Why do parents keep doing this?

Joseph wrote:

The issue here is that there are many men who are intact and would have a
real problem with having been circumcised at birth, and there many people
who are circumcised and have this problem of having been circumcised at
birth.


What about the other obvious options?

Igor van den Hoven wrote:

Briar Rabbit wrote in message ...

If you were heterosexual you would be aware that the problem odour which
some women have a problem dealing with is vaginal. That means it comes
from within and is useually caused by some infection or other. Women
seem to have no problem in dealing with the external elements of their
genitals, so why do men?


If you would expand your horizon, and move from circumcised men to
uncircumcised men, you would notice men generally do not have any
problems dealing with the odour of their genitials.


I must admit to ignorance. The vast body of evidence indicates that the
foreskin is a smelly and disgusting item and this collective evidence
must over ride your personal research in assorted men's rooms.

Igor van den Hoven wrote:

Briar Rabbit wrote in message ...


These several men? They were circumcised as adults and now are able to
make a valid comparison? If that is the group (you are talking about)
then the findings are the opposite of what you claim. You are not
deliberately trying to deceive people are you?


Most men who get circumcised as adults cannot give a valid comparison
because they were circumcised for medical reasons, mostly having a non
retractable foreskin.



Do you have some stats to support your sttement or are you just pulling
this one out of your ass?

"Chotii" wrote in message ...
wrote in message
m...

... In the end, women have no choice
but to put up with their own odoriferous emanations. snip
You also forget that men are led by their noses. We are the horniest
creatures on the planet. As long as we have a warm hole to nestle
inside of, we will generally tolerate anything!eh And that "anything"
includes the fishy-scented snatch! snip
.... Is it quite possible that you have become so accustomed to gnawing on snagle-tooth skin that you simply do not know any better!?

You don't really like women very much, do you? Or the human body? Or people?
My goodness, if you described your lover's body like this to her, or judged
her preferences like this, I've a pretty good idea she wouldn't be your
lover for long. You may disagree with me about the practice of circumcision, but I think it's becoming very quickly clear which one of us here is merely
'opinionated' and which one has veered well across the line into something
else. Unless what you're doing is trying to use humor to get your point
across. If that's the case, I'm afraid you'll have to try an approach that's
actually funny instead of broadly offensive. --angela

Does colorful use of language automatically equate to misogyny?ehe
Angela, who deemed you the keeper of content!?ehe Unlike you, my past
lovers shared the same tasteless sense of humor. Sorry, but I worship
the entire essence of a woman! I leave no crevice unturned!eh At the
same time, I am also a realist! I know that since the sexual
physiology is different, I have no choice but to accept the feminine
mystique. And that includes the ardour, as well as the odor!eh -D, 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.
Many more belong on the list, yet Jews comprise at 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 the most accomplished people per
capita that the world has ever produced." - MARLON BRANDO (excerpt
from "SONGS MY MOTHER TAUGHT ME")

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

How can lacking the wonderfully pleasure-sensitive foreskin which allows
the penis to float about in a moist cocoon (like the eye, with its lid and
socket) be an improvement? The gliding action is an incredible feature, all
else aside. Your penis is only capable of becoming erect now (this function
itself is often hampered in circumcised models). It is almost dead. Also,
how were you able to excise your prepuce without damaging the penile blood
supply system?

You indeed must convince yourself everything is all right lest you end up in
a psych ward.

Good riddance.

Sarah Vaughan wrote:

In message , Briar Rabbit


Harm? What harm would that be?


Possible infections including sepsis, urinary retention, and damage to
the rest of the penis.



Oh, you mean complications. Now that tells us that we need to select the
surgeon for the circumcision based on track record and experience rather
than let any old doctor who is available have a go. We would select a
doctor if we were going to have an operation, so why not for this one
for our kids?

And while we are about it we would insist on the use of pain medication,
yes?



The discomfort of the post circumcision period is minor and should not
be exaggerated


According to the study you quoted below, it took up to three weeks for
men to get back to work. So it sounds to me as though it causes
significant discomfort in at least some cases. Now, of course,



Actually it said: "Men reported returning to work after a median of 3
days (range 0-21) and to general activities after a median of 1 day (0-3
days)."

Yet you quote "3 weeks". What is it about you foreskin true believers
that turns you into pathological liars? Inquiring minds would like to know.

In message , Briar Rabbit
writes
Igor van den Hoven wrote:

Briar Rabbit wrote in message
...

If you were heterosexual you would be aware that the problem odour
which some women have a problem dealing with is vaginal. That means
it comes from within and is useually caused by some infection or
other. Women seem to have no problem in dealing with the external
elements of their genitals, so why do men?
If you would expand your horizon, and move from circumcised men to
uncircumcised men, you would notice men generally do not have any
problems dealing with the odour of their genitials.


I must admit to ignorance. The vast body of evidence indicates that the
foreskin is a smelly and disgusting item and this collective evidence
must over ride your personal research in assorted men's rooms.

Must say I'm intrigued - how exactly was this collective evidence
collected? Blindfolded smell and taste tests conducted under laboratory
conditions? ;-)


Sarah

--
"I once requested an urgent admission for a homeopath who had become depressed
and taken a massive underdose" - Phil Peverley

In message , Briar Rabbit
writes
nooneimportant wrote:

[...]
Just cus a man is
intact doesn't automagically mean that their partner is NOT satisifed. You
are skewing logic here.


I am not saying they are automatically unhappy. I would love to know
how the deal with the stink though.

I've never found that there is a stink. I've had one partner whose
smell I had a bit of a problem with, but even then I wouldn't go as far
as calling it a stink. Remembering what a flake this man was in other
ways, I suspect his personal hygiene just wasn't all that could be
desired. I've never found it to be a problem at all with any of the
other men I've been with.


[...]
Yes I know there are women (in the US) who prefer the uncircumcised
penis under all and any circumstance. 1% as found by the Williamson
survey. They are called skin freaks as they seem to be turned on by the
bodily excrement found under the foreskin.

On what do you base this conclusion? (I don't mean the statistic, I
mean the claim that it's the secretions that turn women on.)


Sarah

--
"I once requested an urgent admission for a homeopath who had become depressed
and taken a massive underdose" - Phil Peverley

Blast - I somehow managed to post this before it was done. Must have
hit 'Post' instead of 'Save' at a crucial moment. Sorry about that.

Anyway, here's the rest of what I meant to write. I see you've started
answering the bits I already wrote, so I've spliced those bits into here
from your post - apologies for the way that screws up the formatting.

In message , Sarah Vaughan
writes
In message , Briar Rabbit
writes
Sarah Vaughan wrote:

In message , Briar Rabbit

Sensible you say? To "be" one of the minority just to be so?
No. To be one of the uncircumcised, regardless of whether that's
the minority or the majority, because it avoids unnecessary harm and
discomfort.



Harm? What harm would that be?

Possible infections including sepsis, urinary retention, and damage to
the rest of the penis.

(Briar Rabbit wrote Oh, you mean complications. Now that tells us that
we need to select the surgeon for the circumcision based on track record
and experience rather than let any old doctor who is available have a
go.

(Sarah) And it tells me that I wouldn't have it done to my kids unless
they were one of the tiny minority who really do have a valid medical
reason for having it done. If they feel it's an operation they want to
have when they're old enough to understand what's involved and make up
their own minds, fine. It's not something I'm going to inflict upon
them.

(Briar Rabbit) We would select a doctor if we were going to have an
operation, so why not for this one for our kids?

(Sarah) Why do it to your kids at all? However carefully you select the
doctor, the complication rate is not going to be zero. Nor are the
chances of the baby regretting the operation once he's grown up.

(Briar Rabbit) And while we are about it we would insist on the use of
pain medication, yes?

(Sarah) I certainly hope so, but how effective is that going to be?
According to one study I found, paracetamol (acetaminophen) doesn't seem
to be strong enough
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...e&db=pubmed&do
pt=Abstract&list_uids=8134222). Ibuprofen is contraindicated in
newborns. Local anaesthetic? Good for the procedure, but can you give
it often enough to control post-operative pain that goes on for days?
Opiates? Heavy-duty and likely to make the baby too sleepy to feed
properly.



The discomfort of the post circumcision period is minor and should not
be exaggerated

According to the study you quoted below, it took up to three weeks for
men to get back to work. So it sounds to me as though it causes
significant discomfort in at least some cases.


(Briar Rabbit) Actually it said: "Men reported returning to work after a
median of 3 days (range 0-21)

(Sarah) ........which would be up to 21 days. IOW, up to three weeks.

(Briar Rabbit) and to general activities after a median of 1 day (0-3
days)."

(Sarah) So it took them up to three days just to get about their general
activities again?

(Briar Rabbit) Yet you quote "3 weeks".

(Sarah) No, I say *up to* three weeks. Want to try taking another look?

(Briar Rabbit) What is it about you foreskin true believers that turns
you into pathological liars? Inquiring minds would like to know.

(Sarah) What is it about you that makes you so quick to resort to
personal abuse on the basis of something you think I said that you
haven't even read properly in the first place?


Anyway, returning to the stuff I meant to write before hitting
'Post'..........

It's well-known that emotional and situational factors play a huge part
in our perception of pain intensity. I think you'd get a consensus
among pain specialists that a group of people who've volunteered for a
potentially painful procedure because they see some benefits in it for
them and who are aware of the fact that the situation _will_ be painful
are going to feel, subjectively, a lot less pain than a group who didn't
volunteer, have no idea whatsoever of what's going on or why they're in
pain, and are going through a major life upheaval anyway. So, the
amount of pain and discomfort felt by consenting adults is, in fact,
likely to be a noticeable underestimate of the amount of pain felt by
newborns.

... unless you have an agenda?

Sure. My agenda is to let people choose, as far as practicable, what
happens to their own bodies. Fine by me if adults choose to get
circumcised, but I see no good reason to carry the procedure out
routinely on newborns. What's your agenda?

I don't know, as I haven't heard the wild psychosexual reasons.
Of course, I've heard from several men who support keeping the
foreskin because sex is more pleasurable with a foreskin, but making
sex more pleasurable doesn't strike me as a wild reason.



These several men? They were circumcised as adults and now are able to
make a valid comparison?

Other way round. See
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/309/6955/676/a and
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/309/6955/679/a, for example.

If that is the group (you are talking about) then the findings are
the opposite of what you claim.

Seems to be at least some debate about that. While I was looking for
the above links, I found a link to
http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/fink1/, which found that a
sizeable proportion of men did find some deterioration in their sexual
function in the years following circumcision. Of course, one problem
with this study is that it didn't have a control group, so it's possible
that this represents a normal deterioration in sexual function as the
years go by. Still, given the high proportion who seemed to have some
deterioration in their sexual function even within four years of
circumcision, I do feel that if I were a man deciding whether or not to
get circumcised, I'd want to see more research before drawing any firm
conclusions.


Read this one for starters then:

==========================

Conference Abstract number: TuPeB4648

Adult male circumcision in Kenya: safety and patient satisfaction
snippage
Conclusions: Circumcisions can be performed safely in this setting
with no serious or lasting complications and with high levels of
patient satisfaction. Lessons learned from this trial will be useful
if MC is to be introduced widely as an intervention.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unasha...rc/message/419

So, if circumcision is so safe and easy in adulthood, why should you
have a problem with leaving men uncircumcised until adulthood so that
they can decide for themselves whether or not they want it done?


Sarah

--
"I once requested an urgent admission for a homeopath who had become depressed
and taken a massive underdose" - Phil Peverley

Chotii wrote:
"Sarah Vaughan" wrote in message
...


Sure. My agenda is to let people choose, as far as practicable, what
happens to their own bodies. Fine by me if adults choose to get
circumcised, but I see no good reason to carry the procedure out routinely
on newborns. What's your agenda?


Well, he has no agenda, naturally, Sarah. However, he is convinced that
"research" has declared "that the foreskin is a smelly and disgusting
item" - yes, I'm quite sure the researchers used that phrase in their
summary - and therefore, out of simple kindness toward all young boys
everywhere, he thinks they ought all to be divested of it without regard to
medical necessity, or the child's wishes in later years.

--angela


I believe that male circumcision is a perfectly acceptable parental
decision as a result of religious, cultural or medical considerations.