How do uncircumcised men get laid?

I'm sorry, Karen Hill I can't hear you due to all the f--king CRACK
COCAINE you're smoking and/or injecting. Do your circumcised "johns"
tell you your snatch stinks? Reality's a bitch, eh? And to give you a
dose of reality-- 85% of the World's men are all intact (not
circumcised) and you sure don't hear them complaining. They complain
when they go to the U.S. and find some sawed-off sex partner w/ dry
and unsensitive glans thrusting like heck to get himself off and get
past that sexual mental block in their heads due to their less
sensitive circumutilated sexual organs. Now, back to that drug problem
of yours dot-dot-dot. lol


(karen hill) wrote in message . com...
There is all this talk about the foreskin being a harbinger of disease
with the studies to back it up. 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! 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? Drug addicts? Ugly
Prostitutes? I personally wouldn't sleep with an uncut guy, yuck!

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.

So what I'm saying is why do men even stay uncut if they know women
are repulsed by uncircumcised men? Do they have a brain?

Gavin Arvizo

) 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.


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.


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

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?)

Gavin Arvizo wrote:

I'm sorry, Karen Hill I can't hear you due to all the f--king CRACK
COCAINE you're smoking and/or injecting. Do your circumcised "johns"
tell you your snatch stinks? Reality's a bitch, eh? And to give you a
dose of reality-- 85% of the World's men are all intact (not
circumcised) and you sure don't hear them complaining.

How exactly would you expect to hear "them"? News bulletins? Perhaps an
organised letter-writing campaign? How?

They complain
when they go to the U.S. and find some sawed-off sex partner w/ dry
and unsensitive glans thrusting like heck to get himself off and get
past that sexual mental block in their heads due to their less
sensitive circumutilated sexual organs.

Do they? Who do they complain to? Or is this a theory of yours?

Now, back to that drug problem
of yours dot-dot-dot. lol


(karen hill) wrote in message
. com...
There is all this talk about the foreskin being a harbinger of disease
with the studies to back it up. 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! 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? Drug addicts? Ugly
Prostitutes? I personally wouldn't sleep with an uncut guy, yuck!

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.

So what I'm saying is why do men even stay uncut if they know women
are repulsed by uncircumcised men? Do they have a brain?

Gavin Arvizo

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.

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?

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. :-)


Zen

Sky King wrote:

) 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...ull/pediatrics
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.

Actually, Sky King, routine circumcision is not recommended because the
benefits are not seen as sufficiently compelling to make such a
recommendation. That is completely different to saying that the risks
outweigh the benefits.



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

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

Imagine that you're in a position to break up a schoolyard fight. Do you
shrug your shoulders and say "well, I can't stop wars, why bother?", or do
you do what you can?




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.

There are a lot more barriers to doing so when he's older.



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

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?)

(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. 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! Once
again, I have common sense and medicine on my 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. 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)

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.


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

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?)

(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.


: 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.

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.

To the original post:

You faschist bitch.

I think of cutting off part of the male anatomy in the same regards as
I do of another (unmentioned) culture who bores out the vaginal skin
on their women.
It's wrong. And you going about demanding that we cut part of our
anatomy off just to make you happy is too.

It's alot easier to clean that area, rather than to cut it off... the
women who have been getting deseases from uncut men are obviously
picking up the most vile and unclean guys they can find... and are
probably similar in that regard.
Cut or uncut, if you screw a guy who doesn't clean down there you will
get sick.

Hey HERES AN IDEA!
The human mouth is the most bacteria ridden part of a human body... so
how about you rip your JAW OFF instead of brushing before you kiss
someone. Oh? Dont want to have to lose part of your body just to get
laid? TOO BAD, NEITHER DO WE.

uckoff (theoneflasehaddock) wrote in message ...
Subject: How do uncircumcised men get laid?
From: )
Date: 3/24/2004 3:52 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

"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!?

Actually, it's now considered by the medical community, or at least
some within it, that the early studies that showed benefit to
circumcision had too few participants to be conclusive. More
studies still need to be done to answer the question, but it's a
really hard thing to do good research on. You need random assignment
of subjects, and there aren't many parents willing to let doctors
decide whether or not to circumsize their kids. In fact, if there
were, it would be flawed by virtue of the fact that parents allowing
it for their kids are not able to be randomly chosen. In short, a
large enough representative sample of the population can probably not
be taken to study circumcision in a true scientific study that would
establish cause and effect. The best that can be done is
correlational studies, and those will never settle a debate, they can
too easily fuel both sides. In other words, convincing medical
evidence either for, or against circumcision does not exist, and will
not exist in the near future. theoneflasehaddock

As of February 2004, studies continue to show that circumcision
provides a 2-8 protective fold effect against HIV infection. See
http://www.aids.net.au/lemons-news-10-03-04.htm Once again, since
circumcision is perfectly legal throughout most of the free world, the
anti-circ ilk has to prove that routine infant circumcision is harmful
to the extent that it must be forbidden. As it stands, they have yet
to do so. -D, NYC "The modern United States, in spite of itself, IS
the United States in part because of its Jewish blood" - JOE MCCAIN
(author, lecturer, historian, brother of Senator John McCain, excerpt
from "The Jews Will Not Go Quietly Again!")

John Simpson wrote:

To the original post:

You faschist bitch.

"Fascist" is the correct spelling.


I think of cutting off part of the male anatomy in the same regards as
I do of another (unmentioned) culture who bores out the vaginal skin
on their women.

Ok, you're entitled to your opinion.

It's wrong. And you going about demanding that we cut part of our
anatomy off just to make you happy is too.

It's alot easier to clean that area, rather than to cut it off... the
women who have been getting deseases from uncut men are obviously
picking up the most vile and unclean guys they can find... and are
probably similar in that regard.

Statistically, if uncut men are more likely to have disease X, then women
will be more likely to pick up disease X from uncut men. It's simple logic.
You don't have to find a particular specimen.

Cut or uncut, if you screw a guy who doesn't clean down there you will
get sick.

Hey HERES AN IDEA!
The human mouth is the most bacteria ridden part of a human body... so
how about you rip your JAW OFF instead of brushing before you kiss
someone. Oh? Dont want to have to lose part of your body just to get
laid? TOO BAD, NEITHER DO WE.