Circumcision
TxMagnum84
the majority of the Hispanic, Spanish and other Latin cultures rarely
circumcise their sons. My problem is that I get balantis or yeast infections
on a regular basis. I'm really tired of it - it's really uncomfortable.
I have three questions:
1. Have any males been circumcised as adults? If so, please tell me your
experience (healing time, pain...etc.)
2. What do women really prefer?
3. Any suggestions on preventing ( if that's possible) balantis or yeast
infections?
Real email:ihaatespaam@hotmail.com!!!
>I am a 32yo Hispanic male which accounts for me not being circumcised. I think
>the majority of the Hispanic, Spanish and other Latin cultures rarely
>circumcise their sons. My problem is that I get balantis or yeast infections
>on a regular basis. I'm really tired of it - it's really uncomfortable.
If you haven't already been to a doctor - then go to one.
>I have three questions:
>
>1. Have any males been circumcised as adults? If so, please tell me your
>experience (healing time, pain...etc.)
Was circ. at birth - like most WASPs. I have no problems with infection of
course.
>2. What do women really prefer?
Bigger dicks! Of course! (You asked about *preference* - not "requirements")
It depends on what their first *real* boyfriend had & whether they have some
kind of current (passing) fetish (usually for "uncut" since most guys are
circ.)
.so lets just say it doesn't matter that much - but being "uncut" makes you
somewhat unique (in a good way), so some will seek you out because they have
an uncut "fetish" - the rest of the women don't care.
>3. Any suggestions on preventing ( if that's possible) balantis or yeast
>infections?
See your doctor ASAP - & ask the question you just asked!!!
jane
wrote:
>I am a 32yo Hispanic male which accounts for me not being circumcised. I think
>the majority of the Hispanic, Spanish and other Latin cultures rarely
>circumcise their sons. My problem is that I get balantis or yeast infections
>on a regular basis. I'm really tired of it - it's really uncomfortable.
>
>I have three questions:
>
>1. Have any males been circumcised as adults? If so, please tell me your
>experience (healing time, pain...etc.)
>2. What do women really prefer?
It personally doesn't matter to me.
>3. Any suggestions on preventing ( if that's possible) balantis or yeast
>infections?
>
Wash regularly with soap and water. Plain yogurt is curative once you
have an infection because it contains acidopholus (sp?) which kills
the yeast.
Real email:ihaatespaam@hotmail.com!!!
Re: yeast infections: If you knead your dick for 10 min & then put it in a
covered container - will it then rise?
(tasteless - but I thought it was funny anyway!! <g>)
'mathochist' Angela Long
>I am a 32yo Hispanic male which accounts for me not being circumcised. I think
>the majority of the Hispanic, Spanish and other Latin cultures rarely
>circumcise their sons. My problem is that I get balantis or yeast infections
>on a regular basis. I'm really tired of it - it's really uncomfortable.
So do I. Do you think circumcision would help?
>1. Have any males been circumcised as adults? If so, please tell me your
>experience (healing time, pain...etc.)
Many (not all) who have been have noticed that sex is
less pleasurable afterwards. Consider that.
>2. What do women really prefer?
Personally, I'd rather not be circumcised. But if it
will help with the yeast infections, I'll give it some
thought!
>3. Any suggestions on preventing ( if that's possible) balantis or yeast
>infections?
Take acidophilus (eat yogurt, drink acidophilus milk, or
take it in capsule form). Eat a good diet, not too much
sugar. Keep yourself clean, but not *too* clean -- too
much soap and/or washing can wash away your natural pro-
tective substances and cause irritation, leading to yeast
infections.
--
-- Angi Long | When we're free to love anyone we choose
Mom to Paulanne, Alicia,| When this world's big enough for all different views
Susan, & Stormy | When we all can worship from our own kind of pew
Partner to Charles | Then we shall be free (Garth Brooks)
Alan J Holmes
'mathochist' Angela Long <angi...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>TxMagnum84 <txmag...@aol.com> wrote:
>>I am a 32yo Hispanic male which accounts for me not being circumcised. I think
>>the majority of the Hispanic, Spanish and other Latin cultures rarely
>>circumcise their sons. My problem is that I get balantis or yeast infections
>>on a regular basis. I'm really tired of it - it's really uncomfortable.
>So do I. Do you think circumcision would help?
It might, but has he considered washing on a daily basis, perhaps
a couple of times a day?
>>1. Have any males been circumcised as adults? If so, please tell me your
>>experience (healing time, pain...etc.)
I once met, in hospital, a lad of about 16 who had just been
circumcised and he wasn't at all haapy with the pain and
discomfort.
>Many (not all) who have been have noticed that sex is
>less pleasurable afterwards. Consider that.
>>2. What do women really prefer?
>Personally, I'd rather not be circumcised. But if it
>will help with the yeast infections, I'll give it some
>thought!
I wouldn't consider it at any cost.
>>3. Any suggestions on preventing ( if that's possible) balantis or yeast
>>infections?
>Take acidophilus (eat yogurt, drink acidophilus milk, or
>take it in capsule form). Eat a good diet, not too much
>sugar. Keep yourself clean, but not *too* clean -- too
>much soap and/or washing can wash away your natural pro-
>tective substances and cause irritation, leading to yeast
>infections.
Just like I said, wash it frequently, underneath the foreskin,
obviously!
--
Alan G4CRW, Ex FAA, RNARS and others!
Here I sit, giving the world the benefit of my words of wit and wisdom!
What an exciting life I lead!(:-)
NRaelT
>>>infections?
>
>>Take acidophilus (eat yogurt, drink acidophilus milk, or
>>take it in capsule form). Eat a good diet, not too much
>>sugar. Keep yourself clean, but not *too* clean -- too
>>much soap and/or washing can wash away your natural pro-
>>tective substances and cause irritation, leading to yeast
>>infections.
>
>Just like I said, wash it frequently, underneath the foreskin,
>obviously!
>
The "yoghurt" treatment for yeast infections in women doesn't involve eating
it, so I assume that it wouldn't apply to men, either. The active acidophilus
culture has to work directly on the yeast.
http://www.msu.edu/user/eisthen/yeast/
This site has information on yeast infections. It's geared toward women, but
has a section on yeast infections in men as well.
Nena
http://members.aol.com/nraelt
Real email:ihaatespaam@hotmail.com!!!
>
>I once met, in hospital, a lad of about 16 who had just been
>circumcised and he wasn't at all haapy with the pain and
>discomfort.
What was his reason to become circ.? Was it a religious reason?
Real email:ihaatespaam@hotmail.com!!!
>I once met, in hospital, a lad
I know that sometimes to UK people the term "lad" has a specific meaning of
some sort. What exactly is that?
In the US "lad" just means the same thing as "guy" or "man", usually "young
man". Kind of just a generic term.
cool miss amaze
: 2. What do women really prefer?
Well speaking as a woman who has been with both, I'd have to say I prefer a
man not to be. This is not just for my sexual pleasure either, the two men
I have been with who were not seemed to have a heightened sense of feeling
in their penises.
: 3. Any suggestions on preventing ( if that's possible) balantis or yeast
: infections?
:
Wear cotton boxers. I know that sounds like the cure all, but it really
does seem to help. Wash thoroughly after sex, don't "sleep in it" *G*
When washing regularly, gently pull back the foreskin and wash the unit
itself.
I dated a man that was not for about 2.5 years and in following these simple
"do's" we never once had any problems with yeast or any other infections.
HTH
bless...
pan
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
and just when it seems as though all your tears were at an end
sorrow's child lifts up her hand and she brings it down again
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Real email:ihaatespaam@hotmail.com!!!
>TxMagnum84 (txmag...@aol.com) wrote:
>: 2. What do women really prefer?
>
>Well speaking as a woman who has been with both, I'd have to say I prefer a
>man not to be. This is not just for my sexual pleasure either, the two men
>I have been with who were not seemed to have a heightened sense of feeling
>in their penises.
Good answer - from a person who likes "uncut".
.but isn't it true that *some* women also prefer "cut"?
Any women here with that preference like to tell us why you prefer "cut" to
"uncut"?
Ron Jeremy
Real email:ihaat...@hotmail.com!!! wrote in message
<6t2a51$n6o$2...@camel19.mindspring.com>...
>.but isn't it true that *some* women also prefer "cut"?
>
> Any women here with that preference like to tell us why you prefer
"cut" to
>"uncut"?
>
The only thing one can get out of this is subjective opinion. To
each his/her own.
RJ
Real email:ihaatespaam@hotmail.com!!!
TRUE! ..but that's ALL we ever can get anyway.
The main thing of interest is not that "she" likes it one way or the other -
but WHY she does!
HARRY HILL
eating artichoke or opening festive gifts: there's a treasure inside
the wrapping that takes technique and love to get at.
Real email:ihaatespaam@hotmail.com!!!
>>
>>The main thing of interest is not that "she" likes it one way or the other -
>>but WHY she does!
>>
> Why? Because some of the pleasure of a foreskin is akin to
>eating artichoke or opening festive gifts: there's a treasure inside
>the wrapping that takes technique and love to get at.
Thanks! Another good reason to like uncut - but I haven't heard any comments
from anyone who prefers circumcised - & I think only one who doesn't care.
I don't know if you really want to equate it with an artichoke - a banana is a
little better <g>
Michelle Knight
wrote:
>In article <9SEP1998...@vax2.concordia.ca>, hil...@vax2.concordia.ca (HARRY HILL) wrote:
>
>>>
>>>The main thing of interest is not that "she" likes it one way or the other -
>>>but WHY she does!
>>>
>> Why? Because some of the pleasure of a foreskin is akin to
>>eating artichoke or opening festive gifts: there's a treasure inside
>>the wrapping that takes technique and love to get at.
>
>Thanks! Another good reason to like uncut - but I haven't heard any comments
>from anyone who prefers circumcised - & I think only one who doesn't care.
I, for one, prefer cut. I just like the look better, but then
again, I was always the type to find out what my presents were
*before* Christmas. <lol>
Michelle
'mathochist' Angela Long
>The "yoghurt" treatment for yeast infections in women doesn't involve eating
>it, so I assume that it wouldn't apply to men, either. The active acidophilus
>culture has to work directly on the yeast.
Eating it helps, too. A mother can take acidophilus (or
eat it in food) to help control yeast infections (thrush)
of her nipples and her baby's mouth, too.
Reka G. Morvay
>eat it in food) to help control yeast infections (thrush)
>of her nipples and her baby's mouth, too.
Oh yuck! I hadn't realized nipples can get a yeast infection too! Is there
any part of the body that's free from the danger of yeast infections?
Reka
'mathochist' Angela Long
>'mathochist' Angela Long <angi...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>Eating it [yogurt] helps, too. A mother can take acidophilus (or
>>eat it in food) to help control yeast infections (thrush)
>>of her nipples and her baby's mouth, too.
>Oh yuck! I hadn't realized nipples can get a yeast infection too! Is there
>any part of the body that's free from the danger of yeast infections?
I don't think so. I've had bad ones on my hands, too,
when I worked with bread dough while my hands had some
dermatitis from frequent washing after diaper changes
in my home daycare.
Real email:ihaatespaam@hotmail.com!!!
>In article <6t7p9k$1ai0$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>,
>'mathochist' Angela Long <angi...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>
>>Eating it [yogurt] helps, too. A mother can take acidophilus (or
>>eat it in food) to help control yeast infections (thrush)
>>of her nipples and her baby's mouth, too.
>
>Oh yuck! I hadn't realized nipples can get a yeast infection too! Is there
>any part of the body that's free from the danger of yeast infections?
The tip of your left pinky finger & your right wrist <g>
HBL
unmatched - I love the feel of an uncut better... the motions administered
with ones hands or mouth feel more fluid and continuous.
Kim
do believe we are the only country to routine circ our baby boys. I
have never even seen one uncut! Kim
Real email:ihaatespaam@hotmail.com!!!
True! Almost all men in the US are circ. I'm circ & never had any problems
because of it.
HARRY HILL
reason the U.S.,with the encouragement of Mr.Kellog of the Flakes,
began to clip foreskins off nearly a hundred years ago now--is
rendered more difficult without the natural lubrication supplied by
the damp interior of the prepuce.
Elf Sternberg
KAL...@webtv.net (Kim) writes:
>I have never been with a man who wasn't circ'd! I live in the USA, and I
>do believe we are the only country to routine circ our baby boys.
Fortunately, not anymore. Circumcision is no longer
completely routine; many, many parents are questioning the "wisdom" of
the elders and, when asked by the doctors if they want the child
circumcision, are opting to not go in for further unnecessary surgery.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, rational romantic mystical cynical idealist
e...@halcyon.com: A Decade of Usenet: On-line since August 18, 1988
http://www.halcyon.com/elf/
I have looked into the abyss, and the abyss has looked into me.
Neither liked what we saw.
--- Brother Theodore
Fred Zickrick
to the cited author. On Tue, 15 Sep 1998 13:49:06 CST,
hil...@vax2.concordia.ca (HARRY HILL) wrote:
>In article <6tm7kp$2hd$3...@camel0.mindspring.com>, Plea...@spam.thanks.us (Real email:ihaat...@hotmail.com!!!) writes...
>>In article <12708-35...@newsd-152.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, KAL...@webtv.net (Kim) wrote:
>>>I have never been with a man who wasn't circ'd! I live in the USA, and I
>>>do believe we are the only country to routine circ our baby boys. I
>>>have never even seen one uncut! Kim
>>
>>True! Almost all men in the US are circ. I'm circ & never had any problems
>>because of it.
>>
>>
>>
> Yes, but self gratification --the prevention of which was the
>reason the U.S.,with the encouragement of Mr.Kellog of the Flakes,
>began to clip foreskins off nearly a hundred years ago now--is
>rendered more difficult without the natural lubrication supplied by
>the damp interior of the prepuce.
That's why they invented lube. Believe me circ'd guys have no problem
with self gratification.
Fred
fr...@texoma.net
Real email:ihaatespaam@hotmail.com!!!
>In article <6tm7kp$2hd$3...@camel0.mindspring.com>, Plea...@spam.thanks.us (Real
> email:ihaat...@hotmail.com!!!) writes...
>>In article <12708-35...@newsd-152.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> KAL...@webtv.net (Kim) wrote:
>>>I have never been with a man who wasn't circ'd! I live in the USA, and I
>>>do believe we are the only country to routine circ our baby boys. I
>>>have never even seen one uncut! Kim
>>
>>True! Almost all men in the US are circ. I'm circ & never had any problems
>>because of it.
>>
>>
>>
> Yes, but self gratification --the prevention of which was the
>reason the U.S.,with the encouragement of Mr.Kellog of the Flakes,
>began to clip foreskins off nearly a hundred years ago now--is
>rendered more difficult without the natural lubrication supplied by
>the damp interior of the prepuce.
Most of the time I seem to have sufficient "pre-cumm" & I don't have problems.
I would also guess that many uncirc guys use lube also.
..but I agree with the original idea that circ. should not be a necessity. I
guess women tend to have a "fetish" for uncirc guys mostly because it is
unusual in the US to be uncirc - so the experience with them is new &
different.
The original poster was ridiculous in trying to give people the idea that
being circ. somehow makes you sexually inadequate in comparison with uncirc
guys. Let's face it - the article was describing only one persons' experience
& it doesn't represent most people.
Real email:ihaatespaam@hotmail.com!!!
>In article <12708-35...@newsd-152.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
> KAL...@webtv.net (Kim) writes:
>
>>do believe we are the only country to routine circ our baby boys.
>
>completely routine; many, many parents are questioning the "wisdom" of
>the elders and, when asked by the doctors if they want the child
>circumcision, are opting to not go in for further unnecessary surgery.
The original idea behind circ - was one of "cleanliness". Whether it makes
sense - or not doesn't matter - it is the perception.
I assume that probably some men did (& do) have infections & pain because of
not being circ. (like the guy who posted here awhile back), so to allieviate
this problem for the few men who had it, it became the "cultural norm" to just
circ. everyone - so that those problems couldn't happen in the first place.
Lynne Jeffers
>Plea...@spam.thanks.us (Real email:ihaat...@hotmail.com!!!)
>wrote:
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>The main thing of interest is not that "she" likes it one way or the other -
>>>>but WHY she does!
>>>>
>>>eating artichoke or opening festive gifts: there's a treasure inside
>>>the wrapping that takes technique and love to get at.
>>
>>Thanks! Another good reason to like uncut - but I haven't heard any comments
>>from anyone who prefers circumcised - & I think only one who doesn't care.
>
> I, for one, prefer cut. I just like the look better, but then
>again, I was always the type to find out what my presents were
>*before* Christmas. <lol>
I personally don't like the look of the circumcised penis. Most of them
have that brown or pink circ scar running 'round them, and I don't think
scars are very sexy. And the glans penis is so *dry* looking it's almost
unappetizing. ;-) The glans penis is supposed to be soft and moist,
kinda like the skin on the inside of your mouth, as opposed to dry to
the touch, kinda like the lips.
My $.02. YMMV.
-Lynne
Piers Sutton
men? and would it help the man not get so sore/take as long to arrive?
turtle, not believing in caps today
Tina Sbragia
>
> This followup was posted to soc.sexuality.general and a copy was sent
> to the cited author. On Tue, 15 Sep 1998 13:49:06 CST,
>
> >In article <6tm7kp$2hd$3...@camel0.mindspring.com>, Plea...@spam.thanks.us (Real email:ihaat...@hotmail.com!!!) writes...
> >>In article <12708-35...@newsd-152.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, KAL...@webtv.net (Kim) wrote:
> >>>have never even seen one uncut! Kim
> >>
> >>True! Almost all men in the US are circ. I'm circ & never had any problems
> >>because of it.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > Yes, but self gratification --the prevention of which was the
> >reason the U.S.,with the encouragement of Mr.Kellog of the Flakes,
> >began to clip foreskins off nearly a hundred years ago now--is
> >rendered more difficult without the natural lubrication supplied by
> >the damp interior of the prepuce.
>
> with self gratification.
> Fred
> fr...@texoma.net
I don't doubt that they have a problem with self gratification.
It's intimacy they have a problem with. :)
Have I been reading your mind again??? hehe
I hope you and your hand will be eternally happy together.
Get a life! <smoochies>
Tina
Real email:ihaatespaam@hotmail.com!!!
Like uncirc. guys have less trouble with intimacy than do circ. guys LOL!
<sarcasm - folks!>
Geeze - foreskin is so miraculous - it even affects what's inside your head.
;-)
I guess I'm not only inadequate - but I'm also a "cold" person too - just
because I don't have a foreskin.
So I guess the US is full of inadequate & "cold" men - so all the women should
go elsewhere to find those miraculous foreskinned men. ...so why are you still
here, girls - leave your husband's & BF's & move to another country where all
the men have foreskins! LOL!
(This is silly!)
Tina, instead of dissing Fred (& all men who don't have foreskins) - why don't
you take Fred out on a date - so he won't be alone with his foreskinless
"member".
ten killer
>I happen to prefer the look of a cut one - but the feel of an uncut is
unmatched - I love the feel of an uncut better...> the motions
administered with ones hands or mouth feel more fluid and continuous.
I guess it all depends on whether you prefer to look at it or play with
it.
I don't understand why anyone would not like the way an uncut one looks.
That is the way God makes us. The other is man made and everything that
God makes is MUCH prettier than anything that man has made. Don't you
think?
Elf Sternberg
hil...@vax2.concordia.ca (HARRY HILL) writes:
> Yes, but self gratification --the prevention of which was the
>reason the U.S.,with the encouragement of Mr.Kellog of the Flakes,
>began to clip foreskins off nearly a hundred years ago now--is
>rendered more difficult without the natural lubrication supplied by
>the damp interior of the prepuce.
Actually, John Harvey Kellogg (and he's not the guy "of the
Flakes"... that was Will Keith Kellogg, his brother) was merely
recommending a practice already in wide acceptance as a measure of
"cleanliness"; 'ol John was a cleanliness nut himself, taking several
baths and enemas a day to make sure that he was clean inside and out.
Of coures, Kellogg was convinced that sex was the root of all that was
evil and dirty; he never had any children himself and advocated a
variety of methods of preventing masturbation in children. Kellogg
was especially concerned with female masturbation and recommended a
clitorectomy with carbolic acid to "allay abnormal excitment."
Charming fellow, really.
Elf Sternberg
>I assume that probably some men did (& do) have infections & pain because of
>not being circ. (like the guy who posted here awhile back), so to allieviate
>this problem for the few men who had it, it became the "cultural norm" to just
>circ. everyone - so that those problems couldn't happen in the first place.
Part of this "problem," though, harkens back to the days when
people were so ashamed of their own body parts that people put
coverings on the legs of a table (really!) and referred to those
wooden parts as the table's "limbs." In those days in America, the
mother took care of children and, unfamiliar with the penis, had no
idea how to wash it or how to train the child to wash it. This took
hold in the upper class (duh), and everything the upper class did
eventually found its way to the mainstream.
These days, there's no excuse for that kind of nonsense. The
advantages of circumcision and the advantages or not circumcising are
about equal, if one writes off the pain of the procedure itself as
inconsequential. I'm not prepared to do that myself, of course.
Roy Mongiovi
ten killer <tenk...@webtv.net> wrote:
>That is the way God makes us. The other is man made and everything that
>God makes is MUCH prettier than anything that man has made. Don't you
>think?
Oh yes. Absolutely! I don't cut my hair or shave.
I don't cut my fingernails or toenails. After all,
if God hadn't meant 'em to grow, he wouldn't have
made them grow....
Sheesh....
--
Roy J. Mongiovi System Support Specialist IV Information Technology
Georgia Institute of Technology
Tough are the souls that tread the knife's edge Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0715
Jethro Tull - "Passion Play" r...@prism.gatech.edu
Real email:ihaatespaam@hotmail.com!!!
>In article <15SEP199...@vax2.concordia.ca>
> hil...@vax2.concordia.ca (HARRY HILL) writes:
>
>> Yes, but self gratification --the prevention of which was the
>>reason the U.S.,with the encouragement of Mr.Kellog of the Flakes,
>>began to clip foreskins off nearly a hundred years ago now--is
>>rendered more difficult without the natural lubrication supplied by
>>the damp interior of the prepuce.
>
> Actually, John Harvey Kellogg (and he's not the guy "of the
>Flakes"... that was Will Keith Kellogg, his brother) was merely
>recommending a practice already in wide acceptance as a measure of
>"cleanliness"; 'ol John was a cleanliness nut himself, taking several
>baths and enemas a day to make sure that he was clean inside and out.
Oooh!! An enema "freak" - eh? Wonder if he liked anal? <g>
>Of coures, Kellogg was convinced that sex was the root of all that was
>evil and dirty; he never had any children himself and advocated a
At least he was pro-population control - but too bad he was anti-sex!
>variety of methods of preventing masturbation in children. Kellogg
>was especially concerned with female masturbation and recommended a
>clitorectomy with carbolic acid to "allay abnormal excitment."
Auuggghhh! Maybe he was just a sadist - & enjoyed giving the gift of exreme
pain LOL!
Real email:ihaatespaam@hotmail.com!!!
>In article <6tn1sj$fct$4...@camel19.mindspring.com>
> Plea...@spam.thanks.us (Real email:ihaat...@hotmail.com!!!) writes:
>
>>I assume that probably some men did (& do) have infections & pain because of
>>not being circ. (like the guy who posted here awhile back), so to allieviate
>>this problem for the few men who had it, it became the "cultural norm" to just
>
>>circ. everyone - so that those problems couldn't happen in the first place.
>
> Part of this "problem," though, harkens back to the days when
>people were so ashamed of their own body parts that people put
>coverings on the legs of a table (really!) and referred to those
>wooden parts as the table's "limbs." In those days in America, the
>mother took care of children and, unfamiliar with the penis, had no
>idea how to wash it or how to train the child to wash it.
If she had children - then she couldn't be entirely unfamiliar with it!
.but I get your point about it being "shameful".
> These days, there's no excuse for that kind of nonsense. The
>advantages of circumcision and the advantages or not circumcising are
>about equal, if one writes off the pain of the procedure itself as
>inconsequential. I'm not prepared to do that myself, of course.
As a (fellow) circ. guy, I can't say I remember any pain - though I guess
there was some(?).
I would guess that not circ. is a better option nowadays & let the boy/man
decide for himself later in life what he wants to do - UNLESS there
are infection problems - then he should probably get circ. anyhow.
There *is* risk with the operation (as I guess there is in all operations), so
to be on the safe side - not having it done means *no* risk.
Real email:ihaatespaam@hotmail.com!!!
>On Wed, 16 Sep 1998 10:07:53 CST, tenk...@webtv.net (ten
>killer) wrote:
>
>>I don't understand why anyone would not like the way an uncut one looks.
>>God makes is MUCH prettier than anything that man has made. Don't you
>>think?
>
>fair game to point out that a god allegedly commanded
>circumcision. It might even be the same god that you have in mind
>who allegedly created us and then allegedly commanded
>circumcision for his "chosen peoples."
>
>GE 17:10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after
>you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be
>circumcised.
>
>GE 17:14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in
>the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my
>covenant. [In other words, the CHILD is cut off from his people
>when the PARENTS fail to have him circumcised.]
Of course it would make a lot more sense if God would create his "chosen
peoples" so that they would be born circumcised. But God just likes to
deliberately torture the human race for some reason. I don't know why he does
this. He must get some kind of perverse thrill out of creating these imperfect
beings & then torturing them. It's great for the masochists he created - but
for the rest, it is just not very nice at all. I think God has some kind of
unresolved anger from his younger days that he needs to release in a more
constructive manner. I think God needs some long term therapy.
Real email:ihaatespaam@hotmail.com!!!
Real email:ihaatespaam@hotmail.com!!!
>On Wed, 16 Sep 1998 01:59:59 CST, Plea...@spam.thanks.us (Real
>email:ihaat...@hotmail.com!!!) wrote:
>
>>Like uncirc. guys have less trouble with intimacy than do circ. guys LOL!
>><sarcasm - folks!>
>
>tends to be the other way around. NOT circumcised males tend to
>experience more sexual dysfunction and less confidence in their
>sexuality than their circumcised counterparts.
Probably because all of the uncirc. men's friends are circ - so the circ. guy
feels out of place. It could also be cultural though, maybe certain
dysfunctions occur more frequently in cultures that just happen not to be
circ.
>>Geeze - foreskin is so miraculous - it even affects what's inside your head.
>>;-)
>
>According to avid anticircumcision activists, this is true.
>Circumcision has been blamed for male aggressiveness, rape,
>impotence, hatred of mother, low self-esteem, more masturbation,
>less masturbation, [regarding masturbation, it depends on whether
>the desired result is more of it or less of it for purposes of
>the argument at hand]
I do believe that the argument is always at hand <g>
>both men and women, inability to urinate in a public place, etc.,
I would think that peeing is a bit more difficult for uncirc. It's all about
aim! ;-)
Ron Jeremy
ten killer wrote in message
<24259-35...@newsd-151.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
hairb...@sprynet.com (HBL) wrote:
>everything that God makes is MUCH prettier
>than anything that man has made. Don't you think?
Have you looked at a Duck-billed Platypus lately?
Cassandra
I hadn't either, but I found this page on one of the anti-circumcision
pages. It shows several pictures of uncut penises. It is rather
interesting if you have never seen one.
Do not go to this page if viewing genitalia offends you!!!!!
http://www.datasync.com/SexuallyMutilatedChild/33.htm
Cassandra
(Who is interested in this topic as she is planning on having children
in a few years....)
Reka G. Morvay
Don M. <Do...@BOGUS.ADDRESS.com> wrote:
>Actually, according to the Laumann study (published recently) it
>tends to be the other way around. NOT circumcised males tend to
>experience more sexual dysfunction and less confidence in their
>sexuality than their circumcised counterparts.
I bet that study was done in the US. The reason I say that is because
minority status would be a major confounding factor in such a study, and
if they did not bother to perform a cross-cultural study, their findings
are meaningless. The reasoning is thus: if uncircumcised men are in the
minority, they might very well feel that they're "strange" and perhaps not
as desirable to their partners as "normal" circumcised guys. If so, their
feelings of inadequacy and performance problems may not be directly due to
circumcision, but rather due to feeling "different." In a study of the
psychological effects of circumcision, you need to control for this
possibility, and extend your study into areas where uncircumcised and
minority status do not coincide.
(Yeah, I'm a research psychologist in training...)
>The list of ailments which are attributed to circumcision by avid
>anticirc activists is as long as the list of illnesses dating
>from the late 1800s which could allegedly be cured by
>circumcision.
Yes, emotions about circumcision tend to run high. I'd like to interject
here that the last time the circumcision topic has come up on this
newsgroup, people became very heated, which tends to happen, but
unfortunately their strong feelings about the topic degenerated the thread
into a flame war. The moderators had to ask several parties to refrain
from posting further, and even had to reject some inflammatory messages.
Therefore I'd like to take this moment to ask all present and future
participants in this discussion to please be aware of your language, and
respect your opponents' views. We can discuss this topic without having to
resort to flame wars. This in no way is a comment on the above post, just
recollections of what happened last time to the same discussion, and a
wish to have a productive discussion on a very worthwhile topic.
Thanks,
Reka
moderator
Ron Jeremy
J Prescott wrote in message <3602179...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> really it is the owner of the penis who is most important
And THAT says it all.
ten killer
anything. You are just removing dead cells. There is a difference.
When you remove any non regenerating part of our bodies, it just isn't
as pretty. Ears are ugly and dirty but no one cuts them off for the
hell of it, asthetics, or cleanliness of it. They have a function just
like a foreskin. You can't equate a foreskin with fingernails or hair
for they grow back, the foreskin don't. You have the option of having
long or short fingernails or a beard and moustache just on a whim. You
can't just wake up one day and say, "I want a long foreskin, I think I
shall let mine grow, if I don't like it, I can always clip it back",
or "today I will clip my foreskin and see how my penis looks, after
all, it will grow back in a month or so".
If it did, where would the argument be?
tenkiller
Real email:ihaatespaam@hotmail.com!!!
I'm not a psych student - but I'm not (entirely) a dummy. Here are the reasons
people become heated in the circ. discussion:
Men who are circ. can't really change that about themselves. Most of these men
also have decent sex lives & think their penis's are generally ok. When the
anti-circ. activists tell them (in an often insulting manner) that they're
somehow inadequate because they're circ., the circ. men will lash back at
them.
The anti-circ. activists seem to be made up of the following: Some seem to be
women who have had pain during sex with circ. men. Some other women just have
an uncirc. "fetish". I'm not sure what motivates the male uncirc. activists -
except for the fact that some may have been harmed by a doctor who performed
their (or son's) circ. improperly.
These anti-circ. activists have the singular goal of stopping the routine
operation of circ. in infants. They will say anything (true,half-true, or
otherwise) to try to get their point across - as would any activist. I think
they feel especially compelled to be salacious & to blow things out of
proportion because they're not exactly winning in their "battle" at the moment
- since a great number of infants are still being circ. & their efforts so far
don't seem to be making any difference to change that fact. In other words,
they're acting in desperation.
Real email:ihaatespaam@hotmail.com!!!
>On Wed, 16 Sep 1998 19:36:46 CST, Plea...@spam.thanks.us (Real
>email:ihaat...@hotmail.com!!!) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>There *is* risk with the operation (as I guess there is in all operations), so
>
>>to be on the safe side - not having it done means *no* risk.
>
>studies which have attempted to determine the
>cost/utility/benefit/risk relationship find a small, net
>reduction of risk for circumcision as opposed to no circumcision.
I can't understand how having an unnecessary "cosmetic" operation could
possibly be *less* risky that not having any operation.
If you don't have an operation: It costs nothing; there's no pain; there's no
scars; there's no chance of damage due to errors - or malpractice.
Elf Sternberg
Do...@BOGUS.ADDRESS.com (Don M.) writes:
>>That is the way God makes us.
>If you are going to interject a god into this, then it is also
>fair game to point out that a god allegedly commanded
>circumcision.
Thank you for describing it as "a" god. Too many people
forget that there's more than one claimant to that position.
>GE 17:14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in
>the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my
>covenant. [In other words, the CHILD is cut off from his people
>when the PARENTS fail to have him circumcised.]
Yeah, but Paul reversed that after a bitter battle with
Peter. Peter wanted to keep it an all-Jewish religion; Paul argued
that the only way it would take off was if gentiles were allowed in,
and the only way gentiles would want in is if they didn't have to
have parts of their pecker cut off. Needless to say, with his
populist position, Paul won the debate.
Elf Sternberg
>> These days, there's no excuse for that kind of nonsense. The
>>advantages of circumcision and the advantages or not circumcising are
>>about equal, if one writes off the pain of the procedure itself as
>>inconsequential. I'm not prepared to do that myself, of course.
>As a (fellow) circ. guy, I can't say I remember any pain - though I
>guess there was some(?).
You could say that. One study conducted at the University of
Atlanta (and reported on CNN last year) found that the amount of pain
felt by unanaesthetized infants (very common when you and I were done
on the grounds that the nerves "weren't complete yet") was so great
that it rated right up there with amputation-- which in a way, it
kind-of is. They recommended that parents either demand anaesthesia
or not circumcise at all.
>I would guess that not circ. is a better option nowadays & let the boy/man
>decide for himself later in life what he wants to do - UNLESS there
>are infection problems - then he should probably get circ. anyhow.
>There *is* risk with the operation (as I guess there is in all operations), so
>to be on the safe side - not having it done means *no* risk.
Here's where the numbers get skewed and start to behave
funny. You see, the pro-circumcision doctors (and there are a few)
point to the statistics that indicate that guys who are not
circumcised have premature ejaculation problems and a chance of
cancer of the foreskin. The anti-circ people point to the potential
for retarded orgasm in later life and the chance of surgical
tragedy. Deciding to do it later in life isn't a great option--
post-infancy circumcision takes a *lot* longer to heal, with the
attendent increased duration of conscious pain, and has a much
greater risk of infection.
Given those equalities of numbers, I'm not going to
circumcise just because I don't want to put my kid through that. I
also bet that prepuce cancer (which strikes one out of every 100,000
uncircumcized men) is related to papilloma, the same virus that
causes cervical cancer.
Real email:ihaatespaam@hotmail.com!!!
OK! So either way you're taking chance - might as well just flip a coin - &
shoot the activists on both sides - they're just generating heat & no light.
Reka G. Morvay
Real email:ihaat...@hotmail.com!!! <Plea...@spam.thanks.us> wrote:
>The anti-circ. activists seem to be made up of the following: Some seem
to be
>women who have had pain during sex with circ. men. Some other women just
have
>an uncirc. "fetish". I'm not sure what motivates the male uncirc.
activists -
>except for the fact that some may have been harmed by a doctor who
performed
>their (or son's) circ. improperly.
This is not true for the anti-circumcision folk I've heard describe their
concerns. Here are the reasons I'm familiar with:
1. Unnecessary procedure with all the risks of a minor surgery, and no
tangible benefits.
2. Cruel and unusual punishment for infant boys, most of whom are
circumcised without anesthesia even today.
3. Loss of sensitivity in adult genitalia due to the keratinization of the
skin of the glans, which would -- under normal circumstances -- be a
mucous membrane.
The anti-circumcision "activists" simply tend to be people from cultures
which do not routinely perform circumcision. And I must say, the US is the
ONLY Western country which still performs routine circumcision on infant
boys, often without explicit consent from the parents.
>These anti-circ. activists have the singular goal of stopping the routine
>operation of circ. in infants. They will say anything (true,half-true, or
>otherwise) to try to get their point across - as would any activist. I think
>they feel especially compelled to be salacious & to blow things out of
>proportion because they're not exactly winning in their "battle" at the moment
>- since a great number of infants are still being circ. & their efforts so far
>don't seem to be making any difference to change that fact. In other words,
>they're acting in desperation.
Your views are amazingly ethnocentric. As I said, circumcision is not
"normal" anywhere but in the US. Therefore, you could argue that most of
the US population is a circumcision activist, who will say anything, tru
or half-true, to support the continuance of this practice, because clearly
they feel they're losing the battle against the rest of the world, which
does not perform routine circumcision. Obviously, that's all hogwash.
This whole issue comes down to pure and simple cultural differences. In
the US the norm is to circumcise. In other countries, it's the norm to not
circumcise. Neither side has been able to definitively demonstrate that
doing or not doing is harmful in a major way. Both have claimed relatively
minor health risks/disadvantages.
My own opinion, which may be clear from this post, is that if there are no
clear advantages, why perform surgery? Especially in the shocklingly cruel
way we do it today, meaning without anesthesia. However, I also recognize
that for many, this is an important cultural/religious issue, and I'm not
the one to question their decisions.
All I know is I'm not putting my son through that, if I ever have one...
Reka
Ron Jeremy
Real email:ihaat...@hotmail.com!!! wrote in message
<6tm7kp$2hd$3...@camel0.mindspring.com>...
>In article <12708-35...@newsd-152.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
KAL...@webtv.net (Kim) wrote:
>>I have never been with a man who wasn't circ'd! I live in the USA,
and I
>>do believe we are the only country to routine circ our baby boys.
I
>>have never even seen one uncut! Kim
>
>True! Almost all men in the US are circ. I'm circ & never had any
problems
>because of it.
We've been through all this before here, to the point of flame wars.
There are folks here who will tell you that you are disabled, that
you are mutilated. Even if *you* don't feel you are, they know
better about your body than you do.
They will tell you that you can't feel as much as an uncirc'd man
(or "whole man" or "complete man" as they call them) and cannot give
your partner pleasure, or as much pleasure...and you can't
experience as much. As if there were some way to measure such
things.
And if you don't jump on the anti-circumcision wagon, they'll
denounce you as WANTING BABIES MUTILATED.
I really hate to see this come up again.
I have NO complaints about mine, and neither have the women I've
been with, some of whom have experienced both styles. None of them
seemed to see much difference in lovemaking, other than not running
into smegma as often.
Lynne Jeffers
>>In article <12708-35...@newsd-152.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
>>
>>>I have never been with a man who wasn't circ'd! I live in the USA, and I
>>>do believe we are the only country to routine circ our baby boys.
>>
>>completely routine; many, many parents are questioning the "wisdom" of
>>the elders and, when asked by the doctors if they want the child
>>circumcision, are opting to not go in for further unnecessary surgery.
>
>The original idea behind circ - was one of "cleanliness". Whether it makes
>sense - or not doesn't matter - it is the perception.
No, the original idea behind non-religious circumcision in the US,
Great Britain, Canada and Australia was to prevent masturbation. In the
late 1800s masturbation was thought to cause insanity as well as all
sorts of other medical and psychological conditions. If you look at
the medical literature from the late 1800s and early 1900s you'll read
about miraculous recoveries attributed to circumcision.
After it was realized that circumcision didn't cure masturbation or
the other rash of maladies, the medical community had to come up with
reasons to continue the practice. One of the biggies was cleanliness.
They tried to paint the intact penis as this breeding ground for
all sorts of nasty and dirty organisms. But they failed to mention
that the intact penis is really self-cleaning...
Few physicians have also mentioned over the years that the medical
community knew all along that circumcision caused pain. In the mid
20th century physicians tried to tell parents that the nervous
system of newborns wasn't developed enough to feel the pain of
having part of their anatomy removed without anesthesia. But this
is contrary to the medical literature of the late 1800s, when
physicians stated that they knew circumcision caused pain, and
that this penile pain should be associated touching the penis -
hence masturbation shouldn't be pleasurable, so boys will stop
engaging in this "disgusting habit."
>I assume that probably some men did (& do) have infections & pain because of
>not being circ. (like the guy who posted here awhile back), so to allieviate
>this problem for the few men who had it, it became the "cultural norm" to just
>circ. everyone - so that those problems couldn't happen in the first place.
All males can have infections and pain, whether they've got their foreskins
or not. Lacking a foreskin doesn't mean you'll necessarily prevent any
infections.
-Lynne
Lynne Jeffers
>In article <24259-35...@newsd-151.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
>ten killer <tenk...@webtv.net> wrote:
>>God makes is MUCH prettier than anything that man has made. Don't you
>>think?
>
>I don't cut my fingernails or toenails. After all,
>if God hadn't meant 'em to grow, he wouldn't have
>made them grow....
>
>Sheesh....
Yeah, but hair and nails are dead tissue, and they grow back.
Men who were circumcised in infancy had healthy, living tissue
removed from their bodies, and, as opposed to your hair and
nails, your foreskin *won't* grow back once removed.
-Lynne
Ron Jeremy
Don M. wrote in message <361c3e4c...@news.nas.com>...
>>Geeze - foreskin is so miraculous - it even affects what's inside
your head.
>>;-)
>
>According to avid anticircumcision activists, this is true.
>Circumcision has been blamed for male aggressiveness, rape,
>impotence, hatred of mother, low self-esteem, more masturbation,
>less masturbation, [regarding masturbation, it depends on whether
Well, some people just have to have someone or something to blame
all their problems (and personal failings) on.
In the words of The Eagles:
"You're a victim of this, a victim of that,
your daddy's too thin and your momma's too fat.
Get over it!"
RJ
Real email:ihaatespaam@hotmail.com!!!
>This is not true for the anti-circumcision folk I've heard describe their
>concerns. Here are the reasons I'm familiar with:
>
>1. Unnecessary procedure with all the risks of a minor surgery, and no
>tangible benefits.
I think I said in another post that it is not really *necessary*.
>2. Cruel and unusual punishment for infant boys, most of whom are
>circumcised without anesthesia even today.
This could be changed - I can't see why they won't give local anesthesia - but
doctors may have reasons - maybe to save a buck(?)
>3. Loss of sensitivity in adult genitalia due to the keratinization of the
>skin of the glans, which would -- under normal circumstances -- be a
>mucous membrane.
Who knows. I have feeling down there & I'm circ. - so it's a moot point.
>The anti-circumcision "activists" simply tend to be people from cultures
>which do not routinely perform circumcision.
For somebody to want to "stick their neck out" in such a major way (note I'm
talking about *activists* not merely a person who has a personal
prefererence for themselves), there has to be more to it than merely coming
from an "uncirc. culture".
>>These anti-circ. activists have the singular goal of stopping the routine
>>operation of circ. in infants. They will say anything (true,half-true, or
>>otherwise) to try to get their point across - as would any activist. I think
>>they feel especially compelled to be salacious & to blow things out of
>>proportion because they're not exactly winning in their "battle" at the moment
>
>>- since a great number of infants are still being circ. & their efforts so far
>
>>don't seem to be making any difference to change that fact. In other words,
>>they're acting in desperation.
>
>Your views are amazingly ethnocentric. As I said, circumcision is not
>"normal" anywhere but in the US. Therefore, you could argue that most of
>the US population is a circumcision activist, who will say anything, tru
>or half-true, to support the continuance of this practice, because clearly
>they feel they're losing the battle against the rest of the world, which
>does not perform routine circumcision.
Not at all. The american people don't care whether people in other countries
circ. or not - they just often choose to have it done with the belief that it
is a routine thing - so people just don't give it a thought. Americans aren't
rallying in protest to circ. the people who are uncirc. like the anti-circ
people are protesting about stopping the circ. procedure.
>This whole issue comes down to pure and simple cultural differences. In
>the US the norm is to circumcise.
There's more to it than that. To be actively trying to convince/prevent other
people from having the circ. procedure, there must be a more tangible
motivating factor that would make someone want to do that. People from "other"
cultures don't automatically want to impose aspects of their "culture" on
other people whom are not a part of their culture. .
In other countries, it's the norm to not
>circumcise. Neither side has been able to definitively demonstrate that
>doing or not doing is harmful in a major way. Both have claimed relatively
>minor health risks/disadvantages.
>
>My own opinion, which may be clear from this post, is that if there are no
>clear advantages, why perform surgery?
I agree with that.
>Especially in the shocklingly cruel
>way we do it today, meaning without anesthesia.
.then you should advocate anesthesia - & not the total "ban" of the procedure
itself.
> However, I also recognize
>that for many, this is an important cultural/religious issue, and I'm not
>the one to question their decisions.
People do what they do - believe (generally) what they want to whether you
like it or not.
More heat than light - again! Why don't we just debate abortion :->
Real email:ihaatespaam@hotmail.com!!!
>
>Real email:ihaat...@hotmail.com!!! wrote in message
><6tm7kp$2hd$3...@camel0.mindspring.com>...
>>In article <12708-35...@newsd-152.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
>KAL...@webtv.net (Kim) wrote:
>and I
>>>do believe we are the only country to routine circ our baby boys.
>>>have never even seen one uncut! Kim
>>
>>True! Almost all men in the US are circ. I'm circ & never had any
>problems
>>because of it.
>
>
>We've been through all this before here, to the point of flame wars.
True. It's heat & not light.
>There are folks here who will tell you that you are disabled, that
>you are mutilated. Even if *you* don't feel you are, they know
>better about your body than you do.
They do *imply* that.
>They will tell you that you can't feel as much as an uncirc'd man
>(or "whole man" or "complete man" as they call them) and cannot give
>your partner pleasure, or as much pleasure...and you can't
>experience as much. As if there were some way to measure such
>things.
True about measuring it not being possible - & if it was measured - does it
*really* matter. To make a similar point: Some guys have a few more inches
than me - so I can't satisfy the "size queens" - so?
>And if you don't jump on the anti-circumcision wagon, they'll
>denounce you as WANTING BABIES MUTILATED.
Yeah, it's a rallying cry. It's all heat & no light.
David Formosa
>ten killer wrote in message
><24259-35...@newsd-151.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
>hairb...@sprynet.com (HBL) wrote:
>>everything that God makes is MUCH prettier
>>than anything that man has made. Don't you think?
>Have you looked at a Duck-billed Platypus lately?
Yes. I think there quite attractive looking myself. I mean how can anything
compare to shiny furr, there cool duck bills and there neat little webbed
feet.
David (? the Platypus) Formosa
Elf Sternberg
tenk...@webtv.net (ten killer) writes:
>Ears are ugly and dirty...
Nobody's ever nibbled on yours, I take it?
William Cook
is totally uncut. When I strip off in a sports shower room, after
working out, the faggots almost go crazy at the sight of my 10 inch
uncut penis. I worked as a stud for several years and have had sexual
intercourse with hundreds of people yet no one complained I was not cut.
Reka G. Morvay
>>circumcised without anesthesia even today.
>
>This could be changed - I can't see why they won't give local anesthesia - but
>doctors may have reasons - maybe to save a buck(?)
As I undesrtand it, the reasoning behind a lack of anesthesia was that
general anesthesia is really dangerous for infants (chance of coma,
death), and that infants' nervous systems are not properly developed
anyway, so they can't feel pain as adults would. This latter has been
completely refuted, for example, in that study Elf cited a couple of posts
ago, the researchers found that children registered the pain of
circumcision at the same level as they registered amputation. (I wonder
who did the brain scans of infants undergoing amputation without
anesthesia...)
>
>>3. Loss of sensitivity in adult genitalia due to the keratinization of the
>>skin of the glans, which would -- under normal circumstances -- be a
>>mucous membrane.
>
>Who knows. I have feeling down there & I'm circ. - so it's a moot point.
Not exactly moot. While I do not personally own a penis, I've heard men's
testimonies who've decided to either reconstruct their foreskins, or give
the old seran wrap test a try. They inevitably report increased
sensitivity. If you want, the seran wrap technique can give you an idea
of what your penis would feel like with a foreskin -- and it's reversible
and quick. Just wrap the head in seran wrap for a day or two (you should
probably unrap it every once in a while to let it air, but don't let it
dry out -- remember, it's supposed to be a mucous membrane) and then see
if your sensations during sex or masurbation. While it may feel kind of
silly to wrap your dick in seran wrap, it allows you to experience the
"would've been."
However, you're right that the point is moot if someone's already
circumcised and happy with his equipment, there is no need to give that
person a complex about his penis.
>>The anti-circumcision "activists" simply tend to be people from cultures
>>which do not routinely perform circumcision.
>
>For somebody to want to "stick their neck out" in such a major way (note I'm
>talking about *activists* not merely a person who has a personal
>prefererence for themselves), there has to be more to it than merely coming
>from an "uncirc. culture".
If you come from an uncircumcised culture, like most Europeans, cutting
body parts off for no good reason may very well seem arcane and barbaric.
As such, they're likely to express that opinion and "stick their neck
out" as you say.
>Not at all. The american people don't care whether people in other countries
>circ. or not - they just often choose to have it done with the belief that it
>is a routine thing - so people just don't give it a thought. Americans aren't
>rallying in protest to circ. the people who are uncirc. like the anti-circ
>people are protesting about stopping the circ. procedure.
Okay, substitute female circumcision for male circumcision and African
tribes for the US in the above statement and see how you feel about it.
>>This whole issue comes down to pure and simple cultural differences. In
>>the US the norm is to circumcise.
>
>There's more to it than that. To be actively trying to convince/prevent other
>people from having the circ. procedure, there must be a more tangible
>motivating factor that would make someone want to do that. People from "other"
>cultures don't automatically want to impose aspects of their "culture" on
>other people whom are not a part of their culture. .
See above point and try again. The US tries very actively to impose its
cultural standards on other parts of the world. You just don't recognize
it and are probably not familiar with the examples. Ask some folk from
other countries in this newsgroup about whether or not America tries to
impose its own cultural standards on them. You might be surprised.
>>Especially in the shocklingly cruel
>>way we do it today, meaning without anesthesia.
>
>.then you should advocate anesthesia - & not the total "ban" of the procedure
>itself.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I never advocated a total ban on the
procedure, in fact, I advocated nothing. I simply brought up evidence and
reasons for anti-circumcision sentiment, and the only statement I made was
that I personally would not do that to my own son.
>More heat than light - again! Why don't we just debate abortion :->
I gave you several weighty reasons against circumcision. Any heat that you
perceive is, well, heat that you perceive. If you don't perceive the light
along with it, that's not on my shoulders, having provided, IMO, plenty of
it.
Reka
Real email:ihaatespaam@hotmail.com!!!
I don't know why you use the term "faggot". You sound narcissistic also.
Real email:ihaatespaam@hotmail.com!!!
>
>Not exactly moot. While I do not personally own a penis, I've heard men's
>testimonies who've decided to either reconstruct their foreskins, or give
>the old seran wrap test a try. They inevitably report increased
>sensitivity. If you want, the seran wrap technique can give you an idea
>of what your penis would feel like with a foreskin -- and it's reversible
>and quick. Just wrap the head in seran wrap for a day or two (you should
>probably unrap it every once in a while to let it air, but don't let it
>dry out -- remember, it's supposed to be a mucous membrane) and then see
>if your sensations during sex or masurbation. While it may feel kind of
>silly to wrap your dick in seran wrap, it allows you to experience the
>"would've been."
Hey! The old Saran Wrap method is a great contraceptive! LOL! :->
>However, you're right that the point is moot if someone's already
>circumcised and happy with his equipment, there is no need to give that
>person a complex about his penis.
Tell that to the anti-circ. activists.
>>>The anti-circumcision "activists" simply tend to be people from cultures
>>>which do not routinely perform circumcision.
>>
>>For somebody to want to "stick their neck out" in such a major way (note I'm
>>talking about *activists* not merely a person who has a personal
>>prefererence for themselves), there has to be more to it than merely coming
>>from an "uncirc. culture".
>
>If you come from an uncircumcised culture, like most Europeans, cutting
>body parts off for no good reason may very well seem arcane and barbaric.
>As such, they're likely to express that opinion and "stick their neck
>out" as you say.
Expressing your personal opinion in a group of people is a lot different from
activism - where you actively promote your ideas to the public - trying to
cause a societal change.
>>Not at all. The american people don't care whether people in other countries
>>circ. or not - they just often choose to have it done with the belief that it
>>is a routine thing - so people just don't give it a thought. Americans aren't
>>rallying in protest to circ. the people who are uncirc. like the anti-circ
>>people are protesting about stopping the circ. procedure.
>
>Okay, substitute female circumcision for male circumcision and African
>tribes for the US in the above statement and see how you feel about it.
But there is a double standard - it's just the American societal belief - it
doesn't have to make logical sense, Spock.
>>>This whole issue comes down to pure and simple cultural differences. In
>>>the US the norm is to circumcise.
>>
>>There's more to it than that. To be actively trying to convince/prevent other
>>people from having the circ. procedure, there must be a more tangible
>>motivating factor that would make someone want to do that. People from "other"
>
>>cultures don't automatically want to impose aspects of their "culture" on
>>other people whom are not a part of their culture. .
>
>See above point and try again. The US tries very actively to impose its
>cultural standards on other parts of the world.
That's the government & the entertainment industry that does that - the
"average" American doesn't care what foreigners do - as long as they "don't do
it in my back yard".
>>.then you should advocate anesthesia - & not the total "ban" of the procedure
>>itself.
>
>Please don't put words in my mouth. I never advocated a total ban on the
>procedure, in fact, I advocated nothing. I simply brought up evidence and
>reasons for anti-circumcision sentiment, and the only statement I made was
>that I personally would not do that to my own son.
>
What I've learned: Circ. if you want to - don't circ. if you don't. Don't
listen to what anyone else says & don't tell anyone what you decided to do -
or you'll just get into an arguement. If you are circ. or uncirc., don't talk
about it & avoid any conversations on the subject - because no matter how feel
about it, you'll just get into a useless aguement about it with someone who
has some differences with you about some arcane aspect of it.
I will no longer talk about this subject. ..and I'm sure y'all are glad.
Reka G. Morvay
Don M. <Do...@BOGUS.ADDRESS.com> wrote:
>It is not known whether this alleged loss of sensitivity
>adversely affects sexual enjoyment and/or performance. The
>Laumann study indicates that there may be slightly more sexual
>dysfunction amongst white American males who are not circumcised
>as compared to those who are, or at least that there is no dire
>consequence of being circumcised, especially for the older adult
>male.
As someone previously pointed out, the Laumann study does not have very
strong statistical foundations for its conclusions. I don't mean to be
facetious, but if we're going to exchange citations, is there another
study you could provide that has a better statistical foundation?
>Most of the anticircumcision activists that I encounter in the
>Newsgroups are Americans.
Most people on English-language newsgroups tend to be American. Even the
British tend to hang out on uk.* newsgroups as opposed to the Big Eight
newsgroups. That is of course a major generalization, because I know right
off the top of my head several active participants of this newsgroup from
the UK. And guess what -- most of them seem to be on the uncircumcised
side of the fence. My point is that most of the discussion that's
generated on newsgroups about circumcision seem to be between Americans
and totally baffled Europeans who just don't see why the US is insisting
on performing this procedure on ~60% of its infant boys. Naturally, the
debate quickly degenerates into either cultural or personal bashing,
giving the whole circumcision issue a bad reputation.
>Yes, you could. But in the Newsgroups and on the Web,
>anticircumcision activists outnumber procircumcision activists by
>far.
I think the people who outnumber both greatly are the apathetic, who
simply don't know and don't care about the issue. Which is just fine up
until the day you have a son, when you are faced with this decision of
whether or not to have him circumcised.
>>My own opinion, which may be clear from this post, is that if there are no
>>clear advantages, why perform surgery?
>
>There are some clear advantages. The question is whether they
>outweigh the risks and disadvantages.
I agree. I just have not seen it demonstrated that the advantages outweigh
the risks.
Reka
Elf Sternberg
>This latter has been completely refuted, for example, in that
>study Elf cited a couple of posts ago, the researchers found that
>children registered the pain of circumcision at the same level as
>they registered amputation. (I wonder who did the brain scans of
>infants undergoing amputation without anesthesia...)
They didn't. When in extreme pain, the body dumps *tons* of
hormones into the body. A good bloodworks lab can actually determine
with some empericism just how much pain someone is in. They took
bloodtests, not brainscans.
Reka G. Morvay
[Reka wrote:]
>>(I wonder who did the brain scans of
>>infants undergoing amputation without anesthesia...)
>
> They didn't. When in extreme pain, the body dumps *tons* of
>hormones into the body. A good bloodworks lab can actually determine
>with some empericism just how much pain someone is in. They took
>bloodtests, not brainscans.
I guess I should rephrase the question: Who on earth would amputate on
infants without using anesthesia just to see where the pain levels go?
And the next obvious question: when was the study done?
Reka
ten killer
Elf wrote:
>Nobody's ever nibbled on yours, I take it?
Why would you think that no one has nibbled on my ears just because I
said that they are ugly and dirty. That doesn't say that nor implies
that. They aren't pretty and hard to clean but the sensations are unreal
when anyone who knows what they are doing nibbles on them. Ditto for my
foreskin. I doubt that there is any place left on my body that is
unnibbled.
tenkiller
Elf Sternberg
>I guess I should rephrase the question: Who on earth would amputate on
>infants without using anesthesia just to see where the pain levels go?
>And the next obvious question: when was the study done?
I would suspect there have been enough tragic automobile
accidents in the world to create a sufficient baseline.
Real email:ihaatespaam@hotmail.com!!!
> Ditto for my
>foreskin. I doubt that there is any place left on my body that is
>unnibbled.
Your toenails - then? <G>
Oaken...@my-dejanews.com
re...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (Reka G. Morvay) wrote:
> This is not true for the anti-circumcision folk I've heard describe their
> concerns. Here are the reasons I'm familiar with:
>
> 1. Unnecessary procedure with all the risks of a minor surgery, and no
> tangible benefits.
This was the number one reason my wife and I decided not to have our son
clipped. It was a horrible thought to strap our newborn down, spread eagled
on a tray and slice off a portion of his VERY SENSITIVE areas without benefit
of anesthesia. Especially when I can find no overriding advantages to have
it done.
While I myself have a peeled Johnny, I found it entirely unnecessary to put
my boy through any pain just so he would look like daddy. Whether or not he
would ever remember it was irrelevant. I would remember it.
> 2. Cruel and unusual punishment for infant boys, most of whom are
> circumcised without anesthesia even today.
See #1
> 3. Loss of sensitivity in adult genitalia due to the keratinization of the
> skin of the glans, which would -- under normal circumstances -- be a
> mucous membrane.
This is one I have a hard time identifying with. I am plenty sensitive.
> The anti-circumcision "activists" simply tend to be people from cultures
> which do not routinely perform circumcision. And I must say, the US is the
> ONLY Western country which still performs routine circumcision on infant
> boys, often without explicit consent from the parents.
When my son was born, we were worried about the doctors clipping without
consent and we brought the matter up with the OB. When we mentioned
circumcision, he winced and began stammering about finding someone else to do
it. When we interrupted him to tell him that we wanted to make sure it was
not performed, he was very relieved, as were we.
I am not an anti-circumsion activist. I just know I couldn't be responsible
for putting my own son through it. He doesn't have a problem looking a
little different than me. And he knows he's supposed to wash his "bubble"
when he gets in the bathtub.
On a side note, NPR had a report on circumcision a couple of weeks ago and
said that the percentage is dropping in the US.
Thorin
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
DoMe68IOU1
>While it may feel kind of
>silly to wrap your dick in seran wrap, it allows you to experience the
>"would've been."
Why can't I buy cute little hats to wear to produce the same effect? Or can I?
DoMe68IOU1
>God just likes to
>deliberately torture the human race for some reason.
(Don M.) writes:
>No one knows with certainty what the original idea behind
>circumcision was.
Many of the silly old-testament laws, like those about eating certain foods and
avoiding sex during menstruation and, I would add, circumcision, undoubtedly
evolved into the myth out of practicality.
Swine carry trichinosis. A successful pregnancy is unlikely to arise during a
menstrual period, and foreskins in the desert probably got itchy or something.
Who cares? Throw the book out and live in the present.
Who could possibly make a career of arguing in favor of routinely mutilating
infants?
-Ron
DoMe68IOU1
>self gratification --the prevention of which was the
>reason the U.S.,with the encouragement of Mr.Kellog of the Flakes,
>began to clip foreskins off nearly a hundred years ago now--is
>rendered more difficult without the natural lubrication supplied by
>the damp interior of the prepuce.
I don't disagree with your assessment of the origins of routine infant
mutilation, but as a circumcised male, I disagree that the lubrication of a
mucous membrane is necessary for gratification. DRY skin-against-skin friction
on the glans is something which can really add up to a wonderful sensation if
you have the patience to work it long enough. Most woman don't indulge their
partners' penises with their hands nearly enough.
-Ron
DoMe68IOU1
>The glans penis is supposed to be soft and moist,
>kinda like the *skin* on the inside of your mouth
Precisely, except that just like the inside of your mouth, the glans is covered
with mucous membrane, not skin.
Real email:ihaatespaam@hotmail.com!!!
Do they come in fashionable colours also! LOL!
Can I get the cowboy style, tophat style, & baseball cap style? If I wear the
baseball cap brim to the back will it cause discomfort?
DoMe68IOU1
>he same god that you have in mind
>who allegedly created us and then allegedly commanded
>circumcision for his "chosen peoples."
But what sort of circumcision? Where is the precise commandment to radically
remove the whole thing, rather than to, for example, just create a circular
scar as a sign of the ritual. I read that in the original languages, some of
the descriptions of circumcision were so vague as to be indistinguishable from
heart surgery.
-Ron
Elocutus, Borg Chef
spake unto soc.sexuality.general:
>
>ten killer wrote in message
><24259-35...@newsd-151.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
>hairb...@sprynet.com (HBL) wrote:
>>everything that God makes is MUCH prettier
>>than anything that man has made. Don't you think?
>
>
>Have you looked at a Duck-billed Platypus lately?
And have you forgotten that nothing that man makes exists excepts as
an agglomeration of things God[1] made?
[1]You know, if you believe in that sort of thing.
--Elocutus
===
"Can it matter where or in whom you put it?" --Antony
Ron Jeremy
DoMe68IOU1 wrote in message
<19980922181...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>Who could possibly make a career of arguing in favor of routinely
mutilating
>infants?
>-Ron
I have yet to see ANYONE "arguing in favor of routinely mutilating
infants."
Is there someone here who's done that?
Most of the objections I've seen is to the insulting references made
to those who already ARE circumcised, along with the insistance that
they know better than a circumcised male what he feels or what he
has "lost."
I don't care if another male child in the world is circumcised.
Heck, it's already declining.
But the arrogant anti-circs who fancy themselves mind-readers and
everyone's caretaker can just shinny up a thistle.
RJ
J Prescott
<Ron_Je...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>But the arrogant anti-circs who fancy themselves mind-readers and
>everyone's caretaker can just shinny up a thistle.
LOL, that'd fix them.
Joanna
Real email:ihaatespaam@hotmail.com!!!
>
>DoMe68IOU1 wrote in message
><19980922181...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>>Who could possibly make a career of arguing in favor of routinely
>mutilating
>>infants?
>>-Ron
>
>
>I have yet to see ANYONE "arguing in favor of routinely mutilating
>infants."
Yes! Mutilating infants builds character & makes them more tolerant to pain.
That way they'll grow up to be better warriors. It also allows parents to let
out their sadistic impulses on those that they love the most. It's fun to see
them squirm & cry - & the blood gushing out of them is always fun. If they die
- then you can always make another. It also allows you to use the ideas in
"101 Uses for Dead Babies" books!
(I know I said I'd never get into the futile circ. debate again - but I guess
I lied! <g>.)