nooneimportant wrote:

"Chotii" wrote in message
.. .

"Briar Rabbit" wrote in message
...

Sarah Vaughan wrote:


No. To be one of the uncircumcised, regardless of whether that's the
minority or the majority, because it avoids unnecessary harm and
discomfort.



Harm? What harm would that be?

The discomfort of the post circumcision period is minor and should not

be

exaggerated ... unless you have an agenda?

No more than your own, sir. In the study you quote, please note that the
participants were consenting adults who chose to have surgeries. Their
post-surgical discomfort was within tolerable ranges, and they were

pleased

with their choice. Presumably, there were also men who chose not to have

the

surgery, and remained intact.

If post-surgical discomfort is minor, then why should not consenting

adults

choose it if they wish?

It seems to me that the dissatisfaction of that minority who now, having
been altered at birth, discover they must go to years(!) of effort in

order

to re-create a facsimile of what other men take for granted....matters. It
matters to *them*. And neither you nor I may tell them that they should

just

be happy with what they don't have, because they're not. Conversely, for

all

the millions of men who are perfectly happy with their altered state, we
must accept that they are happy.

It is not our place, as a society, to decide that all men will or should

be

happy being altered, and that the few who won't be are irrelevent - and
anyway, even if they are unhappy, they shouldn't be and there's something
wrong with them - and cut all male infants anyway. The cost to those who
will be unhappy afterward is too high. To those who wish to be altered
later, as you say......the discomfort is minor and should not be
exaggerated.

--angela



I agree 100%, to follow up on the post-surgical discomfort, and as you
stated in your post, the participants of the study were all men who
willingly choose to have their foreskin amputated.

But you miss the point dear skin freak. If as you skin freaks state that
an uncircumcised man would rather die than willingly submit to
circumcision why would these men have lined up to be liberated from that
hideous appendage?

And I notice that you choose to ignore the following: "All sexual
partners who were aware of the man's new circumcision status were very
satisfied with the results."

Now why would this be? You skin freaks have been trying to sell a crock
that women prefer a foreskinned man. What drives you skin freaks to be
such shocking liars?