A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » Pregnancy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Why do parents keep doing this?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old August 15th 04, 10:06 PM
nooneimportant
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Briar Rabbit" wrote in message
...
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?


Ok... where did i state that? I simply stated that in that study the
participants had a CHOICE... how many other intact men had that choice and
choose NOT to get cut and participate in that study? The big factor is and
always will be CHOICE. I don't have a single problem if someone CHOOSES to
get cut, thats their choice, and i'm quite sure they will be happy with it.
But taking that choice away and making it a requirement is flat out wrong.
Whose body is it? Hideous Appendage is your opinion, and i'm sure many
people will agree with you, but the fact of the matter is that its not the
ONLY opinion. I for one think pink ties are hideous, but not everyone does.


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."


AGAIN these were participants who WILLINGLY got cut. Could it not be
possible for the particapants partner to have an opinion of the decision
making? How may intact men have satisfied partners? Just cus a man is
intact doesn't automagically mean that their partner is NOT satisifed. You
are skewing logic here.

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?


There you go again, throwing a blanket accusation, you really are good at
that you know, been lurking for a long time and thats all i see you do with
any skill. I am quite sure that there are women that prefer cut men, and
understandably so in a society that is mainly cut, cus its what they are
used to. Go to europe, and ask the same question to women who have largely
known intact men...... Even here in the States there are women that prefer
an intact penis, but many have NEVER EVEN HAD THE CHANCE TO TRY ONE cus they
have been systemically removed from our culture, i know that simple
statement hurts because it goes against your blanket accusation. GIVE MEN
A CHOICE, GIVE WOMEN MORE OPTIONS.



  #22  
Old August 15th 04, 10:37 PM
Briar Rabbit
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Chotii wrote:

"Briar Rabbit" wrote in message



There were two issues. One related to post surgical discomfort and the
second (and unrelated) was about adults being happy or unhappy about being
circumcised. Why did you choose to fuse the two together?



You, sir, have fused them. You imply that the pain from circumcision is so
minor as to be irrelevent, and that any man who is unhappy with having been
altered is somehow wrong in the head. You have fused them by saying the one
is irrelevent, and the second is an indication of some mental abberation.



I did not imply anything of the kind. I said: "The discomfort of the
post circumcision period is minor and should not be exaggerated." This
does not imply anything of the sort you attempt to misrepresent me with.
The right treatment, the right analgesics and any post-surgical
discomfort is indeed minor. So why are you misrepresenting what I said?



You state that (from the study I posted) the "post-surgical discomfort was
within tolerable ranges". Where did you get that from? The study did not
refer to this aspect at all. Why do you choose to misrepresent the study?



Excuse me. I conflated your comment that the pain is minimal, with the study
finding that adverse effects were "mild or
moderate and resolved within hours or several days of detection".


I said the discomfort was minor. In the absence of analgesics the pain
would be significant. The % of AE's were so low as not to be a factor
other than to consider where poverty related poor diets lead to
suppressed immune systems and a higher than normal likelihood of
infections then an anti-biotic shot should be considered at the time of
the procedure or even before.



If post-surgical discomfort is minor, then why should not consenting
adults choose it if they wish?


Try that again in English please.



If post-surgical discomfort is so minor, then why can it not be left to
consenting adults to choose, or not choose, as they see fit? The amount of
pain is negligible, and brief, and should have no impact on said informed,
consenting adult who chooses it.


They did choose you silly old goose. They were the first 380 volunteers
in a greater study on the protective effect of male circumcision against
HIV infection.

Now the connection between HIV infection and the foreskin is another
horror story.



Oh ... you mean those sad and pathetic creatures called "tuggers" who hang
weights from their penises to stretch themselves some skin?

Here is a study into the psychosexual pathology behind the practice of
foreskin restoration.




Perhaps you missed the part where the researchers' "curiosity led to empathy
for the discomfort felt by these patients, discomfort (with body image)
largely relieved by the foreskin restoration".



Of course there must be empathy, pity and all the rest. These people are
mentally ill, they need help, they need to be cared for, they need to be
on medication.


It appears to me that these men have benefitted from having their bodies
"restored". Why exactly is this a problem? Why is it "pathetic" for tuggers
to alter their bodies to match their body image? Do you have the same
reaction to women who seek breast augmentation, rhinoplasty, or any other
body alteration?


I feel the same pity.


The simple fact is, any consenting adult male can choose to alter his body
by circumcision, and *you* clearly think this is a fine thing. But let a man
attempt to alter his (already altered) body by tugging, surgery, or other
means, and you think he's pathetic.



Yes any male can choose to be circumcised or to hang weights from his
penis to get some skin. One can accept that. The question is why do they
decide to do it? These questions need to be answered and we may not
always like the answers we get.



You are inconsistent. And you lack the empathy that the researchers confess
to having felt.


No I am consistently unsympathetic to these lunatic "tuggers". If they
just locked themselves in the attic and hung weights from their penises
that would be manageable. They could be placed on the mental health
watch register and managed on a case by case basis. It is when then
attempt to justify there psycho-sexual pathology by waging war against
all circumcision for whatever reason. They then need to be
institutionalized and certainly restricted from contact with children.


And by the way, a study of four men doesn't convince me that ALL men seeking
foreskin restoration are suffering identical "issues". It does tell me
something about those men. That's all.



Be careful now. Sarah Vaughan's sample of "several men who support
keeping the foreskin" seemed to have passed unchallenged by you. Why was
that? Who is being inconsistent now?

  #23  
Old August 15th 04, 10:48 PM
Briar Rabbit
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

nooneimportant wrote:

"Briar Rabbit" wrote in message



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?



Ok... where did i state that? I simply stated that in that study the
participants had a CHOICE... how many other intact men had that choice and
choose NOT to get cut and participate in that study? The big factor is and
always will be CHOICE. I don't have a single problem if someone CHOOSES to
get cut, thats their choice, and i'm quite sure they will be happy with it.
But taking that choice away and making it a requirement is flat out wrong.
Whose body is it? Hideous Appendage is your opinion, and i'm sure many
people will agree with you, but the fact of the matter is that its not the
ONLY opinion. I for one think pink ties are hideous, but not everyone does.



see separate reply




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."



AGAIN these were participants who WILLINGLY got cut. Could it not be
possible for the particapants partner to have an opinion of the decision
making? How may intact men have satisfied partners? Just cus a man is
intact doesn't automagically mean that their partner is NOT satisifed. You
are skewing logic here.


I am not saying they are automatically unhappy. I would love to know how
the deal with the stink though. What you say ... no head?



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?



There you go again, throwing a blanket accusation, you really are good at
that you know, been lurking for a long time and thats all i see you do with
any skill. I am quite sure that there are women that prefer cut men, and
understandably so in a society that is mainly cut, cus its what they are
used to. Go to europe, and ask the same question to women who have largely
known intact men...... Even here in the States there are women that prefer
an intact penis, but many have NEVER EVEN HAD THE CHANCE TO TRY ONE cus they
have been systemically removed from our culture, i know that simple
statement hurts because it goes against your blanket accusation. GIVE MEN
A CHOICE, GIVE WOMEN MORE OPTIONS.




Yes I know there are women (in the US) who prefer the uncircumcised
penis under all and any circumstance. 1% as found by the Williamson
survey. They are called skin freaks as they seem to be turned on by the
bodily excrement found under the foreskin. I suppose they would be into
"rimming" (butt licking) as well.

Here is the Williamson survey:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unasha...rc/message/413

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

WOMEN'S PREFERENCES FOR PENILE CIRCUMCISION IN SEXUAL PARTNERS


Marvel L. Williamson, Ph.D., R.N.
Assistant Professor, College of Nursing
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA 52242

Paul S. Williamson, M.D.
Associate Professor, College of Medicine
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA

Abstract

Regardless of pediatricians' attempts to negate routine newborn
circumcision, U.S. circumcision rates remain constant. This study
hypothesized that, because circumcision is usually a maternal choice
and the circumcised penises are perceived by young women as more
attractive, most women prefer circumcision for sexual reasons.

Of 145 new mothers of sons responding to this survey, 71-83% preferred
circumcised penises for each sexual activity listed.

Visual appeal and sexual hygiene were predominant reasons for favoring
circumcised sexual partners. Even among women having sexual experience
only with uncircumcised partners, only half preferred uncircumcised
penises for sexual partners. Eighty-nine percent of the sample had had
their sons circumcised. This study furthers debate over whether
circumcision decisions should be based solely on medical
considerations limited to the newborn period.

In spite of recent attempt by the American Academy of Pediatrics and
other organizations to persuade the public to abandon the practice of
routine newborn circumcision (e.g., Thompson, King & Knox, 1975;
American Academy of Pediatrics, 1984), new parents have continued to
request the procedure at the same high rates (Metcalf, Osborn, &
Mariani, 1983). In the United States, approximately 75-90% of newborn
males are circumcised, compared to only 10% of Europeans and 20% of
males in general worldwide (Jones, 1985; Wallerstein, 1985).

One survey of 200 women concerning their maternal attitudes [towards]
circumcision revealed that mothers were not giving medically valid
reasons for having their sons circumcised, and the authors concluded
that health care providers needed to do a better job of educating
parents about the medical risks and benefits of the procedure (Lovell
& Cox, 1979).

Even after other researchers launched extensive programs to inform
prospective parents about the lack of "absolute medical indication"
for circumcision, no significant change in the rate of newborn
circumcisions could be observed in targeted samples (Herrera, Hsu,
Salcedo, & Ruiz, 1982; Herrera, Cochran, Herrera, & Wallace, 1983;
Land & Policastro, 1983; Rand, Emmons, & Johnson, 1983; Stein, Marx,
Taggart, & Bass, 1982). Parents within the United States who do not
have their sons circumcised report the main reason is cultural. That
is, most are a part of a subgroup, often Hispanic, that traditionally
does not circumcise (Ernst, Philip, & Orman, 1987).

Only 10% of the subjects who choose to leave their sons uncircumcised
cite being convinced on the basis of reading or on physician's advice
(Kreuger & Osborn, 1986; Stein et al., 1982).

It has been demonstrated that mothers more than fathers usually decide
whether to have their sons circumcised (Bean & Egelhoff, 1984;
Williamson & Williamson, 1984). Although informed consent for
circumcision now includes information on how easy it can be to give
proper penile hygiene to an uncircumcised baby, mothers persist in
their desire to have their male infants circumcised. This trend is
particularly noteworthy within the current financial context in which
many third party payers deny coverage for newborn circumcisions
(Medical World News, 1986.
Review of the Literature and Conceptual Framework

Controversy characterized the history of circumcision.

Circumcision has existed since the Stone Age for unknown reasons
(Jacobs, 1943). In earliest written records documenting its use,
religious beliefs required that the male foreskin be removed as an
outward display of faith and membership in the group.

In some cultures, circumcision signified a boy's entrance into
manhood. In whatever setting, the uncircumcised were looked down upon
for being pagan or unmasculine.

Later, the European elite class made circumcision exclusive privilege
in the Victorian era (Jones, 1985). This notion persisted even into
the early twentieth century as evidence that a man had been born into
a situation where the luxury of circumcision could be afforded.

Circumcision has not solely been a status symbol, however. Within
certain circumstances it was a necessity. Entire armies found
themselves immobilized by balanitis, a painful inflammation under the
foreskin due primarily to lack of access to bathing facilities. (King,
1979) Societies that live in arid, sandy environments where water is
precious learned long ago about the merits of circumcision.

Even today, hygiene can be so difficult within some segments of the
health care system, such as in institutions for the elderly or the
mentally handicapped where patients may resist personal hygiene care,
that circumcision eventually has to be performed to prevent infections
or other complications of the foreskin (Harris, 1986).

Inadequate penile hygiene, which is more likely in uncircumcised men,
is resurfacing again as a predictor of carcinoma of the penis
(Jussawalla, Yeole, & Natekar, 1985). After the proclamation by the
American Academy of Pediatrics against circumcision, studies have
since begun reporting a relationship between uncircumcision and the
incidence of urinary tract infection in male children (Ginsburg &
McCracken, 1982; Shapiro, 1984; Wiswell et al, 1987).

Other complications, especially balanitis, bring about significantly
more medical visits for uncircumcised boys than for penile problems in
circumcised boys (Herzog & Alverez, 1986). Good hygiene, which itself
can be difficult for even the best intentioned parents, does not
entirely eliminate these problems (Krueger & Osborn, 1986).

It is argued, therefore, that pediatricians have an incomplete
perspective in the current debate over whether circumcision for
newborns is necessary. Furthermore, medical indications and
contradictions aside, insight into the cultural and sexual rationale
for why the American public and American women in particular prefer
circumcision is missing. Social reasons for circumcision, when
conceded at all, are dismissed by medical personnel as being
unjustifiable vis-a-vis existing "scientific" proof.

In addition, arguments that cite historical fallacies about
circumcision fail tests of logic when posing as premises for
concluding that circumcision for any reason is wrong (Grossman &
Posner, 1984).

The debate on medical grounds seems to miss a major portion of the
reasoning, though. In the face of the current campaign against
circumcision, why is it still requested at such high rates? What
motivations do American women have for wanting American males to be
circumcised?

In a study by Bean and Egelhoff of 277 new mothers of sons, 78%
reported favoring circumcision even before becoming pregnant and
having to make a conscious choice affecting a son, and 91% ultimately
decide to have their newborn son circumcised (1984). Even those woman
whose husbands were uncircumcised overwhelmingly opted for
circumcision.

The reason must seem important enough to woman for them to withstand
pressure from physicians and others who oppose circumcision. Brown &
Brown go as far as to say that "the circumcision decision of the
United States is emerging as a cultural ritual rather than the result
of medical misunderstanding among parents" (1987).

One idea that has been overlooked is that the penis is a sexual
instrument, not just a passageway for urination. For example,
circumcision at puberty in nonliterate cultures is in some ways a
sexual recognition of the emerging man (Bettelheim, 1954; Money,
Cawte, Bianchi, & Nurcombe, 1970; Kitahara, 1976). The permanent
exposure of the glans of the penis renders it a sexual tool.

Most research conducted previously on the reasons newborn males are
circumcised fails to include a reference to the perceived sexual
appeal of a circumcised penis over an uncircumcised one.

Typical lists of reasons from which the subjects could choose offered
only hygiene, religion, father's or sibling's circumcision status, and
other traditional explanations. At the most, an "Other" category
included in some surveys caught untold thoughts on the perceived
advantage of circumcision. Without the inclusion of sexual attitudes
toward penis type on such a list, respondents would typically hesitate
to spontaneously present sexual rationale favoring circumcision,
particularly in reference to a newborn penis.

Admitting to sexual desires and preferences is difficult enough for
subjects even in straightforward studies. Without the researcher
conceding the possibility, it is not likely a mother would volunteer
information about her hopes for her son's future sexual
attractiveness.

It was not until a study on cultural values associated with the
decision to circumcise, in which Harris used unstructured interviews,
that the sexual overtones of newborn circumcision were explicitly
reported (1986). One of her findings was that a circumcised penis has
a certain "cosmetic appeal," that in America the exposed glans is more
pleasing aesthetically.

She concluded that circumcision could be an acceptable practice based
on cultural values, and that the health care delivery system could be
a more "perceptive cultural broker" with regard to honoring a
society's view of beauty.

In asking various groups about why circumcision may be indicated, a
few surveys have included a response category labeled "cultural,"
which may have been construed by some subjects to include sexual
attitudes.

One such study found that significantly more obstetricians than
pediatricians believed that the culture was a valid reason for
neonatal circumcision (Herrera & Macaraeg, 1984).

What the concept of culture means, though, is that to many Americans
circumcision seems to be normal because that is what they are
accustomed to seeing. This could certainly be true, in that what
people are used to is what they prefer.

This cultural perspective brings circumcision into a new arena, one in
which the rigidity by some health professionals fosters alienation and
resistance (Gellis, 1978). Some go so far as to say that opting for
circumcision indicates an emotional response that is not based on
rational decision making (Brown & Brown, 1987).

A study of female preference for certain male body parts showed that
89% of woman students at a southern college preferred pictures of
circumcised penises over uncircumcised ones (Wildman, Wildman, Brown &
Trice, 1976).

This is as close as the literature comes to facing the persistent
preference by American women for circumcision, as best displayed by
new mothers of male infants. To date, no study has explored the
possible sexual motivations behind circumcision, however.
It was the purpose of this investigation, therefore, to determine if
women, particularly mothers who recently made a decision about
circumcision of their newborn sons, do indeed prefer circumcised
sexual partners, and if so, for what reasons. This study hypothesized
that most American woman prefer circumcised penises in their sexual
relations, a factor unrelated to the purported lack of medical
indications for the procedure.

Methods

Women 18 years of age and older who delivered full-term healthy sons
within the previous month at a major midwest medical center comprised
the targeted sample. Candidates for the study were chosen during a
6-month period based upon their willingness to participate in an
earlier study that dealt with who and what influenced their decisions
to circumcise or not circumcise their babies. The sample had been
randomly selected and 85% made up the group to whom questionnaires
were mailed for this study.

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. Due to the explicit sexual nature of the
questions, this rate compares favorably to the other research studies
investigating such personal sexual issues.

Because there had been no previous data collection tool seeking this
type of information, it is necessary to first confirm the content
validity through its review by several experts. The survey instrument
was tested on a pilot group of women who gave subsequent feedback
about its clarity and the completeness of the response options
available from which to choose. By comparing the outcome of this
questionnaire to certain items on the previously conducted study on
the group of 269, it was also possible to establish the reliability of
the individual subject's responses over a period of time.

The survey was highly personal, asking the women about their own
sexual experiences with men and about their preferences for
circumcised or uncircumcised penises for various sexual activities. No
reference was made to the women's decision to circumcise their own
sons or not.

This survey dealt entirely with adult sexual experiences and
preferences in order to distinguish the two issues and allow for
correlational tests between their choices as parents and their
attitudes as sexual adult women.

Each subject had received a thorough review of circumcision at the
hospital when deciding about their son's candidacy for the procedure.
Each was also shown drawings of both uncircumcised and circumcised
penises. It was assumed, therefore, that the subjects knew what
circumcision meant and what types of penises their sexual partners
had. Lay terminology was used in each question. Prior to
implementation of the study, all procedures and tools received
approval by a human research subjects' rights board. Confidentiality
was guaranteed to the subjects and was maintained throughout the
study.

Results

Most of the newborn sons of mothers in the sample had been circumcised
(89%). This percent is similar to the circumcision rate prevailing in
the geographic area at the time of data collection.

Of the women in the sample, 83.7% were married, 12.8% were single, and
3.5% were separated, divorced, or widowed.

By race, 97.9% were Caucasian, 1.4% were black, and 0.7% were
Hispanic. Another characteristic consistent with the midwest
population generally was religion: 46.1% were Protestant, 21.3% were
Catholic, 29.1% claimed no religion, 0.7% were Jewish, and the
remaining 2.8% listed other religions.

The group was well educated. All but 12.7% had finished high school
and 25.3% had at least some higher education. Fourteen percent had
finished college. There was a weak correlation between higher
education and the choice to circumcise the newborn (rpb = 0.27).

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.

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. There was a strong
correlation between the circumcision status of her newborn son and a
woman's ideal male partner's status for the purpose of intercourse
(phi = 0.86)m, and a moderate correlation for visual appeal (phi = 0.
50).

To investigate any possible relationship between the circumcision
status of one's father or brothers and the preferred type of ideal
sexual partner, correlational tests were made on those subjects who
knew whether these family members were circumcised. No similarities
were found that could be attributed to childhood exposed to penises of
either type (phi = 0.12 for fathers and 0.06 for brothers).

It was interesting to note that 22% of the sample did not know whether
their fathers were circumcised and of those who had brothers, 9% did
not know whether they were circumcised.


TABLE ONE

Activity Penis Type
Circumcised (%) Uncircumcised (%) Either (%)
Sexual Intercourse.......71.............6...............2 3

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

Giving manual............75.............5...............2 0
penile stimulation

Giving Fellatio..........83.............2...............1 5


It could be surmised that some women prefer circumcised penises
because that is their sole experience in sexual contacts.

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).

Among those women who had sexual experience only with uncircumcised
partners (N = 8), their past was more clearly correlated to their
preferences. For each of the sexual activities presented,
approximately half of this sub-group desired an uncircumcised penis
and the other half said that penis type did not matter.

Evidently, almost any sexual exposure to a circumcised [penis] swayed
women to sexually prefer circumcision. That is only 1% of the entire
sample consistently preferred uncircumcised partners for all sexual
activities, and those subjects came entirely from the group which had
had sexual experience only with uncircumcised penises.

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%)

It was fascinating to find that so many women thought a circumcised
penis seemed more natural, probably meaning to them "familiar" within
the American cultural context.

Among those preferring an uncircumcised penis, most also stated that
to them it looked more natural, but no one in the entire study thought
that an uncircumcised penis looked sexier.

Overall, the factor correlating most strongly with whether the newborn
son was circumcised was the subject's favorite penis type for sexual
intercourse. There was little or no correlation between the newborn
circumcision decision and demographic factors including race,
upbringing, or sexual experiences.

Conclusions

This study clearly support the hypothesis that American women prefer
circumcision for sexual reasons. The preference for circumcision does
not necessarily come out of ignorance nor from lack of exposure to
uncircumcised men.

Even when women grow up with uncircumcised fathers and brothers, or
have uncircumcised sexual partners, the majority of such a group still
prefer circumcised sexual partners.

Women state a preference for circumcised penises particularly for
sexual activities like fellatio, but also for intercourse, manual
stimulation, and visual appeal.

They say that this is primarily due to circumcised penises being
cleaner and looking sexier.

The cleanliness of circumcised penises within the sexual context means
something different from cleanliness as a hygiene factor to prevent
balanitis and other complications.

To a sexual partner, cleanliness is important because the penis
tastes, smells, and looks more appealing. Spontaneous sexual activity
is more likely to be enjoyable with a man who is circumcised, because
bathing efforts last for longer periods of time. For the
uncircumcised, washing under the foreskin must be attended to
frequently to prevent the accumulation of any smegma, whereas in the
circumcised male, the constant exposure or the coronal ring and the
glans to air prevents the build up of odors and secretions.

Of almost equal importance to cleanliness of the penis for sexual
activities is the visual attractiveness of a circumcised penis. What
is sexier about a circumcised penis?

Perhaps visualizing the glans, the urinary meatus, and the corona
without them being hidden under a foreskin is arousing. After all,
such is the appearance of an erect penis, and sexual imagery of the
erect penis involves exposure of the glans.

While the foreskin of an uncircumcised penis can be retracted, the
circumcised penis exists in exposed beauty whether flaccid or erect.
Furthermore, in some uncircumcised men the foreskin can actually
detract from the visual appeal of the penis. American producer of
erotic films and publishers of photographic literature are careful,
for example, on those rare occasions when uncircumcised models or
actors are used, to select penises with foreskins that are smooth and
free from extra wrinkled skin. Particularly to the unaccustomed eye, a
puckered or wrinkled foreskin can lack sexual appeal.

These findings suggest that the decision to have a new-born son
circumcised may not be significantly affected by increasing the
already rigorous efforts to explain the supposed lack of medical
indications. While many mothers may not consciously view their sons as
sexual beings, many may opt for circumcision with the belief that the
son will be more sexually attractive to his future sexual partners,
based on how they themselves feel. Future research can address this
issue within a different cultural setting where most males are
uncircumcised.

Newborn circumcision need no longer be performed without local
anesthesia (Kirya & Werthman, 1978; Williamson & Williamson, 1983),
silencing the outcry against circumcision as a form of "barbarism"
(Foley, 1966). Removal of the foreskin may be viewed as preventive
care, not unlike procedures done in other areas of health care (such
as the extraction of asymptomatic wisdom teeth).

The opponents of circumcision argue in return against the imposition
of such a decision without the affected newborn male's consent. In
response, those favoring circumcision point out that the many men who
later want or need to be circumcised face a major surgical procedure
that would have presented only a minor inconvenience if done as an
infant.

Circumcision has, therefore, now become a much broader issue than one
that can be dismissed on such narrow grounds as those proposed by the
American Academy of Pediatrics. Not least among the considerations is
the worth of sexual preference for male circumcision within the
American culture as a valid reason for continuing the practice.


References

American Academy of Pediatrics (1984). Care of the uncircumcised
penis. Elk Grove Village, IL: Author.

Bean, G., & Egelhoff, C. (1984) Neonatal Circumcision: When is the
decision made? The Journal of Family Practice, 18, 883-887.

Bettelheim, B, (1954) Symbolic wounds: Puberty rites and the envious
male. New York: Free Press.

Brown, M., and Brown C. (1987) Circumcision decision: prominence of
social concerns. Pediatrics, 80, 215-219.

Ernst, T., Philip, M., & Orman, R. (1987). Neonatal circumcision rates
in a multiethnic hospital population. Family Medicine, 19, 227-228.

Foley, J, (1966). The practice of medicine - a reevaluation. New York:
Materia Medica.

Gellis, S. (1978). Circumcision. American Journal of Diseases in
Children, 132, 1168-1169.

Ginsberg, C., & McCracken, G. (1982). Urinary tract infections in
young infants. Pediatrics, 69, 409.

Grossman, E., & Posner, N. 1984. The circumcision controversy: An
update. Obstetrics and Gynecology Annual, 13, 181-195.

Harris, C. (1986). Cultural values and the decision to circumcise.
Image: Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 18, 98-104.

Herrera, A., Hsu, A., Salcedo, U., & Ruiz, M. (1982)The role of
parental information in the incidence of circumcision. Pediatrics, 70,
597-598.

Herrera, A., Cochran, B., Herrera, A. & Wallace, B. (1983). Parental
information and circumcision in highly motivated couples with higher
education. Pediatrics, 71, 233-234.

Herrera, A., & Macaraeg, A. (1984) Physicians attitudes toward
circumcision. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 145,
825-826.

Herzog, L., & Alvarez, S. (1986). The frequency of foreskin problems
in uncircumcised children. American Journal of Obstetrics and
Gynecology, 140, 254-256.

Jacobs, S. (1943). Ritual circumcision. Urologic and Cutaneous Review,
47, 679.

Jones, S. (1985). Infant circumcision: Procedures complications, and
indications. Continuing Education, 833-845.

Jussawalla, D., Yeole, B. Cancer in Indian Moslems, Cancer, 55,
1149-1158.

King, L. (1979) The pros and cons of neonatal circumcision. Surgical
Rounds, 2, 29.

Kirya, C., & Werthman, M. (1978). Neonatal circumcision and penile
dorsal nerve block - a painless procedure. Journal of Pediatrics, 92,
998-1000.

Kitahara, M. (1976). A cross-cultural test of the Freudian theory of
circumcision. International Journal of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy,
5, 535-546.

Kreuger, M. & Osborn, L. (1986). Effects of hygiene among the
uncircumcised. The Journal of Family Practice, 22, 353-355.

Land, J., & Policastro, A. (1983). Parental Information and
circumcision: Another look, Pediatrics, 72, 142-143.

Metcalf, T., Osborn, L., & Mariani, E. (1983). Circumcision: A study
of current practices. Clinical Pediatrics, 22, 575-579.

Money, J., Cawte, J. Bianchi, G., & Nurcombe, B. (1970). Sex training
and traditions in Arnhemland. British Journal of Medical Psychology,
43, 383-399.

More insurers ending circumcision coverage. (1986). Medical World
News, 27, 34.

Rand, C., Emmons, C., & Johnson, J. (1983). The effect of an
educational intervention on the rate of neonatal circumcision.
Obstetrics and Gynecology, 62, 64-68.

Shapiro, S. (1984). UTI in uncircumcised infants Report presented at
the Symposium on Pediatric Infectious Diseases, University of
California, Davis, School of Medicine and the Sacremento Pediatric
Society.

Stein, M., Marx, M. Taggart, S., & Bass, R. (1982). Routine neonatal
circumcision: The gap between contemporary policy and practice Journal
of Family Practice, 15, 47-53.

Thompson, H., King L., & Knox, E. (1975) Report of the ad hoc task
force on circumcision. Pediatrics, 56, 610-611.

Wallerstein, E. (1985). Circumcision: The uniquely American medical
dilemma. Urologic Clinics of North America, 12, 123-132.

Wildman, R., Wildman II, R., Brown, A., & Trice, C. (1976) Note on
males' and females' preferences for opposite sex body parts, bust
sizes, and bust-revealing clothing. Psychologic Reports, 38, 485-486.

Williamson, P., & Williamson, M. (1983). Physiologic stress reduction
by a local anesthetic during newborn circumcision. Pediatrics, 76,
36-40.

Williamson, P. & Williamson, M. (1984). The circumcision decision:
Influences that determine newborn penile status. Unpublished
manuscript.

Wiswell, T, Enzenauer, R., Holton M., et al. (1987) Declining
frequency of circumcision: Implications for changes in the absolute
incidence and male to female ratio of urinary tract infections in
early infancy. Pediatrics, 79, 338-342.


======================
This papers reference:

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.
  #24  
Old August 15th 04, 10:57 PM
Briar Rabbit
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

nooneimportant wrote:

"Briar Rabbit" wrote in message




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?



There you go again, throwing a blanket accusation, you really are good at
that you know, been lurking for a long time and thats all i see you do with
any skill. I am quite sure that there are women that prefer cut men, and
understandably so in a society that is mainly cut, cus its what they are
used to. Go to europe, and ask the same question to women who have largely
known intact men...... Even here in the States there are women that prefer
an intact penis, but many have NEVER EVEN HAD THE CHANCE TO TRY ONE cus they
have been systemically removed from our culture, i know that simple
statement hurts because it goes against your blanket accusation. GIVE MEN
A CHOICE, GIVE WOMEN MORE OPTIONS.




Well the poor dears just don't have the option in these traditionally
non-circumcising countries. Is it demanded by you skin freakls that
expectant parents are sat down and given a balanced set of facts about
the pros and cons of circumcision and allowed to make an educated guess?
You don't because when it comes to the foreskin you have the very
strange view that foreskins must be saved come what may ... and are not
going to allow a few facts to get in the way of you grand obsession.

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.

The Botswana-Harvard AIDS Institute Partnership, Private Bag BO 320,
Bontleng, Gaborone, Botswana. The Botswana Ministry of Health, Private
Bag 0038, Gaborone, Botswana. The Harvard School of Public Health,
Department of Immunology and Infectious Diseases, 651 Huntington Ave,
FXB 401, Boston, MA 02115, USA. The University of Botswana, Private Bag
UB 0022, Gaborone, Botswana.

Sex Transm Infect. 2003 Jun;79(3):214-219.

BACKGROUND: Male circumcision is known to reduce the risk of acquiring
HIV, but few studies have been performed to assess its acceptability
among either children or adults in sub-Saharan Africa.

METHODS: We conducted a cross sectional survey in nine geographically
representative locations in Botswana to determine the acceptability of
male circumcision in the country, as well as the preferred age and
setting for male circumcision. Interviews were conducted using
standardised questionnaires both before and after an informational
session outlining the risks and benefits of male circumcision.

RESULTS: Among 605 people surveyed, the median age was 29 years (range
18-74 years), 52% were male, and 15 ethnicities were represented.
Before the informational session, 408 (68%) responded that they would
definitely or probably circumcise a male child if circumcision was
offered free of charge in a hospital setting; this number increased to
542 (89%) after the informational session. 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. In a
multivariate analysis of all participants, people with children were
more likely to favour circumcision than people without children
(adjusted odds ratio 1.8, 95% CI 1.0 to 3.4). Most participants (55%)
felt that the ideal age for circumcision is before 6 years, and 90% of
participants felt that circumcision should be performed in the hospital
setting.


CONCLUSIONS: Male circumcision appears to be highly acceptable in
Botswana. The option for safe circumcision should be made available to
parents in Botswana for their male children. Circumcision might also be
an acceptable option for adults and adolescents, if its efficacy as an
HIV prevention strategy among sexually active people is supported by
clinical trials.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?N29212925

  #25  
Old August 16th 04, 12:35 AM
Chotii
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

It appears to me that these men have benefitted from having their bodies
"restored". Why exactly is this a problem? Why is it "pathetic" for
tuggers to alter their bodies to match their body image? Do you have the
same reaction to women who seek breast augmentation, rhinoplasty, or any
other body alteration?


I feel the same pity.


At least you're consistent. Point in your favor.

No I am consistently unsympathetic to these lunatic "tuggers". If they
just locked themselves in the attic and hung weights from their penises
that would be manageable. They could be placed on the mental health watch
register and managed on a case by case basis. It is when then attempt to
justify there psycho-sexual pathology by waging war against all
circumcision for whatever reason. They then need to be institutionalized
and certainly restricted from contact with children.


Turn that around, sir. If you'd just lock yourself in the attic and enjoy
your
cut penis, you'd be manageable. You could be placed on the mental health
register and managed. It's when your attempt to justify your psycho-sexual
pathology by waging war against all uncircumcision for whatever reason....
then you need to be institutionalised and certainly restricted from contact
with children.

Fair? I didn't figure you'd think so.

Of course, your very willingness to label every single man involved in
improving his body to conform with his preferred body-image a 'freak' who
needs to be on a 'mental health register' says a great deal more about you
than it does about them.

--angela


  #26  
Old August 16th 04, 01:32 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

LIKE A VULTURE TO A CARCASS, ANOTHER FORESKINSTEIN FLUNKY TOUCHES DOWN
ON SMEGMA:

(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?


Parents have the legal right to decide what is in the best interest of
their children. There is no choice when it comes to the well-being of
a child. Every precautionary measure should be taken to ensure that a
child leads a happy, healthy productive life. And circumcision is one
such measure that is analagous to immunization - in that side effects
and complications are immediate and usually minor, but benefits accrue
for a lifetime. The longer one waits to be circumcised, the greater
chance one has of being exposed to UTIs, the residual risk of penile
cancer (practically unheard of in circumcised men), and the multitude
of problems that are always associated with the male prepuce -
cervical cancer in partners of the uncircumcised, tenfold increase in
HIV/STDs, painful sex, phimosis, balanitis, and the ever obligatory
smegma!eh An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure! The
benefits always outweigh the risks! Be wise, circumcise!
Only an ignorant & uncaring parent would forgo the safest & most
commonly performed procedure in all of medicine, occurring more
frequently than tooth extraction. Only an ignorant & uncaring parent
would subject their child to years of having to SHLEP around a
marsupial sac that should have gone out with Neanderthal man. A
useless scab of skin that serves no useful function (ie appendix,
wisdom teeth), other than to cause a lifetime of unwanted hassles &
upkeep. Foreskin is one of God's anatomical goofs, and it must be
treated accordingly!
In the US (most powerful, influential & circumcised nation in the
world), over 60% of newborns (regardless of ethnicity) are circumcised
each and every year. An average of 1.5 million routine infant
circumcisions per year. Over 80% of the adult American male population
is circumcised. The #1 adult performer of all-time happens to be a
circumcised Jew - Ron "The Hedgehog" Jeremy (b. Hyatt, Queens,NY).
Tens of millions of circumcised men are happily SHTUPPING away, and
yet the overwhelming majority of them do not share in your sentiments!
Those who mourn the loss of their foreskin are deeply disturbed
individuals. I believe Briar had posted the psychological studies on
these "projectionists" who blame all of their problems on
circumcision. Foreskin or lack thereof does not cause psychological
problems. There has to be an underlying history of psychoses present.
As for simple soap & water? LOL! While penile hygiene is said to
protect against the complications of the uncircumcised state, there is
actually no study to show any benefit to penile hygiene, nor any
practical way to do such a study, if you consider the problem of
actually documenting scrupulous hygiene over very long periods of
time. "Dirty Johnny" can scrub his smelly foreskinned PUTZ like an
incessant marsupial in the wild, and it shall never prevent the
production or accumulation of smegma. Soap (irritant) can actually
exacerbate the existing foreskin condition, causing smegma to
multiply. That in turn gives off more cottage cheese-like fumes. You
cannot wash away foreskin. The only cure for foreskin is circumcision
As long as those foreskin folds exist, so shall smegma and every other
foreskin-related ill.
It doesn't take an EINSTEIN (guess what religion he was?heh) to know
that if you remove an impediment that has been known to cause pain &
infection, you will have improved hygiene and better sex on average.
If a flap of skin grew over your decrepit TUSH, would you revel in the
bacteria that it traps, or would you run to the doctor to have it
removed!? No-brainer, right!? Well, the same rationale should apply to
the male prepuce. Forget about what medical science says, my eyesight
alone tells me that foreskin is an abomination on the senses! It's
just plain fugly!ehe Not to mention that extra skin = queasy gals =
less boots a knockin'!eheheh If a man wants to increase his chances of
nabbing high class trim, he will forgo that useless scab of skin!eh
In the end, the removal of foreskin is precisely what separates us
from the animals. As John "The Elephant Man" Merrick once said: "I am
not an animal, I am a human being!" -D, NYC "The Egg Cream is
psychologically the opposite of circumcision - it pleasurably
reaffirms your Jewishness" - MEL BROOKS (b. Kaminsky, sweet Jewish New
Yorker - ingenious comedic legend, filmmaker, actor, producer, writer,
Broadway revolutionary)
http://www.circinfo.net/benefits_of_circumcision.htm (Professor Brian
"not Jewish" Morris - 30+ years of unbias research on the benefits of
circumcision)
http://www.aids.net.au/lemons-news-10-03-04.htm (Circumcision provides
a 2-8 protective fold against HIV)
http://www.medicirc.org/meditopics/preference/more_info_women.html(Circumcision
- a lifetime of medical benefits: Women's Sexual Penile
Preference, Sexual Activity, Psych Effect)
http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/poj.htm (The Phenomenon Of The
Jews)
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/dialogue.htm (Jews, IQ & Nobel
Laureates)
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Economy/telaviv.html (Tel Aviv - Top
10 High-Tech Cities In the World - Newsweek)
http://www.eonline.com/Features/Specials/Jews (Do Jews run Hollywood?
You bet they do, and what of it? - Ben Stein)
  #27  
Old August 16th 04, 02:16 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Briar Rabbit wrote in message ...
Susan wrote:

In article ,
Jake Waskett wrote:


The foreskin, of course, is broadly speaking a fold of skin, under which is
a warm, moist environment. The fold traps dead cells, urine, sweat, and -
significantly - bacteria. Of course, the warm, moist environment is the
perfect breeding ground for bacteria, and so they multiply, contributing to
the foul smell of smegma as they do.


Aren't we women lucky that WE don't have any folds of skin on our
genitals! Soap, not surgery. --Susan


What! Soap? You must be crazy. This is what foreskin guru Dr Paul Fleiss has to say on the matter:
" Harsh bath soaps can also cause inflammation of the foreskin. Use only
the gentlest and purest of soap on your child's tender skin. Resist the
temptation to give your child bubble baths, because these are harmful to
the skin. Never use soap to wash the inner foreskin because it is mucous
membrane just like the inner lining of the eyelid."
http://www.nocirc.org/articles/fleiss2.html
So what you say now? You need Draino be can even use ordinary

soaps ... so how do you control the stink?

Briar, you are not dealing with rational minded users! Did you
conveniently miss her grave faux pas!?ehehe She claims that women have
no foreskin folds! LOL! ie. My last girlfriend had a labia the size of
a balloon animal!heheeheh Susan, your labia is comprised of four
folds of skin! DOH! Susan should squat over a mirror with Sarah,
Angela & Amy - the one-eyed-foreskinned-purple people eaters! LOL! -D,
NYC "Circumcision is like a substantial and well-secured annuity;
every year of life you draw the benefits. Parents cannot make a better
paying investment for their little boys" - DR. P.C. REMONDINO
http://www.medicirc.org/meditopics/p...nfo_women.html
(Circumcision - A Lifetime Of Medical Benefits - Women's Sexual Penile
Preference, Sexual Activity, Psych Effect)
  #28  
Old August 16th 04, 03:38 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"nooneimportant" no.spam@me wrote in message news:8qPTc.262597$%_6.243154@attbi_s01...
"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. Now then lets take a
group of 100 intact men, randomly chosen and FORCE THEM to undergo
circumcision, even if they don't want it. And you will have a very high
rate of dissatisfaction and postoperative pain. Take a round the house
example. You decide to paint your house bright green, so you either hire
someone to do it, or go get the paint/supplies and do it yourself. Chances
are you will be happy with the result, because you underwent the project
KNOWING it was what you wanted to do. Now lets say that your neighborhood
association came along and told you that you must paint your house hot pink,
now lets assume that you HATE hot pink. Chances are you will NOT like the
results even tho you didn't have to do a thing. So whats the difference
between the two scenarios.... In one case someone did the research and made
a choice to proceed, in the other case it was a forced change that was not
wanted. Circumcision is the same. If someone dislikes being intact and
wants to be circ'd they will most likely be pleased with the result (unless
there are complications!). If someone likes being intact but is forced to
cut, i bet they won't like it at all, even if its "painless". I have a
wonderful idea... LETS FORCE EVERYONE TO CUT OFF THEIR EARLOBES... I bet you
won't like that, I won't like it for that matter, even tho it has very
little (if any) function i bet you don't want to part with it. Now lets
assume that you don't like your earlobes, and want to cut them off yourself,
then i bet you'd be happy with the results after surgery. Another example of skewed statistics to meet an agenda. (did you know that dihydrogen monoxide is found in 100% of all people that die from cancer?)


I see that we have another great deducer of logic in our midsts! LOL!
Earlobes will never result in death or disease. Earlobes compliment
the overall appearance of the face. Remove the earlobes, and you are
left with a visible deformity. Remove foreskin, and you are left with
a perfectly functioning penis - all without the DRECK! A penis that no
longer has to feed on circus peanuts!ehe Remember, the head of the
penis (not the foreskin) is where the greatest degree of sensation
lies. Thus being able to excise sebaceous ridden flesh.
BTW, there are millions of uncircumcised men that would rather suffer
in silence than to seek out a simple, safe & beneficial circumcision!?
Why!? Through no fault of their ignorant & uncaring parents, they now
have to endure a procedure that would have once been at its safest.
Even so, circumcision has far less complications than any other
cosmetic or prophylactic surgery. While every surgery has its fair
share of risks, how many can boast "the safest & most common cut?"
Only one - circumcision! ie. A BRIS (Jewish circumcision ceremony on
the eighth day of life) takes all of 30 seconds. A secular hospital
circumcision takes all of 15 minutes.
The pain (if any) during routine infant circumcision, is no more
painful than being birthed through the womb! I can't think of anything
more traumatic for a mother & her newborn than the birthing process,
can you?! Yet, I do not see you petitioning procreation!? DOH! Once
again, if foreskin grew on fingers and toes, we wouldn't hear a peep
out of your foreskin-obsessed ilk. You must be able to train your
heathenish mind to view circumcision with sensible eyes. You must be
able to disassociate the penis from the foreskin, for they are two
separate entities. -D, NYC "The anti-circumcision craze has developed
because groups of conservative, sensitive, medically misinformed
individuals, some with fanatical emotionalism, have not seen the
consequences of a society where males are not circumcised. While
medical prophylactic measures are readily accepted by our society,
surgical prophylaxis is in danger of being discarded by an
overemphasis on the return to the "natural." The intense pain of
natural childbirth is seen as a reward while the minor discomfort, if
any, of circumcision is magnified beyond reason." - DR.GERALD WEISS
http://www.drweiss.org/necesary.html (Neonatal Circumcision Is
Necessary - typo in the link)
  #29  
Old August 16th 04, 07:25 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , ) wrote:

Briar, you are not dealing with rational minded users! Did you

conveniently miss her grave faux pas!?ehehe She claims that women have
no foreskin folds! LOL! If such is the case, why did my last

girlfriend have a labia the size of a balloon animal!?heheeheh
Susan, your labia is comprised of four folds of skin! DOH! Susan
should squat over a mirror with Sarah, Angela & Amy - the
one-eyed-foreskinned-purple people eaters! LOL! -D, NYC
"Circumcision is like a substantial and well-secured annuity; every
year of life you draw the benefits. Parents cannot make a better
paying investment for their little boys" - DR. P.C. REMONDINO
http://www.medicirc.org/meditopics/p...nfo_women.html
(Circumcision - A Lifetime Of Medical Benefits - Women's Sexual Penile
Preference, Sexual Activity, Psych Effect)


Ummm... I think you missed the tongue in my cheek. I thought it was
pretty clear I was being facetious. Should I actually WRITE
::eyeroll:: next time? The point is that folds of skin are normal and
natural. --Susan

Susan, perhaps you should have, because I did not detect an ounce of
sarcasm in your response!eheheh Susan, you are comparing apples and
oranges. The sexual physiology is not the same! I will tell you what I
told another female user on another forum. Even if one were to excise
the labia minora/majora, one would still be left with foreskin
(clitoris), which unlike the male prepuce, is the epicenter for
pleasure. The head of the penis (not the foreskin) is where the
greatest degree of sensation lies. In the end, women have no choice
but to put up with their own odoriferous emanations. Men have a choice
- a simple, safe and beneficial circumcision. The most common cut in
all of medicine! One that provides its owner with a virtual
self-cleaning penis.
You also forget that men are led by their noses. We are the horniest
creatures on the planet. As long as we have a warm hole to nestle
inside of, we will generally tolerate anything!eh And that "anything"
includes the fishy-scented snatch!ehe Women should not have to
tolerate our emanations - the same cottage cheese-like fumes that can
just as easily be eradicated with one simple & safe snip! Is it quite
possible that you have become so accustomed to gnawing on snagle-tooth
skin that you simply do not know any better!?
Where in the world do you hail from!? I ask because cultural ideology
plays an important role in how we perceive circumcision. ie. In
Europe, many still being that being circumcised is a sign of being
Jewish. The reality is that since Jews comprise a measly 1/4 of 1% of
the world's populace, the overwhelming majority of circumcised are
Gentiles (non-Jews). While circumcision (as with Kosher) has religious
basis, it also has undeniable health benefits. Would it surprise you
to learn that 70% of the 5 billion dollars worth of Kosher (cool,
clean, fit - free of impurities, contaminants & animal cruelty) sold
in the US, is purchased by non-Jews!? It all boils down to common
sense & civility! ie. Why should you buy non-Kosher roast beef when
you can buy Kosher roast beef!? You may pay four times as much for
Kosher meats, but you are ultimately paying for peace of mind. As the
saying goes: "Buy Kosher and be safe!" The same rationale applies to
circumcision. Better to err on the side of caution than not! There are
no health benefits to foreskin! Remember, if foreskin is such a
healthy appendage, why does it continually necessitate medical
intervention? Circumcision cannot exist without foreskin! -D, NYC "To
perfect the world (TIKUN OLAM) is in Jewish thought - the obligation
of every human being. Where better to begin by fixing God's goof of
foreskin?"
http://www.drweiss.org/necesary.htm (Neonatal Circumcision Is
Necessary - correct link - htm not html)
  #30  
Old August 16th 04, 12:46 PM
Igor van den Hoven
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Briar Rabbit wrote in message ...

These several men? They were circumcised as adults and now are able to
make a valid comparison? If that is the group (you are talking about)
then the findings are the opposite of what you claim. You are not
deliberately trying to deceive people are you?


Most men who get circumcised as adults cannot give a valid comparison
because they were circumcised for medical reasons, mostly having a non
retractable foreskin.

Another percentage has a fetish, which can be comparable to what
drives other people to have a prince albert piercing, or have their
sex altered. Compared to what some people do to their body, their
circumcision fetish is rather innocent. And being adults it's their
right to do to their body as they please. Ofcourse they will see it as
an improvement, it's a dream come true for them.

The fact that 99% of the intact adults decide to stay that way should
speak for itself.

Next there is the time delay for the loss of sensitivity. People have
reported they keep losing sensitivy over the year, hence someone who
is 25 and circumcised at age 20, will have more sensitivity than
someone who is 50, and circumcised at age 20 as well. It's typical
that the so called pro-circ 'comparison' sites always use men in their
statistics that were circumcised within 1 to 5 years of the survey.

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.

Starting to see a connection yet?

Mainly man over 40 link their 'problems' to their infant circumcision.
Viagra sales sky rocket in the USA compared to Europe. For the
ignorant, routine infant circumcision is not practiced in Europe.

Briar also mainly aims at this 'routine infant circumcision' practice,
because it's obviously you have to force this barbaric mutilation on 1
week old babies that cannot defend themselves. Adult men do not part
easily with their foreskins, they grow rather attached to it.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Basic Rights of Foster Parents [email protected] Foster Parents 5 December 20th 03 03:37 PM
Kids should work. ChrisScaife Spanking 16 December 7th 03 05:27 AM
Kids should work. ChrisScaife Foster Parents 16 December 7th 03 05:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.