven teams in his career.
Jenkins spent 10 of his 11 seasons in Milwaukee, where he was an All-Star during a 2003 campaign that saw him hit .296 with 28 homers and 95 RBIs.
Wilson, an All-Star with the Rockies in 2003 and World Series champ with the Cardinals in '06, drove in more than 121 runs twice in 10 seasons.
The 1996 Golden Spikes Award winner hit .256 with 115 home runs and 488 RBIs in a career that featured stops with four clubs.
The utility man bounced around the Majors for 14 seasons, and slugged 194 home runs while driving in 467 total runs.
One of the most prolific hitters of this era, Helton has spent his whole career in Colorado, amassing more than 350 homers and 1,300 RBIs with a .320 average.
Konerko has made a living as a slugger on Chicago's South Side, leading the White Sox to the 2005 World Series and going to six All-Star Games.
The steady righty broke in with Toronto but has been a mainstay in St. Louis, where he is a two-time All-Star and two-time World Series champ.
Boone clinched the ALCS for the Yankees with a walk-off homer in 2003, the same year he was named to his only career All-Star team.
The big first baseman is a three-time Gold Glove winner and was the 2005 NL batting champ, when he hit .335 with the Cubs and won a Silver Slugger.
Grieve made a splash in 1998 with the A's, when he was named an All-Star and won the AL Rookie of the Year. He played for four teams in nine seasons.
A powerful right-handed slugger, Dye was a two-time All-Star with 1,072 career RBIs who was the 2005 World Series MVP with the White Sox.
Erstad broke in with the Angels, for whom he played 11 seasons, and was named to two All-Star teams and won three Gold Gloves.
An integral part of Boston's legendary 2004 World Series team, Nixon hit .274 in his career, with 137 homers and 555 RBIs.
The first South Korean-born player in Major League history, Park won 124 games and was named an All-Star in 2001 with the Dodgers.
The right-hander helped lead the Cardinals to the playoffs in 1996, and struck out 160 hitters in 161 2/3 innings the following season.
Walker played 12 seasons, amassing double-digit home run totals in six of them. He also drove in at least 50 runs six times.
A future Hall of Famer, the Yankees icon is a 13-time All-Star, a five-time World Series champion and has more than 3,200 career hits.
One of the most recognizable infielders of the era, Garciaparra was a six-time All-Star (five times with Boston) and the 1997 AL Rookie of the Year.
Clark played first base for six clubs, and was an All-Star in 2001 with Detroit. He also played a major role with the MLB Players Association.
The infielder won a Gold Glove in 2006, 10 years after his only All-Star appearance. He logged 2,040 career hits.
Giles played 15 seasons for three clubs and four times finished in the top 20 for MVP voting. He was an All-Star in 2000 and '01.
The 1995 AL Rookie of the Year played for four clubs, hitting .277 with 24 homers and 84 RBIs in '95. He logged 540 RBIs in 952 career games.
The three-time All-Star and two-time Silver Slugger Award winner spent most of his career in Los Angeles (15 seasons with the Angels, one with the Dodgers).
The former first-round pick and two-time All-Star hit .283 with 1,070 RBIs, 328 home runs and 1,129 runs in his career. He had three 40-homer seasons.
The speedster tallied double-digit stolen-base totals in 10 of his 14 Major League seasons, and scored at least 100 runs six times.
Floyd appeared in his only All-Star Game (2001) and won a World Series with the Marlins, one of seven teams the slugger appeared with.
The 1996 NL Rookie of the Year, Hollandsworth hit .273 with 98 home runs and 401 RBIs in 12 seasons. He won a World Series with the 2003 Marlins.
A strong defensive backstop, Johnson won four Gold Gloves, was a two-time All-Star and helped lead the Marlins to the 1997 World Series.
The 12-time All-Star was one of the greatest offensive catchers of all-time, amassing 427 homers and 1,335 RBIs while hitting .308 in 16 seasons.
One of the most acclaimed closers in MLB history, Percival won a World Series with the Angels in 2002 and is eighth on the all-time saves list (358).
The slugger and 1995 World Series champ hit at least 21 home runs in eight of his 13 seasons and drove in 113 runs in a 2001 All-Star campaign.
A two-time All-Star, Everett played 14 Major League seasons -- with eight different teams -- and had more than 100 hits in a season eight times.
The 1994 AL Rookie of the Year broke in with the Royals, before also spending time with Detroit and Milwaukee. He had 209 career RBIs in 497 games.
A 2003 All-Star, White played 15 years in the big leagues, including his first eight with the Expos, who drafted him in the first round in 1990.
Thank you for your votes! We will reveal the 20th Anniversary Top 20 and the sweepstakes winner on Oct. 8.
For more information about the history of the Arizona Fall League, click the "learn more" button below.


text:
Validating your email... This may take a few seconds.
Can Insurance Help If Your Home Is Damaged by a Hurricane?
How Much Can an Employer Dictate My Personal Style?
Can I Sue My Noisy Neighbors?
How to Find the Right Lawyer for Your Needs
How Much Does a Divorce Lawyer Cost?
Who Is Liable if a Contractor Is Injured on My Property?


text:
Welcome to our website! As we have the ability to list over one million items on our website (our selection changes all of the time), it is not feasible for a company our size to record and playback the descriptions on every item on our website. However, if you have a disability we are here to help you. Please call our disability services phone line at (906) 226-6075 during regular business hours and one of our kind and friendly personal shoppers will help you navigate through our website, help conduct advanced searches, help you choose the item you are looking for with the specifications you are seeking, read you the specifications of any item and consult with you about the products themselves. There is no charge for the help of this personal shopper for anyone with a disability. Finally, your personal shopper will explain our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service, and help you place an order if you so desire.
Shunk Furniture in Negaunee, MI is an authorized dealer of Broyhill Furniture Products. Growing, changing, innovating. Those are the qualities that have distinguished Broyhill as America's favorite furniture maker. Rooted in a rich history and grounded in the belief that quality and value never go out of style, Broyhill is a company that continues to lead the industry in today's home furnishings.
For more than a century, the name Broyhill has been associated with fine-quality furniture. Throughout all that time, the guiding force that has defined the company and its products has been a commitment to quality and value. Today, the Broyhill brand is one of the most recognized brands in the industry.
Broyhill has achieved this success through a commitment to superior craftsmanship, product innovation and investment in the best people in the industry. From manufacturing to marketing, Broyhill has been an industry leader, setting the standard for today and the future.
So if you are looking for Broyhill Furniture products in Negaunee, Marquette, Ishpeming, Escanaba, Iron Mountain, Houghton, Munising, Manistique, Kingsford, Hancock and Gladstone, or if you have any questions about Broyhill Furniture products, please feel free to call us at (906) 226-6075 or simply stop by Shunk Furniture at any time and we would be glad to help you.


text:
- These adorable Paper Piecing Patterns come with the SVG file for use with your favorite cutting machine, as well as a JPEG Digital print out to hand cut for use on all of your paper craft items or to make 3D pieces.
TOU: All Precious Piecing and digital Files are for personal use only, You may not resale the files in any format. You may create the page and or the paper piecing and sell it as a physical piece, but not as a digital item.
NOTE: This auction is for a digital download item only, no paper product will be mailed to you. The digital files will be delivered through your email.
Digital Design by Lisa Green/Precious Piecings by Lisa


text:
Welcome to Dragon Cave! Dragon Cave is an online adoptables game. Collect eggs, raise them to adulthood, and then breed them to create interesting lineages. New dragons are added regularly!
Azure Glacewing Dragons are one of the largest breeds. They grow to overwhelming sizes; folklore tells of ancient dragons outgrowing even lakes and mountains. They are quite oblivious in nature, and rarely care for—or even notice—the presence of other, smaller creatures. When hungry, an Azure Glacewing might strike suddenly, securing a tasty snack. An adult Glacewing is often more commonly found in the sea than in the sky or on land, due to their enormous weight. However, come mating season, Azure Glacewings return to the forests in which they were born, so that the young have lots of game to feed on.
Dragons are highly-intelligent reptilian creatures that—from a human perspective, at least—appear to live forever. Many different varieties of dragon exist, each with their own unique qualities, habitats, and behavior. Adolescence in dragons is usually marked by the growth of a hatchling's wings, although not all breeds of dragons grow wings and some breeds have other traits that indicate the beginning of maturation. In Galsreim, dragons and humans coexist peacefully.


text:
Air Cleaner Assembly
Universal Air Cleaner Assembly
Universal Air Cleaner Assembly; Round Tapered; OD-6 5/8 in./8 in.; Flange L-1.5 in.; Inside Flange 4 in.; Centered; Rubber End; Filter Length 8 in.;
K&N Black Universal Air Filters are made from Dryflow oil-free synthetic media. These low restriction clamp-on air filters are designed and manufactured for a wide variety of applications. When dirty they can be easily washed using K&N synthetic air filter cleaner.
K&N Engineering, of Riverside, California, is the inventor and leading innovator of reusable cotton gauze filter technology for automotive applications. From humble beginnings as a family run business over 35 years ago, K&N Engineering, now a truly global company with offices in the U.K. and the Netherlands, continues to exist as a family owned business with an enthusiast mindset and a direct connection with motor sports that carries over throughout all levels of management and manufacturing. Today, K&N exists as both the sales and brand leader for performance filters, and maintains a stocking catalogue of over 3,500 part numbers, including an extensive line of both factory replacement drop-in filters, FIPK (Fuel Injection Performance Kit) applications, and its line of innovative Performance Gold oil filters. The cornerstone of K&N's philosophy has been, and continues to be, that automotive performance does not have to have a shelf life, or to stand at odds with the quality of life of the purchasing consumer or others. Put simply, the benefits of increased performance associated with K&N filters contributes meaningfully towards money savings, fuel savings, and a dramatic reduction in environmental waste for the life of the vehicle in which the filter is installed. K&N appreciates that a little education goes a long way in helping consumers take an active role in thinking for the first time about air filters, and then taking an active stance in choosing the filter that is right for them and best reflects their values and needs. With this choice made, K&N consumers become K&N advocates for life, giving "lifetime" another layer of significance.


text:
Film critic Anthony Lane writes of the 1996 Oscar ceremony in an article reprinted in Nobody's Perfect: Writings From The New Yorker (Vintage, 2002):
"We saw a fine parade of Empire lines and silk sheaths, and by far the most impressive array of natural greens since Linda Blair showed off the highlights of her supper in The Exorcist. There was peppermint, aquamarine, verdigris, iceberg, eau-de-nil, and a lemon-and-lime special from Marc Winningham. There were pinkish grays so soft and subtle that onlookers were reminded of the furring found on unclean kettles. Then there was Susan Sarandon's Dolce & Gabbana ball gown, a sort of one-night stand between chocolate and bronze; it exactly matched the hue of her hair, though which came first was a matter of urgent debate.
"She was accompanied by Tim Robbins, whose jacket was scaly, sharkish, and distressingly similar to what he wore last year. How can a guy of such evident sense, whose movies are a rebuff to bad glitz, opt on an annual basis for a garment that was apparently woven overnight from a few strands of crude oil? The men always let their ladies down on Oscar night. Hollywood is essentially unable to grasp that the great advantage of a dinner jacket is that it is, in essence, a uniform. The basics are unwavering, the variations minimal. When you are asked to wear black tie, do not take this as a concealed excuse not to wear black tie. Do not be tempted by the current fad that omits the tie altogether in favor of a single black stud. You may find this sexy, but to the watching world it appears that you have leapt up from an emergency tracheotomy to attend the show."


text:
Zillow is one of the largest multiple listing services out there. Hundreds of homes are listed every day from across the country. So while considering buying or selling a home Woodland Zillow has probably been a service you've considered using.
But how useful is Zillow really? What do you need to know before you list your home or search for a new one in Woodland. Make sure to do your research and determine if Zillow is the right service for you.
Selling your Woodland Home on Zillow
If you've decided to sell your Woodland home, either with a real estate agent or FSBO, listing your house where people can see it is important. Zillow has multiple options available for you to do just that.
Before you do anything on Zillow there are a few things you need to know about the platform. Simply getting your house on Zillow is only one piece of the equation.
Start With Market Research to List Your Home
The first step is of course to do your research on the Woodland area. If you're trying to sell your home on your own you're already at a disadvantage, so you need to make sure you're realistic about the price of your home. If you do decide to work with a realtor, they will look at similar properties in Woodland to determine what a fair listing price for your house should be.
Look through the Zillow Woodland listings to find recently sold properties in your area. Find comparative properties to see what they were listed for, how long they were on the market, and their final selling price. A few things to consider include:
- Neighborhood. Different areas of Woodland command different prices, figuring out what your neighborhood commands is a key factor.
- House size. Look for houses with a similar number of bedrooms, bathrooms, and square footage as yours.
- Amenities. Certain amenities like a pool or patio can significantly increase the value of a home – creating an unfair market analysis.
- Upkeep. A home that has new floors and updated appliances will likely sell faster than a dated property. An HOA can also be a factor for some buyers.
By cross referencing your house based on those four factors, you can get a good idea of what yours is worth. You might also be able to estimate what property upgrades (like kitchen remodels) can add to your home's value. Listing your home properly can help make it more appealing to buyers on Zillow.
Getting your Home on Zillow in Woodland
With the current state of the real estate market, it's natural to be eager to get your home listed on an MLS service like Zillow. This is where the expertise of your Realtor comes in, if you have one. They can provide you with information critical to getting your home ready for sale.
Every home and real estate agent will have their own rules and expectations but here are a few key things to make sure you have ready, completed or available to easily sell your home. If you want to sell your home fast, UpNest network realtors have their own guide.
- Make sure you have the following documents ready: the original sales contract, title documents, tax records, insurance information, inspection reports, and any other relevant documents for your home.
- Repaint any rooms that need it, replace carpets and flooring as necessary and of course make any necessary repairs.
- Perform a pre-listing inspection to give you a better understanding of your property and any repairs needed.
With these steps out of the way your realtor will feel comfortable listing your home on a listing service like Zillow. Top agents will diversify and list your home on many different listing services to get you as many potential buyers as possible.
Buying a Home Using Zillow in Woodland
If you've decided to move to Woodland then you are making a great choice, it is a wonderful city with many positive qualities. But how do you make sure to get a good price for a home without already living there?
This is a field where a service like Zillow can come in handy. Being able to do a lot of research before you begin working with a real estate agent can be incredibly helpful. Then when you are ready all you need to do is find a great realtor to work with in the area.
Identify Homes to buy in Woodland
When you want to buy a home, similar strategies and considerations apply. Have a clear image of what you want your new home to look like, and how that compares to what's available in the area.
Evaluate the homes in your area by turning to the Zillow Woodland available homes page, then filter the results. A few things to evaluate include:
- Can you afford to live in the neighborhood you want in Woodland? Do you have several neighborhood options you can give to your realtor?
- How much space do you need, and are there homes available that fit your criteria? The same goes for Amenities.
- What are your non-negotiables in a home? (For example, a certain number of bathrooms or a garage.) Are there homes available in the area that fit your needs, and how does that affect the price?
One thing to keep in mind is that while Zillow has a wide range of homes available for sale, it oftentimes doesn't show every home available. Many homes that are FSBO don't show up on the front page of Zillow Woodland. The "Other" tab on Zillow is home to FSBO offers, foreclosures and other non-traditional listings. These can be hidden gems you may miss otherwise.
Should you hire a Realtor found on Zillow?
Looking through Zillow Woodland listings, you may see some promoted Realtors and recommended agents. Who are these professionals and should you hire them?
Before you call an agent, consider where these promoted posts come from. Zillow Premier Agent is a recommendation engine where Realtors can pay to promote themselves. Agents in Woodland do this to potentially get more clients and grow their business.
A pay for promotion service isn't that uncommon, we see them every day on Facebook, Google, etc. What that means though is that Zillow is simply showing you the agent that paid the most for the spot, not necessarily the best agent for you or your needs.
Instead of clicking on Zillow recommended agents, look for a service that actively curates Realtors based on performance and fit. UpNest has a careful vetting system for Realtors. We focus on only hiring top agents who also have a strong record of customer service.
Buyers and Sellers looking to use our service first give us key information about their real estate needs, we then use that information to match them to the perfect agent. For example, if you are a first-time homebuyer, we will recommend agents that specialize in helping buyers with starter homes. We try to save you time and money by avoiding matching you with a realtor specializing in homes you won't be interested in.
Zillow Premier Agents are visible on your feed because the Realtor paid for the listing. With UpNest, we carefully tailor agents who will be a good fit for you.
Why should you not use Zillow in Woodland?
While Zillow is the biggest player in online real estate, that doesn't necessarily mean they're the best. Zillow listings can frequently be incorrect and they have holes in their listing database that would be found on local MLS systems.
Additionally their Zestimate service can't be trusted to give an accurate estimate of your home's value. The best solution is to get a comparative market analysis from a top agent, which will usually be provided for free before signing a contract to list your home.
Try Us When You Are Ready to Buy or Sell
If you decide to use UpNest you can save money through the agents you hire. Sellers save an average of $11,781 when working with UpNest in Woodland. With UpNest you get easy access to top agents while saving money on commission fees.
Try our service today to receive Realtor recommendations that you can trust. It's free for buyers and sellers to use.


text:
Get Ready To Hit The Open Road On Route 66!
When two friends - Tod Stiles (Martin Milner) and Buz Murdock (George Maharis) - set off across the country in their beautiful new Corvette convertible, they never imagined the series of adventures in which they'd find themselves. Join Tod and Buz on Route 66 as they drive from town to town, helping anyone who needs it, in the classic television series that helped immortalize this scenic stretch of American highway.
Includes special appearances by guest stars Leslie Nielsen, Lee Marvin, Jack Lord, Anne Francis, Walter Matthau, Robert Duvall and more!