Why do parents keep doing this?

Briar Rabbit wrote in message ...
Xyzzy wrote:
Briar Rabbit wrote in message ...

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?


The main effect is allowing the infant to progress to a womb-free
lifestyle. As far as birthpain to the neonate, perhaps you will
enlighten us?


Interesting that you wish to minimize the trauma of birth

I asked you for your input on the subject, again. An you've ignored
my request, again. I'm beginning to think it is you who doesn't care
about birthtrauma! (Just kidding.)

By the way, did you ever think about why childbirth should be so much
more laborious and painful for human mothers than for other mammals?
Is it because Eve at an apple 6400 years ago?..... ehhh,
noooooooooooo.

It is, in part, because of the tight ratio of braincase size to pelvis
size. This tight ration is caused, in part, by:

1) because of a rapid period of evolutiontionary growth of the homo
sapien brain, and
2) bipedalism: the homo sapien pelvis must be narrower to keep our
guts from falling out, compared to quadrupeds.

yet want to exaggerate the trauma of infant circumcision.

Do I? Quote me, for example.

What does that tell us about your mental pathology?

Xyzzy wrote:




Do I? Quote me, for example.



On Mountain Bikers or the Salmanaca reservation?

(Lyle Benson) wrote in message . com...
I'm a teen-ager and since the moment I found out what happened to me I
felt angry about it. Once I found what goes on during the procedure
and what is lost, I felt sick.

I know I was robbed of something special, and I'll never know what sex
is really supposed to feel like.

Why the hell do parents keep letting their baby boys get cut even if
they know there are no real health benefits? Why? Does it matter to
them whether or not their son *wants* to be that way? Does the risk of
death, infections and disfigurement matter? Isn't the fact that there
are tons of men ****ed off about it and stuck that way for the rest of
their lives reason enough not to do it?

I'm really curios as to why. Could any parent who has or is going to
have their little boy cut clue me in?

yeah i woulkd be interested too

Briar Rabbit wrote in message ...
Xyzzy wrote:




Do I? Quote me, for example.



On Mountain Bikers or the Salmanaca reservation?

Whatever yr puny skull desires.

In message , Briar Rabbit
writes
Sarah Vaughan wrote:

In message , Briar Rabbit
writes

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,

No. What you have a problem with is foreskins. And, by extension,
anyone whom you perceive as standing in the way of your obsessive desire
to rid the world of foreskins. So, you have to find any excuse to
deride anyone who's against circumcision, no matter what that excuse is.
(I've heard it referred to as the 'any stick is good enough to beat a
dog with' principle.)

So, if an anti-circumcision activist also happens to be gay, then you
leap on that as an excuse to make snide little comments about how 'they
sure do take an interest in "these things", don't they". And maybe this
is because you secretly do have a problem with people being gay - but I
suspect it's more likely to be just another case of playing to the
gallery. You know that by making comments that imply that there's
something wrong with homosexuality and that this 'wrongness' links into
the 'wrongness' of being anti-routine-circumcision, you'll get the
homophobic vote. Rather slimy, isn't it?

And, of course, the fact that many people who are
anti-routine-circumcision believers are also heterosexual doesn't stop
you from finding equally snide and derisive things to say about them.
You've pretty much worked it out so that you can frame just about
_anyone's_ motives in dubious terms. So, when you see women who are
against circumcision, you can't possibly believe that they might
genuinely be concerned with the rights of a gender that isn't their own
- you assume that these women have to have their own interests in mind
in some way. And hence you conclude that their
anti-routine-circumcision beliefs must be due to their own sexual
preferences. Except, of course, you don't phrase it in those terms,
because that would be far too neutral for you - you conclude that
they're Psychosexual Skin Freaks Obsessed With Tonguing Out Smegma.

And, when you see heterosexual men who are against circumcision, you
claim that they're pathetic losers who are trying to blame their
psychosexual failings on their circumcision (if they're circumcised) or
that they feel there's something wrong with them for not being
circumcised and are, presumably, trying to sublimate that (if they're
not circumcised). Basically, that about covers everyone except lesbians.
I don't actually know what your particular derisive description would be
for lesbians who happened to be anti-circumcision, but I'm sure you'd
think of something if the need ever arose. The one thing you can't
possibly bear to admit is that a perfectly sound, well-balanced person
with no sexual interests at all in the matter might genuinely find there
to be something wrong with cutting skin off babies routinely.

[...]
"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?"
I think a more important question would be "What, if any, is the
intrinsic value of infant circumcision which is sufficient to override
the principles that

a) people have a certain right to bodily autonomy, and


Does that extend to vaccinations too? I believe there is a growing body
of opinion that people resent that their parents made a decision to
compromise their natural immune system.

Got any references to this 'growing body of opinion'? I've seen lots of
anti-vaccination opinions, and I've never yet seen any expressed in
terms of "I resent the fact that my parents had me vaccinated". There
are lots of people refusing to vaccinate their own children, but I've
yet to see any of them express any resentment against their parents or
so much as bat an eyelid over the fact that they themselves were
vaccinated.

Are immune systems as important as foreskins?

Considerably more important. It's a common misconception that
immunisation 'compromises' the immune system in some way. It's like
claiming that feeding a child compromises the bowel in some way.

Or are foreskins the alpha and the omega?

To you, it appears.

b) your rights as a parent do not include a blanket right to make
any and all decisions affecting your child?"



It seems that you skin feaks are happy with all parental decisions
except the fate of the foreskin.

Really? Do tell me, from your vast knowledge of my personal beliefs,
which other parental decisions I'm happy with. Please do give me my
views on parents who beat their children, on parents who have their baby
girls circumcised, on parents who smoke in front of their children and
on parents who give their babies piercings. Oh, and do back all of
these up with referenced quotes from me.

So do me a favor and stop talking about rights when all you are really
trying to do is save a few foreskins.

I know you find this hard to comprehend, BR, but just because your only
obsession is getting rid of a few foreskins, it doesn't follow that
everyone who opposes you must have the inverse view to you and must
simply be obsessed with saving foreskins. As far as I'm concerned,
adult males can decide to get themselves circumcised en masse if it
makes them happy. But, barring some really definite medical indication
that can't wait till adulthood, I believe it should be left until they
can decide for themselves. And you still haven't answered the question
of why it should be such a problem to leave men to decide this matter
for themselves.

What it all comes down to is the speculative possibility of a sexual
function for the foreskin.

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.

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?



We look towards those circumcisied as adults after having experienced
penetrative sexual activity.

No, we don't. What you do is look selectively towards those adults who
give the views you want to hear, and assume that they're the ones with
The Truth (tm) and everyone else is a psychosexual fetishist. What I do
is accept that there isn't a 'The Truth' when it comes to circumcision
any more than there is with any other preference in life, and that
different people are genuinely going to have different views on it.
Which is fine by me, because I don't feel threatened by a man's decision
concerning his own foreskin regardless of what that decision is. But
then, I've got a life.

The skin freaks don't like these statistics because it calls the lie
to the propaganda they have built around there psychosexual fetish.

Read here about how little these 380 men missed their foreskins ...

===============================

Conference Abstract number: TuPeB4648

Adult male circumcision in Kenya: safety and patient satisfaction

C J O Opeya1, B O Ayieko1, A Kawango1, M O Onyango1, S Moses2, R C
Bailey3, J O Ndinya-Achola4, J N Krieger5
1UNIM Project, Kisumu, Kenya; 2University of Manitoba, Winipeg,
Canada; 3University of Illinois, Chicago, United States; 4University
of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya; 5University of Washington, Seattle, United
States
[...]
At 30 days
post-surgery, 99.3% of men reported being very satisfied and 0.7%
somewhat satisfied with circumcision. None were dissatisfied.
[...]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unasha...rc/message/419

And yet, when a group of men circumcised as adults were asked about it
at a time interval greater than 30 days post-surgery, 38% of them were
dissatisfied (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/fink1/). Would
you also want to give men that statistic before they decide whether or
not to be circumcised?


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

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?

Rather more than you've experienced, I believe.

Actually it is all about facts.

Nope. For you, it's all about being anti-foreskin.


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
There are many sources of trauma an infant experiences in the first,
hours, days, weeks, months after birth. Yet you skin freaks want to
ignore all but that of circumcision. It tell everyone a lot about your
desperate need to focus only upon the removal of the foreskin.

You really don't find it remotely necessary to find out what you're
talking about before talking about it, do you?

If you ever do bother to do even the most basic reading on what people
think about sources of trauma to very young infants, you'll discover
that there's a very vociferous body of opinion who object to removing
babies from mothers in the hour immediately after birth for anything
other than the most pressing medical reasons, to keeping babies
separately from their mothers while in hospital; to putting drops in
their eyes right after birth, to leaving babies to cry for any length of
time, or to putting babies to sleep in cots on their own, on the basis
that all of these things are too traumatic to babies. Just try googling
on terms like 'attachment parenting' and 'co-sleeping' and see what you
come up with.

The fact that you claim, in blatant disregard of all evidence, that this
body of opinion doesn't exist and that anti-circumcision activists
aren't concerned with any other potential sources of infant trauma, says
quite a lot more about _your_ 'desperate need to focus only upon the
removal of the foreskin'.

You want to talk about why the foreskin is so important to you?

Foreskins aren't important to me. Choice is. But they certainly seem
to be important to you. You're obsessed with ridding the world of them.


Sarah

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

Briar Rabbit wrote:
So you have to have "experience" with an adequate sample size
otherwise your opinion isn't worth diddley squat.

To which Sarah Vaughan replied:
I shall look forward to hearing your sample size, in that case.
;-)

To which Briar Rabbit, having carefully snipped his original comment as
restored above, wrote:
I don't have a sample size

So I guess that clears _that_ one up, then. ;-)


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

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



Only 2% preferred give head to the hooded version. Obviously the 2%
are the true believers who just love to tongue out foreskins. Going
down on an uncircumcised man seems to take great courage.
Making claims unsupported by the evidence again, I see. I prefer
going to the bookshop to going to the supermarket, but you would be
hopelessly and obviously inaccurate if you concluded from that
statement that going to the supermarket takes me great courage.



OK so you read it for yourself then:

=========================

WOMEN'S PREFERENCES FOR PENILE CIRCUMCISION IN SEXUAL PARTNERS

snip

BR, I've read it for myself. As well you know. And made comments on it
that you chose to ignore, because it might have involved having to admit
you got something wrong.

However, none of that changes the fact that 1. nowhere in that study did
anyone describe the foreskin as 'smelly' or 'disgusting', and that 2.
only 24 of the women had even had experience of both circumcised and
uncircumcised penises. IOW, this does not count as any evidence, let
alone a 'vast body', in support of your claim that the foreskin is
'smelly and disgusting'.

You know, I do realise that you'll choose either to ignore this post
completely, or snip what I've said and say something insulting, because
you really can't see any other way in which you can score a point right
now. But you know what? It would be a lot more effective than you may
realise if you could manage to say "You know, I did overstate my case
there. Sorry. What I meant to say was...." and retract and restate.
People take that a lot more seriously than an obvious refusal to change
your mind on the most minor point even in the face of clear evidence
that you're wrong.


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
This is what you need to know about the people who hang weights from
the dicks to stretch themselves a sort of foreskin. Sad and pathetic.



Restoration Seekers


==========================

Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 10, No.4, 1981

Prepuce Restoration Seekers: Psychiatric Aspects

Paul C. Mohl, M.D.I,2 , Russel Adams, Ph.D.,3 Donald M. Greer,
M.D.,4 and Kathy A. Sheley, Ph.D.

snip

Ah, yes, the old trick. Find a few people amongst the group you want to
ridicule who clearly _do_ have some sort of psychological problem -
after all, you can guarantee there'll be some, since there's no group
existing that's going to be immune to being joined by people who happen
to have pre-existing problems. Then, try to imply - or to state
straight out - that these people are representative of the entire group.

It's a well-known trick. People used to try it - probably still do, for
that matter - to make it seem that gay people were all psychologically
twisted. Before that, I believe they tried it to make it seem that women
who wanted a career other than housewifery were psychological freaks.
Before that, presumably they tried it to prove something else.

And, of course, it doesn't prove a thing. Except in the minds of people
who want it to.


Sarah

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