Why do parents keep doing this?

"Catherine Woodgold" wrote in message
...

"firedancer623" ) writes:
I am all for
free choice and fully support any parent's decision, which ever it may
be. I
chose not to circ my kids because I felt it was in their best interest.
Others may disagree and that is fine. Do I care what they think? Nope.

Well, if parents decide to circumcise a child without asking
the child's permission (e.g. a baby), then it isn't
"free choice" for the child, nor for the adult the child
later becomes.

Trying to get the terminology straight here.
--
Cathy

She was referring to the freedom of choice of the parents.

It's ridiculous to say that we need to ask our children's permission. There
are thousands of parenting decisions that we have to make without consulting
our children, or asking their permission. There is no freedom of choice for
babies or children -- there may be the illusion of choice -- do you want to
wear the blue pants or the red pants, do you want broccoli or carrots for
dinner, but there is not a lot of real choice, and certainly not about
important matters. We are the parents, and we have to do what we think is
best until they are the age of majority. It's that simple. And different
people are going to have different views on what they feel is best for their
child. Parents make decisions regarding immunizations, circ, ear piercing,
medical treatments, foods they eat or don't eat, clothes they wear, etc.
Parenting is not a democracy.
--

Jamie & Taylor
Earth Angel, 1/3/03

Check out Taylor Marlys -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1,
Password: Guest
Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and
Password

Check out our Adoption Page at http://www.geocities.com/clarkadopt2004/

"Jamie Clark" wrote in message ...
"Catherine Woodgold" wrote in message
...

"firedancer623" ) writes:
I am all for
free choice and fully support any parent's decision, which ever it may
be. I
chose not to circ my kids because I felt it was in their best interest.
Others may disagree and that is fine. Do I care what they think? Nope.

Well, if parents decide to circumcise a child without asking
the child's permission (e.g. a baby), then it isn't
"free choice" for the child, nor for the adult the child
later becomes.

Trying to get the terminology straight here.
--
Cathy

She was referring to the freedom of choice of the parents.

It's ridiculous to say that we need to ask our children's permission. There
are thousands of parenting decisions that we have to make without consulting
our children, or asking their permission. There is no freedom of choice for
babies or children -- there may be the illusion of choice -- do you want to
wear the blue pants or the red pants, do you want broccoli or carrots for
dinner, but there is not a lot of real choice, and certainly not about
important matters.

I agree with you there.

We are the parents, and we have to do what we think is
best until they are the age of majority. It's that simple. And different
people are going to have different views on what they feel is best for their
child. Parents make decisions regarding immunizations, circ, ear piercing,
medical treatments, foods they eat or don't eat, clothes they wear, etc.
Parenting is not a democracy.
--

You do have choices about how you raise your children, within the
limits of the law. You certainly couldn't remove your daughter's
clitoral hood without going to prison. I think the anti-circ crowd is
trying to make that point circumcision is barbaric and that it is
equal to removing a females clitoral hood, most often without any pain
relief. Male circumcision is not against the law, but according the
the anti-circ people it should be. That is where the argument is
really centered.

And the anti-circ people say just as a grown woman can choose to have
her clitoral hood pierced, a grown man could get a prince albert or a
circumcision because an adult can choose to mutilate themselves.
Giving a newborn a prince albert is not the same as an adult choosing
a prince albert.

The choices a parent makes are the ones that ultimately have to be
done. For example, a child must go to school, and must eat, so making
them eat broccoli is not the same as having them circumcised because a
child does not have to be circumcised, where as, forcing the child to
eat nutritious foods is essential to their well being.

The anti-circ crowd is really more forward looking, similar to the
people who were against slaverly, who hid Jews in Nazi germany, and
were for equal rights in the 1960's. Just because everyone says the
earth is flat does not make it so. The anti-circ crowd is trying to
point out the flaws in the circumcision arguments, just as others
stated the earth was round. Eventually, in order for society to
progress, it may be found that the anti-circ crowd was right. Those
on the wrong side of the fence will face the challenges of explaining
their actions, similar to the civil rights violators, and history will
not look kindly on them.

There is a loss of sensitivity due to aging, regardless of circumcision
status. Why do you ignore this?

Can you proof this? But yes, there's a loss of sensitivity with age,
so no need to cause extra loss of sensitivity I'd say?


30 Million men in the USA are said to have erectile and impotence
problems, most of them are over 50 years old. There are only 34
Million men over 50 in the USA.

Now, perhaps you'd like to give us some figures for other countries.

It's generally 10% of men over 50 in europe, which would be 3 Million
for the USA.

Mainly man over 40 link their 'problems' to their infant circumcision.

Nonsense. A few do, sure, but there's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that
they're more than a tiny minority.

I don't think many draw the link, because they see themselves as
'normal'. There are many men out there who decide to restore their
foreskin. There are men out there who don't, but feel violated, one of
the main reasons circumcision rates have been dropping. Just like
women men become aware of their rights.

Ofcourse an attempt like this to undo the damage, which can never be
completely undone, doesn't ring a bell for the circumcision fanatics.

Now, to put this in perspective, almost all drugs sell better in the USA
than in European nations. But that fact isn't very convenient for you, is
it?

Depends on the drug, but possible. I'm quite sure an european with an
erection issue would give viagra a try though.

"firedancer623" wrote in message news:xZFWc.7820$VY.5621@trndny09...
"Chotii" wrote in message
...

"Briar Rabbit" wrote in message
...
Chotii wrote:

"Briar Rabbit" wrote in message

The AAP believe that male circumcision is a perfectly acceptable
parental decision as a result of religious, cultural or medical considerations.

Mmmmm hmmmm. There's a vast difference between allowing something, and advocating it. You are advocating it. The AAP allows it.

Why are you advocating and recommending something the AAP does not
advocate or recommend?

My, you are turning into a pompous fart, aren't you.
A question, why are so against something the AAP believes is a perfectly
acceptable parental decision as a result of religious, cultural or
medical considerations? You want to share you secret motivation with the
newsgroup?

I have stated my motivations. I consider it a cruel, barbarous, antiquated
practice which should have been discontinued long ago. I consider it to
be, 90% of the time, done for cosmetic reasons. I believe cosmetic alterations to a person's body should, barring correction of birth defects, be left to the individual to choose or not choose. I apply the same argument to the piercing of babies' ears. You can label me all you like - and you have
been doing so, freely and to the great detriment of your position - but you've got my motivations wrong.

I am not a "skin freak". I have never seen a foreskin in person. I have
never handled one, touched one, smelled one. There is very little chance I
ever *will*. I am not obsessed with the foreskin. I *do* believe that the
person who owns the body and must live with it, should make choices about
its alteration as much as is medically realistic. --angela

Angela, don't sweat it. This loser has way too much time on his hands to be
worried about what parents do with their children. By labeling others as
"skin freaks" his level of maturity is really showing through. I am all for
free choice and fully support any parent's decision, which ever it may be. I
chose not to circ my kids because I felt it was in their best interest.
Others may disagree and that is fine. Do I care what they think? Nope.

Prior to your decision, were you fully informed of the benefits and
minor, rare risks of having your child circumcised? Or did you
immediately swallow the heebee jeebe DRECK from these anti-circ
propraganda sites!? LOL! Would it surprise you to learn that a recent
survey in California found the following: "40% of parents believed
they had not been provided with enough information on circumcision
[1]. Parents of those children who were left uncircumcised said that
no medical provider discussed circumcision with them, as opposed to
15% of parents of children who were circumcised. Twice as many parents
(27% of uncircumcised vs 14% of circumcised boys) were unhappy with
their initial decision. i.e. twice as many in retrospect would have
wanted their child to have been circumcised had they known more."
IMHO, parents who choose to forgo a simple, safe & beneficial
circumcision are ignorant and uncaring. They are allowing emotion
rather than reason to sway their decision. -D, NYC "The Jew is the
emblem of eternity. He who neither slaughter nor torture of thousands
of years could destroy, he who neither fire, nor sword, nor
Inquisition was able to wipe off the face of the earth. He who was the
first to produce the Oracles of God. He who has been for so long the
Guardian of Prophecy and has transmitted it to the rest of the world.
Such a nation cannot be destroyed. The Jew is as everlasting as
Eternity itself" - LEO TOLSTOY
http://www.ahcpr.gov/data/hcup/commdx/table1a.htm (Most Common Medical
procedures in the US - Circumcision tops list)
http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/2754/wiswell.html (Neonatal
Circumcision: A Current Appraisal - Dr. Thomas E. Wiswell, FAAP)
http://www.aids.net.au/lemons-news-10-03-04.htm (Circumcision provides
a 2-8 protective fold against HIV)
http://www.circinfo.net/benefits_of_circumcision.htm (Benefits of
circumcision - Prof. Brian "not Jewish" Morris - 30+ years of unbias
research)
http://www.medicirc.org/meditopics/p...nfo_women.html
(Circumcision - a lifetime of medical benefits: Women's Sexual Penile
Preference, Sexual Activity, Psych Effect)
http://www.drweiss.org/necesary.htm (Neonatal Circumcision Is
Necessary- Dr. Gerald Weiss)

Igor van den Hoven wrote:

There is a loss of sensitivity due to aging, regardless of circumcision
status. Why do you ignore this?

Can you proof this?

Can I prove that sensitivity declines with age? I suspect I could find
something if I really tried, yes. But it seems rather obvious to me - our
senses do tend to deteriorate over time. Nobody would argue with the
statement that eyesight, hearing, and so on do. The only unusual thing in
looking for proof that it also occurs to penile sensitivity is the highly
specific nature of the question.

But yes, there's a loss of sensitivity with age,
so no need to cause extra loss of sensitivity I'd say?

The "extra" loss of sensitivity that you allude to is unproven, though.

30 Million men in the USA are said to have erectile and impotence
problems, most of them are over 50 years old. There are only 34
Million men over 50 in the USA.

Now, perhaps you'd like to give us some figures for other countries.

It's generally 10% of men over 50 in europe, which would be 3 Million
for the USA.

Percentages are more relevant. They are more or less equal on both sides of
the Atlantic. Indeed, the following implies that rates might actually be
lower in the USA.

"According to the Massachusetts Male Aging Study, complete impotence
increases from 5% among men 40 years of age to 15% among men 70 years and
older. Population studies conducted in the Netherlands found that some
degree of erectile dysfunction occurred in 20% of men between ages 50 to
54, and in 50% of men between ages 70 to 78."

http://www.firstmed.co.uk/erectile_d...edicinenet.php

(Having posted a message in this thread that I thought I'd saved, I've
now found one here that I've saved when I thought I'd posted it. Maybe
pregnancy is melting my brain. ;-) )

In message , Briar Rabbit
writes
Here is an example of what can happen when men in a non traditionally
circumcising environment become informed about circumcision.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unasha...rc/message/347
=======================

Male circumcision: an acceptable strategy for HIV prevention in Botswana.

Kebaabetswe P, Lockman S, Mogwe S, Mandevu R, Thior I, Essex M, Shapiro RL.
snip
Among 238 uncircumcised men, 145 (61%) stated that they would
definitely or probably get circumcised themselves if it were offered
free of charge in a hospital setting; this increased to 192 (81%) after
the informational session.

So even after men had been told that it might help prevent HIV
infection, one in five of them still didn't want it done. (Actually,
that may well be an underestimate, given that this included men who felt
they'd 'probably' get circumcised - there's a bit of a difference
between feeling you'd 'probably' do something, and actually going ahead
and making the decision to having it done.) And that's after they were
given this information - the fact that, prior to the counselling
session, double that number didn't want to be circumcised suggests that
men would be even less likely to get it done if they didn't believe that
it could help prevent HIV infection (an issue on which there still
appears to be at least some doubt). Why shouldn't those men have the
choice to remain uncircumcised if that's what they want?


Sarah

--
"I once requested an urgent admission for a homeopath who had become depressed
and taken a massive underdose" - Phil Peverley

Sarah Vaughan wrote:

(Having posted a message in this thread that I thought I'd saved, I've
now found one here that I've saved when I thought I'd posted it. Maybe
pregnancy is melting my brain. ;-) )



Exposure to smegma seems to have that effect as well. Which could it be?


In message , Briar Rabbit
writes

Here is an example of what can happen when men in a non traditionally
circumcising environment become informed about circumcision.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unasha...rc/message/347
=======================

Male circumcision: an acceptable strategy for HIV prevention in Botswana.

Kebaabetswe P, Lockman S, Mogwe S, Mandevu R, Thior I, Essex M,
Shapiro RL.

snip

Among 238 uncircumcised men, 145 (61%) stated that they would
definitely or probably get circumcised themselves if it were offered
free of charge in a hospital setting; this increased to 192 (81%)
after the informational session.


So even after men had been told that it might help prevent HIV
infection, one in five of them still didn't want it done. (Actually,
that may well be an underestimate, given that this included men who felt
they'd 'probably' get circumcised - there's a bit of a difference
between feeling you'd 'probably' do something, and actually going ahead
and making the decision to having it done.) And that's after they were
given this information - the fact that, prior to the counselling
session, double that number didn't want to be circumcised suggests that
men would be even less likely to get it done if they didn't believe that
it could help prevent HIV infection (an issue on which there still
appears to be at least some doubt). Why shouldn't those men have the
choice to remain uncircumcised if that's what they want?



Busy, busy, busy I see you have been. If you go on like this they will
have a place for you in the skin freaks "Hall of Fame".

Nowhere other than in the innuendo on skin freak web sites or in the
posts of their groupies in groups such as this does one hear of adult
sexually experienced men who would rather die than lose their "juicy and
erotic" foreskin. It is just plain bull****, that is why. Circumcisions
in East and southern Africa tend to be at an older age where many of the
initiatives have already become sexually active. Nowhere does one hear
many concern about the loss of the foreskin or post fact comment re any
sense of "loss". The concerns relate mainly to pain (as ritual
circumcisions are done with no meds) and fear of complications (as sadly
a number die each year from botched circumcisions or infections arising
therefrom.

So do yourself and the rest a favor and stop try to sell this croc about
a sexual function for the foreskin, it makes you seem like a skin freak.
Are you?

In message , Briar Rabbit
writes
Sarah Vaughan wrote:

It wasn't a test, it was my personal sex life. Feel free to answer
my question at any point, BTW.

The question itself seems to have been snipped, so here it is again:

Briar Rabbit wrote: "The vast body of evidence indicates that the
foreskin is a smelly and disgusting item"

and, being rather intrigued by this puzzling statement, I inquired as to
how exactly this evidence was collected.

Sure, you will find the answer in he



WOMEN'S PREFERENCES FOR PENILE CIRCUMCISION IN SEXUAL PARTNERS
[...]
Williamson, Marvel L., Ph.D., R.N. and Williamson, Paul S., M.D.
Women's preference for penile circumcision in sexual partners. Journal
of Sex Education and Therapy, Vol. 14, No. 2 (Fall/Winter 1988): pp.
8-12.

OK - I've read the whole article, and I can't find anything whatsoever
in it to say that any of the women surveyed found the foreskin to be
either smelly or disgusting. It simply stated that a majority of them
preferred circumcised penises. There's a fairly obvious logical flaw in
leaping from that finding to a conclusion that foreskins are smelly or
disgusting, or at least I'd really hope the logical flaw would be fairly
obvious. (Just in case anyone needs a bit of help with it - I prefer
chocolate cake to freshly-baked bread, and sunflowers to daisies, but
that doesn't mean that I think that freshly-baked bread or daisies are
smelly or disgusting.)

However, you said you had a 'vast body of evidence', so I will look
forward to reading the rest of this vast body, when you offer it. In
the meantime, here are a couple of specific comments on bits of the
study that caught my interest.

Firstly, specifically on the subject of your claim that the foreskin is
smelly:

[...]
Of the 269 women who received the questionnaire, 148 returned their
forms yielding a response rate of 55%. Three were unusable, yielding a
final sample of 145.
[...]
The responses to "If you could choose anyone for your ideal male sex
partner, which circumcision type would you prefer he have for the
following activities?" as shown in Table 1.
[...]
TABLE ONE

Activity Penis Type
....................Circumcised (%) Uncircumcised (%) Either (%)

Sexual Intercourse ......71..............6.............. 23

Looking at to achieve....76..............4...............20
sexual arousal

Giving manual ...........75..............5...............20
penile stimulation

Giving Fellatio..........83..............2............... 15
[...]
When asked "Why do you prefer one penis type over another for sex?",
subjects were instructed to mark all options that applied to them.

Among those preferring a circumcised penis, the reasons they indicated
appeared in the following ranked order from most frequent to least:

Stays cleaner (92 %)
Looks sexier (90%)
Feels nicer to touch (85%)
Seems more natural (77%)
Smells more pleasant (55%)
Stays softer (54%)

So, of the women who preferred a circumcised penis, only 55% of them
felt that smell was even an issue. It doesn't say whether this is 55%
of the 71% who preferred it for intercourse, or 55% of one of the larger
percentages of women who preferred it for some other option. However,
even if it's 55% of the largest group (the group who preferred a
circumcised penis for fellatio), that would still only be 55% of 83% of
the total group, which comes to 45.65% of the total group. Less than
half, IOW.

So what this means is that the women in this survey were more likely
than not to feel that smell _wasn't_ an issue for them as far as
circumcision went. Even if we could conclude that all of the women who
felt smell to be an issue would actually describe the foreskin as
'smelly' as opposed to just smelling less good than circumcised penises
(which, of course, we can't, since they weren't asked this) then that
still seems to contradict your assertion that this research proves the
foreskin to be smelly.


The other feature I found notable was how few of the women actually had
enough experience to be able to compare the two types of penis:

In response to the question "With which penis types have you had
sexual experience?", 16.5% revealed that they had had sexual contract
with both circumcised and uncircumcised men. Only 5.5% had sexual
experience exclusively with uncircumcised sexual partners, and the
remainder of the sample was sexually experienced only with circumcised
men.
[...]
However, of the group with dual experience (N = 24), two-thirds
favored circumcision exclusively and a significantly greater
proportion preferred circumcised partners for all the sexual
activities listed in Table 1 (p 0.01).

So, when it comes to comparison of circumcised and uncircumcised
penises, you're basing your data here on a group of twenty-four women,
of whom the majority preferred circumcised but several differed. This
isn't what I'd call compelling data.


Oh, well - as I said, I'll look forward to reading the rest of your vast
body of evidence. Seems to me your claim is subjective enough to be
essentially unproveable, so I'll be interested to see what evidence you
actually have in support of it.


Sarah

--
"I once requested an urgent admission for a homeopath who had become depressed
and taken a massive underdose" - Phil Peverley

In message , Briar Rabbit
writes
Sarah Vaughan wrote:

In message , Briar Rabbit
writes

Sarah Vaughan wrote:

In message , Briar Rabbit



I am not saying they are automatically unhappy. I would love to
know how the deal with the stink though.

I've never found that there is a stink. I've had one partner
whose smell I had a bit of a problem with, but even then I wouldn't
go as far as calling it a stink. Remembering what a flake this man
was in other ways, I suspect his personal hygiene just wasn't all
that could be desired. I've never found it to be a problem at all
with any of the other men I've been with.



What is the size of your sample? It is not a trick question to see
how much of a slag your are but rather to understand the statistical
basis behind your assertion.
Does that mean that it's a trick question to try to twist it into a
claim that I _was_ making some sort of statistical assertion?



Yes ... and to think you thought you were going to get away with it.
Nice try though.

You really do have a bit of a problem reading what you're responding to,
don't you?

You expressed an interest in knowing how partners of uncircumcised men
deal with what you describe as 'the stink'. You expressed an interest,
IOW, in people's personal experience on the subject. In response to
that, I provided mine.

You didn't ask for opinions on the subject of whether foreskins in
general stink, and I didn't offer any. No matter what you may try to
claim to the contrary, there is nothing in what I wrote above that
claims that the above is anything other than my own personal experience.

Of course, I did have a sneaking feeling that this wouldn't try to stop
you inaccurately claiming that I _had_ said that. And, lo and behold, I
was right. Heigh, ho - such is life on Usenet.

Now a question ... why are you so desperate to continue the lie that
foreskins don't stink?

I've not made any claims at all that foreskins, in general, do not
stink. I've shared my own experience at your specific request, and I've
inquired about your rather odd claim that there's a 'vast body of
evidence' proving that they *do* stink, but that's all. I don't know
for sure why you interpreted this as desperation to prove a claim that I
haven't in fact actually made, but I strongly suspect that your
obsession with the idea that foreskins stink is so strong that you
interpret any questioning of this view, however mild, as powerful
dissent.

I'd be interested to know why you're so desperate to prove that
foreskins do stink that you respond to the mildest dissent by accusing
your opponents of lying and by becoming personally abusive. But I
suspect that whatever the reason is, it's a fairly personal issue for
you, so I'll understand if you don't want to talk about it.


Sorry, that wasn't very clear, was it? What I mean is: Suppose I
tell you the number, is your next question or statement going to be
along the lines of "So you're claiming that foreskins don't stink
despite only having had experience with X number of foreskins, which
is clearly not enough for a valid sample size"?



First the question needs to be asked why you attempted to sell the
innuendo in the first place?

What innuendo?


Sarah

--
"I once requested an urgent admission for a homeopath who had become depressed
and taken a massive underdose" - Phil Peverley

In message , Briar Rabbit
writes
Sarah Vaughan wrote:

In message , Briar Rabbit
writes

I believe that male circumcision is a perfectly acceptable parental
decision as a result of religious, cultural or medical considerations.
What about female circumcision?



What about it?

Do you believe that that's also a perfectly acceptable parental decision
as a result of religious or cultural considerations?


Sarah

--
"I once requested an urgent admission for a homeopath who had become depressed
and taken a massive underdose" - Phil Peverley