How do uncircumcised men get laid?

(Sky King) wrote in message . com...


My point is that its OUR bodies and should be our choice. Men can
decide for themselves if they wished to be circumcised.


Here you offer a plain, rational and obvious solution which would
allow everyone to determine what is right for himself, whatever that
may be. Regrettably, your dangerous democratic notion will be
dismissed immediately and without further discussion. Have a nice
day.

Jake Waskett wrote in message ...
Sky King wrote:

(Ralph DuBose) wrote in message
. com...
Jake Waskett wrote in message
...
Sky King wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote in message
...
Sky King wrote:
Read what I posted above...."these data are not sufficient
to recommend routine neonatal circumcision." In other words they
do
NOT recomment routine medical circumsisions. IF there is NO
medical problem
there is NO need. Why is it so hard for you to understand? These
are the specialist that are talking.

They're saying that medical benefits alone are not adequate to
support a recommendation. They don't recommend for or against.


Sure they do.

Actually, they do not. Here is an excerpt from their statement, dated
3rd March, 1999 (first-hand evidence is so much more reliable, don't
you think?):


did you see my cite below listing all the medical organizations that
do not recommend it?

Yes, I did. However, it seems a somewhat unreliable source, given that that
it misled you about their recommendations. I provided a link to the source
itself, to avoid such confusion.


It is not a trivial matter that there are no national medical
organizations which actively recommend routine circs for the sake of
any health benefits. One must assume that organizations of Urologists
and Pediatrians have the relevant background to assess these issues.
Certainly, these guys have heard all the arguments. It is hard to see
how they could have been coerced. They lose income by not doing circs.
Yet, despite all of this, none of them now claim that the practice is
worth the hassle.
If the arguments that have been advanced here for routine newborn
circs were to be directed at the relevant committees of these
organizations ( about greater safety from STDs and cancer) would not
that be a better target for the pro-circ crowd?
I mean, if you could convince those guys with your medical
arguments, then some real heft would added to your side of the
cite-quoting contest that we all have seen here. In other words, why
are you trying to sell this idea to lay people? Why not first sell the
idea to the American Cancer Society? The rest would be easy after
that.
The analogy with vacination is flawed. There is no practical way to
avoid certain diseases except by vacination. All of the potential
problems with an intact foreskin can be prevented, in most every case,
by normal levels of hygeine and by not having unprotected sex with
skanky women.





"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits
of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to
recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision,
in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is
not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should
determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an
informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate
and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss
this decision. It is legitimate for parents to take into account
cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical
factors, when making this decision. Analgesia is safe and effective in
reducing the procedural pain associated with circumcision; therefore,
if a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be
provided. If circumcision is performed in the newborn period, it should
only be done on infants who are stable and healthy."

Source:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...full/103/3/686

As you can see, they do not recommend for OR against.

Jake.


The cited statement is a good faith effort to follow the evidence
and avoid an ideologically skewed approach. I think it is admirable
and necessary.
Some thoughts: Circumcision has been practiced for a long time and
for many different reasons. It is impossible, in my view, to wrap the
entire history of this subject up in a neat package. It is especially
difficult to transpose the meanings of it from one millenia to the
next except in the area of ritual and rite. In other words, as a sign
of identity it is likely to be a reliable constant. As to hygeine and
health, it is less constant. Sort of like the whole notion of keeping
kosher for the sake of good health. It is a matter of survival if you
live in someplace like Botswana. In a place like Norway it is not so
clear cut. It becomes much more a matter of ritual.

Hygeine in some bad climate areas is a real problem. I have heard
from reliable sources that uncirced US Marines suffered more in the
jungle warfare of WW 2 when they went weeks without a chance of a
bath. On the other hand, no army in Northern Europe has ever had a
problem with this issue.
As for the question of safety and comfort, I think we have
forgotten too many things. In the real old days, no one asked whether
or not it hurt. Of course it did, but so what? People understood that
life was tough and they saw no reason to hide it. Did someone want it?
Well, until very recently, most peoples' social identity was not
something they were really asked about. People could not change that
even if they wanted. They were in a certain tribe or clan and that was
that (unless they got kicked out-- which was close to a death
sentence).
My point is that that this debate is taking place in an environment
of unprecedented choices for the individual. I think it is great, but
it makes it harder to understand our forebearers.


My point is that its OUR bodies and should be our choice. Men can
decide for themselves if they wished to be circumcised.

I understand that is your point of view.



http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/
Many years ago, when it was thought important to prevent
masturbation, American health authorities advocated circumcision.
There is no longer any national or international public health
authority in the western world which advocates routine circumcision.


The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is the highest child health
authority in the United States. On 1 March 1999 the AAP released its
long-awaited recommendations on circumcision. The AAP News Release
Video stated, "The AAP does not recommend the policy of routine
newborn circumcision..."

Institution Advocates Circumcision
American Medical Association No
American Cancer Society No
Center for Disease Control No
National Institute of Health No
American Academy of Pediatrics No
Pediatric Urologists Association No
Amer. College of Obst. & Gyn. No
other countries
Canadian Pediatric Society No
Canadian Medical Association No
European Medical Societies (any) No

Ralph DuBose wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote in message
...
Sky King wrote:

(Ralph DuBose) wrote in message
. com...
Jake Waskett wrote in message
...
Sky King wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote in message
...
Sky King wrote:
Read what I posted above...."these data are not sufficient
to recommend routine neonatal circumcision." In other words
they do
NOT recomment routine medical circumsisions. IF there is NO
medical problem
there is NO need. Why is it so hard for you to understand?
These are the specialist that are talking.

They're saying that medical benefits alone are not adequate to
support a recommendation. They don't recommend for or against.


Sure they do.

Actually, they do not. Here is an excerpt from their statement,
dated 3rd March, 1999 (first-hand evidence is so much more reliable,
don't you think?):


did you see my cite below listing all the medical organizations that
do not recommend it?

Yes, I did. However, it seems a somewhat unreliable source, given that
that it misled you about their recommendations. I provided a link to the
source itself, to avoid such confusion.


It is not a trivial matter that there are no national medical
organizations which actively recommend routine circs for the sake of
any health benefits. One must assume that organizations of Urologists
and Pediatrians have the relevant background to assess these issues.
Certainly, these guys have heard all the arguments. It is hard to see
how they could have been coerced. They lose income by not doing circs.
Yet, despite all of this, none of them now claim that the practice is
worth the hassle.

I'm not suggesting that anyone has been coerced. Would you like to read my
words again?

If the arguments that have been advanced here for routine newborn
circs were to be directed at the relevant committees of these
organizations ( about greater safety from STDs and cancer) would not
that be a better target for the pro-circ crowd?
I mean, if you could convince those guys with your medical
arguments, then some real heft would added to your side of the
cite-quoting contest that we all have seen here. In other words, why
are you trying to sell this idea to lay people? Why not first sell the
idea to the American Cancer Society? The rest would be easy after
that.

What "idea" do you suppose I'm trying to "sell"?

The analogy with vacination is flawed. There is no practical way to
avoid certain diseases except by vacination. All of the potential
problems with an intact foreskin can be prevented, in most every case,
by normal levels of hygeine and by not having unprotected sex with
skanky women.

Really? You think so? In that case, one wouldn't expect to see any incidence
of these problems. They would be hypothetical problems, that do not occur
in reality, wouldn't they?






"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical
benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not
sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case
of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks,
yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current
well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of
the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants
should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided
the opportunity to discuss this decision. It is legitimate for
parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic
traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this
decision. Analgesia is safe and effective in reducing the procedural
pain associated with circumcision; therefore, if a decision for
circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided. If
circumcision is performed in the newborn period, it should only be
done on infants who are stable and healthy."

Source:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...full/103/3/686

As you can see, they do not recommend for OR against.

Jake.


The cited statement is a good faith effort to follow the evidence
and avoid an ideologically skewed approach. I think it is admirable
and necessary.
Some thoughts: Circumcision has been practiced for a long time and
for many different reasons. It is impossible, in my view, to wrap the
entire history of this subject up in a neat package. It is especially
difficult to transpose the meanings of it from one millenia to the
next except in the area of ritual and rite. In other words, as a sign
of identity it is likely to be a reliable constant. As to hygeine and
health, it is less constant. Sort of like the whole notion of keeping
kosher for the sake of good health. It is a matter of survival if you
live in someplace like Botswana. In a place like Norway it is not so
clear cut. It becomes much more a matter of ritual.

Hygeine in some bad climate areas is a real problem. I have heard
from reliable sources that uncirced US Marines suffered more in the
jungle warfare of WW 2 when they went weeks without a chance of a
bath. On the other hand, no army in Northern Europe has ever had a
problem with this issue.
As for the question of safety and comfort, I think we have
forgotten too many things. In the real old days, no one asked whether
or not it hurt. Of course it did, but so what? People understood that
life was tough and they saw no reason to hide it. Did someone want it?
Well, until very recently, most peoples' social identity was not
something they were really asked about. People could not change that
even if they wanted. They were in a certain tribe or clan and that was
that (unless they got kicked out-- which was close to a death
sentence).
My point is that that this debate is taking place in an environment
of unprecedented choices for the individual. I think it is great, but
it makes it harder to understand our forebearers.


My point is that its OUR bodies and should be our choice. Men can
decide for themselves if they wished to be circumcised.

I understand that is your point of view.



http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/
Many years ago, when it was thought important to prevent
masturbation, American health authorities advocated circumcision.
There is no longer any national or international public health
authority in the western world which advocates routine
circumcision.


The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is the highest child
health authority in the United States. On 1 March 1999 the AAP
released its long-awaited recommendations on circumcision. The AAP
News Release Video stated, "The AAP does not recommend the policy
of routine newborn circumcision..."

Institution Advocates Circumcision
American Medical Association No
American Cancer Society No
Center for Disease Control No
National Institute of Health No
American Academy of Pediatrics No
Pediatric Urologists Association No
Amer. College of Obst. & Gyn. No
other countries
Canadian Pediatric Society No
Canadian Medical Association No
European Medical Societies (any) No

(karen hill) wrote in message om...
"Chotii" wrote in message ...

How do uncircumcised men get laid?

With no more or less difficulty than idiots (like you) get laid. Most
of the women I have been with grew to prefer uncircumcised penises
once in committed relationship where the condoms were forgone (always
subsequent to testing).

http://www.medicirc.com/meditopics/medicirc_topics.html

http://www.medicirc.com/medicirc_references.html

(1) Urinary tract infections are generally only appreciably increased
in a small subset of uncircumcised men who have phimosis, which is
diagnosed and treated (with circumcision) rather easily and only when
indicated. Yes, having a foreskin requires a minimum of extra care,
which is a mild inconvenience far superceded by the benefits of being
uncircumcised. Of course, you would never get cavities if you had all
of your teeth pulled.

(2) Studies on sexually transmitted disease in the U.S. have been
mixed, with some studies showing increased incidence in uncircumcised
men, and some showing decreased incidence in uncircumcised men.
Conclusively, there is no absolute determination that can be made. In
addition, such studies are complicated by cultural factors (i.e.
higher incidence of circumcision in midwestern communities where
people are generally less promiscuous), race (hispanic inner city
males and recent immigrants being almost overwhelmingly uncircumcise;
african americans much less so than whites), socioeconomic status
(lower socioeconomic status w/ higher rates of non-circumcision) and
religion (particularly in India where Muslims are universally
circumcised and very restricted in their sexual behaviors; wheras
Hindus are overwhelmingly uncircumcised and much less restricted in
their sexual behaviors). Despite these factors, the study results in
the U.S. have been mixed.

(Ralph DuBose) wrote in message . com...
Jake Waskett wrote in message ...
Sky King wrote:

(Ralph DuBose) wrote in message
. com...
Jake Waskett wrote in message
...
Sky King wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote in message
...
Sky King wrote:
Read what I posted above...."these data are not sufficient
to recommend routine neonatal circumcision." In other words they
do
NOT recomment routine medical circumsisions. IF there is NO
medical problem
there is NO need. Why is it so hard for you to understand? These
are the specialist that are talking.

They're saying that medical benefits alone are not adequate to
support a recommendation. They don't recommend for or against.


Sure they do.

Actually, they do not. Here is an excerpt from their statement, dated
3rd March, 1999 (first-hand evidence is so much more reliable, don't
you think?):


did you see my cite below listing all the medical organizations that
do not recommend it?

Yes, I did. However, it seems a somewhat unreliable source, given that that
it misled you about their recommendations. I provided a link to the source
itself, to avoid such confusion.


I know what they said. Can you point to where they say they DO recommend it?
Nope..you cannot.

It is not a trivial matter that there are no national medical
organizations which actively recommend routine circs for the sake of
any health benefits. One must assume that organizations of Urologists
and Pediatrians have the relevant background to assess these issues.
Certainly, these guys have heard all the arguments. It is hard to see
how they could have been coerced. They lose income by not doing circs.
Yet, despite all of this, none of them now claim that the practice is
worth the hassle.
If the arguments that have been advanced here for routine newborn
circs were to be directed at the relevant committees of these
organizations ( about greater safety from STDs and cancer) would not
that be a better target for the pro-circ crowd?
I mean, if you could convince those guys with your medical
arguments, then some real heft would added to your side of the
cite-quoting contest that we all have seen here. In other words, why
are you trying to sell this idea to lay people? Why not first sell the
idea to the American Cancer Society? The rest would be easy after
that.
The analogy with vacination is flawed. There is no practical way to
avoid certain diseases except by vacination. All of the potential
problems with an intact foreskin can be prevented, in most every case,
by normal levels of hygeine and by not having unprotected sex with
skanky women.




I see you didn't get a response to your well thought out reply.



"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits
of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to
recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision,
in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is
not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should
determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an
informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate
and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss
this decision. It is legitimate for parents to take into account
cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical
factors, when making this decision. Analgesia is safe and effective in
reducing the procedural pain associated with circumcision; therefore,
if a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be
provided. If circumcision is performed in the newborn period, it should
only be done on infants who are stable and healthy."

Source:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...full/103/3/686

As you can see, they do not recommend for OR against.

Jake.


The cited statement is a good faith effort to follow the evidence
and avoid an ideologically skewed approach. I think it is admirable
and necessary.
Some thoughts: Circumcision has been practiced for a long time and
for many different reasons. It is impossible, in my view, to wrap the
entire history of this subject up in a neat package. It is especially
difficult to transpose the meanings of it from one millenia to the
next except in the area of ritual and rite. In other words, as a sign
of identity it is likely to be a reliable constant. As to hygeine and
health, it is less constant. Sort of like the whole notion of keeping
kosher for the sake of good health. It is a matter of survival if you
live in someplace like Botswana. In a place like Norway it is not so
clear cut. It becomes much more a matter of ritual.

Hygeine in some bad climate areas is a real problem. I have heard
from reliable sources that uncirced US Marines suffered more in the
jungle warfare of WW 2 when they went weeks without a chance of a
bath. On the other hand, no army in Northern Europe has ever had a
problem with this issue.
As for the question of safety and comfort, I think we have
forgotten too many things. In the real old days, no one asked whether
or not it hurt. Of course it did, but so what? People understood that
life was tough and they saw no reason to hide it. Did someone want it?
Well, until very recently, most peoples' social identity was not
something they were really asked about. People could not change that
even if they wanted. They were in a certain tribe or clan and that was
that (unless they got kicked out-- which was close to a death
sentence).
My point is that that this debate is taking place in an environment
of unprecedented choices for the individual. I think it is great, but
it makes it harder to understand our forebearers.


My point is that its OUR bodies and should be our choice. Men can
decide for themselves if they wished to be circumcised.

I understand that is your point of view.


Why do others disagree with that concept...of letting men decide for themselves?
I personally have not been nor would I be circumcised but I do think it should
be left up to the individual. Those on the Pro-Circumcision side doesn't seem
to think much of that concept either.



http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/
Many years ago, when it was thought important to prevent
masturbation, American health authorities advocated circumcision.
There is no longer any national or international public health
authority in the western world which advocates routine circumcision.


The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is the highest child health
authority in the United States. On 1 March 1999 the AAP released its
long-awaited recommendations on circumcision. The AAP News Release
Video stated, "The AAP does not recommend the policy of routine
newborn circumcision..."

Institution Advocates Circumcision
American Medical Association No
American Cancer Society No
Center for Disease Control No
National Institute of Health No
American Academy of Pediatrics No
Pediatric Urologists Association No
Amer. College of Obst. & Gyn. No
other countries
Canadian Pediatric Society No
Canadian Medical Association No
European Medical Societies (any) No

(Winding Highway) wrote in message ...
From: (Ralph DuBose)

One must assume that organizations of Urologists
and Pediatrians have the relevant background to assess these issues.
Certainly, these guys have heard all the arguments. It is hard to see
how they could have been coerced. They lose income by not doing circs.

I suspect they more than make up for that one-time loss by tending repeatedly
to the many physiological problems the uncircumcised bring them. On a
cost-benefit basis, any avaricious physician would be against circumcision.

Winding, trying to explain circumcision to a FORESKINSTEIN FLUNKY, is
like trying to explain rock 'n'roll to a deaf person!eheh It just
isn't going to happen!ehehe Once again, which one of the two is more
profitable: a one-time circumcision or a lifetime of foreskin upkeep?
No-brainer! Foreskin is like acne - there is no known cure! ehehee
Provided that one refuses to seek out a simple, safe & beneficial
circumcision! Until that occurs, urologists will continue to bilk
these foreskin fetishists out of their hard-earned money. Prescription
after prescription of dangerous benzadick creams (steroid ointments) -
the masturbatory lubricant for FORESKINSTEINS!eheheheh -D, NYC "The
Jews have the best average brain of any people in the world. The Jews
are the only race who work wholly with their brains and never with
their hands. There are no Jewish beggars, no Jewish tramps, no Jewish
ditch diggers, hod-carriers, day laborers or followers of toilsome,
mechanical trades. They are peculiarly and conspicuously the world's
intellectual aristocracy" - MARK TWAIN

Sky King wrote:

(Ralph DuBose) wrote in message
. com...
Jake Waskett wrote in message
...
Sky King wrote:

(Ralph DuBose) wrote in message
. com...
Jake Waskett wrote in message
...
Sky King wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote in message
...
Sky King wrote:
Read what I posted above...."these data are not sufficient
to recommend routine neonatal circumcision." In other words
they do
NOT recomment routine medical circumsisions. IF there is NO
medical problem
there is NO need. Why is it so hard for you to understand?
These are the specialist that are talking.

They're saying that medical benefits alone are not adequate to
support a recommendation. They don't recommend for or against.


Sure they do.

Actually, they do not. Here is an excerpt from their statement,
dated 3rd March, 1999 (first-hand evidence is so much more
reliable, don't you think?):


did you see my cite below listing all the medical organizations that
do not recommend it?

Yes, I did. However, it seems a somewhat unreliable source, given that
that it misled you about their recommendations. I provided a link to
the source itself, to avoid such confusion.


I know what they said. Can you point to where they say they DO recommend
it? Nope..you cannot.

Why would I want to? Here's my report on their recommendations, quoted from
above:
They're saying that medical benefits alone are not adequate to
support a recommendation. They don't recommend for or against.

Aleph Null wrote:

(karen hill) wrote in message
om...
"Chotii" wrote in message
...

How do uncircumcised men get laid?

With no more or less difficulty than idiots (like you) get laid. Most
of the women I have been with grew to prefer uncircumcised penises
once in committed relationship where the condoms were forgone (always
subsequent to testing).

http://www.medicirc.com/meditopics/medicirc_topics.html

http://www.medicirc.com/medicirc_references.html

(1) Urinary tract infections are generally only appreciably increased
in a small subset of uncircumcised men who have phimosis

I've not heard that before. Care to cite any sources?

, which is
diagnosed and treated (with circumcision) rather easily and only when
indicated.

With all the additional problems of adult circumcision.

Yes, having a foreskin requires a minimum of extra care,
which is a mild inconvenience far superceded by the benefits of being
uncircumcised.

Numbering zero, in my own experience.

Of course, you would never get cavities if you had all
of your teeth pulled.

Very true. So what?


(2) Studies on sexually transmitted disease in the U.S. have been
mixed, with some studies showing increased incidence in uncircumcised
men, and some showing decreased incidence in uncircumcised men.

Depending, in part, on what STD you're talking about. Care to be more
precise?

Conclusively, there is no absolute determination that can be made. In
addition, such studies are complicated by cultural factors (i.e.
higher incidence of circumcision in midwestern communities where
people are generally less promiscuous), race (hispanic inner city
males and recent immigrants being almost overwhelmingly uncircumcise;
african americans much less so than whites), socioeconomic status
(lower socioeconomic status w/ higher rates of non-circumcision) and
religion (particularly in India where Muslims are universally
circumcised and very restricted in their sexual behaviors; wheras
Hindus are overwhelmingly uncircumcised and much less restricted in
their sexual behaviors). Despite these factors, the study results in
the U.S. have been mixed.

Despite?

) wrote in message . com...
(Winding Highway) wrote in message ...
From: (Ralph DuBose)

One must assume that organizations of Urologists
and Pediatrians have the relevant background to assess these issues.
Certainly, these guys have heard all the arguments. It is hard to see
how they could have been coerced. They lose income by not doing circs.

I suspect they more than make up for that one-time loss by tending repeatedly
to the many physiological problems the uncircumcised bring them. On a
cost-benefit basis, any avaricious physician would be against circumcision.

Winding, trying to explain circumcision to a FORESKINSTEIN FLUNKY, is
like trying to explain rock 'n'roll to a deaf person!eheh It just
isn't going to happen!ehehe Once again, which one of the two is more
profitable: a one-time circumcision or a lifetime of foreskin upkeep?

If this is true, it should be a straight-forward matter to convince
the relevant groups of Medical experts in the developed world. With
them convinced and publically proclaiming the final truth of this
wisdom -- all doubters would be crushed like rotten eggshells.
So why are you pimping this to lay people on usenet? Go before the
committees of American Pediatricians and Urologists and force them to
see the depth of this wisdom.
What? You are afraid? They don't buy it? They look at you like you
are from the stoneage?
Hey. Buy the ticket. Take the ride.


No-brainer! Foreskin is like acne - there is no known cure! ehehee
Provided that one refuses to seek out a simple, safe & beneficial
circumcision! Until that occurs, urologists will continue to bilk
these foreskin fetishists out of their hard-earned money. Prescription
after prescription of dangerous benzadick creams (steroid ointments) -
the masturbatory lubricant for FORESKINSTEINS!eheheheh -D, NYC "The
Jews have the best average brain of any people in the world. The Jews
are the only race who work wholly with their brains and never with
their hands. There are no Jewish beggars, no Jewish tramps, no Jewish
ditch diggers, hod-carriers, day laborers or followers of toilsome,
mechanical trades. They are peculiarly and conspicuously the world's
intellectual aristocracy" - MARK TWAIN

Jake Waskett wrote in message ...
Sky King wrote:

(Ralph DuBose) wrote in message
. com...
Jake Waskett wrote in message
...
Sky King wrote:

(Ralph DuBose) wrote in message
. com...
Jake Waskett wrote in message
...
Sky King wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote in message
...
Sky King wrote:
Read what I posted above...."these data are not sufficient
to recommend routine neonatal circumcision." In other words
they do
NOT recomment routine medical circumsisions. IF there is NO
medical problem
there is NO need. Why is it so hard for you to understand?
These are the specialist that are talking.

They're saying that medical benefits alone are not adequate to
support a recommendation. They don't recommend for or against.


Sure they do.

Actually, they do not. Here is an excerpt from their statement,
dated 3rd March, 1999 (first-hand evidence is so much more
reliable, don't you think?):


did you see my cite below listing all the medical organizations that
do not recommend it?

Yes, I did. However, it seems a somewhat unreliable source, given that
that it misled you about their recommendations. I provided a link to
the source itself, to avoid such confusion.


I know what they said. Can you point to where they say they DO recommend
it? Nope..you cannot.

Why would I want to? Here's my report on their recommendations, quoted from
above:
They're saying that medical benefits alone are not adequate to
support a recommendation. They don't recommend for or against.

And they don't recommend for or against because there is NO evidence
to show that routince medical circumcisions are necessary. If they
thought they
were necessary they would flat out recommend it.