A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » Pregnancy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

How do uncircumcised men get laid?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old March 24th 04, 07:00 PM
Jake Waskett
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default How do uncircumcised men get laid?

Ralph DuBose wrote:

(karen hill) wrote in message
. com...
zolw wrote in message
news:E9R7c.62418$JL2.829424@attbi_s03...
karen hill wrote:

There is all this talk about the foreskin being a harbinger of
disease with the studies to back it up.

Back it up honey. Your word is worthless without a source (a
respectable one too), preferably more than one source.


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

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

Who are these women who sleep with
these uncut guys? Uncut penises are so gross, that if I had not read
the studies, I would assume all uncut guys are chaste STD free
virgins!
This is just personal preference & if you are that shallow, then it
also is a personal choice.


Honestly, most people can differentiate between ugly and beautiful.
Beauty is mostly standard throughout the world. Most women don't like
uncircumcised men. Studies have been done.

http://www.circlist.com/preferences/womenspref.html

Frankly, an uncircumcised penis is a sure way to keep a guy a
virgin for life! Maybe we should tell that to all the devout
christians.

Who are these women who sleep with uncut guys?




Essentially all women in Europe, especially the Scandinavian
countries, are all perfectly content with natural men.


Content, yes, probably.

And the rate of
STDs is very low in those places.


Compared to...?

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.


You assume that would be a significantly motivating factor to account for
differences in mating. Are women sufficiently shallow?
  #22  
Old March 24th 04, 07:04 PM
Jake Waskett
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default How do uncircumcised men get laid?

Chotii wrote:


"karen hill" wrote in message
m...
"Chotii" wrote in message

...
"karen hill" wrote in message
om...
There is all this talk about the foreskin being a harbinger of
disease with the studies to back it up.

Cites, please?

And you know that word...harbinger? I do not think it means what you

think
it means.

--angela


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

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


I do not find his arguments convincing. In fact, his examples of 'proof'
that the anti-circumcision activists are all misguided look....gee, pretty
sane to me. Some of those quotes were even from peer-reviewed medical
journals, claiming no health benefit to routine infant circumcision....and
yet somehow the author of the web site uses them as proof that anti-circ
folks are all misguided.


It's tricky to go about proving such a general statement, when there are
such varied motives for such people.


I think people think 'beautiful' what they have been raised to think
beautiful. I suspect most American women have never seen an intact man. I
know I haven't....just pictures. I don't find pictures of intact men to be
offensive. I would not be offended by one in person either, not that this
is likely to happen to me in this lifetime. Check with me in the next.

Most of the men on the who have successfully
completed restoration (time required: 3-5 years average) claim a very
significant improvement in their sensitivity;


I find this fascinating. Interestingly, a lot of men circumcised by choice
as adults report the same thing. Since we know from Bleustein et al's study
that there's actually no difference in glans sensitivity, I'm inclined to
wonder whether there's a psychological aspect to this.

this group comprises both
men who were cut as infants, and those who chose to be cut as adults, and
later regretted the decision. Most also report an increase in both erect
length and girth.


Ditto.

So when I get spam emails telling me about 'increase
your length/girth instantly!' I always smile just a little. Yes, it can be
done. It just takes a bloody long time. There is no instant fix. But there
is a fix.

In short, I think a very strong argument can be made for allowing the
individual the choice to alter or not alter his own body, as he believes
will benefit him most. I say the same thing for piercings, tattoos,
scarification, weight loss or gain, muscle-building, and any and all other
body modifications. Not my body: not my choice. I might offer an argument
against certain piercings (my niece wants her tongue pierced, and so did I
until I discovered that the dental damage could be extreme), but
ultimately, it's not my body, I don't have to live in it, therefore it's
not my decision.


Fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion.


nitpick
By the way, here's the definition of harbinger, for your edification:

harbinger
n : an indication of the approach of something or someone [syn:
forerunner, herald, precursor]
v : foreshadow or presage [syn: announce, annunciate, foretell,
herald]
/nitpick

The foreskin may not appeal to you, and it may indeed harbor some diseases
if not kept reasonably clean (as too can the woman's labial tissues and
vagina) but it's not a *harbinger*. It's just something kids are born
with.

--angela


  #23  
Old March 24th 04, 09:52 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default How do uncircumcised men get laid?

"Chotii" wrote in message ...
"karen hill" wrote in message
m...
"Chotii" wrote in message

...
"karen hill" wrote in message
om...
There is all this talk about the foreskin being a harbinger of disease
with the studies to back it up.

Cites, please?

And you know that word...harbinger? I do not think it means what you

think
it means.

--angela


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

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


I do not find his arguments convincing. In fact, his examples of 'proof'
that the anti-circumcision activists are all misguided look....gee, pretty
sane to me. Some of those quotes were even from peer-reviewed medical
journals, claiming no health benefit to routine infant circumcision....and
yet somehow the author of the web site uses them as proof that anti-circ
folks are all misguided.


Angela, if as you claim, you are not partial to the uncircumcised
member, why (as expected) do you immediately dismiss reputable medical
studies? Why do you immediately come to the defense of the anti-circ
ilk? You value the opinion of laymen over physicians!? In other words,
you asked Karen to provide medical info, knowing that you were never
going to accept it!? Typical anti-circ tactic!! Any research that
disagrees with your warped position is deemed
flawed!? Like it or not, the majority of these people are deeply
disturbed individuals. Allow me to give you a few examples: 60 Minutes
once did a piece on the anti-circ wack pack in Australia. They
featured an interview with Dr. Terry Russell in Brisbane, and visuals
of a circumcision being done in his clinic. A lot of air time was
given to anti-circ figures in Australia. The audience response was
overwhelmingly negative towards these people, who, according to
extensive viewer responses, appeared to come across as "freaks." It
would appear that "60 Minutes" did what they do best in providing
enough rope for the interviewee to "hang themselves."
"Similarly, a group of these Californian anti-circ extremists (from
NOCIRC) were recorded philosophizing about circumcision while sipping
cocktails by the pool in a TV documentary by the BBC on circumcision
in the prevention of AIDS. When the tape of this, kindly provided by
the BBC, was played to 200 medical students, raucous laughter broke
out during this part of the program."
Professor Brian Morris has studied these people in detail. Many of
whom (especially the foreskin restorers) suffer from several
psychological disorders, including narcissistic and exhibitionistic
body image, depressions, major defects in early mothering, and ego
pathology. It's often referred to as "Partialism" - "...if the
behavior, sexual urges, or fantasies cause clinically significant
distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important
areas of functioning." The simplest definition of partialism is
"exclusive focus on part of the body."
It doesn't take an EINSTEIN (circumcised Jew - greatest mind of the
20th century) to know that sane people do not blame all of their
life's ills on the loss of foreskin. Tens of millions of circumcised
men are leading happy, healthy sexual lives. The #1 adult film star of
all-time happens to be a circumcised Jew - Ron "The Hedgehog" Jeremy
(b. Hyatt, Queens, NY). So much for the anti-circ claim that
circumcision causes severe psychological and physical damage! LOL! The
mechanics of foreskin is not brain surgery, Andrea! If foreskin is
such a healthy appendage, why does it continually necessitate medical
intervention!? Why do 10% of newborns not circumcised at birth,
eventually necessitate circumcision?
If you squat over a mirror, you will notice that you have foreskin
as well!! 4 folds (labia minora & majora) and a clitoris.
Unfortunately for women, God forgot to design a backup plan!eheee In
terms of physiology, the clitoris (epicenter for pleasure) is not
comparative to the male prepuce, because the head of the penis (not
the foreskin) is where the greatest degree of sensation lies. Unlike
men, women have no choice but to spend billions of dollars a year on
feminine hygiene products.
As for choice!? Parents have the legal right to decide what is in
the best interest for their children. If we allowed children to decide
for themselves, not one would attend school. Not one would seek out
medical intervention. There is no choice when it comes to the
well-being of a child. Every precautionary measure should be taken to
ensure that a child leads a happy, healthy productive life. And
circumcision is one such measure that is analagous to immunization -
in that side effects and complications are immediate and usually
minor, but benefits accrue for a lifetime. If left till later ages,
the individual has already been exposed to the risk of urinary tract
infections, the physical problems, and carries a residual risk of
penile cancer. Therein lies the problem of "choice."
"Dirty Johnny" shouldn't have to wait until he supposedly reaches the
age of reason, in order to be circumcised. There are no health
benefits to foreskin. Only hindrances! An ounce of prevention is worth
a pound of cure. Lastly, those who tend to nitpick at spelling &
grammar, usually have very little else to work with! The same people
who are unable to impugn facts!! -D, NYC "To perfect the world (TIKUN
OLAM) is in Jewish thought - the obligation of every human being.
Where better to begin by fixing God's goof of foreskin?"

I think people think 'beautiful' what they have been raised to think
beautiful. I suspect most American women have never seen an intact man. I
know I haven't....just pictures. I don't find pictures of intact men to be
offensive. I would not be offended by one in person either, not that this is
likely to happen to me in this lifetime. Check with me in the next.

Most of the men on the who have successfully
completed restoration (time required: 3-5 years average) claim a very
significant improvement in their sensitivity; this group comprises both men
who were cut as infants, and those who chose to be cut as adults, and later
regretted the decision. Most also report an increase in both erect length
and girth. So when I get spam emails telling me about 'increase your
length/girth instantly!' I always smile just a little. Yes, it can be done.
It just takes a bloody long time. There is no instant fix. But there is a
fix.

In short, I think a very strong argument can be made for allowing the
individual the choice to alter or not alter his own body, as he believes
will benefit him most. I say the same thing for piercings, tattoos,
scarification, weight loss or gain, muscle-building, and any and all other
body modifications. Not my body: not my choice. I might offer an argument
against certain piercings (my niece wants her tongue pierced, and so did I
until I discovered that the dental damage could be extreme), but ultimately,
it's not my body, I don't have to live in it, therefore it's not my
decision.

nitpick
By the way, here's the definition of harbinger, for your edification:

harbinger
n : an indication of the approach of something or someone [syn:
forerunner, herald, precursor]
v : foreshadow or presage [syn: announce, annunciate, foretell,
herald]
/nitpick

The foreskin may not appeal to you, and it may indeed harbor some diseases
if not kept reasonably clean (as too can the woman's labial tissues and
vagina) but it's not a *harbinger*. It's just something kids are born with.

--angela

  #24  
Old March 24th 04, 11:01 PM
Xyzzy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default How do uncircumcised men get laid?

Joshua P. Hill wrote in message . ..

I'm all in favor of perversity, but its practice
should be limited to consenting adults.


If an adult feels that part of his genitalia
doesn't belong, so he cuts it off--that's neurotic.

But, removing part his child's genitalia
is neurotic and cruel. And irreversible.
  #25  
Old March 24th 04, 11:26 PM
Xyzzy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default How do uncircumcised men get laid?

Joshua P. Hill wrote in message . ..

I'm all in favor of perversity, but its practice
should be limited to consenting adults.


If an adult feels that part of his genitalia
doesn't belong, so he cuts it off--that's neurotic.

But, removing part his child's genitalia
is neurotic and cruel. And irreversible.
  #26  
Old March 24th 04, 11:31 PM
Jake Waskett
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default How do uncircumcised men get laid?

Xyzzy wrote:

Joshua P. Hill wrote in message
. ..

I'm all in favor of perversity, but its practice
should be limited to consenting adults.


If an adult feels that part of his genitalia
doesn't belong, so he cuts it off--that's neurotic.


Doesn't belong? Well, it depends. In rare cases, feeling that a part of the
body is "wrong" can be a symptom of Body Dysmorphic Disorder (though not
the only symptom, and not by itself sufficient to determine that). I guess
you could say that's a kind of neurosis, using the term loosely.


But, removing part [of] his child's genitalia
is neurotic and cruel. And irreversible.


You're right in the last point, incomprehensible in the first. But in what
way is it cruel to give a child the best start in life?

Jake.
  #27  
Old March 25th 04, 01:04 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default How do uncircumcised men get laid?

(Ralph DuBose) wrote in message . com...
(karen hill) wrote in message . com...
zolw wrote in message news:E9R7c.62418$JL2.829424@attbi_s03...
karen hill wrote:

There is all this talk about the foreskin being a harbinger of disease
with the studies to back it up.

Back it up honey. Your word is worthless without a source (a respectable
one too), preferably more than one source.


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

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

Who are these women who sleep with
these uncut guys? Uncut penises are so gross, that if I had not read
the studies, I would assume all uncut guys are chaste STD free
virgins!
This is just personal preference & if you are that shallow, then it also
is a personal choice.


Honestly, most people can differentiate between ugly and beautiful.
Beauty is mostly standard throughout the world. Most women don't like
uncircumcised men. Studies have been done.

http://www.circlist.com/preferences/womenspref.html

Frankly, an uncircumcised penis is a sure way to keep a guy a
virgin for life! Maybe we should tell that to all the devout
christians. Who are these women who sleep with uncut guys?


Essentially all women in Europe, especially the Scandinavian
countries, are all perfectly content with natural men. And the rate of
STDs is very low in those places.
Actually, there are solid evolutionary grounds to belive that human
females basically prefer what nature created because if they really
preferred sex with guys with no foreskins that is what natural
selection would have bred for them. It works for everything else. Why
do human males have such giant dicks -- much larger than any other
primate? Because that is what women choose. duh!!
If you want to put this is religious terms, ask yourself this
question: Do you thing God designed little boys so badly that every
single one of them needs an extremely painful operation?


The pain (if any) during routine infant circumcision, is no more
painful than being birthed through the womb! I can't think of anything
more traumatic for a mother & her newborn than the birthing process,
can you?! Yet, I do not see you petitioning procreation!? LOL! Infants
& toddlers shall always be sensitive to light, sound & touch. The mere
fact that a baby wails during any medical procedure, is not
necessarily indicative of pain. FYI: A BRIS (Jewish circumcision
ceremony on the eighth day of life) takes all of 40 seconds.
Your European example is not a very good one!eh Europeans have
become so accustomed to wallowing in their own FARSHTUNKEN gunk, they
simply do not know any better!ehehe ie There's a good reason why a
recent study found that only 47% of The French bathe on a daily basis.
Europeans (Parisians in particular) have never been known for their
wonderful bathing habits. Combine that with lack of circumcision (see
smegma), and you can then do the math!eh As for evolutionary data!?
Yes, if you were Neanderthal man, foreskin may have protected you from
high grass and shrubbery, in addition to sexual predators during
coitus. But for God's sakes, humans have evolved. We are living in the
21st century, remember? We now wear clothing and undergarments as our
protection, and for the most part, make love indoors!
In the end, you have to ask yourself one question: Do I want to
PLOTZ with that identifying heathen marker, or do I want to join the
human race?ehe Ralph, you must be able to train your heathenish mind
to view circumcision with sensible eyes. You must be able to
disassociate the SHMECKLE from a simple, safe & beneficial procedure.
The same procedure that is still the safest and most commonly
performed surgical procedure, occurring more frequently than tooth
extraction. Circumcision is a no-brainer! Be wise, circumcise! -D, NYC
"The pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, an almost fanatical love
of justice, and the desire for personal independence - these are the
features of Jewish tradition that make me thank my stars that I belong
to it" - ALBERT EINSTEIN


Drug addicts? Ugly
Prostitutes? I personally wouldn't sleep with an uncut guy, yuck!

Well, maybe there are a lot of guys out there too, who would not want to
sleep with you for being so superficial & shallow.

Yes, women are picky. Men are too. There was a girl in my college
dorm building who was really beautiful, blonde thin model face, but
when she was younger she spilled hot water on herself causing
third-degree burns on chest. She couldn't get a boyfriend. Some of
the ugly fat guys used her for blowjobs, but none of them would have a
relationship with her. She was totally saddened and depressed by it.
She eventually became a lawyer and has forgotten about ever having a
relationship or getting married.

Oh what a sad story to tell. You seem to not only be shallow, but cruel
& insensitive. I am sure that girl will find herself a normal man, who
appreciates her for who she is, not for what she looks like. & I bet
that she became a lawyer because she is not some dumb girl, but because
she is smart. She probably is a very satisfied person. Unlike you, who
just criticises with no purpose.


Actually, I was a bit disingenous when I posted. It wasn't another
girl in my dorm building, it was me. I was modeling when I was 15 for
local department store TV ads. When I was 16, I spilled boiling water
on myself when cooking. I have burns from the middle of my neck down
to my stomach area. It is amazing how few dates I could get
afterwards. My social life went to zero, I tried going out but no guy
would date me.

I was so lonely that I had to perform sexual favors in college just to
have someone to cuddle with. I was so lonely it hurt. I became
desperate so just for a night out and cuddling, I've had to perform
oral to ugly old uncircumcised janitors, fat, rude, uncircumcised,
smegma filled, frat boys who called me names just so they would stay
with me and cuddle.
Unfortunately I couldn't keep any of them longer than a few weeks
until I had taken care of their needs. They would move on to greener
pastures.

  #28  
Old March 25th 04, 05:05 AM
Chotii
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default How do uncircumcised men get laid?


wrote in message
om...
"Chotii" wrote in message

...
"karen hill" wrote in message
m...
"Chotii" wrote in message

...
"karen hill" wrote in message
om...
There is all this talk about the foreskin being a harbinger of

disease
with the studies to back it up.

Cites, please?

And you know that word...harbinger? I do not think it means what you

think
it means.

--angela

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

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


I do not find his arguments convincing. In fact, his examples of 'proof'
that the anti-circumcision activists are all misguided look....gee,

pretty
sane to me. Some of those quotes were even from peer-reviewed medical
journals, claiming no health benefit to routine infant

circumcision....and
yet somehow the author of the web site uses them as proof that anti-circ
folks are all misguided.


Angela, if as you claim, you are not partial to the uncircumcised
member, why (as expected) do you immediately dismiss reputable medical
studies?


I didn't see a single actual cite on the first page, just a lot of
assertions. I saw a man who stands to benefit financially from the
continuation of infant circumcision, promoting his business.

On the second page, I *do* see a LOT of cites. Alas, I don't have access to
those medical journals, and I have no idea what those articles say. As he
provides neither quotes nor links, I find those named journal articles no
more convincing than the ones listed on the nocirc web site, which does NOT
stand to benefit financially from the continuation of infant circumcision.
I don't even think it stands to benefit from an end to infant circumcision.

And as far as I can tell, sir, there are as many journal articles discussing
the damage done by circumcision as the benefits thereof. How do *you*
balance one extensive list of journal articles (pro) against another
extensive list (con)?

Why do you immediately come to the defense of the anti-circ
ilk? You value the opinion of laymen over physicians!? In other words,
you asked Karen to provide medical info, knowing that you were never
going to accept it!? Typical anti-circ tactic!! Any research that
disagrees with your warped position is deemed
flawed!?


Pot. Kettle. Black.

Professor Brian Morris has studied these people in detail. Many of
whom (especially the foreskin restorers) suffer from several
psychological disorders, including narcissistic and exhibitionistic
body image, depressions, major defects in early mothering, and ego
pathology. It's often referred to as "Partialism" - "...if the
behavior, sexual urges, or fantasies cause clinically significant
distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important
areas of functioning." The simplest definition of partialism is
"exclusive focus on part of the body."


Has it not occurred to you that different people react differently to severe
trauma? How many examples shall I give?

Some women have cesarean sections and are so traumatised they will not have
any children afterward. Many do fine and go on to have several or many
children.
Some women have vaginal births and are so traumatised they will not have any
children afterward. Many do fine and go on to have several or many children.
Some men and women who experience combat conditions become 'shell shocked'.
Some never recover. Many cope and go on to have normal lives.
Some premature infants who experience intrusive medical procedures to keep
them alive wind up with all kinds of psychological problems, including but
not limited to oral aversion, necessitating feeding tubes even though they
are physically normal. (I have such a child.) Many do just fine and you'd
never know all the things they went through.

It doesn't take an EINSTEIN (circumcised Jew - greatest mind of the
20th century) to know that sane people do not blame all of their
life's ills on the loss of foreskin. Tens of millions of circumcised
men are leading happy, healthy sexual lives.


And some of them are not, and the damage can be directly attributed to their
'surgery'. Neither you, nor any study in the world, can predict nor deny the
experience or feelings of an *individual*. The plural of anecdote is not
data. But every anecdote is equally valid compared to any other anecdote.
But what YOU are doing is saying, if they have a problem, they're just sick
and broken. You don't ask how they GOT that way. And you deny them the right
to know how they DID get that way.

If a man feels pleased with his member after surgery, good for him! I hope
he always feels that way. But what do *you* suggest for the men who are NOT
happy with what was done to them? What will you say? Too bad, get over it,
be a man, be strong, you don't feel what you feel, that can't possibly be a
problem for *you* because it isn't a problem for *me*, or the 523 men in
study X over here....?

*I* say it takes a hell of a strong man to admit that his apparently-normal
penis has a problem. Moreso when society is telling him, "No, no, you're
normal. Everybody says so, and so it MUST be true." But some of these men DO
have problems, directly attributable to their surgeries. Problems that were
absolutely avoidable.

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


I think "necessitate" is too strong a word. I think "receive" is accurate.
Many problems have more than one fix. Some doctors only know of one. Some
circumcisions are medically unavoidable. But that falls into a different
category in my mind. You have a problem, you fix it. But if it ain't
broke....

If you squat over a mirror, you will notice that you have foreskin
as well!! 4 folds (labia minora & majora) and a clitoris.
Unfortunately for women, God forgot to design a backup plan!eheee In
terms of physiology, the clitoris (epicenter for pleasure) is not
comparative to the male prepuce, because the head of the penis (not
the foreskin) is where the greatest degree of sensation lies. Unlike
men, women have no choice but to spend billions of dollars a year on
feminine hygiene products.


Uhhhh.

The clitoral hood is homologous to the prepuce. I don't see women standing
in line to have theirs excised, and you know why? Because it would bare the
glans clitoris to constant dry chafing against the underwear, and it would
be as irritating as hell. Almost no woman raised in the Western tradition
would do this. But a great many of them choose the same procedure, more or
less, for their sons.

And I have no idea what you're talking about with this 'billions of dollars
a year on feminine hygiene products'. What products are these? Menstrual
products? That has nothing to do with the external labial tissue.
Anti-fungal medications? This is actually mostly a factor of the
carbohydrate-and-sugar filled Western diet, combined with (in many cases)
hormone-altering contraceptive measures. Again, it has little to do with
the design of the body parts.

Besides, a lot of men *like* women with mature, adult, untidy-looking labia.
The idea of labioplasty (which is always an option of course) is repellent
to them. I see no reason why women might not have the same attraction to a
mature, adult, untidy-looking prepuce. (and before you misquote me, please
note I did not say "unwashed".)

As for choice!? Parents have the legal right to decide what is in
the best interest for their children.


Yesssss. I didn't say it was illegal....did I? I do consider it unethical.

I have had to choose surgery for one of my daughters....3 times. Open heart,
once. Stomach, twice. Two of my children have had to have cavities filled.
In EVERY CASE I made these choices to correct existing, known problems. The
only thing I ever actually had done to any of them prophylactically was to
have the tongue-tie on my twins clipped, though that was arguably also to
correct a known problem (twin #1 was not nursing effectively, twin #2 had a
tighter tie than #1)

I must ask....if you had a son, and he reached adulthood and said to you, "I
resent the fact that you had this done to me," how would you respond? "We
felt it was best at the time, we're sorry, here is restoration information?"
or something more along the lines of "Don't be stupid"? Or something in
between? Would you think he'd have some narcissistic disorder and write off
his feelings about his own body, or would you validate them and say, "Many
men feel the same way you do, what would you like to do about it"?

I assume that most men are at least contented with what they have, whether
it has been altered or not. But some are not. Tell me: why is it acceptable
for adult men to choose circumcision, and to encourage others to do the
same, and to be happy with their choice, yet men who seek restoration, to
quote your own source,

"...suffer from several psychological disorders, including
narcissistic and exhibitionistic body image, depressions,
major defects in early mothering, and ego pathology. It's
often referred to as "Partialism" - "...if the behavior, sexual
urges, or fantasies cause clinically significant distress or
impairment in social, occupational, or other important
areas of functioning." The simplest definition of partialism
is "exclusive focus on part of the body."

If we allowed children to decide
for themselves, not one would attend school. Not one would seek out
medical intervention. There is no choice when it comes to the
well-being of a child. Every precautionary measure should be taken to
ensure that a child leads a happy, healthy productive life. And
circumcision is one such measure that is analagous to immunization -
in that side effects and complications are immediate and usually
minor, but benefits accrue for a lifetime. If left till later ages,
the individual has already been exposed to the risk of urinary tract
infections, the physical problems, and carries a residual risk of
penile cancer. Therein lies the problem of "choice."


I suspect that intelligent, educated individuals can look at information
about circumcision, much as they do the information about vaccination and
even the merits of institutionalised, government-run education systems, and
reach different and equally valid conclusions. That is why there *is* a
debate. You look at the things that might go wrong and try to avoid them in
advance: I look at the things that might go right and say Don't mess with it
if you don't have to...and if you have to, well, then, you have to.

"Dirty Johnny" shouldn't have to wait until he supposedly reaches the
age of reason, in order to be circumcised. There are no health
benefits to foreskin. Only hindrances! An ounce of prevention is worth
a pound of cure.


What if little Johnny grows up and likes his uncut member just fine? What if
he LIKES it that way, has no problems with it, and can't imagine having
somebody remove part of it? What about that? Because that's true for
millions of men. No doubt hundreds of millions. I'd probably say billions,
but my mind won't wrap around numbers that big.

And I think intelligent, educated individuals can also disagree about the
whole 'ounce of prevention' thing. We in Western society do not take
antibiotics just in case we might get sick. We don't sterilise our houses in
case germs might get in. We don't remove the breasts of girl children in
case they might have breast cancer (a very real risk). We don't perform
cesarean sections on every pregnant woman in case they might have
difficulties in childbirth. We're even finding out that germ-killing soaps
and so on are *bad* ideas, and that children who grow up in too-clean
conditions may be at risk of illnesses and allergies precisely because their
growing immune systems are not being challenged by enough real germs. It's
easy to take the "just in case" mentality too far.

Lastly, those who tend to nitpick at spelling &
grammar, usually have very little else to work with!


Clearly you have never seen 'The Princess Bride'. I recommend you go rent
it, watch it, and then re-read my first post in this thread.

--angela (unrepentant anti-circ person. But if this disqualifies me to
participate in this thread, your blatant pro-circ opinion also disqualifies
you.)


  #29  
Old March 25th 04, 05:42 AM
Chotii
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default How do uncircumcised men get laid?


"Chotii" wrote in message
...

wrote in message


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


I think "necessitate" is too strong a word. I think "receive" is

accurate.

Sorry to piggyback my own post, but I hit send, went off to fold laundry,
and had this thought:

If 10% of newborns not circumcised at birth eventually necessitate
circumcision, and if this requirement were to hold true across the entire
population (positing a population in which 0% were cut routinely at birth)
then by your own numbers, 90% of newborns would NOT require it....ever. If
100% of them were cut routinely at birth, 90% of them....90 boys out of
every 100.....would have undergone an unnecessary, intrusive, painful and
irrevocable medical procedure.

Is it ethically acceptable to perform medical procedures on 100% of a
population (I mean, 100% of those cut routinely) because 10% of them would
have needed it eventually anyway?

I stand by my statement: if it's necessary, then you do it. If it ain't
broke, don't fix it.

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


  #30  
Old March 25th 04, 07:28 AM
zolw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default How do uncircumcised men get laid?

Well, I must admit that I am not for or against circumcision. I feel
that if the parents have strong tradition or religious beliefs, then
they should go for it. I mean it really doesn't seem to harm (it sure
hurts, but the normal procedure includes local anestesia, at least. So
the kid would have a "bit" of a burning sensation when urinating for a
few days).

If the parents on the other hand do not feel it to be neccessary & it is
not medically required (some boys need to have the foreskin removed due
to problems), then they shouldn't. I mean afterall, God/evolution
intended it to be there for a reason (nothing is there for no reason,
even the appendix is important in one way or another)

My problem with that thread is that "Karen Hill" here talks about
uncircumcised men as if they were sick or as if there was something
wrong with them. They are as nature intended them to be. & it is a load
of cr.. that most women prefer circumcised men.
Then it gets worse when she tries to get some sympathy by telling us
about her "sad" story of how she has been sexually used (not abused),
because of a scar on her chest. I hate people like this. Besides, what
on earth is such post doing on pregnancy newsgroup anyways?



Xyzzy wrote:

Joshua P. Hill wrote in message . ..


I'm all in favor of perversity, but its practice
should be limited to consenting adults.



If an adult feels that part of his genitalia
doesn't belong, so he cuts it off--that's neurotic.

But, removing part his child's genitalia
is neurotic and cruel. And irreversible.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
baby boys Taulmaril Pregnancy 99 November 27th 03 05:10 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.