Why do parents keep doing this?

"Xyzzy" wrote in message
om...
Jake Waskett wrote in message
. co.uk...
Sarah Vaughan wrote:

In message , Jamie Clark
writes
I knew a guy years and years ago who decided at age 27 to have himself
circumcised. He said it was incredibly painful and wished that his
parents had had it done when he was a baby.

Which does not make a lot of sense, since it would have been just as
painful plus he would also have had the distress and fear caused by
having no idea what was going on.

However, he'd have no recollection.

Not good enough. A child's emotional development is not dependent on
recollection. Children learn about trust & security well before the
age of recollection.


Think of it like this: when you're put under general anaesthesia, you
have
no recollection of pain. For all intents and purposes, it never occurred.

So why bother with infant anesthesia for circumcision since it seems
to work just as well without.

Or any anaesthesia for infant surgeries? After all, they won't remember
it.....at least not consciously.

--angela

Xyzzy wrote:



A child's emotional development is not dependent on
recollection. Children learn about trust & security well before the
age of recollection.



Hummm ... Micheal, if that is so what effect would the trauma of the
birth itself have on the infant?

(Xyzzy) wrote in message . com...
) wrote in message . com...

Sarah, using a condom in conjunction with an absent foreskin, is an
even more effective way to prevent unwanted STDs.

Chapter and verse, please.

Common sense! The one thing that you and your ilk clearly lack! The
chapter and verse had already been supplied. If circumcised men are
already 2-8x less likely to contract the HIV virus through unprotected
sex, you should then be able to deduce the math. Let's go one step
further: using a nonoxynol-9 condom in conjunction with an absent
foreskin, adds an even added protective measure against HIV/STDs.
-D, NYC "In 1908, this German-Jewish physician won a Nobel prize for
curing syphilis with his "magic bullet" (Salvarsan), which also gave
way to modern-day chemotherapy" - DR. PAUL EHRLICH
http://www.aids.net.au/lemons-news-10-03-04.htm (Circumcision provides
a 2-8 protective fold against HIV)
http://www.ahcpr.gov/data/hcup/commdx/table1a.htm (Most Common Medical
procedures in the US - Circumcision tops list)
http://www.medicirc.org/meditopics/p...nfo_women.html
(Circumcision - a lifetime of medical benefits: Women's Sexual Penile
Preference, Sexual Activity, Psych Effect)

Briar Rabbit wrote:

Kaybee wrote:

"Xyzzy" wrote in message
om...

"Kaybee" wrote in message

...

Oh I have read that You can get the foreskin back if you really want it.

Not true. The nerve cells, the frendulum, the muscle and other parts
that were cut away cannot be regrown.


Muscle? the only thing cut is skin


If you listen to the skin freaks they will have you believe that their
dearest foreskin is more anatomically complex than the human brain. Such
is the nature of their psychosexual pathology.
-----------------
Nonsense, there is merit to their description, and their anatomy is
accurate. YOU sound like the one with an emotional problem!
Steve

Briar Rabbit wrote:

Chotii wrote:

I see no logical reason to do unecessary skin-and-muscle-removing surguries
on *most* little boys, to avoid *some* adult men having to have necessary
surgeries.

You are of course entitled to your opinion.
----------------------
Irrelevant comment. The public is entitled to rouse public ire at
the abuse of everyone's children, and to stop it!


Others may well believe that male circumcision is a perfectly acceptable
parental decision as a result of religious, cultural or medical
considerations.
----------------------
Except that such an abuse of a child is outside the rights of parents,
and such a belief is nothing but a religious delusion.


Are they entitled to that opinion and that decision or are you foreskin
fascists
-------------------------
There are no such things. That's your emotional disorder talking.


the only ones that are allowed to have an opinion on the matter?
-------------------------
The public who democratically makes the laws to protect children
from abusers are the only ones with the right to an opinion which
they get to enforce!
Steve

Briar Rabbit wrote:

The Circumcision Debate
=======================

The crux of this debate is the fundamental deceit of those who
fanatically and relentlessly promote foreskin retention at all costs.
---------------------------
Nonsense, the preservation of a child's natural body until he and he
alone can decide to alter it is a human right the MAjority must defend.
Your notion that this amounts to a deceit is merely your emotional
delusional.


I need to differentiate at this stage between these fanatics and those
parents who make a no circumcision decision within the context of their
own families and don't go on to presume that they have the right to
decide what is right and wrong for other parents.
-----------------------------
You are delusionally terrified of those who would protect your children
from your unnecessary pseudo-surgical abuse in this regard. There is
no such thing as a medically sound reason to pre-emptively alter the
genitals of a child surgically, and thus no sound reason for parents
to use to justify it. Religious reasons are also a dodge because the
religious freedom to alter one's body rests ONLY with the CHILD and
THEIR religious decision when they are old enough, and NOT with a
religiously bigoted parent who wishes to mutilate them to trap them
in the parents' religion.


We know that the prime movers behind this so-called anti-circ movement
are primarily men (the majority being gay).
-------------------
Rabid omophobic nonsense. Men are the only victims of this abuse, and
so certainly more men will be found against it.


We heard that from none
other than foreskin guru Dr Taylor who stated in an interview:
----------------------
"Most of the people I've talked to who are interested in
circumcision—like NOCIRC in California, a doctor from Seattle, or
Intact—there are several anti-circumcision groups—they like the work
[Taylor's research] very much. They can relate to it, they know it. Of
course, many of them have their own agendas. Most of them are gay
groups, and they're interested in penises and intact and non-intact.
They take an interest in these things."
--------------------------------------
Your chosen target here is unknown to the vast majority of us who
are against infant circumcision. Your emotional delusion attracts
others with problems, clearly. And everyone has a legitimate interest
in protecting penises from antisexual abusers; men do, certainly,
as do women.


Yes Dr Taylor they sure do take an interest in "these things" don't they.
------------------------------------
You're a frightened little homophobe, obviously, who sees NORMAL
interest in one's penis as 'dirty', and thus you support abuse to
that bodily area in your desperate sexual psychoneurosis.


Now quite clearly these people, "Most of them are gay groups" as Dr
Taylor attests, are not going to make much progress among the decision
makers in respect of circumcision if they let their agenda be known.
-------------------------
You mean that they're GAY?? Again,you're just a frightened little
homophobe yelling QUEER to try topromote your sickness.

It usually happens that personal genital awareness arises first among
homosexuals, as they have had to come to a love their type of genitals,
those being the preference of their sexuality, and have had to learn
to restore their normal sexual feelings in order to accept themselves
for what they are, while the heterosexual portion of the public remains
genitally numb a bit longer. This happened with the women's movement,
as in the movement around the book "Our Bodies, Ourselves" and such
personal and sexual awareness movements.


So
over the years we have seen carefully crafted pseudo-scientific case
being created to promote their "ideal" state of the male genitals (this
is based on the grandiosely named concept of "Intactivism").
-------------------------------------
Intact, so that we know what our body's original nature and feeling
is very important for each human toexperience!! You pretend that
such an interest is abnormal, when it is the HEART of normalcy!


The Iowa poll (Williamson) of some years back found that 1% of women
preferred the uncircumcised penis under every circumstance.
------------------------
In a society where women are not even taught what a penis looks like,
it is not at all surprising that, in Iowa where at that time fewer
than 10% of men were uncircumcised, women would report that way out
of nothing but purest ignorance. However, women who have felt the
difference between an intact penis and a circumcised penis vaginally
KNOW BETTER!


Of course
these foreskin enthusiasts found a home in the so-called
anti-circumcision movement. They too needed a "scientific" cover for
their more base interest in the foreskin. They fulfill an important
function within the anti-circumcision movement in that they provide a
"supposed" women's and mothers perspective to the debate.
----------------------
When only a small percentage of women know what they're talking about
when it comes to penises, it is them you SHOULD BELIEVE!


They will also
be seen countering the belief that the uncircumcised penis is "gross"
with their ecstatic cries of "yummy".
---------------------------------------
And?....
Ignorant familiarity with just one isn't a good reason for blindly
adhering to that. The foreskin is a very interesting and erotic
structure to women.


This comprises your core group of relentlessly dedicated true believer
fanatics.
------------------------------
So you're saying that women and gays like it? Well BIG DEAL! Who else
would be interested! The men themselves whose sensation is improved,
THAT'S WHAT!!


Added to this brew are those groupies some of whom may not be driven by
base psychosexual motivations. They comprise:
-------------------
Psychosexual motiovations aren't "base", except to sickies like YOU!


Men restoring their foreskins (tuggers) -- (got to stretch for me one of
those "anteaters")
----------------------
Wh6y you're nothing but a sick little phobic!!



So where do we stand on the issue from the medical perspective?

The AAP states in it brochure "Circumcision: Information for Parents":

"Scientific studies show some medical benefits of circumcision. However,
these benefits are not sufficient for the American Academy of Pediatrics
to recommend that all infant boys be circumcised."

So there are benefits after all.
---------------------
No, they were merely equivocating to please the Jewish contingent.


So who says that ALL boys must be circumcised? But there are those who
state that ALL boys should NOT be circumcised.
-----------------------------
NO child's body should be mutilated from its original state except
by the child's adult desire, or due to dire medical necessity.


To this latter group we ask the following question:

"What, if any, is the intrinsic value of the foreskin which is
sufficient to override the religious, cultural and medical
considerations relating to a circumcision decision?"
------------------------------------
There are NO medical reasons FOR electrive circumcision that
withstand scrutiny, and religious and cultural biases are
purest dog**** as a reason to mutilate a child with a knife!!

The intrinsic value of the foreskin is for the man's pleasure
from nerves retainesd, and the women's pleasure from the
retention of proper function during sex.


What it all comes down to is the speculative possibility of a sexual
function for the foreskin.
----------------------------------
It's not "speculative" to anyone who HAS one, you sick moron!!


It is obvious that the only expert opinion on this matter are those men
circumcised as adults who are able to subjectively report on their own
experience.
----------------------------------
No, they constitute mostly semi-insane religious delusionals and
dogmatic religious converts who couldn't admit the truth of what
they LOST if their life depended on it!


Depending on the source (either pro or anti websites) we find
conflicting testimonials. Some say sex is a lot better, some say sex is
a lot worse, and a lot say there is a difference maybe but neither
better nor worse. And chirping from the bleachers we have uncircumcised
men shouting at the top of their voices how WONDERFUL their foreskins
are. So where do we look for the truth?
--------------------------------------
You ask non-religious circumcisions, first of all, to eliminate bias,
and among them the complaint of loss is virtually universal! And given
the reluctance to admit that one has been mutilated and cannot perform
as before, this complaint is itself surprising!


We try science. Now our Dr Taylor's "two page" study on the foreskin
forms the basis for this speculative possibility of a sexual function
for the foreskin. To arrive at this conclusion Taylor used 22 foreskins
from cadavers to postulate that "the prepuce should be considered a
structural and functional unit made up of more and less specialized parts."

The "Intactivists", the skin freaks and their groupies then proceeded to
apply an immense amount of "spin" to these findings and lo and behold
the humble old mammalian penile sheath suddenly turned into "the Golden
Prepuce".
-----------------------
In other words you really REALLY didn't like the medical evidence.
Steve

Briar Rabbit wrote:

Sarah Vaughan wrote:

We know that the prime movers behind this so-called anti-circ movement
are primarily men (the majority being gay).

And your problem with this would be........?

Oh I have no problem with gay people, I do however have a problem with
the gay skin freaks who are psychosexually obsessed with tonguing out
foreskins
----------------------
In other words you're homophobically squicked about gay sex.
How about cunnilingus? Gets to you, don't it, I mean, gee,
they PEE there, don't they? And yet it tastes good to most
of us!

You just don't realize or cannot admit that you're just another
sick little antisexual homophobe.
Steve

Briar Rabbit wrote:

Katie Jaques wrote:



Just for the record: I HAVE handled, touched, smelled, etc. a
foreskin. Did so for 38 years. My late husband was born at home on
the farm and was uncircumcised. And I can unequivocally state that
there is nothing repellent or disgusting about an uncircumcised penis.

Grandma Katie

We are all entitled to our own opinions Katie.
-----------------------
NO one is "entitled" to an opinion that becomes action to mutilate
children and deprive them of the control of their own body!!!
Steve

Briar Rabbit wrote:

Jamie Clark wrote:


I'm not trying to prove one sides point over the other, but just putting
that anecdote out there.

Thanks for sharing that with the group. Can I can share this with you?

Cervical Cancer

It is often stated by those who oppose circumcision that the low
incidence of cervical cancer in Europe undermines the finding that
circumcision reduces the incidence of cervical cancer.

It has always been known that Human Papillomavirus (HPV) causes
cervical cancer. What was not known however is what was the connection
between circumcision or the lack of it and HPV. The breakthrough in
understanding came with the Castellsagué study which found:
-----------------------
This disorder is preventible with a simple test most women in the
civilized world have performed annually.

If you sat home and never ****ed anyone you would patently be
"safer" from a host of disorders than if you went out and had
sex with one or many people, but that would cost you your very
life, by wasting the sexual purpose of your life for nought.

It would be as if we never lived, and thus your opinion is a
GREATER threat to any of us than some disease could ever be!!


"Conclusions: Male circumcision is associated with a reduced risk of
penile HPV infection and, in the case of men with a history of
multiple sexual partners, a reduced risk of cervical cancer in their
current female partners."
---------------------------
The difference is minute and statistically marginal, like amputating
sex organs "to prevent disease"!!


"Cervical screening has prevented an epidemic that would have killed
about one in 65 of all British women born since 1950..."
----------------------------
And one in 66 if men were all circumcised. Better to popularize sex
and PAP smears, save a lot more lives than circumcision EVER could!


So contrary to anti-circumcision propaganda cervical cancer is rampant
among tradtionally non-circumcising populations.
--------------------
But not statistically enough MORE rampant than anywhere else, except
by a percent or two, thus irrelevant when PAP smears can make MUCH
MORE of a difference!! You see, what YOU do is attach NO value to
good sex, and to good sexual variety, and this is because you're
sexually sick and antisexually neurotic!!
Steve

Briar Rabbit wrote:

Sarah Vaughan wrote:

In message , Briar Rabbit
writes

Cervical Cancer

It is often stated by those who oppose circumcision that the low
incidence of cervical cancer in Europe undermines the finding that
circumcision reduces the incidence of cervical cancer.

It has always been known that Human Papillomavirus (HPV) causes
cervical cancer. What was not known however is what was the connection
between circumcision or the lack of it and HPV. The breakthrough in
understanding came with the Castellsagué study which found:

"Conclusions: Male circumcision is associated with a reduced risk of
penile HPV infection and, in the case of men with a history of
multiple sexual partners, a reduced risk of cervical cancer in their
current female partners."

[...]

I've always protected myself against HPV and other infections by making
sure the men I've been with have used condoms, which is a much more
effective way. Why should I expect them to get circumcised?


How many men would that be Sarah? Are you a real goer then? ;-)
-------------------
So now you're calling her a SLUT for having no different a sex drive
than a man?? You're nothing but a ****, you asshole.


Actually it is all about facts. The hideous foreskin
-------------------------
That's not any kind of "fact", you sick twisted little son of a bitch.
Steve