How do uncircumcised men get laid?

Ralph DuBose wrote:

(darrint68@aol./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.

It is possible to measure the stress and pain produced by a
surgical proceedure by measuring the amount of stress hormones
(Catecholamines and cortisol, ADH, etc.) released into the blood
stream in response to it. By this measure, a circ without anesthesia
rates very high on the scale. It seems to be about as noxious an
experience as an abdominal skin incision without anesthesia. A
carefully done local anesthetic block can reduce the stress response
considerably. By the way, there is no reason to think that newborns
have less pain than the same proceedure done on an adult without
anesthesia. The main difference is that newborns are so small that
simpler, quicker techniques are applicable. And they cannot talk yet.

Recent (roughly 1999) evidence has shown that there is no reason not to use
anaesthesia for infant circumcision.



: 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!

I think it is always a little tricky trying to second guess nature.
I merely observed that women have, thru the eons, chosen intact guys.
I do not pretend to know why.

I think your statement is somewhat questionable. It implies that women have
somehow been given the choice. I think that before you even talk about
"why", you'll need to demonstrate that women have indeed made such a
choice.


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


Actually, it takes a lot of work these days to develop and maintain
a "heathenish" mind. It requires a lot of swimming against the tide. I
am rather proud of mine.


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

I have a lot admiration for ole Al, but he was not talking about
medicine with that quote.
For what it is worth, I read a great quote from a friend of his. He
said, (more or less) "Albert loved all sorts of women; pretty, ugly,
clean, or dirty, he didn't care." He had a lot of groupies.
Somewhere else there was a mention of R. Jeremy. I am thinking now
about the late John Holmes. I do not know if he was circed or not. He
may not have been human; in which case it would not really matter.





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.

(Ralph DuBose) wrote in message . com...
(darrint68@aol./women who sleep with uncut guys?

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

I have a lot admiration for ole Al, but he was not talking about
medicine with that quote. For what it is worth, I read a great quote from a friend of his. He said, (more or less) "Albert loved all sorts of women; pretty, ugly, clean, or dirty, he didn't care." He had a lot of groupies.
Somewhere else there was a mention of R. Jeremy. I am thinking now
about the late John Holmes. I do not know if he was circed or not. He
may not have been human; in which case it would not really matter.

Johnny Wadd was uncircumcised. One of the few (if not only) leading
male porn stars of his era to be uncut. And that uncircumcised status
may have led to his untimely death. -D, NYC "Because I was a Jew, I
found myself free from any prejudices that limited others in the use
of their intellect, and being a Jew, I was prepared to enter
opposition and to renounce agreement with the 'compact
majority'" - DR. SIGMUND FREUD

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.

) wrote in message . com...
Graham Payne wrote:

Quite easily actually. Once they see the real thing, they don't go
back to
the little guys.Your "studies" are a load of BS. There is no
difference in prevailance of disease between cut and uncut males. Lack
of regular hygene would cause the same problem for a circumsized male
also.Not only that - when erect, you can't tell the difference!

A FORESKINSTEIN SHLEPPER, I presume!? LOL! Where in the world do you
reside?eh FYI: Circumcision actually makes the SHMECKLE appear larger!
DOH! The chiseled mushroomed head accentuates the shaft, thus
projecting a larger canvas to visualize. As opposed to foreskin, which
hides in a marsupial sac!eh Do you feed that thing circus
peanuts?eheheheh LOL! Remember, 'Tis better to hold your soldier's
helmet high than to have it droop like an anteater!eh Are you a man or
a mouse?eh The removal of foreskin (remnant Neanderthal appendage) is
precisely what separates us from the animals.

The desire to be "seperate from animals" seems strange to me. The
ability to talk and work a computer ought to be a sign of humaness as
well, maybe even a better one than the amount of foreskin.

As John "The Elephant
Man" Merrick once said: "I am not an animal, I am a human being!"
Secondly, soap (irritant) can exacerbate the existing foreskin
condition, causing the bacteria (smegma - aka precancerous gunk) to
multiply. There is no such thing as hygiene when you have a moist fold
of foogly skin that continually traps bacteria. You can scrub your
smelly little PUTZ like an incessant marsupial in the wild, and it
shall never prevent the accumulation of smegma. Circumcision (safest &
most common surgical procedure in all of medicine, occurring more
frequently than tooth extraction) is the only known cure! Lastly,
responding with "BS," or "there is no difference," does not make it
so! If you were an attorney, you would be laughed out of a court of
law! Unlike you and your maniacal ilk, I have studied the risks
associated with foreskin, and can provide medical facts to
substantiate those risks. We can begin with Professor Brian "not
Jewish" Morris, who has over 30 years of unbias research on the
benefits of circumcision:
* Foreskin is responsible for a 12-fold higher risk of urinary tract
infections. Risk = 1 in 20.
* Foreskin confers a higher risk of death in the first year of life
(from complications of urinary tract infections: viz. kidney failure,
meningitis and infection of bone marrow).
* One in 400-900 uncircumcised men will get cancer of the penis.

This number is wildly overstated. Penile cancer in the US is quite
rare for anyone, circed or not. Besides, penile cancer is nearly
always a consequence of human papiloma virus -- just like cervical
cancer in women. Totally preventable by reasonably safe sex, in other
words.

A
quarter of these will die from it and the rest will require at least
partial penile amputation as a result. (In contrast, penile cancer
never occurs or is infinitesimally rare in men circumcised at birth).
(Data from studies in the USA, Denmark and Australia, which are not to
be confused with the often quoted, but misleading, annual incidence
figures of 1 in 100,000).
* Foreskin is associated with balanitis (inflammation of the glans),
posthitis (inflammation of the foreskin), phimosis (inability to
retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (constriction of the penis by a
tight foreskin). Up to 18% of uncircumcised boys will develop one of
these by 8 years of age,

Maybe in sub-saharan africa. Not so in Sweden.

whereas all are unknown in the circumcised.
Risk of balanoposthitis = 1 in 6. Obstruction to urine flow = 1 in
10-50.
* Foreskin presents the penis with a larger surface area. The moist
inner lining of the foreskin represents a thinner epidermal barrier
than the more cornified outer surface of the foreskin and the rest of
the penis, including the glans of both circumcised and uncircumcised
penis, which have been found recently to have the same amount of
keratin (i.e., similar skin thickness and protection from invasion of
microorganisms) [179]; this means that the inner lining is potential
entry point into the body for viruses and bacteria.

**** knows what words you would use to describe a normal female.

The presence of a
prepuce is likely to result in greater microtrauma during sexual
intercourse, thereby permitting an entry point into the bloodstream
for infectious agents. The warm, moist mucosal environment under the
foreskin favours growth of micro-organisms (discussed later). This
"preputial sac" has even been referred to by Dr Gerald Weiss, an
American surgeon, as a 'cesspool for infection' [195], as its
unfortunate anatomy wrapped around the end of the penis results in
accumulation of secretions, excretions (urine), dead cells and growths
of bacteria. Parents are told not to retract the foreskin of male
infants, which makes cleaning difficult. Even if optimal cleansing is
performed there is no evidence that it confers protection [207,208].
* Foreskin increased risk of problems that may necessitate
circumcision later in life. Also, the cost can be 10 times higher for
an adult.
* Foreskin is the biggest risk factor for heterosexually-acquired AIDS
virus infection in men.

Hetero sexual AIDS is still an african thing.

8-times higher risk by itself, and even higher
when lesions .bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1025314.stm


snip snip

wrote in message
om...
(karen hill) wrote in message . com...

There is all this talk about are repulsed by uncircumcised men? Do
they
have a brain?

You're referring to the one-NYC "One of the great mysteries that has
always puzzled me is how Jews, who account for such a tiny fraction of
the world's population, have been able to achieve so much and excel in
so many different fields - science, music, medicine, literature, arts,
business and more. If you listed the most influential people of the
last hundred years, three at the top of the list would be Einstein,
Freud and Marx; all were Jews.


What does this have to do with circs?
Yassir Arafat, Osama Bin Laden, and all of the Trade Center
hijackers/mass murderers --- all of these guys went under the knife as
a newborn. All moslem males are circed. Why not mention them as role
models? So, what is your point exactly, bringing religion into this
debate about skin?
Besides, there is a basic disconnect here. Circumcision was given
to Abraham and his heirs as a sign of seperateness from the pagan
societies around them. The introduction of this particular religious
dimension seems odd therefore.


??? Many more belong on the list, yet Jews
compriseat most less than 3 percent of the United States population.
They are an amazing people. Imagine the persecution they endured over
the centuries: pogroms, temple burnings, Cossack raids, uprootings of
families, their dispersal to the winds and the Holocaust. After the
Diaspora, they could not own land or worship in much of the world;
they were prohibited from voting and were told where to live. Yet
their children survived and Jews became by far themost accomplished
people per capita that the world has ever produced." - MARLON BRANDO
(excerpt from "SONGS MY MOTHER TAUGHT ME")

Jake Waskett wrote in message ...
Dr Zen wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote in message
...
Dr Zen wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote in message
...
Dr Zen wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote in message
...
karen hill wrote:
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

Interestingly, the two studies claiming contradictory results were
both performed by anti-circumcision activists. In one of these
cases, a significant proportion of the author's sample are known to
be female anti-circumcision activists.

What can we safely conclude? Anti-circumcision activists like
foreskin in preference to circumcised penes.

Jake.

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

So women were getting their child circumcised because they prefer
cut penises? Did anyone point out to them that having sex with their
child would be not only unethical but also illegal?

What makes you think that they intended to have sex with their child?
Isn't it more reasonable to see recognition of the fact that their
child will become a sexual being?

It's reasonable for the mother to believe her newborn's sex life will
be her concern?

To a limited extent, yes. A good parent wants his or her child to have
the best possible life. Sex is a part of life.

Jake, I'm going to put it to you that in normal circumstances the
child's sex life as we would normally understand that term would not
be beginning for some dozen years at least,

True.

and if it is exercising
the mother at the point of birth, she needs help. It is not in any
case *ever* going to be his mother's business.

True, but how many times do you hear young mothers say things like "oooh!
Isn't he's gorgeous! He'll be getting a lot of attention from the ladies
when he's older, won't he?" Yes, it's not meant totally seriously, but it
does show that there's an awareness there.


It's just a thing mothers say.

That's something the
mother is obliged to take no part in, unless I suppose you feel she
might procure ladies for him.

Not at all, but what mother doesn't want her son to be attractive to the
opposite (or same) sex when he's older?

Attractiveness is a far broader concept than ****ableness though.


Maybe you resent the lack in your own
mother, but really, dude, that isn't what they're for.

Ha! No, far from it, Zen. I'm quite content with my boyfriend. :-)

I hope your mum approves. After all, she's been worried about you
gettin' some since you popped out.

Zen

) wrote in message . com...
(Ralph DuBose) wrote in message . com...
(darrint68@aol./women who sleep with uncut guys?

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

I have a lot admiration for ole Al, but he was not talking about
medicine with that quote. For what it is worth, I read a great quote from a friend of his. He said, (more or less) "Albert loved all sorts of women; pretty, ugly, clean, or dirty, he didn't care." He had a lot of groupies.
Somewhere else there was a mention of R. Jeremy. I am thinking now
about the late John Holmes. I do not know if he was circed or not. He
may not have been human; in which case it would not really matter.

Johnny Wadd was uncircumcised. One of the few (if not only) leading
male porn stars of his era to be uncut. And that uncircumcised status
may have led to his untimely death.

It was a miracle he lived as long as he did, considering his drug
habits. His AIDS may have been related to his documented willingness
to take it up the ass.
In most porn, it is not possible to tell about the appearance of
the stars equipment in a resting state.


-D, NYC "Because I was a Jew, I
found myself free from any prejudices that limited others in the use
of their intellect, and being a Jew,

WTF are you bringing up the subject of religion? Every one of the
hyjackers who crashed into the World Trade Center and their fathers
and fathers fathers were circed. All moslem men are. Why not use them
as your circed role models? Or Osama Bin Laden? Yassir Arafat? Saddam
Hussein? Just as perfectly cut as Einstein.
I noticed also that you "edited" away my desciption of the evidence
that a newborn circ without anesthesia causes a great deal of the
release of certain hormones that indicate pain. That fact looks to me
like a pretty good argument against the notion that you can have the
end of your dick cut off and not feel it, even when you are too little
to complain. (Except by wailing).

I was prepared to enter
opposition and to renounce agreement with the 'compact
majority'" - DR. SIGMUND FREUD

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.

Ralph DuBose wrote:

) wrote in message
. com...
* One in 400-900 uncircumcised men will get cancer of the penis.

This number is wildly overstated. Penile cancer in the US is quite
rare for anyone, circed or not. Besides, penile cancer is nearly
always a consequence of human papiloma virus -- just like cervical
cancer in women. Totally preventable by reasonably safe sex, in other
words.

Actually, no. The lifetime risk is generally agreed to be in about that
range (making the risk per man per year much less), and the causes are not
fully understood.


A
quarter of these will die from it and the rest will require at least
partial penile amputation as a result. (In contrast, penile cancer
never occurs or is infinitesimally rare in men circumcised at birth).
(Data from studies in the USA, Denmark and Australia, which are not to
be confused with the often quoted, but misleading, annual incidence
figures of 1 in 100,000).
* Foreskin is associated with balanitis (inflammation of the glans),
posthitis (inflammation of the foreskin), phimosis (inability to
retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (constriction of the penis by a
tight foreskin). Up to 18% of uncircumcised boys will develop one of
these by 8 years of age,

Maybe in sub-saharan africa. Not so in Sweden.

It's probably more common in hot countries, true.


* Foreskin is the biggest risk factor for heterosexually-acquired AIDS
virus infection in men.

Hetero sexual AIDS is still an african thing.

Actually, that's not so much the case these days. In the UK at least,
heterosexuals have now overtaken homosexuals in terms of new HIV cases. I
suspect the pattern is replicated in much of the developed world.

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

wrote in message

Why do 10% of newborns not circumcised at birth,
eventually necessitate circumcision?

Provide cites to back up that claim. Here is the position of those
that count.
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org...cs%3b103/3/686
Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits
of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient
to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances 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.
If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be
provided. Note..that they no longer advocate rountine medical circumcisions.


http://www.drweiss.org/necesary.htm (typo exists in the URL) "It is
obvious that the list of potential medical diseases of the penis are
not only extensive but could be fatal, as with malignancy. The
expenses of treatment for foreskin diseases and complications suggest
that on a cost containment basis alone neonatal circumcision is the
more desirable. Medical authorities in Canada (1981), after extensive
studies, have concluded: About 10% of males not circumcised at birth
will eventually require circumcision. ...More important, neonatal
circumcision is associated with much lower morbidity and mortality and
with lower costs than therapeutic circumcision. Thus prophylactic
circumcision is recommended for the male population as a whole..." -
DR. GERALD WEISS, American Diplomate American Board of Surgery, Fellow
American College of Surgeons Fellow International College of
Surgeons....
If you (et al) are so concerned with childhood pain, why would you
subject tens of thousands of infants to unnecessary infections!? The
same infections that would have no reason to exist, if not for the
presence of foreskin. 1% is 1% too many! 10% becomes inexcusable!! 10%
vs. 0%! Which do you choose!? DOH! Lastly, what part of "existing
scientific evidence demonstrates potentional medical benefits of
newborn male circumcision" did you not understand the first time
around?ehe Medical find after medical find states that foreskin is a
cesspool for disease. A welcome mat for HIV! Now who wants to increase
their chances of dying from STDs, just so they can hang on to a piece
of extra skin? One would have to be insane! Low and behold, these are
the same insane individuals who try to regrow skin that will
ultimately act as a detriment. Foreskin is just as useless as the
appendix, post-umbilical cord, wisdom teeth & hymen. It serves no
useful function, other than to cause a lifetime of unwanted hassles.
Once again, the benefits far outweigh the risks.

Totally wrong and that is why routine medical circumcision is NO
longer recommended in the U.S.

I see that we have another great debater of logic in our midsts! ehe
LOL! "Your honor, my client is innocent!" "Ok, case dismissed, no need
to continue!" ehe DOH! Once again, this is the problem with your
maniacal ilk.


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.

All of your responses are based on heeby-jeebie ad
hominem & misinformation. They are not based on medical facts. Lastly,
you better tell the AAP that 1.5 million newborns (regardless of
ethnicity) are still being circumcised each and every year! DOH!


Yep and the AAP disagrees with it. It should not be done. More folks
are NOT circumcised then are. Many do it for strictly religious
reasons and others for cosmetic reasons.


Once
again, I have common sense and medicine on my side.


What do you think the members or AAP are pal? They are the ones that
perform
the circumcision. You have nothing on your side.


What do you have!?
Blind ignorance!? Believe me, I do not fault you as much as I fault
your ignorant and uncaring parents. The same parents who decided to
forgo a simple, safe & beneficial procedure.

Do you know all the complications that can arise from getting
circumcised?
I can enlighten you. I can see that you won't let facts get in the
way
of your beliefs.


The same procedure that
would have spared you a monstrosity that is an abomination on the
senses! -D, NYC "The Egg Cream is psychologically the opposite of
circumcision - it pleasurably reaffirms your Jewishness" - MEL BROOKS
(b. Kaminsky, sweet NYC Jew - ingenious comedic legend, filmmaker,
actor, producer, writer)

Ah a Jew boy....

Circumcision only
occurs once. Foreskin upkeep can last a lifetime.

More nonsense. Its no harder to keep clean then cleaning a female.



So which one of the
two is more profitable!? DOH! In the end, it is better to err on the
side of caution & civility than not.

What has civility got to do with it. Its a man's body and HIS choice.
If he wants to be circumcised he can do it when he can make an
informed decision.
If we did cosmetic surgery like this on women folks would be outraged.



No response? Not surprised.

Now onto Angela...eh Ah, but
foreskin is broken! If a flap of skin grew over your TUSH, would you
revel in the bacteria that it traps!? Of course not! You would run to
the doctor to have it removed. Well, male foreskin should be treated
no differently!!

Male foreskin was MEANT to be there. Its not abnormal.



-D, NYC "Circumcision is like a substantial and
well-secured annuity; every year of life you draw the benefits.
Parents cannot make a better paying investment for their little boys"
- DR. P.C. REMONDINO


You cite a doctor and I cite a whole medical group that disagrees.
What have you got against men making their OWN choice? OUR bodies OUR
choice.

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.


If its a medical necessity but not for cosmetic or religious reasons.

--angela (Radical, irrational nutcase. Clearly. I mean, can't you see
that?)

(Ralph DuBose) wrote in message . com...
) wrote in message . com...
NYC "One of the great mysteries that has
always puzzled me is how Jews, who account for such a tiny fraction of
the world's population, have been able to achieve so much and excel in
so many different fields - science, music, medicine, literature, arts,
business and more. If you listed the most influential people of the
last hundred years, three at the top of the list would be Einstein,
Freud and Marx; all were Jews.

What does this have to do with circs?
Yassir Arafat, Osama Bin Laden, and all of the Trade Center
hijackers/mass murderers --- all of these guys went under the knife as
a newborn. All moslem males are circed. Why not mention them as role
models? So, what is your point exactly, bringing religion into this
debate about skin?
Besides, there is a basic disconnect here. Circumcision was given
to Abraham and his heirs as a sign of seperateness from the pagan
societies around them. The introduction of this particular religious
dimension seems odd therefore.

Ralph, last I checked, tag lines were never intended to be part of the
discussion at hand. A tag line is part of the person, which is
precisely why it appears after each message. Regardless, why do you
care so much!? Inferiority-complex perhaps? LOL! Once again, praise
the Jews, and the jealous Gentiles come a running!ehehe FYI: With the
exception of Algebra & wreaking havoc on the world, Arabs (as a whole)
have done absolutely BUPKESS to advance civilization. Jews on the
other hand are regarded as the source of many of the major religions
of the world. Jews have exerted an influence on world civilization
more profound and lasting than any other ancient culture. Jews are the
oldest of any people on earth, still around with their national
identity and cultural heritage intact. All in spite of comprising a
measly 1/4 of 1% of the world's population and enduring thousands of
years of persecution. Choose any field of human endeavor, and you will
find that Jews have disproportionately excelled in it. From Holy wood
to Hollywood, from Einstein to Freud, from Kosher to circumcision,
from Christianity to The Sabbath, from the polio vaccine to the
syphilis cure, Jews have imbued the world with invaluable creation.
Lastly, your question to me is actually better suited for you: What on
earth does 9/11 have to do with circumcision and Jews!? Unlike you, I
never tried to draw an analogy between circumcision and Jews. You
assumed I was. Considering that Jews comprise a measly 2% of the
American population, the overwhelming majority of circumcised are
non-Jews! BTW, Hitler was uncircumcised, remember!? In terms of mass
murder, you don't get any better than him. -D, NYC "Take away the Jews
- and Germany is destitute" - JAMES W. GERARD (ex US Ambassador to
Germany - excerpt from "Four Years In Germany" - 1917)

??? Many more belong on the list, yet Jews
compriseat most less than 3 percent of the United States population.
They are an amazing people. Imagine the persecution they endured over
the centuries: pogroms, temple burnings, Cossack raids, uprootings of
families, their dispersal to the winds and the Holocaust. After the
Diaspora, they could not own land or worship in much of the world;
they were prohibited from voting and were told where to live. Yet
their children survived and Jews became by far themost accomplished
people per capita that the world has ever produced." - MARLON BRANDO
(excerpt from "SONGS MY MOTHER TAUGHT ME")

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.


All of your responses are based on heeby-jeebie ad
hominem & misinformation. They are not based on medical facts. Lastly,
you better tell the AAP that 1.5 million newborns (regardless of
ethnicity) are still being circumcised each and every year! DOH!


Yep and the AAP disagrees with it. It should not be done.

No, they don't say that.

More folks
are NOT circumcised then are. Many do it for strictly religious
reasons and others for cosmetic reasons.


Once
again, I have common sense and medicine on my side.


What do you think the members or AAP are pal? They are the ones that
perform
the circumcision. You have nothing on your side.


What do you have!?
Blind ignorance!? Believe me, I do not fault you as much as I fault
your ignorant and uncaring parents. The same parents who decided to
forgo a simple, safe & beneficial procedure.

Do you know all the complications that can arise from getting
circumcised?
I can enlighten you. I can see that you won't let facts get in the
way
of your beliefs.

Certainly complications can occur, but they are rare.

Jake Waskett wrote in message ...
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"

It's not rare at all for parents, in USAmerica, to feel that part of
their baby doesn't belong to him, so they have it cut off. BDD by
proxy.

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?

Begging the question.