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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Jake Waskett wrote in message .uk...
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. Honestly, you should promote female circumcision instead, because men have an easier time cleaning their warm, and moist environment, than women, who happen to produce smegma as well. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
My experience is that those who promote the foreskin are shocking liars. Sensible you say? To "be" one of the minority just to be so? Are you also going to support those who want to legalize sex with children ... they are also in the minority. Are you also going to support those who believe that domestic rape is not a crime ... they are also in the minority. Or are you going to just jump to support those who support the foreskin for wild psychosexual reasons? Ok... now that is just the off the wall response that i find eerily typical. Somehow linking someones desire for intactness to pedaresty and rape..... Frankly sexual realationships with children is downright disgusting at the most basic level, and is rightly illegal in almost everyplace in the world, its a terrible trauma to the child that has horrible costs in long term health to the child. I personally have a cousin that was sexually abused as a child by her dad, she had psychological and developmental issues her whole life because of what that sick ******* did to her, even now, tho she had kids of her own, and a reasonably stable home, she is constantly plauged by what that sick son of a bitch did to her. So why in the HELL do you think an intactist would support such an idea, we have the childs health and integrity as a chief concern. Lets also jump on the whole rape idea, what in the HELL does rape have to do with circumcision? People that rape other people have something wrong in their heads other than being whole or cut. I don't know the psychological reasoning behind why a person commits rape so i won't jump into that, but I am 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% sure that circumcision or noncircumcision plays absolutely no part in the issue. (in fact i am willing to bet that psychological scars left by childhood rape may play a significant part in some instances!, but nowhere near all) Weather a rape happens in a dark alleyway, or in the bed of a married couple is insignificant, rape is rape, and is perpetuated by people that have other issues than being cut or intact. Rape is justifiably immoral and illegal, and has a horrible cost to victems over a lifetime. Wild psycosexual reasons? Look in the mirror buddy, why are you so millitant on cutting people? Perhaps the same reason I am so millitant on letting people choose weather they want to be cut? Your fantasy for wanting someone cut can only be explianed by an innate sexual desire, wow... isn't that the same accusation you make against intactivists? Sure you bring scientific evidence that supports your belief, and so do we, we choose to ignore your science, you choose to ignore our science. Frankly we arent much different (and yes i know you are dying to type "yeah but we're not ****wits" a typical response from people who don't like to be questioned). |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Briar Rabbit
writes Amy wrote: "nooneimportant" no.spam@me wrote in message news:RmyTc.123970$8_6.43841@attbi_s04... Long rant here, and i know its gonna draw fire, but i've had enough. 87% of all statistics are made up on the spot 76% of the people believe those statistics without question. Why don't you be one of the other 24%? I promised myself I wouldn't respond to this thread, but I think this is actually the most sensible post I've seen on the issue. My experience is that those who promote the foreskin are shocking liars. In what way? Sensible you say? To "be" one of the minority just to be so? No. To be one of the uncircumcised, regardless of whether that's the minority or the majority, because it avoids unnecessary harm and discomfort. Are you also going to support those who want to legalize sex with children ... they are also in the minority. Nope. Are you also going to support those who believe that domestic rape is not a crime ... they are also in the minority. Nope. Or are you going to just jump to support those who support the foreskin for wild psychosexual reasons? I don't know, as I haven't heard the wild psychosexual reasons. Of course, I've heard from several men who support keeping the foreskin because sex is more pleasurable with a foreskin, but making sex more pleasurable doesn't strike me as a wild reason. All the best, Sarah -- "I once requested an urgent admission for a homeopath who had become depressed and taken a massive underdose" - Phil Peverley |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
nooneimportant wrote:
My experience is that those who promote the foreskin are shocking liars. Sensible you say? To "be" one of the minority just to be so? Are you also going to support those who want to legalize sex with children ... they are also in the minority. Are you also going to support those who believe that domestic rape is not a crime ... they are also in the minority. Or are you going to just jump to support those who support the foreskin for wild psychosexual reasons? Ok... now that is just the off the wall response that i find eerily typical. Somehow linking someones desire for intactness to pedaresty and rape..... What did you suggest in your original post? That people should should side with the minority. Not for any reason other that they are the minority. I just exposed how absolutely stupid such an attitude is ... and to think you thought you were being cute and clever? Are you really this stupid or just feeling defensive about your hideousness? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Igor van den Hoven wrote:
Briar Rabbit wrote in message ... Sensible you say? To "be" one of the minority just to be so? Actually, circumcised men are a minority worldwide. Freaky, isn't it? Did you read his post? Did you understand the context? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Igor van den Hoven wrote:
Jake Waskett wrote in message .uk... 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. Honestly, you should promote female circumcision instead, because men have an easier time cleaning their warm, and moist environment, than women, who happen to produce smegma as well. If you were heterosexual you would be aware that the problem odour which some women have a problem dealing with is vaginal. That means it comes from within and is useually caused by some infection or other. Women seem to have no problem in dealing with the external elements of their genitals, so why do men? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Sarah Vaughan wrote:
In message , Briar Rabbit My experience is that those who promote the foreskin are shocking liars. In what way? There is a general rule that if you scratch a little at the surface of what they say you will 10 to one open up a can of worms. Just watch how this thread develops. Sensible you say? To "be" one of the minority just to be so? 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? I don't know, as I haven't heard the wild psychosexual reasons. Of course, I've heard from several men who support keeping the foreskin because sex is more pleasurable with a foreskin, but making sex more pleasurable doesn't strike me as a wild reason. 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? Read this one for starters then: ========================== 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 Background: There is growing interest in male circumcision as a method of reducing HIV transmission. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of male circumcision (MC) to reduce HIV incidence is underway in Kenya. If MC is found to be efficacious in reducing HIV incidence, then the rates and severity of complications must still be weighed against benefits of the procedure. We report frequency of adverse events (AEs) and satisfaction resulting from circumcisions performed during the initial phase of the RCT. Methods: Healthy, 18-24 year-old, consenting men are randomized to circumcision and control arms. Those in the circumcision arm undergo surgery using local anesthesia (maximum 15 ml 2% lidocaine). They are followed up at 3, 8, 30, and 90 days post operatively, or whenever they need to return to the clinic. Results: Among the first 380 circumcisions, there were 14procedure-related AEs (3.6%) from 13 participants: 4 bleeding; 3 post-operative site infections; 3 other infections; and 4 other complications. Nine AEs (2.4%) were definitely related, 3 probably related and 2 possibly related to the surgery. All were mild or moderate and resolved within hours or several days of detection. Most AEs occurred in the first 3 months of the study. At 30 days post-surgery, 99.3% of men reported being very satisfied and 0.7% somewhat satisfied with circumcision. None were dissatisfied. Men reported returning to work after a median of 3 days (range 0-21) and to general activities after a median of 1 day (0-3 days). All sexual partners who were aware of the man's new circumcision status were very satisfied with the results. Conclusions: Circumcisions can be performed safely in this setting with no serious or lasting complications and with high levels of patient satisfaction. Lessons learned from this trial will be useful if MC is to be introduced widely as an intervention. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unasha...rc/message/419 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Basic Rights of Foster Parents | [email protected] | Foster Parents | 5 | December 20th 03 02:37 PM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Spanking | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Foster Parents | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |