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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
How do uncircumcised men get laid?
Chotii wrote:
"karen hill" wrote in message m... "Chotii" wrote in message ... "karen hill" wrote in message om... There is all this talk about the foreskin being a harbinger of disease with the studies to back it up. Cites, please? And you know that word...harbinger? I do not think it means what you think it means. --angela http://www.medicirc.com/meditopics/medicirc_topics.html http://www.medicirc.com/medicirc_references.html I do not find his arguments convincing. In fact, his examples of 'proof' that the anti-circumcision activists are all misguided look....gee, pretty sane to me. Some of those quotes were even from peer-reviewed medical journals, claiming no health benefit to routine infant circumcision....and yet somehow the author of the web site uses them as proof that anti-circ folks are all misguided. It's tricky to go about proving such a general statement, when there are such varied motives for such people. I think people think 'beautiful' what they have been raised to think beautiful. I suspect most American women have never seen an intact man. I know I haven't....just pictures. I don't find pictures of intact men to be offensive. I would not be offended by one in person either, not that this is likely to happen to me in this lifetime. Check with me in the next. Most of the men on the who have successfully completed restoration (time required: 3-5 years average) claim a very significant improvement in their sensitivity; I find this fascinating. Interestingly, a lot of men circumcised by choice as adults report the same thing. Since we know from Bleustein et al's study that there's actually no difference in glans sensitivity, I'm inclined to wonder whether there's a psychological aspect to this. this group comprises both men who were cut as infants, and those who chose to be cut as adults, and later regretted the decision. Most also report an increase in both erect length and girth. Ditto. So when I get spam emails telling me about 'increase your length/girth instantly!' I always smile just a little. Yes, it can be done. It just takes a bloody long time. There is no instant fix. But there is a fix. In short, I think a very strong argument can be made for allowing the individual the choice to alter or not alter his own body, as he believes will benefit him most. I say the same thing for piercings, tattoos, scarification, weight loss or gain, muscle-building, and any and all other body modifications. Not my body: not my choice. I might offer an argument against certain piercings (my niece wants her tongue pierced, and so did I until I discovered that the dental damage could be extreme), but ultimately, it's not my body, I don't have to live in it, therefore it's not my decision. Fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion. nitpick By the way, here's the definition of harbinger, for your edification: harbinger n : an indication of the approach of something or someone [syn: forerunner, herald, precursor] v : foreshadow or presage [syn: announce, annunciate, foretell, herald] /nitpick The foreskin may not appeal to you, and it may indeed harbor some diseases if not kept reasonably clean (as too can the woman's labial tissues and vagina) but it's not a *harbinger*. It's just something kids are born with. --angela |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
How do uncircumcised men get laid?
"Chotii" wrote in message ...
"karen hill" wrote in message m... "Chotii" wrote in message ... "karen hill" wrote in message om... There is all this talk about the foreskin being a harbinger of disease with the studies to back it up. Cites, please? And you know that word...harbinger? I do not think it means what you think it means. --angela http://www.medicirc.com/meditopics/medicirc_topics.html http://www.medicirc.com/medicirc_references.html I do not find his arguments convincing. In fact, his examples of 'proof' that the anti-circumcision activists are all misguided look....gee, pretty sane to me. Some of those quotes were even from peer-reviewed medical journals, claiming no health benefit to routine infant circumcision....and yet somehow the author of the web site uses them as proof that anti-circ folks are all misguided. Angela, if as you claim, you are not partial to the uncircumcised member, why (as expected) do you immediately dismiss reputable medical studies? Why do you immediately come to the defense of the anti-circ ilk? You value the opinion of laymen over physicians!? In other words, you asked Karen to provide medical info, knowing that you were never going to accept it!? Typical anti-circ tactic!! Any research that disagrees with your warped position is deemed flawed!? Like it or not, the majority of these people are deeply disturbed individuals. Allow me to give you a few examples: 60 Minutes once did a piece on the anti-circ wack pack in Australia. They featured an interview with Dr. Terry Russell in Brisbane, and visuals of a circumcision being done in his clinic. A lot of air time was given to anti-circ figures in Australia. The audience response was overwhelmingly negative towards these people, who, according to extensive viewer responses, appeared to come across as "freaks." It would appear that "60 Minutes" did what they do best in providing enough rope for the interviewee to "hang themselves." "Similarly, a group of these Californian anti-circ extremists (from NOCIRC) were recorded philosophizing about circumcision while sipping cocktails by the pool in a TV documentary by the BBC on circumcision in the prevention of AIDS. When the tape of this, kindly provided by the BBC, was played to 200 medical students, raucous laughter broke out during this part of the program." Professor Brian Morris has studied these people in detail. Many of whom (especially the foreskin restorers) suffer from several psychological disorders, including narcissistic and exhibitionistic body image, depressions, major defects in early mothering, and ego pathology. It's often referred to as "Partialism" - "...if the behavior, sexual urges, or fantasies cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning." The simplest definition of partialism is "exclusive focus on part of the body." It doesn't take an EINSTEIN (circumcised Jew - greatest mind of the 20th century) to know that sane people do not blame all of their life's ills on the loss of foreskin. Tens of millions of circumcised men are leading happy, healthy sexual lives. The #1 adult film star of all-time happens to be a circumcised Jew - Ron "The Hedgehog" Jeremy (b. Hyatt, Queens, NY). So much for the anti-circ claim that circumcision causes severe psychological and physical damage! LOL! The mechanics of foreskin is not brain surgery, Andrea! If foreskin is such a healthy appendage, why does it continually necessitate medical intervention!? Why do 10% of newborns not circumcised at birth, eventually necessitate circumcision? If you squat over a mirror, you will notice that you have foreskin as well!! 4 folds (labia minora & majora) and a clitoris. Unfortunately for women, God forgot to design a backup plan!eheee In terms of physiology, the clitoris (epicenter for pleasure) is not comparative to the male prepuce, because the head of the penis (not the foreskin) is where the greatest degree of sensation lies. Unlike men, women have no choice but to spend billions of dollars a year on feminine hygiene products. As for choice!? Parents have the legal right to decide what is in the best interest for their children. If we allowed children to decide for themselves, not one would attend school. Not one would seek out medical intervention. 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. If left till later ages, the individual has already been exposed to the risk of urinary tract infections, the physical problems, and carries a residual risk of penile cancer. Therein lies the problem of "choice." "Dirty Johnny" shouldn't have to wait until he supposedly reaches the age of reason, in order to be circumcised. There are no health benefits to foreskin. Only hindrances! An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Lastly, those who tend to nitpick at spelling & grammar, usually have very little else to work with! The same people who are unable to impugn facts!! -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?" I think people think 'beautiful' what they have been raised to think beautiful. I suspect most American women have never seen an intact man. I know I haven't....just pictures. I don't find pictures of intact men to be offensive. I would not be offended by one in person either, not that this is likely to happen to me in this lifetime. Check with me in the next. Most of the men on the who have successfully completed restoration (time required: 3-5 years average) claim a very significant improvement in their sensitivity; this group comprises both men who were cut as infants, and those who chose to be cut as adults, and later regretted the decision. Most also report an increase in both erect length and girth. So when I get spam emails telling me about 'increase your length/girth instantly!' I always smile just a little. Yes, it can be done. It just takes a bloody long time. There is no instant fix. But there is a fix. In short, I think a very strong argument can be made for allowing the individual the choice to alter or not alter his own body, as he believes will benefit him most. I say the same thing for piercings, tattoos, scarification, weight loss or gain, muscle-building, and any and all other body modifications. Not my body: not my choice. I might offer an argument against certain piercings (my niece wants her tongue pierced, and so did I until I discovered that the dental damage could be extreme), but ultimately, it's not my body, I don't have to live in it, therefore it's not my decision. nitpick By the way, here's the definition of harbinger, for your edification: harbinger n : an indication of the approach of something or someone [syn: forerunner, herald, precursor] v : foreshadow or presage [syn: announce, annunciate, foretell, herald] /nitpick The foreskin may not appeal to you, and it may indeed harbor some diseases if not kept reasonably clean (as too can the woman's labial tissues and vagina) but it's not a *harbinger*. It's just something kids are born with. --angela |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
How do uncircumcised men get laid?
Joshua P. Hill wrote in message . ..
I'm all in favor of perversity, but its practice should be limited to consenting adults. If an adult feels that part of his genitalia doesn't belong, so he cuts it off--that's neurotic. But, removing part his child's genitalia is neurotic and cruel. And irreversible. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
How do uncircumcised men get laid?
Joshua P. Hill wrote in message . ..
I'm all in favor of perversity, but its practice should be limited to consenting adults. If an adult feels that part of his genitalia doesn't belong, so he cuts it off--that's neurotic. But, removing part his child's genitalia is neurotic and cruel. And irreversible. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
How do uncircumcised men get laid?
Xyzzy wrote:
Joshua P. Hill wrote in message . .. I'm all in favor of perversity, but its practice should be limited to consenting adults. If an adult feels that part of his genitalia doesn't belong, so he cuts it off--that's neurotic. Doesn't belong? Well, it depends. In rare cases, feeling that a part of the body is "wrong" can be a symptom of Body Dysmorphic Disorder (though not the only symptom, and not by itself sufficient to determine that). I guess you could say that's a kind of neurosis, using the term loosely. But, removing part [of] his child's genitalia is neurotic and cruel. And irreversible. You're right in the last point, incomprehensible in the first. But in what way is it cruel to give a child the best start in life? Jake. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
How do uncircumcised men get laid?
(Ralph DuBose) wrote in message . com...
(karen hill) wrote in message . com... zolw wrote in message news:E9R7c.62418$JL2.829424@attbi_s03... karen hill wrote: There is all this talk about the foreskin being a harbinger of disease with the studies to back it up. Back it up honey. Your word is worthless without a source (a respectable one too), preferably more than one source. http://www.medicirc.com/meditopics/medicirc_topics.html http://www.medicirc.com/medicirc_references.html Who are these women who sleep with these uncut guys? Uncut penises are so gross, that if I had not read the studies, I would assume all uncut guys are chaste STD free virgins! This is just personal preference & if you are that shallow, then it also is a personal choice. Honestly, most people can differentiate between ugly and beautiful. Beauty is mostly standard throughout the world. Most women don't like uncircumcised men. Studies have been done. http://www.circlist.com/preferences/womenspref.html Frankly, an uncircumcised penis is a sure way to keep a guy a virgin for life! Maybe we should tell that to all the devout christians. Who are these women who sleep with uncut guys? Essentially all women in Europe, especially the Scandinavian countries, are all perfectly content with natural men. And the rate of STDs is very low in those places. Actually, there are solid evolutionary grounds to belive that human females basically prefer what nature created because if they really preferred sex with guys with no foreskins that is what natural selection would have bred for them. It works for everything else. Why do human males have such giant dicks -- much larger than any other primate? Because that is what women choose. duh!! If you want to put this is religious terms, ask yourself this question: Do you thing God designed little boys so badly that every single one of them needs an extremely painful operation? 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!? LOL! Infants & toddlers shall always be sensitive to light, sound & touch. The mere fact that a baby wails during any medical procedure, is not necessarily indicative of pain. FYI: A BRIS (Jewish circumcision ceremony on the eighth day of life) takes all of 40 seconds. Your European example is not a very good one!eh Europeans have become so accustomed to wallowing in their own FARSHTUNKEN gunk, they simply do not know any better!ehehe ie There's a good reason why a recent study found that only 47% of The French bathe on a daily basis. Europeans (Parisians in particular) have never been known for their wonderful bathing habits. Combine that with lack of circumcision (see smegma), and you can then do the math!eh As for evolutionary data!? Yes, if you were Neanderthal man, foreskin may have protected you from high grass and shrubbery, in addition to sexual predators during coitus. But for God's sakes, humans have evolved. We are living in the 21st century, remember? We now wear clothing and undergarments as our protection, and for the most part, make love indoors! In the end, you have to ask yourself one question: Do I want to PLOTZ with that identifying heathen marker, or do I want to join the human race?ehe Ralph, you must be able to train your heathenish mind to view circumcision with sensible eyes. You must be able to disassociate the SHMECKLE from a simple, safe & beneficial procedure. The same procedure that is still the safest and most commonly performed surgical procedure, occurring more frequently than tooth extraction. Circumcision is a no-brainer! Be wise, circumcise! -D, NYC "The pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, an almost fanatical love of justice, and the desire for personal independence - these are the features of Jewish tradition that make me thank my stars that I belong to it" - ALBERT EINSTEIN Drug addicts? Ugly Prostitutes? I personally wouldn't sleep with an uncut guy, yuck! Well, maybe there are a lot of guys out there too, who would not want to sleep with you for being so superficial & shallow. Yes, women are picky. Men are too. There was a girl in my college dorm building who was really beautiful, blonde thin model face, but when she was younger she spilled hot water on herself causing third-degree burns on chest. She couldn't get a boyfriend. Some of the ugly fat guys used her for blowjobs, but none of them would have a relationship with her. She was totally saddened and depressed by it. She eventually became a lawyer and has forgotten about ever having a relationship or getting married. Oh what a sad story to tell. You seem to not only be shallow, but cruel & insensitive. I am sure that girl will find herself a normal man, who appreciates her for who she is, not for what she looks like. & I bet that she became a lawyer because she is not some dumb girl, but because she is smart. She probably is a very satisfied person. Unlike you, who just criticises with no purpose. Actually, I was a bit disingenous when I posted. It wasn't another girl in my dorm building, it was me. I was modeling when I was 15 for local department store TV ads. When I was 16, I spilled boiling water on myself when cooking. I have burns from the middle of my neck down to my stomach area. It is amazing how few dates I could get afterwards. My social life went to zero, I tried going out but no guy would date me. I was so lonely that I had to perform sexual favors in college just to have someone to cuddle with. I was so lonely it hurt. I became desperate so just for a night out and cuddling, I've had to perform oral to ugly old uncircumcised janitors, fat, rude, uncircumcised, smegma filled, frat boys who called me names just so they would stay with me and cuddle. Unfortunately I couldn't keep any of them longer than a few weeks until I had taken care of their needs. They would move on to greener pastures. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
How do uncircumcised men get laid?
wrote in message om... "Chotii" wrote in message ... "karen hill" wrote in message m... "Chotii" wrote in message ... "karen hill" wrote in message om... There is all this talk about the foreskin being a harbinger of disease with the studies to back it up. Cites, please? And you know that word...harbinger? I do not think it means what you think it means. --angela http://www.medicirc.com/meditopics/medicirc_topics.html http://www.medicirc.com/medicirc_references.html I do not find his arguments convincing. In fact, his examples of 'proof' that the anti-circumcision activists are all misguided look....gee, pretty sane to me. Some of those quotes were even from peer-reviewed medical journals, claiming no health benefit to routine infant circumcision....and yet somehow the author of the web site uses them as proof that anti-circ folks are all misguided. Angela, if as you claim, you are not partial to the uncircumcised member, why (as expected) do you immediately dismiss reputable medical studies? I didn't see a single actual cite on the first page, just a lot of assertions. I saw a man who stands to benefit financially from the continuation of infant circumcision, promoting his business. On the second page, I *do* see a LOT of cites. Alas, I don't have access to those medical journals, and I have no idea what those articles say. As he provides neither quotes nor links, I find those named journal articles no more convincing than the ones listed on the nocirc web site, which does NOT stand to benefit financially from the continuation of infant circumcision. I don't even think it stands to benefit from an end to infant circumcision. And as far as I can tell, sir, there are as many journal articles discussing the damage done by circumcision as the benefits thereof. How do *you* balance one extensive list of journal articles (pro) against another extensive list (con)? Why do you immediately come to the defense of the anti-circ ilk? You value the opinion of laymen over physicians!? In other words, you asked Karen to provide medical info, knowing that you were never going to accept it!? Typical anti-circ tactic!! Any research that disagrees with your warped position is deemed flawed!? Pot. Kettle. Black. Professor Brian Morris has studied these people in detail. Many of whom (especially the foreskin restorers) suffer from several psychological disorders, including narcissistic and exhibitionistic body image, depressions, major defects in early mothering, and ego pathology. It's often referred to as "Partialism" - "...if the behavior, sexual urges, or fantasies cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning." The simplest definition of partialism is "exclusive focus on part of the body." Has it not occurred to you that different people react differently to severe trauma? How many examples shall I give? Some women have cesarean sections and are so traumatised they will not have any children afterward. Many do fine and go on to have several or many children. Some women have vaginal births and are so traumatised they will not have any children afterward. Many do fine and go on to have several or many children. Some men and women who experience combat conditions become 'shell shocked'. Some never recover. Many cope and go on to have normal lives. Some premature infants who experience intrusive medical procedures to keep them alive wind up with all kinds of psychological problems, including but not limited to oral aversion, necessitating feeding tubes even though they are physically normal. (I have such a child.) Many do just fine and you'd never know all the things they went through. It doesn't take an EINSTEIN (circumcised Jew - greatest mind of the 20th century) to know that sane people do not blame all of their life's ills on the loss of foreskin. Tens of millions of circumcised men are leading happy, healthy sexual lives. And some of them are not, and the damage can be directly attributed to their 'surgery'. Neither you, nor any study in the world, can predict nor deny the experience or feelings of an *individual*. The plural of anecdote is not data. But every anecdote is equally valid compared to any other anecdote. But what YOU are doing is saying, if they have a problem, they're just sick and broken. You don't ask how they GOT that way. And you deny them the right to know how they DID get that way. If a man feels pleased with his member after surgery, good for him! I hope he always feels that way. But what do *you* suggest for the men who are NOT happy with what was done to them? What will you say? Too bad, get over it, be a man, be strong, you don't feel what you feel, that can't possibly be a problem for *you* because it isn't a problem for *me*, or the 523 men in study X over here....? *I* say it takes a hell of a strong man to admit that his apparently-normal penis has a problem. Moreso when society is telling him, "No, no, you're normal. Everybody says so, and so it MUST be true." But some of these men DO have problems, directly attributable to their surgeries. Problems that were absolutely avoidable. Why do 10% of newborns not circumcised at birth, eventually necessitate circumcision? I think "necessitate" is too strong a word. I think "receive" is accurate. Many problems have more than one fix. Some doctors only know of one. Some circumcisions are medically unavoidable. But that falls into a different category in my mind. You have a problem, you fix it. But if it ain't broke.... If you squat over a mirror, you will notice that you have foreskin as well!! 4 folds (labia minora & majora) and a clitoris. Unfortunately for women, God forgot to design a backup plan!eheee In terms of physiology, the clitoris (epicenter for pleasure) is not comparative to the male prepuce, because the head of the penis (not the foreskin) is where the greatest degree of sensation lies. Unlike men, women have no choice but to spend billions of dollars a year on feminine hygiene products. Uhhhh. The clitoral hood is homologous to the prepuce. I don't see women standing in line to have theirs excised, and you know why? Because it would bare the glans clitoris to constant dry chafing against the underwear, and it would be as irritating as hell. Almost no woman raised in the Western tradition would do this. But a great many of them choose the same procedure, more or less, for their sons. And I have no idea what you're talking about with this 'billions of dollars a year on feminine hygiene products'. What products are these? Menstrual products? That has nothing to do with the external labial tissue. Anti-fungal medications? This is actually mostly a factor of the carbohydrate-and-sugar filled Western diet, combined with (in many cases) hormone-altering contraceptive measures. Again, it has little to do with the design of the body parts. Besides, a lot of men *like* women with mature, adult, untidy-looking labia. The idea of labioplasty (which is always an option of course) is repellent to them. I see no reason why women might not have the same attraction to a mature, adult, untidy-looking prepuce. (and before you misquote me, please note I did not say "unwashed".) As for choice!? Parents have the legal right to decide what is in the best interest for their children. Yesssss. I didn't say it was illegal....did I? I do consider it unethical. I have had to choose surgery for one of my daughters....3 times. Open heart, once. Stomach, twice. Two of my children have had to have cavities filled. In EVERY CASE I made these choices to correct existing, known problems. The only thing I ever actually had done to any of them prophylactically was to have the tongue-tie on my twins clipped, though that was arguably also to correct a known problem (twin #1 was not nursing effectively, twin #2 had a tighter tie than #1) I must ask....if you had a son, and he reached adulthood and said to you, "I resent the fact that you had this done to me," how would you respond? "We felt it was best at the time, we're sorry, here is restoration information?" or something more along the lines of "Don't be stupid"? Or something in between? Would you think he'd have some narcissistic disorder and write off his feelings about his own body, or would you validate them and say, "Many men feel the same way you do, what would you like to do about it"? I assume that most men are at least contented with what they have, whether it has been altered or not. But some are not. Tell me: why is it acceptable for adult men to choose circumcision, and to encourage others to do the same, and to be happy with their choice, yet men who seek restoration, to quote your own source, "...suffer from several psychological disorders, including narcissistic and exhibitionistic body image, depressions, major defects in early mothering, and ego pathology. It's often referred to as "Partialism" - "...if the behavior, sexual urges, or fantasies cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning." The simplest definition of partialism is "exclusive focus on part of the body." If we allowed children to decide for themselves, not one would attend school. Not one would seek out medical intervention. 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. If left till later ages, the individual has already been exposed to the risk of urinary tract infections, the physical problems, and carries a residual risk of penile cancer. Therein lies the problem of "choice." I suspect that intelligent, educated individuals can look at information about circumcision, much as they do the information about vaccination and even the merits of institutionalised, government-run education systems, and reach different and equally valid conclusions. That is why there *is* a debate. You look at the things that might go wrong and try to avoid them in advance: I look at the things that might go right and say Don't mess with it if you don't have to...and if you have to, well, then, you have to. "Dirty Johnny" shouldn't have to wait until he supposedly reaches the age of reason, in order to be circumcised. There are no health benefits to foreskin. Only hindrances! An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. What if little Johnny grows up and likes his uncut member just fine? What if he LIKES it that way, has no problems with it, and can't imagine having somebody remove part of it? What about that? Because that's true for millions of men. No doubt hundreds of millions. I'd probably say billions, but my mind won't wrap around numbers that big. And I think intelligent, educated individuals can also disagree about the whole 'ounce of prevention' thing. We in Western society do not take antibiotics just in case we might get sick. We don't sterilise our houses in case germs might get in. We don't remove the breasts of girl children in case they might have breast cancer (a very real risk). We don't perform cesarean sections on every pregnant woman in case they might have difficulties in childbirth. We're even finding out that germ-killing soaps and so on are *bad* ideas, and that children who grow up in too-clean conditions may be at risk of illnesses and allergies precisely because their growing immune systems are not being challenged by enough real germs. It's easy to take the "just in case" mentality too far. Lastly, those who tend to nitpick at spelling & grammar, usually have very little else to work with! Clearly you have never seen 'The Princess Bride'. I recommend you go rent it, watch it, and then re-read my first post in this thread. --angela (unrepentant anti-circ person. But if this disqualifies me to participate in this thread, your blatant pro-circ opinion also disqualifies you.) |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
How do uncircumcised men get laid?
"Chotii" wrote in message ... wrote in message Why do 10% of newborns not circumcised at birth, eventually necessitate circumcision? I think "necessitate" is too strong a word. I think "receive" is accurate. Sorry to piggyback my own post, but I hit send, went off to fold laundry, and had this thought: If 10% of newborns not circumcised at birth eventually necessitate circumcision, and if this requirement were to hold true across the entire population (positing a population in which 0% were cut routinely at birth) then by your own numbers, 90% of newborns would NOT require it....ever. If 100% of them were cut routinely at birth, 90% of them....90 boys out of every 100.....would have undergone an unnecessary, intrusive, painful and irrevocable medical procedure. Is it ethically acceptable to perform medical procedures on 100% of a population (I mean, 100% of those cut routinely) because 10% of them would have needed it eventually anyway? I stand by my statement: if it's necessary, then you do it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. --angela (Radical, irrational nutcase. Clearly. I mean, can't you see that?) |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
How do uncircumcised men get laid?
Well, I must admit that I am not for or against circumcision. I feel
that if the parents have strong tradition or religious beliefs, then they should go for it. I mean it really doesn't seem to harm (it sure hurts, but the normal procedure includes local anestesia, at least. So the kid would have a "bit" of a burning sensation when urinating for a few days). If the parents on the other hand do not feel it to be neccessary & it is not medically required (some boys need to have the foreskin removed due to problems), then they shouldn't. I mean afterall, God/evolution intended it to be there for a reason (nothing is there for no reason, even the appendix is important in one way or another) My problem with that thread is that "Karen Hill" here talks about uncircumcised men as if they were sick or as if there was something wrong with them. They are as nature intended them to be. & it is a load of cr.. that most women prefer circumcised men. Then it gets worse when she tries to get some sympathy by telling us about her "sad" story of how she has been sexually used (not abused), because of a scar on her chest. I hate people like this. Besides, what on earth is such post doing on pregnancy newsgroup anyways? Xyzzy wrote: Joshua P. Hill wrote in message . .. I'm all in favor of perversity, but its practice should be limited to consenting adults. If an adult feels that part of his genitalia doesn't belong, so he cuts it off--that's neurotic. But, removing part his child's genitalia is neurotic and cruel. And irreversible. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
baby boys | Taulmaril | Pregnancy | 99 | November 27th 03 04:10 AM |