Why do parents keep doing this?

"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?

Due to embarrassment and a false sense of complacency, there are
millions of uncircumcised men that would rather suffer in silence than
to seek out medical advice or treatment. With any adult surgery, there
is always the psychological fear factor. And that is the primary
reason why many men may be reticent to confront such issues. In terms
of ease, prophylactic effect, and non-cognitive awareness, it is
imperative that circumcision be carried out during infancy. ie. In
Canada alone, 10% of newborns not circumcised at birth will eventually
necessitate circumcision. Do tell us what should be done when "Dirty
Johnny's" infected foreskinned SHMECKLE is dangling by a mere
thread?eh Should we allow "Dirty Johnny" to lose his PUTZ, just so you
and the other feminazis can rejoice!? LOL! Remember, an ounce of
prevention is worth a pound of cure! Be wise, circumcise! Anything
less would be uncivilized! -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

Of all the charges leveled against the human foreskin throughout its long,
tortured history, none is more frightening -- and none warrants closer
scrutiny -- than the ongoing, well-publicized charge that it predisposes its
possessor and his sexual partners to an early, slow, agonizing death -- to
infection with the AIDS virus.

Why have researchers and the media ignored the opposite, more obvious
possibility?
Most sexual transmission of the AIDS virus is from the thrusting partner to
the receiving partner at ejaculation during vaginal or anal intercourse.
A penis with its foreskin intact -- an uncircumcised penis -- can slip in
and out of a vagina or rectum non-abrasively inside its own slick sheath of
sensitive, self-lubricating, movable foreskin. A penis with its foreskin
missing -- a dowel-like circumcised penis -- can only scrape in and out.
A penis with its foreskin intact requires relatively gentle thrusting -- and
less time -- to ejaculate. A circumcised penis - - its head keratinized,
desensitized, and dry -- requires rougher, more prolonged thrusting to
experience the sensations necessary to trigger ejaculation.
(A prostitute who's had intercourse with literally thousands of men told me
that intercourse with a circumcised man and intercourse with an
uncircumcised man were two entirely different experiences, that she could
always tell from the feeling alone whether a man was circumcised or
uncircumcised, that circumcised men took longer to ejaculate, and that they
"have to work at it.")
Which -- a penis with its foreskin intact or a penis with its foreskin
missing -- is more likely to cause the breaks, tears, micro-fractures,
fissures, abrasions, and lacerations in a vagina or rectum through which the
AIDS virus in the thrusting partner's semen could enter the receiving
partner's bloodstream?
And which is more likely to break a condom?

The US proves to have a much higher rate of HIV than Europe, and a
disproportionate rate of male to female transmission.

Pictorially expressing data published in JAMA*, we have the following:

http://www.circumstitions.com/Images/US-Europe2.gif

Standardizing the US total to 100, male to female transmission amounts to
95, female to male to 5, and in Europe, male to female comes to 20, with
female to male at 10.

* 3 De Vincenzi I. Heterosexual transmission of HIV. JAMA 1992; 267: 1919.

The following studies either show a higher risk in circumcised men.

1. Barongo LR, Borgdorff W, Mosha FF, et al. The epidemiology of HIV-1
infection in rural areas, roadside settlements and rural villages in Mwanza
Region, Tanzania. AIDS 1992;6:1521-8.
2. Grosskurth H, Mosha F, Todd J, et al. A community trial of the impact of
improved sexually transmitted disease treatment on the HIV epidemic in rural
Tanzania: 2. Baseline survey results. AIDS 1995;9:927-34.

3. Chao A, Bulterys M, Musanganire F, et al.Risk factors associated with
prevalent HIV-1 infection among pregnant women in Rwanda. National
University of Rwanda-Johns Hopkins University AIDS Research Team. Int J
Epidemiol 1994;23:371-380.

4. Urassa M, Todd J, Boerra JT, et al. Male circumcision and susceptibility
to HIV infection among men in Tanzania. AIDS 1997;11:73-80. [study 1]

"The following studies either show a higher risk in circumcised men."

This should be "The following studies do show a higher risk in circumcised
men."

There is an interesting website put out by the highly regardly doctor John
R. Taylor, MB, MRCPEd, FRCPC, the co-author of two anatomical studies of the
prepuce. He and his colleagues first described the ridged band in the
British Journal of Urology in 1996. http://research.cirp.org/
The following statements summarize the authors' position:

1.. The foreskin is a unique structure with a unique relationship to other
tissues of the penis and, hence, unique functions.

2.. The foreskin is the primary sensory tissue of the penis.

3.. The "ridged band," a part of the foreskin, is built to trigger
ejaculation.

4.. The ridged band, frenulum, glans and urethra are a functional whole,
along with specialized skin of the penile shaft.

5.. The function of Dartos muscle of the shaft skin is to unify shaft skin
and ridged band, during erection, into a functional whole and thus enhance
the capacity of the ridged band to detect movement and trigger orgasm and
ejaculation.

6.. The foreskin might have evolved as a backup for the glans, or as a
delay mechanism, ensuring full penetration before ejaculation.
There are some useful diagramatic photographs linked he
http://research.cirp.org/pix1.html

However, I suggest visiting the whole of the site itself for soem very good
information on what is a matter that never ceases to generate much concern
and critique. A sample from the FAQ:

This connection between penile skin and ridged band enables ridged band
reflexes to be activated when any part of the penile skin is stretched
towards the base of the penis. The double-layered design of the foreskin
does indeed permit smooth penetration and a sliding action. The skin of the
penis, including the foreskin, becomes rougher during erection. This
roughness is brought about by a mechanism similar to that which raises
goosebumps. The extra frictional resistance brought about in this way
reduces slippage of penile skin against female tissues. The double-layering
of the foreskin is designed to offset the frictional effect of "erect"
penile skin and allow for easy vaginal penetration.

I know that it is not without pain (not the pain of such intercourse, but
the pain of doing without what is a truly ingenius marvel of evolution) that
intact men (and their lovers) imagine intercourse with a prepuceless penis.

Joseph wrote:

Of all the charges leveled against the human foreskin throughout its long,
tortured history, none is more frightening -- and none warrants closer
scrutiny -- than the ongoing, well-publicized charge that it predisposes
its possessor and his sexual partners to an early, slow, agonizing death
-- to infection with the AIDS virus.

Why have researchers and the media ignored the opposite, more obvious
possibility?

Probably because there is a large body of evidence refuting this "more
obvious possibility".

Most sexual transmission of the AIDS virus is from the thrusting partner
to the receiving partner at ejaculation during vaginal or anal
intercourse. A penis with its foreskin intact -- an uncircumcised penis --
can slip in and out of a vagina or rectum non-abrasively inside its own
slick sheath of sensitive, self-lubricating, movable foreskin. A penis
with its foreskin missing -- a dowel-like circumcised penis -- can only
scrape in and out.

Scrape? Hardly. We're talking about well-lubricated surfaces here.

A penis with its foreskin intact requires relatively
gentle thrusting -- and less time -- to ejaculate. A circumcised penis - -
its head keratinized, desensitized, and dry -- requires rougher, more
prolonged thrusting to experience the sensations necessary to trigger
ejaculation.

Actually, Szabo and Short disproved the idea that the glans of the
circumcised penis is any more keratinised. And Bleustein showed that the
glans of a circumcised male is just as sensitive as that of an
uncircumcised male. So that idea's well and truly dead.

(A prostitute who's had intercourse with literally thousands
of men told me that intercourse with a circumcised man and intercourse
with an uncircumcised man were two entirely different experiences, that
she could always tell from the feeling alone whether a man was circumcised
or uncircumcised, that circumcised men took longer to ejaculate, and that
they "have to work at it.")
Which -- a penis with its foreskin intact or a penis with its foreskin
missing -- is more likely to cause the breaks, tears, micro-fractures,
fissures, abrasions, and lacerations in a vagina or rectum through which
the AIDS virus in the thrusting partner's semen could enter the receiving
partner's bloodstream?

It sounds as though it ought to be fairly easy to investigate through
simulation in the lab.

And which is more likely to break a condom?

It seems entirely probable that condoms are more likely to break with an
uncircumcised penis, since the stresses are more variable.


The US proves to have a much higher rate of HIV than Europe, and a
disproportionate rate of male to female transmission.

Which part of Europe are you talking about?

Pictorially expressing data published in JAMA*, we have the following:

http://www.circumstitions.com/Images/US-Europe2.gif

Standardizing the US total to 100, male to female transmission amounts to
95, female to male to 5, and in Europe, male to female comes to 20, with
female to male at 10.

Given the differences between the US and European nations including drug
usage, homosexuality, sex education, transfusion precautions, and so on, is
it meaningful to "standardise" in this way? After all, if each person you
sleep with is more likely to have HIV, then your chances of contracting it
is increased regardless. M-F vs F-M ratios are more meaningful.

Let's look at that data in a more meaningful light.

In the US, female to male transmission represents 5% of infections.
In Europe, female to male transmission represents 33% of infections.

In other words, in (mostly uncircumcised) Europe, a man is 6.6 times more
likely to contract HIV from his female sex partner.

Is this evidence of the protective effect?


* 3 De Vincenzi I. Heterosexual transmission of HIV. JAMA 1992; 267: 1919.

The following studies either show a higher risk in circumcised men.

1. Barongo LR, Borgdorff W, Mosha FF, et al. The epidemiology of HIV-1
infection in rural areas, roadside settlements and rural villages in
Mwanza Region, Tanzania. AIDS 1992;6:1521-8.
2. Grosskurth H, Mosha F, Todd J, et al. A community trial of the impact
of improved sexually transmitted disease treatment on the HIV epidemic in
rural Tanzania: 2. Baseline survey results. AIDS 1995;9:927-34.

3. Chao A, Bulterys M, Musanganire F, et al.Risk factors associated with
prevalent HIV-1 infection among pregnant women in Rwanda. National
University of Rwanda-Johns Hopkins University AIDS Research Team. Int J
Epidemiol 1994;23:371-380.

4. Urassa M, Todd J, Boerra JT, et al. Male circumcision and
susceptibility to HIV infection among men in Tanzania. AIDS 1997;11:73-80.
[study 1]

Wow! You found some. Well done.

Joseph wrote:

There is an interesting website put out by the highly regardly doctor John

Highly regarded by anti-circers, you mean.

R. Taylor, MB, MRCPEd, FRCPC, the co-author of two anatomical studies of
the prepuce. He and his colleagues first described the ridged band in the
British Journal of Urology in 1996. http://research.cirp.org/
The following statements summarize the authors' position:

2.. The foreskin is the primary sensory tissue of the penis.

This claim will be met with amusement by anyone who has had a foreskin or
uncircumcised partners.

3.. The "ridged band," a part of the foreskin, is built to trigger
ejaculation.

Readily disproven by the fact that circumcised men ejaculate.

5.. The function of Dartos muscle of the shaft skin is to unify shaft
skin
and ridged band, during erection, into a functional whole and thus enhance
the capacity of the ridged band to detect movement and trigger orgasm and
ejaculation.

The evidence for this being apparently non-existent.

6.. The foreskin might have evolved as a backup for the glans, or as a
delay mechanism, ensuring full penetration before ejaculation.

Or, more probably, as a means of protecting the glans from thorns and
grasses. See: http://www.circinfo.net/

I know that it is not without pain (not the pain of such intercourse, but
the pain of doing without what is a truly ingenius marvel of evolution)
that intact men (and their lovers) imagine intercourse with a prepuceless
penis.

Thankfully, having been circumcised, I have no need to imagine. It's an
improvement.

"Amy" wrote in message ...
"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.

Amy, do you still believe that smegma is a natural cleansing
secretion?ehehe Amy, after having been on the receiving end of my
sharp cursor tongue for more times than I would care to remember, it's
amazing that you still have the energy to respond!eheee BTW, how's the
Kakapo faring?eh -D, NYC "FOREsight + FOREskin = inevitability of
circumcision"

Joseph wrote:

"The following studies either show a higher risk in circumcised men."

This should be "The following studies do show a higher risk in circumcised
men."




I suggest you just stick to the cut and paste routine as it appears that
when you come to add in your spin you get all in a tangle. It helps if
you actualy know something about the subject.

Joseph wrote:

"The only thing men are concerned about with regard to the penis is its
size."

Uh, gliding mechanism?
A circumcised penis can be readily replaced by molded plastic.
The natural penis is a precision instrument.




heh heh heh

And they are all exactly the same?

Chotii wrote:

wrote in message
m...


... In the end, women have no choice
but to put up with their own odoriferous emanations. snip
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! 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!?


You don't really like women very much, do you? Or the human body? Or people?
My goodness, if you described your lover's body like this to her, or judged
her preferences like this, I've a pretty good idea she wouldn't be your
lover for long.

You may disagree with me about the practice of circumcision, but I think
it's becoming very quickly clear which one of us here is merely
'opinionated' and which one has veered well across the line into something
else. Unless what you're doing is trying to use humor to get your point
across. If that's the case, I'm afraid you'll have to try an approach that's
actually funny instead of broadly offensive.

--angela




Angela, you are stretching things a bit here. Why?