The Circumcision Decision (was: Fossils Merely A Hoax)
Bill Kambic
Eh, if circumcision is so bad and causes so many problems, why have Jews
been so sucessful at reproduction for the last 3000 years?
Bill Kambic, Bright Star Farm, Kingston, TN
http://www.geocities.com/heartland/hills/1816
Believer in the Great Ambiguous Blessing:
"Dear Lord, for what we are about to receive, may we be truly thankful."
G. Mark Stewart
Bill Kambic (wka...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Eh, if circumcision is so bad and causes so many problems, why have Jews
: been so sucessful at reproduction for the last 3000 years?
They try harder. Now you know why "Those fuckin' Jews" is a phrase that
doesn't really get Jewish guys upset at all.
Jeffrey Karp
G. Mark Stewart wrote:
Jews have been very unsuccessful at reproduction
over the last 3000 years. Three thousand years ago
the Jews outnumbered the Chinese. In the US, the
percentage of the population that is Jewish has been
shrinking steadily over the last 40 years. The same
thing can be said for the world population.
cze...@us.oracle.com
Bill Kambic wrote:
>
> Eh, if circumcision
Stop right there, at least as far as
alt.folklore.urban is concerned. It's
explicitly off charter here.
Followups trimmed ever-so-slightly.
Thanks in advance,
Dennis A. Schmitz
Bill Kambic wrote:
> Eh, if circumcision is so bad and causes so many problems, why have Jews
> been so sucessful at reproduction for the last 3000 years?
If they have been so successful at reproduction, why are there so few of
them (relatively speaking?)
--
Later, http://www.ecsd.com/~den
den mailto:den...@ecsd.com
Akbar
Dennis A. Schmitz wrote:
>
> Bill Kambic wrote:
>
> > Eh, if circumcision is so bad and causes so many problems, why have Jews
> > been so sucessful at reproduction for the last 3000 years?
>
> If they have been so successful at reproduction, why are there so few of
> them (relatively speaking?)
>
Jewish people are good at reproduction, but they're horrible at avoiding
being killed by other cultural and religious groups.
Dennis A. Schmitz
Maybe they should be meaner. Or perhaps they should set up some
missionary outposts. They'll never outbreed the Cristians or the
Muslums, to say nothing of the Hindu, though, so they better get
hopping.
So to speak.
Gary Rumain
In soc.culture.jewish gam...@hotmail.com wrote:
: *
: *>I'm uncircumcised and I've never had any problems. Factoid:
: uncircumcised guys
: *>have better orgasms, due to the fact that they head of the penis is
: kept more
: *>sensitive and that the foreskin has nerve endings.
Unfortunately for you, I have spoken to 2 men who were not circumcized at
one time, & underwent (for various reasons) the operations later. Both
said it was better afterward.
If we follow
: that line of thinking we should remove all baby girls breast since
: they are mostly cosmetic,most women don't breast feed and it would end
: breast cancer. So how silly the arguement sounds
Yes, because all the women I know who could did breast-feed - I don't
know where you got the idea that most don't - & men get breast cancer
without breasts such as women have - you can get it even if you're
flat-chested.
If you don't like it, don't circumcise your son. But don't tell others
what to do with their own bodies, or those of their own children.
Susan Cohen
--
"Those who study history are doomed to watch others repeat it."
Suzane Oliver
On 27 Oct 1997 04:03:20 GMT, ze...@smart.net (Gary Rumain) wrote:
>-In soc.culture.jewish gam...@hotmail.com wrote:
>-: *
>-: *>I'm uncircumcised and I've never had any problems. Factoid:
>-: uncircumcised guys
>-: *>have better orgasms, due to the fact that they head of the penis is
>-: kept more
>-: *>sensitive and that the foreskin has nerve endings.
>-Unfortunately for you, I have spoken to 2 men who were not circumcized at
>-one time, & underwent (for various reasons) the operations later. Both
>-said it was better afterward.
Funny, I know two who said it was better before ...
Suzane #62
<=><=><=><=><=><=><=><=><=><=><=><=><=><=><=><=><=><=><=><=><=>
Men, said the devil,
are good to their brothers.
they don't want to mend
their own ways but each other's Piet Hein, 1966
<=><=><=><=><=><=><=><=><=><=><=><=><=><=><=><=><=><=><=><=><=>
Mike Czaplinski
Suzane Oliver wrote:
>
> On 27 Oct 1997 04:03:20 GMT, ze...@smart.net (Gary Rumain) wrote:
>
> >-In soc.culture.jewish gam...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >-: *
> >-: *>I'm uncircumcised and I've never had any problems. Factoid:
> >-: uncircumcised guys
> >-: *>have better orgasms, due to the fact that they head of the penis is
> >-: kept more
> >-: *>sensitive and that the foreskin has nerve endings.
>
> >-Unfortunately for you, I have spoken to 2 men who were not circumcized at
> >-one time, & underwent (for various reasons) the operations later. Both
> >-said it was better afterward.
>
> Funny, I know two who said it was better before ...
Must not...say... "Different Strokes" quote....
TOO LATE!!!
<*attach MikeBLowsAMentalFuse.MPG*>
CONNECTION TIMED OUT
Albert Reingewirtz
In article <3456b8bd...@newshost.capecod.net>, sol...@capecod.net
(Suzane Oliver) wrote:
> On 27 Oct 1997 04:03:20 GMT, ze...@smart.net (Gary Rumain) wrote:
>
> >-In soc.culture.jewish gam...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >-: *
> >-: *>I'm uncircumcised and I've never had any problems. Factoid:
> >-: uncircumcised guys
> >-: *>have better orgasms, due to the fact that they head of the penis is
> >-: kept more
> >-: *>sensitive and that the foreskin has nerve endings.
>
> >-Unfortunately for you, I have spoken to 2 men who were not circumcized at
> >-one time, & underwent (for various reasons) the operations later. Both
> >-said it was better afterward.
>
> Funny, I know two who said it was better before ...
>
> Suzane #62
Suzanne, of course you are right. The fact is that because of circumcision
the head of the penis hardens because it is non longer protect by the
prepus. Because of this, Jews never feel the full glory of feeling
non-circumcised men enjoy. Circumcision was a bad idea. A lost midrash
recently found relate Abram's response to God: You want me to cut What???"
We started doing to 8 day old because to do it to adult, the mohel would
have to wear good running shoes.
--
God is not dead, it never existed
Albert Reingewirtz
In article <3458BF...@127.0.0.1>, Mike Czaplinski <ro...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> Suzane Oliver wrote:
> >
> > On 27 Oct 1997 04:03:20 GMT, ze...@smart.net (Gary Rumain) wrote:
> >
> > >-In soc.culture.jewish gam...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >-: *
> > >-: *>I'm uncircumcised and I've never had any problems. Factoid:
> > >-: uncircumcised guys
> > >-: *>have better orgasms, due to the fact that they head of the penis is
> > >-: kept more
> > >-: *>sensitive and that the foreskin has nerve endings.
> >
> > >-Unfortunately for you, I have spoken to 2 men who were not circumcized at
> > >-one time, & underwent (for various reasons) the operations later. Both
> > >-said it was better afterward.
They are liars. The simple fact is this. If you have callouses on your
hands, are your hands more sensitive touching or less? Same for your
penis. After circumcision, the tip of the penis devellopes a callous where
before it had a thin sensitive scene protected. Face reality, circumcision
was stupid idea!
> > Funny, I know two who said it was better before ...
>
> Must not...say... "Different Strokes" quote....
>
> TOO LATE!!!
>
> <*attach MikeBLowsAMentalFuse.MPG*>
>
> CONNECTION TIMED OUT
--
cze...@nospamus.oracle.com
pkr...@connix.com wrote:
>
> In article <albertreingewirtz...@san.access1.net>,
> albertre...@access1.net (Albert Reingewirtz) wrote:
>
> > In article <3458BF...@127.0.0.1>, Mike Czaplinski <ro...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> >
> > They are liars. The simple fact is this. If you have callouses on your
> > hands, are your hands more sensitive touching or less? Same for your
> > penis. After circumcision, the tip of the penis devellopes a callous where
> > before it had a thin sensitive scene protected. Face reality, circumcision
> > was stupid idea!
>
> partner a better experience.
Trimmed - again - from alt.folklore.urban, where it is explicitly
unwelcome.
Oh, and one other thing - callouses???
Joseph Hertzlinger
In <albertreingewirtz...@206.171.126.218>
albertre...@access1.net (Albert Reingewirtz) writes:
>Suzanne, of course you are right. The fact is that because of
>circumcision the head of the penis hardens because it is non longer
>protect by the prepus. Because of this, Jews never feel the full glory
>of feeling non-circumcised men enjoy. Circumcision was a bad idea. A
>lost midrash recently found relate Abram's response to God: You want
>me to cut What???" We started doing to 8 day old because to do it to
>adult, the mohel would have to wear good running shoes.
For the first time, a regular participant on soc.culture.jewish has
criticized circumcision.
In a related story, Hell froze over.
G. Mark Stewart
Dennis A. Schmitz (dsch...@positron.net) wrote:
: So to speak.
I choose to define intelligence as including 20 bonus IQ points for
fertility. Culture fair should also include groin-related stuff, as it's
more closely related to genetic success than stuff like word puzzles.
Hector
On Sun, 2 Nov 1997 17:36:12, gm...@grayfox.svs.com (G. Mark Stewart)
wrote:
> Dennis A. Schmitz (dsch...@positron.net) wrote:
> : Akbar wrote:
> : > Dennis A. Schmitz wrote:
> : > > Bill Kambic wrote:
>
> : > > > Eh, if circumcision is so bad and causes so many problems, why have Jews
> : > > > been so sucessful at reproduction for the last 3000 years?
Bad or not is a matter of culture and socialization, the fact is that
we males are born with a foreskin that protects the penis. Preventing
disease is a simple matter of cleanliness, yet this is what people
harp on. It is this American unwillingness to discuss anything that
involves the genitals that makes people who are not Jewish want to
circumsize their boys. Just teach them to wash correctly and you will
have no problems.
> : > > If they have been so successful at reproduction, why are there so few of
> : > > them (relatively speaking?)
They have survived, when other ancient cultures either died out or
were corrupted and assimilated by the Borg, er I mean the Christians.
This is not, however, relevant. The foreskin has nothing to do with
reproduction, only with the protection of the penis from dust and
other contaminants.
>
> : > Jewish people are good at reproduction, but they're horrible at avoiding
> : > being killed by other cultural and religious groups.
This is more the problem of thiose wishing to kill them than the
problem of the Jews themselves. I never understood this hate that
people seem to have toward Jews.
> : Maybe they should be meaner. Or perhaps they should set up some
> : missionary outposts. They'll never outbreed the Cristians or the
> : Muslums, to say nothing of the Hindu, though, so they better get
> : hopping.
Life, no matter what the American Culture would have you believe, is
not a contest of numbers but of survival. The Jews must be the single
most succesful cultural group in history, with a direct line of
history going back thousands of years. "Western" culture is only about
2800 years old, if you count the Ancient Greeks as really being
"Western" and Western culture is hardly a unified culture. Aside from
religion, what do most Western cultures have in common?
Isxios
Athena grant you the strength and courage to fight for what you
believe, and the wisdom to know when you are beaten.
I hope for you one thing, that when Hades and Persephone smile upon
you that day in the future, you will say unto them thank you, for my
life was good and this rest deserved.
loki
This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format.
--------------ms411F681B048F41422FC445C5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
cze...@nospamus.oracle.com wrote:
Callouses??? Oh dear. I suppose I've uh, hmmm.... uh, seen enough
penises both circumcised and uncircumcised at close enough range that
I feel comfortable stating that I've noticed *no* callouses! Heck,
I haven't noticed much difference at all between them.
Loki - who finds she prefers circumcised pensis for some reason
--------------ms411F681B048F41422FC445C5
Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s"
Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
<encoded_portion_removed>
--------------ms411F681B048F41422FC445C5--
cze...@nospamus.oracle.com
Please, please, please take this out of
alt.folklore.urban!
p.s. we have lots of useless flaps of skin.
You can't argue that just because we are
born with something that it is good for us.
You have to show (not opine, show) a
genuine, measurable effect. Then you have
to show that it outweighs the religious,
devotional, or doctrinal benefit of
removing it.
Donald Whiteside
On 30 Oct 97 22:47:56 GMT, albertre...@access1.net (Albert
Reingewirtz) wrote:
>Suzanne, of course you are right. The fact is that because of circumcision
>the head of the penis hardens because it is non longer protect by the
>prepus. Because of this, Jews never feel the full glory of feeling
>non-circumcised men enjoy. Circumcision was a bad idea.
I suspect that only CERTAIN non-circumsized men have better orgasms
because there is, in fact, a Law of Conservation of Pleasure in the
universe and by boring all the rest of us to tears with their endless
prattling about how much better it is for them they thereby make many
of the rest of us unhappy and free up more pleasure for themselves.
STARGATE
On the subject of circumcision, the Muslims in Egypt (and elsewhere)
like to circumcise the females because if they enjoy sex too much
they might run off. The Jews (and Americans) circumcise the male
for whatever reason. Now occasionally some of the children are
mutilated in this practise. Frankly I think this is barbaric for
even one child to be permanently mutilated.
As for all the hoopla over the circumcised males' ability in bed is
frankly a bunch of bunk. The Chinese have been teaching the male to
please the female in various ways for centuries. They are also taught
to control their orgasms for contraceptive purposes. They are never
circumcised. As for an entire country of people who are for the most
part not even Jewish to circumcise is ludicrous.
James Buster
In article <pkramer-0111...@pkramer.connix.com>,
<pkr...@connix.com> wrote:
>On the other hand, with less sensitivity, one may last longer giving one's
>partner a better experience.
I believe your reasoning is grossly in error, because you fail to
consider how men experience orgasm. An important feature of the male
orgasm is that there is a point of "inevitability": orgasm will occur
without further stimulation. This "feature" is not present in women.
Ability to come near this threshold, without crossing it, is what we
mean when we refer to a man "lasting longer". A man who suffers
reduced penile sensitivity must not only thrust much harder during
intercourse, possibly leading to a complaint by his partner that he is
"too rough", but also is far less able to judge when he is near that
threshold. Instead, he will blow right through it. That not only
cheats his partner, but also cheats him, since he cannot keep himself
on the "edge" for any length of time.
--
Planet Bog -- pools of toxic chemicals bubble under a choking
atomsphere of poisonous gases... but aside from that, it's not
much like Earth.
Bhiksha Raj
>Maybe they should be meaner. Or perhaps they should set up some
>missionary outposts. They'll never outbreed the Cristians or the
>Muslums, to say nothing of the Hindu, though, so they better get
>hopping.
More christians in the world than Hindus.
(Im considering the population of the Americas+Europe as mostly Xtian, vs the
800 odd million Hindus in India)
Probably more moslems as well, Im not sure.
That, considering that the Hindus had a good 3000 year head start, Id say
the Xtians and Moslems are better breeders..
Im ignoring a gazillion other factors, of course..
-Bhiksha
David Loewe, Jr.
On Mon, 03 Nov 1997 18:04:58 -0600, loki <lo...@inlink.com> pounded
ponderously upon his/her keyboard:
>cze...@nospamus.oracle.com wrote:
>
>> pkr...@connix.com wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <albertreingewirtz...@san.access1.net>,
>> > albertre...@access1.net (Albert Reingewirtz) wrote:
>> >
>> > > In article <3458BF...@127.0.0.1>, Mike Czaplinski <ro...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>> >
>> > > They are liars. The simple fact is this. If you have callouses on your
>> > > hands, are your hands more sensitive touching or less? Same for your
>> > > penis. After circumcision, the tip of the penis devellopes a callous where
>> > > before it had a thin sensitive scene protected. Face reality, circumcision
>> > > was stupid idea!
>> >
>> > On the other hand, with less sensitivity, one may last longer giving one's
>> > partner a better experience.
>>
>> Trimmed - again - from alt.folklore.urban, where it is explicitly
>> unwelcome.
>>
>> Oh, and one other thing - callouses???
>
> Callouses??? Oh dear. I suppose I've uh, hmmm.... uh, seen enough
>penises both circumcised and uncircumcised at close enough range that
>I feel comfortable stating that I've noticed *no* callouses! Heck,
>I haven't noticed much difference at all between them.
>
>Loki - who finds she prefers circumcised pensis for some reason
What they're talking about re: callouses, is that the glans of
circumcised men is subjected to unshielded irritation and becomes
desensitized.
--
"There are some things man was not meant to know."
Laurence van Cott Niven
cze...@nospamus.oracle.com
Witness wrote:
>
> > > They are liars. The simple fact is this. If you have callouses on your
> > > hands, are your hands more sensitive touching or less? Same for your
> > > penis. After circumcision, the tip of the penis devellopes a callous where
> > > before it had a thin sensitive scene protected. Face reality, circumcision
> > > was stupid idea!
> >
> > On the other hand, with less sensitivity, one may last longer giving one's
> > partner a better experience.
>
> penis is when he *commanded* (emphasis) Abraham to circumcise everyone.
> I don't think anyone should really be using theirs enough to develop a
> callous, anyway! Imagine how much sex that would take!
>
> Regardless of the health benefits or how it affects sex, the Jews were
> commanded by God to circumcise their young. Why wouldn't they do it?
> As far as circumcision being stupid is concerned, I guess you feel that
> God's ideas are stupid?! Was His idea of creating you stupid too?
> Would you rather He didn't?
>
> Just Food for Thought,
>
> The Witness
Follow-ups trimmed yet again. Folks, *please* take this out
of alt.folklore.urban
Louann Miller
In article <345ffdf6...@news.aatech.com>,
whit...@acm.org says...
Maybe the Law of Conservation of Pleasure comes in because
circumcised men last longer and therefore give women more
pleasure. But I don't think this is a likely motive for
ancient Judaism.
--
Our ISP is cyberramp.net -- you know the routine...
Rev Chuck
Hmmm... Says here in my EAC handbook that the eight days following xmas
are the xn "Feast of the Circumcision" days. *Do* remember to mark your
calendar...
Bryan J. Maloney
If circumcision is so incredibly great, why do those people who do not
practice it breed quite nicely? Only in America does non-religious
circumcision take place routinely--and the practice was instituted in this
country in the 19th century to prevent masturbation.
Paul makes it quite plain that there is no Christian necessity for
circumcision of the flesh, rather we are to see to the state of our
souls--our morality and our acts--rather than worry about the state of our
dingle-dangles.
--
To respond via email, switch the elements of my domain.
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/bjm10/
"If there is no human nature outside social construction, no needs or capacities other than those constructed by a particular discourse, then there is no basis for social criticism and no reason for protest or rebellion"
--The Nation, June 9, 1997.
Cambias
This discussion is one of the few places in which you can tell something
about a person's intimate anatomy solely on the basis of which side of the
debate they take. (Male posters, anyway.)
It's also interesting because it's so obviously about something more than
just circumcision. I can understand wanting to circumcise or not
circumcise your own child, but the positively messianic tone of the
opponents is a bit odd -- like those vegetarians who aren't happy unless
_nobody_ eats meat.
Of course, I have no hope at all of ending this thread, or even getting
posters to adopt a reasonable tone. BUt I do have a genuine question:
Don't you all feel a bit silly spending so much time thinking about penises?
Cambias
(I don't just _think_ about mine, I go out and _do_ something with it.)
Albert Reingewirtz
In article <3461B2FC...@mb.sympatico.ca>, Witness
<wit...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > They are liars. The simple fact is this. If you have callouses on your
> > > hands, are your hands more sensitive touching or less? Same for your
> > > penis. After circumcision, the tip of the penis devellopes a callous where
> > > before it had a thin sensitive scene protected. Face reality, circumcision
> > > was stupid idea!
> >
> > On the other hand, with less sensitivity, one may last longer giving one's
> > partner a better experience.
>
> You know, I don't think God was too concerned with how sensitive one's
> penis is when he *commanded* (emphasis) Abraham to circumcise everyone.
> I don't think anyone should really be using theirs enough to develop a
> callous, anyway! Imagine how much sex that would take!
You've got it backward! The skin at the top of the penis is usually soft
and thin, very thin. When you remove the prepus that protects this part of
the penis the skin tickens thus becoming much less sensitive. We have all
been robbed!
>
> Regardless of the health benefits or how it affects sex, the Jews were
> commanded by God to circumcise their young. Why wouldn't they do it?
> As far as circumcision being stupid is concerned, I guess you feel that
> God's ideas are stupid?! Was His idea of creating you stupid too?
> Would you rather He didn't?
>
My ass! God did not create any of us we all came out of our mothers after
our fathers had sex with our mothers. None of us was created by a
non-existent God. Circumcision was a stupid idea!
cze...@nospamus.oracle.com
Albert Reingewirtz wrote:
>
Once again - and please try to get it this
time - this thread is not welcome in
alt.folklore.urban
PLEASE check your headers.
Therion Ware
On Fri, 07 Nov 1997 12:00:10 -0500, cam...@heliograph.SPAHMTRAP.com
(Cambias) decided to say, in alt.atheism, using 17 valuable lines of
text:
>This discussion is one of the few places in which you can tell something
>about a person's intimate anatomy solely on the basis of which side of the
>debate they take. (Male posters, anyway.)
Except in the case of the haemophiliac who really wants to be
circumcised but can't have the op becuase of their haemophilia.
Here in Malaysia there are a few europeans of my aquaintance who've
married into muslim families, and who've had to have the op. To a man
they say it makes little difference from an operational point of view,
but does make you walk very carefully for a couple of days afterwards.
>It's also interesting because it's so obviously about something more than
>just circumcision. I can understand wanting to circumcise or not
>circumcise your own child, but the positively messianic tone of the
>opponents is a bit odd -- like those vegetarians who aren't happy unless
>_nobody_ eats meat.
This certainly seems to be the case.
>Of course, I have no hope at all of ending this thread, or even getting
>posters to adopt a reasonable tone. BUt I do have a genuine question:
>
>Don't you all feel a bit silly spending so much time thinking about penises?
Yes, but it's an unavoidable consequence of dealing with the theists
in alt.athesim.
>Cambias
>(I don't just _think_ about mine, I go out and _do_ something with it.)
---
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
- Pauline Reage
---- alternatively, buy some exquisite oriental rosewood furniture
<http://arachnos.supernews.com/rosewood/home.html>
G. Mark Stewart
Bryan J. Maloney (bj...@edu.cornell) wrote:
: If circumcision is so incredibly great, why do those people who do not
: practice it breed quite nicely? Only in America does non-religious
That's as significant as wondering why people are still being born with
the gene for high blood pressure, and doesn't sway the argument either way.
Ray Burnette
Cambias wrote:
> Cambias
> (I don't just _think_ about mine, I go out and _do_ something with it.)
Hopefully, some thought goes on _before_ you do something with it.
Peter Ceresole
In article <bjm10-07119...@potato.cit.cornell.edu>,
bj...@edu.cornell (Bryan J. Maloney) wrote:
>Only in America does non-religious circumcision take place routinely
Not at all. Routine lay circumcision is common in Western Europe too.
--
Peter
Jim Everman
> >Only in America does non-religious circumcision take place routinely
Damn - does that mean I'm not Jewish after all?
--
Jim Everman eve...@Anet-STL.com
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by
stupidity.
Albert Reingewirtz
In article <MPG.ecc133a2...@newshost.cyberramp.net>,
mil...@spamoff.net (Louann Miller) wrote:
> In article <345ffdf6...@news.aatech.com>,
> whit...@acm.org says...
> > On 30 Oct 97 22:47:56 GMT, albertre...@access1.net (Albert
> > Reingewirtz) wrote:
> >
> > >Suzanne, of course you are right. The fact is that because of circumcision
> > >the head of the penis hardens because it is non longer protect by the
> > >prepus. Because of this, Jews never feel the full glory of feeling
> > >non-circumcised men enjoy. Circumcision was a bad idea.
> >
> > I suspect that only CERTAIN non-circumsized men have better orgasms
> > because there is, in fact, a Law of Conservation of Pleasure in the
> > universe and by boring all the rest of us to tears with their endless
> > prattling about how much better it is for them they thereby make many
> > of the rest of us unhappy and free up more pleasure for themselves.
"Laws of conservation of pleasure" in what masserta did you find this
pearl? Or is it religion producing pseudo science again?
> Maybe the Law of Conservation of Pleasure comes in because
> circumcised men last longer and therefore give women more
> pleasure. But I don't think this is a likely motive for
> ancient Judaism.
This will be the day! O's concerned about their wifes having pleasure!
Hello! This is Albert you are writing to! I remember vividly as a 13 year
old studying my daily gemara page (Tahara if my memory serves me well,
feel free to correct me if I am wrong) having to ponder on the mysteries
of women spotting. We had to learn about the size, the colour of the spot
so that we could in the future could decide when our wife is "pure or
impure." Even for one accepting the horrendous label of "Pure and "impure"
the Gemara doesn't allow women to make the decision themselves. This must
be done by their husband. They have to show the garment like good little
girls who have done something wrong to their husband for sentencing every
month. Such a husband will be concerned about his wife sexual pleasure? I
don't think so!
Albert Reingewirtz
In article <34638E...@nospamus.oracle.com>, cze...@nospamus.oracle.com
wrote:
I am sorry, but the scums who originated this tread must have addressed it
all over.
Albert Reingewirtz
Looks like the Chinese teaching of how to control orgasm as a
contraceptive tool have failed by a billion people! Reminds me that right
here in California where we are sometimes afflicted with fundies
controlling school district, they teach abstinence. Abstinence as a tool
to prevent pregnancies in teens fails miserably. Last year the Vista
school district had the highest teen pregnancies after they instituted
this idiocy.
David C. Wright
In group alt.pagan, article <albertreingewirtz...@230.128.126.171.206.in-addr.arpa>,
>God is not dead, it never existed
It's a simple enough thing to protest circumncision in virtually any
context. It's all stupid. All human beings are born with pudenda. Male
children are born with foreskins. Female children are born with Labia
Minora, Labia Majora, and a clitoris. All human beings are born with
genitalia that are common to all human beings, regardless of their sex, or
their race. If any God exists, then that God provided all people with a
default set of sexual organs that are common to all humans. This cannot be
disputed. This is universally true.
The argument to be made is this: If any god supplied all of his creatures
with a particular set of sexual organs, then why would that god tell his
followers to cut any of it off? If it is necessary for anybody to cut off
their sexual organs, then that must be an implicit admission that their god
didn't have a clue about their bodily functions, and He required his
subjects to modify themselves after He created them.
If you can't buy that, then it must be true that we were made as intended,
across the board. Men were intended to have foreskins. Women were
intended to have clitorii. Whatever god is worshipped that has decided that
these choices were a mistake was full of shit. I don't have any particular
truck against Judaism or Islam, but let's get the basic facts straight. If
your god requires you to modify yourself, then he has made a mistake that
s/he requires you to correct. S/He fucked up. Tough. I don't have a
foreskin, and my ladyfriend is complete. Neither of these truths implies
that I have to mutiliate the genitals of my children, or hers. I can
accept my blood children as they are born, and hers as they are born. I do
not feel compelled to mutilate them. If your religious upbringing requires
you to carve up your children, then have at it, but don't try to blame it
on your God. Your God constructed them as they are. If you choose to
change that, then that is *your* decision. You can blame it on Moses, but
Moses has been dead for four thousand years, and he cannot defend himself.
If that is your defense, then you are a shitless coward. There is no god
that requires anybody to be a thoughtless shithead. "I do not feel
compelled to believe that the same god that had endowed us with reason and
intellect has intended us to forego their use." - Galileo Galilei.
--
David C. Wright (wri...@autobahn.mb.ca)
(Remove "SS." from the Reply-to field for E-mail)
Baruch's Observation:
If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Susan Cohen
G. Mark Stewart wrote:
> : Cambias
> : (I don't just _think_ about mine, I go out and _do_ something with it.)
>
> I don't go ahead and use that Delta 22" scroll saw without thinking first,
> either -- but that's the mindset of us craftsmen with the biggest and best.
ROTFL!
Susan
(p&m - I can do that now, too!)
Ben Walsh
Susan Cohen wrote:
> No wonder you're an atheist: you missed the point there, too.
>
> Susan
You're missed the point of this newsgroup. Take it elswhere.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Drug dealers dealt heavy blow" | ben walsh
-- Irish News | benw at iona dot com
| http://bounce.to/heretic
Mike Czaplinski
Keith Fletcher wrote:
>
> Why such a fasination with cranks?
Well, the 'net does have a disproportionate represantation for unmarried
men in the 18-35 demographic....
Mike "It doesn't take a Freud to figure it out..."
Czaplinski
ekim.czaplinski<at>washingtoncd.rcn.moc
If anyone has been offended by this post...GOOD!
Susan Cohen
Albert Reingewirtz wrote:
> In article <MPG.ecc133a2...@newshost.cyberramp.net>,
> mil...@spamoff.net (Louann Miller) wrote:
> > > I suspect that only CERTAIN non-circumsized men have better orgasms
> > > because there is, in fact, a Law of Conservation of Pleasure in the
> > > universe and by boring all the rest of us to tears with their endless
> > > prattling about how much better it is for them they thereby make many
> > > of the rest of us unhappy and free up more pleasure for themselves.
>
> "Laws of conservation of pleasure" in what masserta did you find this
> pearl? Or is it religion producing pseudo science again?
I can't believe you missed this one. I thought it was hysterical.
> This will be the day! O's concerned about their wifes having pleasure!
Well, I won't discuss this with you in a public forum - maybe someone elsewill -
but you're WAAAY *wrong*, here, Albert.
> Hello! This is Albert you are writing to! I remember vividly as a 13 year
> old studying my daily gemara page
[snip]
> They have to show the garment like good little
> girls who have done something wrong to their husband for sentencing every
> month. Such a husband will be concerned about his wife sexual pleasure? I
> don't think so!
No wonder you're an atheist: you missed the point there, too.
Susan
Capt. Meat
Ben Walsh <be...@iona.nospam.please.we'reirish.com> wrote:
>Susan Cohen wrote:
>
>> No wonder you're an atheist: you missed the point there, too.
>>
>> Susan
>
>You're missed the point of this newsgroup. Take it elswhere.
Frankly, I'm appalled at the lack of spine 'rec.org.mensa' is
displaying considering how often they protest when
the Bible-thumpers over-step their fleshbound limitations
and break out with all this polysyllabic demagoguery.
Capt. Fig
Jeff Adkins
In article <346a1f12...@news.earthlink.net>, Ne...@your.door (Capt.
Meat) wrote:
?Ben Walsh <be...@iona.nospam.please.we'reirish.com> wrote:
?
?>Susan Cohen wrote:
?>
?>> No wonder you're an atheist: you missed the point there, too.
?>>
?>> Susan
?>
?>You're missed the point of this newsgroup. Take it elswhere.
?
?Frankly, I'm appalled at the lack of spine 'rec.org.mensa' is
?displaying considering how often they protest when
?the Bible-thumpers over-step their fleshbound limitations
?and break out with all this polysyllabic demagoguery.
Well, you can say one thing for them: I'm tired of conducting the
Extravaganza all by my self.
Zardoz Greybeard
Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
> In article <640lon$odd$2...@brownfox.svs.com>, gm...@grayfox.svs.com (G. Mark
> Stewart) wrote:
>
> > Cambias (cam...@heliograph.SPAHMTRAP.com) wrote:
> > : This discussion is one of the few places in which you can tell something
> > : about a person's intimate anatomy solely on the basis of which side of the
> > : debate they take. (Male posters, anyway.)
>
> Sorry, doesn't work. I'm male and dislike circumcision--didn't have my
> son circumcized even though I am circumcized. Why do I dislike it? I
> dislike any unnecessary surgery, and ornamental surgery moreso. Since I
> am neither Jew nor Muslim, there is nothing to enjoin me to have my sons
> circumcized.
It is the responsibility of all citizens to protect children from violent sexual abuse, which is what genital mutilation is. The permanent disfigurement, mutilation, of any child is a severe harm, and the century of
quack-medical lies that have been given to justify the close to $1,000,000,000 that the medical business makes hacking off sexual parts of healthy normal children is just a disgrace to the country and to the medical
business.
"I learned what circumcision does, which is control and humiliate males and destroy and disempower
the human spirit, and then I was just heartbroken, and angry. I felt extremely angry, cheated,
depressed, and violated. " Genre Magazine, November 1997, P64
There is NO excuse for violent sexual abuse of male children. Not for social, quack-medical, religious,
or psychotic excuses. Sexual mutilation of healthy normal children has to STOP!
Zardoz Greybeard
James H. Sindberg
On Wed, 12 Nov 1997 21:39:24 GMT, Ne...@your.door (Capt.
Meat) wrote:
;Ben Walsh <be...@iona.nospam.please.we'reirish.com> wrote:
;>Susan Cohen wrote:
;>> No wonder you're an atheist: you missed the point there, too.
;>You're missed the point of this newsgroup. Take it elswhere.
;Frankly, I'm appalled at the lack of spine 'rec.org.mensa' is
;displaying considering how often they protest when
;the Bible-thumpers over-step their fleshbound limitations
;and break out with all this polysyllabic demagoguery.
You are free to circumcise yourself. But keep you knife off
babies when they are healthy.
Respectfully,
James H. Sindberg
james.s...@get2net.dk
James H. Sindberg
On Sat, 08 Nov 1997 18:18:23 +0000, pe...@cara.demon.co.uk
(Peter Ceresole) wrote:
;In article <bjm10-07119...@potato.cit.cornell.edu>,
;bj...@edu.cornell (Bryan J. Maloney) wrote:
;>Only in America does non-religious circumcision take place routinely
;Not at all. Routine lay circumcision is common in Western Europe too.
Not in Italy, Germany, Netherlands, France, Spain, and
Scandinavia. In fact you are mistaken concerning all
nations of Europe, both East and West. Even UK, the only
"European?" nation that once had a bit of "routine" lay
circumcision has now reduced it to "non-routine".
Jeffrey Smith
Actually, jettisoning the laws of kashruth was first done by Peter (on
angelic instruction) when he was dithering over eating with the Roman
Cornelius.
And btw I'm circumcised, and have *never* felt abused, mutilated, or
anything else negative because of it.
--
Jeffrey Smith f901...@bc.seflin.org
Hillel said: Be among the disciples of Aaron, loving peace
and pursuing peace, loving people and bringing them closer to Torah.
----Mishnah Avot 1:12
Justin C. Fauci
Actually, I think it's the opposite.
Since a majority of the people ARE circumcized (at leadt where I live)
Non-Circumsized people would have more reason to feel ostracized(sp?) than
thoise who are.
Bryan J. Maloney
In article <01bcf155$218e0140$861cd9cf@nelson-s-castle>, "Nelson Samuel
Magedman" <nelson...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> The reason why people who do not practice circumcision breed quite nicely
> is that they have not learned to keep their organ in their pants. As to
Funny, but some morons made claims about circumcision increasing the
overal viability of the circumsized in that they had more offspring, or
something like that.
> prevent masturbation, one must be dumb and stupid to think that
> circumcision would prevent this act. One known medical reason for
Nevertheless, that was claimed in the USA and Britain as a "justification"
for the act.
> circumcision is that there is a lower incidence of cervical cancer among
> women whose husbands' have been circumcised.
And which country's government financed that bit of research (we already
know the answer, of course)?
Maksim Gur
It is all b-s
There is no reqal medical justification for circumcision.The story with
the cervix cancer is now quite fully understood:
this disease is transmitted by a virus excretted in sperm.
the more male partners a woman had in her lifetime, the more
chances to encounter the virus she had.
Jews were in the past much more monogamic than other western people
and this caused the correlation between circ. and cancer
In 199x the situation is different... and the rate of cerv.cancer
in jewish population has raised very significantly
We do circ. _SOLELY_ becuse we are comanded to.
Even the reason of becoming different and "marked" is not real.
In the days of our father Avraham, to be circumsised meant
to be Egiptian !
in 1997, most american male infants are circumcised
To get more info, follow the newsgroup ALT.CIRCUMCISION
Susan Cohen
Nelson Samuel Magedman wrote:
> One known medical reason for
> circumcision is that there is a lower incidence of cervical cancer among
> women whose husbands' have been circumcised.
This sounds plausible, of course, but I would like to know a more medically
acknowledged source for this information (i.e., no one else will accept "I
heard it on the 'net" as a valid argument!).
Thanks -
Susan
Goddess in Training
Maksim Gur (g...@hadassah.org.il) wrote:
: There is no reqal medical justification for circumcision.The story with
: the cervix cancer is now quite fully understood:
: this disease is transmitted by a virus excretted in sperm.
Really? I never realized HPV was "excreted" in sperm. I always thought it
was present on the external genetalia.
--'--,-{@ --,--'-{@ --'--,-{@
Renee Rosen "Transylvanian Concubine,
lil...@cjnetworks.com You know what flows here like wine.
Goddess in Training Stay here with us, it's just time.
Astrud and Kitto on irc Transylvanian Concubine."
http://www.cjnetworks.com/~lilitu --Rasputina
@}-,--'-- @}-'--,-- @}-,--'--
tril...@mail.mankato.msus.edu
Albert Reingewirtz
In article <bjm10-17119...@potato.cit.cornell.edu>,
bj...@edu.cornell (Bryan J. Maloney) wrote:
> In article <01bcf155$218e0140$861cd9cf@nelson-s-castle>, "Nelson Samuel
> Magedman" <nelson...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > The reason why people who do not practice circumcision breed quite nicely
> > is that they have not learned to keep their organ in their pants. As to
>
> Funny, but some morons made claims about circumcision increasing the
> overal viability of the circumsized in that they had more offspring, or
> something like that.
>
> > prevent masturbation, one must be dumb and stupid to think that
> > circumcision would prevent this act. One known medical reason for
> Nevertheless, that was claimed in the USA and Britain as a "justification"
> for the act.
> > circumcision is that there is a lower incidence of cervical cancer among
> > women whose husbands' have been circumcised.
This is the origin as to why circumcision became so wide spread in the USA.
As for the cancer, it is a bum rap. Multi sex partners without protection
is the most likely cause ultimately.
> And which country's government financed that bit of research (we already
> know the answer, of course)?
>
> --
> To respond via email, switch the elements of my domain.
>
> http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/bjm10/
>
> "If there is no human nature outside social construction, no needs or
capacities other than those constructed by a particular discourse, then
there is no basis for social criticism and no reason for protest or
rebellion"
> --The Nation, June 9, 1997.
So, "We the people... " should be banned?
Dargaud Guillaume
Just a joke related to a subject that's gotten completely uninteresting:
Two five year old boys are standing at the potty to pee.
One says, "Your thing doesn't have any skin on it!"
"I've been circumcised."
"What's that mean?"
"It means they cut the skin off the end."
"How old were you when it was cut off?"
"My mom said I was two days old."
"Did it hurt?"
"You bet it hurt, I couldn't walk for a year!"
---------------------------------
Guillaume "Kill Your TV" Dargaud
http://sung3.ifsi.rm.cnr.it/~dargaud/index.html
"I think there are two areas where new ideas are terribly dangerous —
economics and sex. By and large, it's all been tried, and if it's really
new, it's probably illegal or dangerous or unhealthy." — Felix G. Rohatyn
Saikat Guha
David C. Wright wrote:
> It's a simple enough thing to protest circumncision in virtually any
> context. It's all stupid. All human beings are born with pudenda. Male
> children are born with foreskins, etc., etc., etc.
The really fascinating (albeit saddening) thing is that you probably invested considerable time and
effort on this subject. This post seemed reasonably intelligent and well argued. Too bad you didn't
have an actual issue to argue about. It's a "simple enough thing" to leave well enough alone,
sometimes. Of course, you don't have to go for the sensible approach if you don't want to.
Regards,
S.
--
"Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi . . . dona nobis pacem."
Gregory Gyetko
ecragg wrote:
[snip]
> ...... Sometimes cooperating with Jahweh means hiding your
> embarrassment.
I prefer to follow the path of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. She asks for no
humility.
> ...... Men who are circumcized cannot perform sexually as well
> as well as men who are not. This is because they ejaculate
> very quickly and leave their woman unsatisfied.
I think that your projecting your own problems on to the rest of us. Look,
if you blow too early, then you concentrate on *her*, right? How can that
be bad? Personally, I've never had any problems with premature
ejaculation, but you can take a survey on these n.g's and find out.
> ...... The holy outcome of this predicament is that Jewish men
> have been require to empathize with their women, connect
> emotionally with their women, and learn to wait.
That's an interesting theory. Are you saying that otherwise they would
complete pricks to their wives.
> ...... These are disciplines that are sacred, and that is why cir-
> cumcision is sacred.
Are you sure it just isn't a throwback to pain-sacrifice like really old
religions used to have?
> ...... Only men who choose to abide with favor [by Law] are
> faced with the choice whether to have themselves circumcized
> or not. This is not a matter for Christians to even wonder about.
> Christians are under no obligation in this respect.
Nope, just the hygeinic[sp] thing, which may or may not be accurate.
> ...... The fact that Jewish boys are circumcized in infancy before
> they are of the age of consent means that the Jewish family
> takes responsibility for the outcomes that emerge from the
> practice of circumcision.
One supposes that, being such a permanent operation, a kid ought to have
the decision
> ...... If families are fragmenting and no longer live in community
> and by law, then the overriding reason for circumcision--to teach
> patience and forebearance--becomes very difficult if not impos-
> sible to fulfill.
Blah, blah, blah. Are you saying that removing the foreskin creates a
better society because .... whoa ... long traino del logicex.
> ...... For those people who are interested in restoring the concept
> of community, of sharing, of cooperation, of evoking trust, there
> is now a place to GO to get information with respect to building
> yourselves a community like the original Isrealites in the wilder-
> ness.
Lemme get this straight1. Men are circumcised (true)
2. They ejaculate sooner (unproven)
3. Therefore, they sympathize with their women
4. Therefore, family bonds are stronger
5. Therefore, society is stronger
Wow, who knew that little flap of skin was soooo important.
G.
--
alt.atheism Atheist #911
"I'd worship Satan, but I'm going to hell anyway,
so why waste my time?"
ecragg
Dargaud Guillaume wrote :
Just a joke related to a subject that's gotten completely uninteresting:
>
>Two five year old boys are standing at the potty to pee.
>One says, "Your thing doesn't have any skin on it!"
>"I've been circumcised."
>"What's that mean?"
>"It means they cut the skin off the end."
>"How old were you when it was cut off?"
>"My mom said I was two days old."
>"Did it hurt?"
>"You bet it hurt, I couldn't walk for a year!"
...... Sometimes cooperating with Jahweh means hiding your
embarrassment.
...... Men who are circumcized cannot perform sexually as well
as well as men who are not. This is because they ejaculate
very quickly and leave their woman unsatisfied.
...... The holy outcome of this predicament is that Jewish men
have been require to empathize with their women, connect
emotionally with their women, and learn to wait.
...... These are disciplines that are sacred, and that is why cir-
cumcision is sacred.
...... Only men who choose to abide with favor [by Law] are
faced with the choice whether to have themselves circumcized
or not. This is not a matter for Christians to even wonder about.
Christians are under no obligation in this respect.
...... The fact that Jewish boys are circumcized in infancy before
they are of the age of consent means that the Jewish family
takes responsibility for the outcomes that emerge from the
practice of circumcision.
...... If families are fragmenting and no longer live in community
and by law, then the overriding reason for circumcision--to teach
patience and forebearance--becomes very difficult if not impos-
sible to fulfill.
...... For those people who are interested in restoring the concept
of community, of sharing, of cooperation, of evoking trust, there
is now a place to GO to get information with respect to building
yourselves a community like the original Isrealites in the wilder-
ness.
...... Go see http://www.abidemiracles.com/794901.htm
for "What Is Lawful Persists," a course in community building
according to holy principles of Jahweh's Law.
--Jahweh
TMOliver
ecragg wrote:
> ...... Men who are circumcized cannot perform sexually as well
> as well as men who are not. This is because they ejaculate
> very quickly and leave their woman unsatisfied.
No, we're just getting a quicker start on our second fuck, you miserable
dipshit.
The question for those, cut or uncut, who applaud their ability to
satisfy their sex partners, is best to be found by asking: "How do you
know she wasn't faking so as not to destroy your already insignificant
level of self-esteem?"
--
War....
A desperate venture in which, preceded by bugle and drum,
amidst cannonade and the rattle of musketry,
the vain glories of the old are purchased with the blood of the young.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Today's retrospect is considerably clearer than yesterday's foresight!
TMOliver/8225 Shadow Wood/Woodway/TX/76712/254-772-2859/254-776-3332
Susan Cohen
Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
> In article <01bcf155$218e0140$861cd9cf@nelson-s-castle>, "Nelson Samuel
> Magedman" <nelson...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > circumcision is that there is a lower incidence of cervical cancer among
> > women whose husbands' have been circumcised.
>
> And which country's government financed that bit of research (we already
> know the answer, of course)?
Are you suggesting that the US has a motive in sponsoring such reasearch other than wasting tax dollars? :-)
Robyn Donnell
ecragg (ecr...@sprintmail.com) wrote:
: Dargaud Guillaume wrote :
: Just a joke related to a subject that's gotten completely uninteresting:
: >
: >Two five year old boys are standing at the potty to pee.
: >One says, "Your thing doesn't have any skin on it!"
: >"I've been circumcised."
: >"What's that mean?"
: >"It means they cut the skin off the end."
: >"How old were you when it was cut off?"
: >"My mom said I was two days old."
: >"Did it hurt?"
: >"You bet it hurt, I couldn't walk for a year!"
: ...... Sometimes cooperating with Jahweh means hiding your
: embarrassment.
: ...... Men who are circumcized cannot perform sexually as well
: as well as men who are not. This is because they ejaculate
: very quickly and leave their woman unsatisfied.
ok, fine, i'll bite. where in the hell did you come up with this one?
lorelei "my experience says otherwise, but let's not go there" donnell
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
r. lorelei donnell
lor...@spike.wellesley.edu lor...@maine.rr.com
"how come even in my fantasies, everyone's a jerk?" (daria)
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://wonderhead.com/lorelei
Albert Reingewirtz
In article <34712D96...@smart.net>, Susan Cohen <ze...@smart.net> wrote:
> Nelson Samuel Magedman wrote:
>
> > One known medical reason for
> > circumcision is that there is a lower incidence of cervical cancer among
> > women whose husbands' have been circumcised.
>
> This sounds plausible, of course, but I would like to know a more medically
> acknowledged source for this information (i.e., no one else will accept "I
> heard it on the 'net" as a valid argument!).
>
> Thanks -
>
> Susan
Susan this is no more plausible than cutting out the labia will lower
incidence of cancer in the penis. I have read in the past that cervical
cancer has higher incidence in people who had many sexual partners.
James Buster
In article <3472E1B9...@smart.net>, Susan Cohen <ze...@smart.net> wrote:
>Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
>> In article <01bcf155$218e0140$861cd9cf@nelson-s-castle>, "Nelson Samuel
>> Magedman" <nelson...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> > women whose husbands' have been circumcised.
>>
>> know the answer, of course)?
>
>Are you suggesting that the US has a motive in sponsoring such reasearch
>other than wasting tax dollars? :-)
The answer, since you obviously didn't know, is Israel. Israel, in case
it hadn't occurred to you, has a bit of a conflict of interest when it
comes to any research surrounding the topic of circumcision.
--
Planet Bog -- pools of toxic chemicals bubble under a choking
atomsphere of poisonous gases... but aside from that, it's not
much like Earth.
Pythia
--
And the Lady, Leto, was happy. The son She made
was strong, and an archer................(Homer)
http://www.angelfire.com/ma/signoftheharp
James Buster <bit...@seal.engr.sgi.com> wrote in article
<650do5$47...@fido.asd.sgi.com>...
> In article <3472E1B9...@smart.net>, Susan Cohen <ze...@smart.net>
wrote:
> >Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
> >> In article <01bcf155$218e0140$861cd9cf@nelson-s-castle>, "Nelson
Samuel
> >> Magedman" <nelson...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > circumcision is that there is a lower incidence of cervical cancer
among
> >> > women whose husbands' have been circumcised.
> >>
> >> And which country's government financed that bit of research (we
already
> >> know the answer, of course)?
> >
> >Are you suggesting that the US has a motive in sponsoring such reasearch
> >other than wasting tax dollars? :-)
>
> The answer, since you obviously didn't know, is Israel. Israel, in case
> it hadn't occurred to you, has a bit of a conflict of interest when it
> comes to any research surrounding the topic of circumcision.
So what are you saying, Israel makes a profit when American baby boys are
circumcized? Whats your point?
> --
Pythia
--
And the Lady, Leto, was happy. The son She made
was strong, and an archer................(Homer)
http://www.angelfire.com/ma/signoftheharp
Susan Cohen
James Buster wrote:
> In article <3472E1B9...@smart.net>, Susan Cohen <ze...@smart.net> wrote:
> >Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
> >> In article <01bcf155$218e0140$861cd9cf@nelson-s-castle>, "Nelson Samuel
> >> Magedman" <nelson...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > circumcision is that there is a lower incidence of cervical cancer among
> >> > women whose husbands' have been circumcised.
> >>
> >> And which country's government financed that bit of research (we already
> >> know the answer, of course)?
> >
> >Are you suggesting that the US has a motive in sponsoring such reasearch
> >other than wasting tax dollars? :-)
>
> The answer, since you obviously didn't know, is Israel.
Thank you for the information. I thought it was going to be another session like on
<alt.parenting.solutions> were people accused US doctors of upholding the tradition
for their own financial benefit.
> Israel, in case
> it hadn't occurred to you, has a bit of a conflict of interest when it
> comes to any research surrounding the topic of circumcision.
Yes, it had occurred to me.
Susan Cohen
Albert Reingewirtz wrote:
> I have read in the past that cervical
> cancer has higher incidence in people who had many sexual partners.
I've read this, too. But I was asking for a medical source - are you an MD? Or did
you get this from a medical journal (I forget where I read it, myself)?
James Buster
In article <01bcf546$30ebb200$24f0accf@kingan>,
Pythia <kin...@erols.com> wrote:
>James Buster <bit...@seal.engr.sgi.com> wrote in article
><650do5$47...@fido.asd.sgi.com>...
>> it hadn't occurred to you, has a bit of a conflict of interest when it
>> comes to any research surrounding the topic of circumcision.
>
>circumcized? Whats your point?
My point is that I have serious doubts about the ability of Israeli
medical researchers to be *impartial* regarding research on the
subject of circumcision, for reasons that should be obvious.
(Hint: what is the official religion of the Israeli government?)
MindFlayer
I can't believe I am getting into this, but anyway...
In forest deep, where dark things sleep, TMOliver penned this in one fell
sweep: <3473B2...@iamerica.net>
>ecragg wrote:
>
>> ...... Men who are circumcized cannot perform sexually as well
>> as well as men who are not. This is because they ejaculate
>> very quickly and leave their woman unsatisfied.
Actually, I understand that it is the other way around -- the
circumcized men last longer, because penis has been somewhat desensitized
by lack of protection from constant stimulation. So, I read that
circumcized men last longer, at the cost of having less sensation.
>No, we're just getting a quicker start on our second fuck, you miserable
>dipshit.
>
>The question for those, cut or uncut, who applaud their ability to
>satisfy their sex partners, is best to be found by asking: "How do you
>know she wasn't faking so as not to destroy your already insignificant
>level of self-esteem?"
Of course, for those who can do it thrice in a row every day <wink,
wink>, the point is moot...
--
************************************************************************
* MindFlayer alt.atheist #696 * Don't fuck with logic -- *
* http://www.cs.umass.edu/~danilche * you will lose. - Me *
************************************************************************
James H. Sindberg
On 19 Nov 97 12:57:41 GMT, albertre...@access1.net
(Albert Reingewirtz) wrote:
;This is the origin as to why circumcision became so wide spread in the USA.
;As for the cancer, it is a bum rap. Multi sex partners without protection
;is the most likely cause ultimately.
The origin is the fight against mastrubation, not the fight
against cancer. You should read the 100 year ago medical
journal to see what was important about circumcision.
Pythia
...... Sometimes cooperating with Jahweh means hiding your
> embarrassment.
> ...... Men who are circumcized cannot perform sexually as well
> as well as men who are not. This is because they ejaculate
> very quickly and leave their woman unsatisfied.
Am I imagining this or did this guy sign himself "Jahweh". Quick, hide your
children, and make sure you know where your relatives are!!
Has anyone visited this guy's website? I think this little band of David
Koresh types is wandering around the West in an RV, waiting for a sign from
Bo and Peep, so they can join them behind that comet. It's another one of
these "Book of Revelations" interpretations of the end of the world, and of
course the "Jewish Bankers" are source of evil. A totally disfunctional and
sad thing.
It is further proof to me that reading Revelations is definately bad for
you.
Aaron
David C. Wright wrote:
>
> In group alt.pagan, article <347310AE...@mail.utexas.edu>,
> Saikat Guha <sk....@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> >David C. Wright wrote:
> >
> >> It's a simple enough thing to protest circumncision in virtually any
> >> context. It's all stupid. All human beings are born with pudenda. Male
> >> children are born with foreskins, etc., etc., etc.
> >
> >The really fascinating (albeit saddening) thing is that you probably invested considerable time and
> >effort on this subject. This post seemed reasonably intelligent and well argued. Too bad you didn't
> >have an actual issue to argue about. It's a "simple enough thing" to leave well enough alone,
> >sometimes. Of course, you don't have to go for the sensible approach if you don't want to.
>
> up infant children's genitalia for no purpose? I'd be immensely interested
> to find out what it is about that approach that is 'sensible'. In the
> main, is it more 'sensible' to carve up a boy or a girl, or both? Even in
> Judaism, where the practice is mandated by religious law, is there any
> particular reason why it has to happen in the first seven days after birth
> when, coincidentally, anaesthesia can do more harm than good? In the US a
> few years ago, immigrant Soviet Jews were circumncised on entry to the US,
> because that particular religious obligation could not be satisfied in the
> former Soviet Union. The fact that some of those Jews were circumncised as
> adults did not seem to affect their religious obligations at all. If it is
> enough to be cirumncised, then can it not wait until the child is old
> enough to be anaesthetised? I expect that this hinges greatly on whether
> or not one would be a 'reform' jew or not. It doesn't much matter. The
> seven day rule doesn't seem to be etched in stone, and I can't for the life
> of me figure out any reason why a rational adult would take a knife to a
> child.
>
> --
> David C. Wright (wri...@autobahn.mb.ca)
> (Remove "SS." from the Reply-to field for E-mail)
>
> Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the
> law. -- Sophocles (496?-406 BCE)
You obvioulsy have no idea how circumcisions are performed on new borns
in the the Jewish tradition. No anasthesia, simply a minute amount of
ceremonial wine is used. And perchance, are you circumcised? If not,
how are you qualified to lecture on the "sensible approach" of
circumcision?
Mark L. Levinson
> >> And which country's government financed that bit of research (we already
> >> know the answer, of course)?
** And the source of that answer (since you are,
after all, posting to an an urban folklore group
among others)?
Mark L. Levinson
(in Israel, and strongly suspecting
that the research is older than
the country)
Yisroel Markov
David C. Wright wrote:
> Your 'sensible approach' would be what? That there is a reason for carving
> up infant children's genitalia for no purpose? I'd be immensely interested
> to find out what it is about that approach that is 'sensible'. In the
The only good reason known to us is God's command to Abraham, of course.
> main, is it more 'sensible' to carve up a boy or a girl, or both? Even in
> Judaism, where the practice is mandated by religious law, is there any
> particular reason why it has to happen in the first seven days after birth
> when, coincidentally, anaesthesia can do more harm than good?
"At the age of 8 days shall every male of you be circumcised throughout
your generations..." -- Genesis 17-12. Does this answer your question?
Speaking of anesthesia, I read about a week ago that some doctors (and
mohelim) use a mild local anesthetic, ointment-type. Wish I knew about it
6 weeks ago, when my son was circumcised.
> In the US a
> few years ago, immigrant Soviet Jews were circumncised on entry to the US,
> because that particular religious obligation could not be satisfied in the
> former Soviet Union. The fact that some of those Jews were circumncised as
> adults did not seem to affect their religious obligations at all. If it is
> enough to be cirumncised, then can it not wait until the child is old
> enough to be anaesthetised?
This is not good phrasing -- someone might think that immigrant Soviet
Jews were circumcised routinely against their will. Being an immigrant
Soviet Jew myself, I can testify that I was not subjected to the
procedure until I gathered up the courage to ask for it. As for "why not
wait" -- see above quote.
As to religious obligations being affected, in Jewish law every day
beyond 8 that a male Jew lives without a bris (covenant) having been
performed is a violation of a positive commandment. "And the
uncircumcised male who does not circumcise the flesh of his foreskin,
that soul shall be cut off from his people; he has voided my covenant."
-- Genesis 17-14. That's why a male child who dies (God forbid) before 8
days is circumcised posthumously -- just in case. "Cut off from his
people" -- that's serious business among us.
> I expect that this hinges greatly on whether
> or not one would be a 'reform' jew or not. It doesn't much matter. The
> seven day rule doesn't seem to be etched in stone, and I can't for the life
> of me figure out any reason why a rational adult would take a knife to a
> child.
As shown above, it *is* "etched in stone", the only exceptions being
general duress (inability to obtain qualified help) and health of the
child. "Reform" has nothing to do with it: either you are serious about
doing God's will or you are not, and then "it doesn't much matter" when
or where or what or how.
You also wrote: ----- begin included message ----- The argument to be
made is this: If any god supplied all of his creatures with a particular
set of sexual organs, then why would that god tell his followers to cut
any of it off? If it is necessary for anybody to cut off their sexual
organs, then that must be an implicit admission that their god didn't
have a clue about their bodily functions, and He required his subjects to
modify themselves after He created them.
If you can't buy that, then it must be true that we were made as
intended, across the board. Men were intended to have foreskins. Women
were intended to have clitorii. Whatever god is worshipped that has
decided that these choices were a mistake was full of shit. I don't have
any particular truck against Judaism or Islam, but let's get the basic
facts straight. If your god requires you to modify yourself, then he has
made a mistake that s/he requires you to correct. S/He fucked up. Tough.
-----end included message-----
This is overly simplistic, as evidenced by the fact that this argument is
over 2,000 years old. The Greeks and the Romans were also revolted by
this practice and made the exact same argument.
Why is it difficult to understand that we *are* made as intended, and
*some* of us are nevertheless intended to modify ourselves? It probably
stems from the notion that we consider foreskin to be somehow wrong. We
don't. Here, I'll say it: Whoever has a foreskin is a physically normal
person. But God wanted to create a sign between Himself and His people,
and He chose this to convey (among other things) the notion that creation
IS in fact intended to be improved. Without such a notion, one can argue
against medicine, technology, social development and a whole host of
other things. I mean, some environmentalists appeal to Christian
organizations in this vein: "If you believe God created the world, let's
not spoil it by this dam or that shopping mall."
And that's why a rational adult would take a knife to a child.
Incidentally, that's also why I am against non-Jews circumcising
themselves. It's not medically necessary, and it amounts to "borrowing"
the sign of *our* covenant.
Hope this helps promote understanding, world peace, etc. :-)
Yisroel S. Markov
Boston, USA
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Therion Ware
On 25 Nov 1997 06:01:24 GMT, bit...@seal.engr.sgi.com (James Buster)
decided to say, in alt.atheism, using 13 valuable lines of text:
>In article <34786b0d...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
>MindFlayer <min...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> Do you even KNOW what "female circumcision" IS?
>
>Neither, apparently, do you.
>
>>.. They have the girls' CLITORIS CUT OFF!!!
>
>No, that is clitoridectomy. Circumcision is removal of the clitoral hood.
one can only hope that the woman with the razor blade is familiar with
the finer points of medical terminology.
-----
Hell Is A City Much Like Dis, and it's Pandemonium; for "why this is Hell, nor am I out of it".
<http://arachnos.supernews.com/rosewood/home.html>
------ ------
k...@raleigh.ibm.com
Sabbah Cedric <sab...@MAGELLAN.UMontreal.CA> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Nov 1997, Zardoz Greybeard wrote:
>>
>>
>> Nelson Samuel Magedman wrote:
>>
>> > Bryan, I guess it was a shame that you weren't born with the ability to
>>
>> "I learned what circumcision does, which is control and humiliate
<snip>
>> depressed, and violated. " Genre Magazine, November 1997, P64
>>
>> There is NO excuse for violent sexual abuse of male children.
>>
>> Zardoz Greybeard
> I don't get it. I'm new on this newsgroup, so i guess i didn't follow the
> full discussion...but what's the big deal about being circumcised? i'm
> circumcised and i don'T feel neither sexually oppressed, nor cheated.
> What's the big probem?
> cs
>>
Well, that's because you never read that article in Genre. If
you had you would understand how it has completely destroyed
any possibility of a normal life for you, your descendants,
and quite likely your ancestors and precursors.
I, too, am circumcised and for more than 35 years went blithely
along my life's way never giving much more than token, bi-annual
thought to this horrible disfigurement of my very body. Then
came the article.
In a staggering epiphany I realized that my parents and the
attending physician had never given a thought to the idea that
this unspeakable travesty I am speaking of would completely annihilate
my chances at a normal life.
Today I am a broken, cowering shadow of the man I thought I
was. I have divorced my wife, disowned my parents and neglected
my financial commitments. I have lost all of my friends and
I make new enemies daily. I have killed myself four times
in the last month alone but my depression is so profound
that I completely lack the skill to die.
I can't read anymore and my ability to speak has been reduced
to mere grunts and occasional clicks. I drive an old compact
car. I've lost all the feeling in my left arm.
All of the trees on my street have lost their leaves. Neighbors
tell me this is a normal part of the season but I know it is due
to the internal self-hate I feel. My dog growls at me in her
sleep.
KD "so filled with revulsion for myself I cannot even end this
drivel decently." Smith
--
K.D.Smith K A 5 S A C k...@raleigh.ibm.com
"Have you seen the palace? ... Oh, you must!
You must! It won't be here much longer.
They are cleaning it, you know." FT--WFTEOSLH
Damion Dishart
In alt.atheism, Therion Ware (Therion T. Ware) (tw...@geocities.com) wrote:
> On 25 Nov 1997 06:01:24 GMT, bit...@seal.engr.sgi.com (James Buster):
> >In article MindFlayer <min...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> Do you even KNOW what "female circumcision" IS?
> >Neither, apparently, do you.
> >>.. They have the girls' CLITORIS CUT OFF!!!
> >No, that is clitoridectomy. Circumcision is removal of the clitoral hood.
Actually, the term female circumcision encompasses a number of
procedures including removal of the clitoral hood through to removal of
the labia majora and minora AND the entire clitoral region (including
the non-protruding bits) and the subsequent sewing up of the vaginal
opening (infibulation). None of these procedures have any medical
significance.
> one can only hope that the woman with the razor blade is familiar with
> the finer points of medical terminology.
If they're lucky. It is common in one area (the book is at home,
mail me if you want a cite.) to inflame the clitoris with nettles, then
remove it with a piece of broken glass.
Damion a.a.#745.
--
!Reply-to: D.C.D...@sussex.ac.uk!
Deja News has shown me that articles posted Friday - Sunday are expired
by my newsserver before I can read them. If you want a reply, please
mail and post, especially at the weekend. Thank You.
Louann Miller
In article <64vll6$km3$1...@newsfep3.sprintmail.com>,
ecr...@sprintmail.com says...
> ...... Men who are circumcized cannot perform sexually as well
> as well as men who are not. This is because they ejaculate
> very quickly and leave their woman unsatisfied.
I read in a women's magazine (now THERE'S a foaf for you)
that circumsised men last longer because of the much-
discussed loss of sensitivity and therefore 'perform
sexually' better. Can't speak to it personally; my sample is
not only biased but statistically invalid.
"I can see fingers and a tongue from here -- anything else
is gravy." -- Mary Callahan on sexual compatibility, ref.
Spider Robinson
--
Our ISP is cyberramp.net -- you know the routine...
Madeleine Page
Louann Miller wrote:
[it really doesn't matter]
We here on alt.folklore.urban have seen this thread before. Many times. It
has never been either relevant to our charter or enlightening. Come to
that, it's never been amusing either.
Please keep further followups out of afu. Thanks.
Madeleine "apologies to other ngs to which this may be irrelevant: I don't
know to whom it is germane so left all the other recipients intact" Page
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
In article <8802568...@dejanews.com>, Yisroel Markov <mar...@juno.com> writes:
> David C. Wright wrote:
>
>> Your 'sensible approach' would be what? That there is a reason for carving
>> up infant children's genitalia for no purpose? I'd be immensely interested
>> to find out what it is about that approach that is 'sensible'. In the
>
> The only good reason known to us is God's command to Abraham, of course.
Of course. I would have taken issue with the phrase "carve up".
Circumcision is renoval of _foreskin_ only. It does not _touch_ the
penis itself. Someone using such a phrase is not discussing circumcision
but rather is using "scare tactics" to bash an ancient tradition.
>> main, is it more 'sensible' to carve up a boy or a girl, or both?
Just a reminder. There is absolutely _no_ basis in Judaism for female
"circumcision". It is _only_ incumbent on the males.
>> Even in Judaism, where the practice is mandated by religious law,
>> is there any particular reason why it has to happen in the first
>> seven days after birth when, coincidentally, anaesthesia can do
>> more harm than good?
> "At the age of 8 days shall every male of you be circumcised throughout
> your generations..." -- Genesis 17-12. Does this answer your question?
>
> Speaking of anesthesia, I read about a week ago that some doctors
> (and mohelim) use a mild local anesthetic, ointment-type.
New to me. I can believe it about doctors but I never saw a mohel -
ritual circumcisor - use it. I could also believe David that it "can
do more harm than good".
> Wish I knew about it 6 weeks ago, when my son was circumcised.
Mazal Tov! May you see much nachas and joy from him and your whole
family. Don't feel bad about no anesthetic, I and all my acquaintences
didn't use it either.
Much snipped.
> You also wrote: ----- begin included message ----- The argument to
> be made is this: If any god supplied all of his creatures with a
> particular set of sexual organs, then why would that god tell his
> followers to cut any of it off?
Again we see David using a similar phrase "cut any of it off". To
repeat, circumcision does _not_ touch the penis at all.
Remainder of David's tirade, snipped.
> -----end included message-----
>
> This is overly simplistic, as evidenced by the fact that this argument
> is over 2,000 years old. The Greeks and the Romans were also revolted
> by this practice and made the exact same argument.
>
> Why is it difficult to understand that we *are* made as intended, and
> *some* of us are nevertheless intended to modify ourselves? It probably
> stems from the notion that we consider foreskin to be somehow wrong. We
> don't. Here, I'll say it: Whoever has a foreskin is a physically normal
> person. But God wanted to create a sign between Himself and His people,
> and He chose this to convey (among other things) the notion that creation
> IS in fact intended to be improved. Without such a notion, one can argue
> against medicine, technology, social development and a whole host of
> other things. I mean, some environmentalists appeal to Christian
> organizations in this vein: "If you believe God created the world, let's
> not spoil it by this dam or that shopping mall."
The Medrash gives a more basic example. "_All_ of Creation requires a
modification. Wheat must be ground, and beans must be cooked. G-d
created a world where _man_ performs the final act of perfection."
Interestingly, such a thread was, unfortunately, very prevelant on
soc.culture.jewish when I first started posting there. One of my first
posts, in Oct. 1995 was an explanation of that Medrash.
> And that's why a rational adult would take a knife to a child.
>
> Incidentally, that's also why I am against non-Jews circumcising
> themselves. It's not medically necessary, and it amounts to
> "borrowing" the sign of *our* covenant.
>
> Hope this helps promote understanding, world peace, etc. :-)
Amen to that!
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to be happy always! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
(mailed & posted)
Maksim Gur
a reminder (I wrote that somewhere...)
I the days of our forefather Abraham,
"egyptian" and "circumcised" were sinonyms
I do not bither myself with the question
what does it mean for a goy to get rid of
his foreskin.
We do that because we are obliged.
Eileen Camilleri
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote in message <1997Dec...@mm.huji.ac.il>...
>In article <8802568...@dejanews.com>, Yisroel Markov <mar...@juno.com>
writes:
>> David C. Wright wrote:
>>
>>> Even in Judaism, where the practice is mandated by religious law,
>>> is there any particular reason why it has to happen in the first
>>> seven days after birth when, coincidentally, anaesthesia can do
>>> more harm than good?
>
>> "At the age of 8 days shall every male of you be circumcised throughout
>> your generations..." -- Genesis 17-12. Does this answer your question?
>>
>> Speaking of anesthesia, I read about a week ago that some doctors
>> (and mohelim) use a mild local anesthetic, ointment-type.
>
>New to me. I can believe it about doctors but I never saw a mohel -
>ritual circumcisor - use it. I could also believe David that it "can
>do more harm than good".
I was invited to a Bris two or three years ago. The mohelim used a local
anesthetic which he dabbed on the baby with a cotton swab. The baby didn't
even cry. It was very quick, clean, and there was obviously no pain. No
gore, no horror story to report. It was all very calm.
I really don't understand the whining brought on by this subject. A great
many Christians are circumscised for sanitary reasons. Now, perhaps that
theory has been debunked but it is now pretty much a custom that boy babies
are circumcised. When this started to be a topic of conversation, I asked
my son if he felt any anger at being circumcised. He looked at me as if I'd
lost my mind and said, "No, I never thought about it. Besides most guys are
you know."
This is totally different from female circumcision which is performed by
tribal people solely to prevent the enjoyment of sex and to make child
bearing even more painful. These tribes brag that they have no incidences
of adultery.
Eileen
Gwen A Orel
The secretary of our department is on maternity leave, but visited
with her little boy yesterday. She is NOT Jewish. In passing,
she described the circumcision, and observed in surprise that it
was very quick, and the baby didn't cry. Just an observation
for those who think that those who say the baby didn't appear
to be in much pain must be religiously biased.
Gwen
--
"Live as one already dead." --Japanese saying
I live in fear of not being misunderstood.-- Oscar wilde
Daniel Israel
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il writes:
> Yisroel Markov <mar...@juno.com> writes:
> > Wish I knew about it 6 weeks ago, when my son was circumcised.
>
> Mazal Tov! May you see much nachas and joy from him and your whole
> family. Don't feel bad about no anesthetic, I and all my acquaintences
> didn't use it either.
>
> Much snipped.
Ouch!
Poor choice of words their, Moshe? ;)
--
Daniel M. Israel
<dan...@cfd.ame.arizona.edu>
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ
Susan Cohen
Eileen Camilleri wrote:
> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote in message <1997Dec...@mm.huji.ac.il>...
> >In article <8802568...@dejanews.com>, Yisroel Markov <mar...@juno.com>
> writes:
> >> David C. Wright wrote:
> >>
> >>> Even in Judaism, where the practice is mandated by religious law,
> >>> is there any particular reason why it has to happen in the first
> >>> seven days after birth when, coincidentally, anaesthesia can do
> >>> more harm than good?
> >
> >> "At the age of 8 days shall every male of you be circumcised throughout
> >> your generations..." -- Genesis 17-12. Does this answer your question?
> >>
> >> Speaking of anesthesia, I read about a week ago that some doctors
> >> (and mohelim) use a mild local anesthetic, ointment-type.
> >
> >New to me. I can believe it about doctors but I never saw a mohel -
> >ritual circumcisor - use it. I could also believe David that it "can
> >do more harm than good".
>
> I was invited to a Bris two or three years ago. The mohelim used a local
> anesthetic which he dabbed on the baby with a cotton swab. The baby didn't
> even cry. It was very quick, clean, and there was obviously no pain. No
> gore, no horror story to report. It was all very calm.
I would like to thank everyone for posting this. I have a girl now, but would
like a boy next time, & this was the only thing that bothered me (I can't stand
to hear my child cry when there is something I could do or have done about it).
Susan
Eileen Camilleri
Susan Cohen wrote in message <3487A4BA...@smart.net>...
>[snip]
>>Eileen Camilleri wrote:
>>
>> I was invited to a Bris two or three years ago. The mohelim used a local
>> anesthetic which he dabbed on the baby with a cotton swab. The baby
didn't
>> even cry. It was very quick, clean, and there was obviously no pain. No
>> gore, no horror story to report. It was all very calm.
>
>I would like to thank everyone for posting this. I have a girl now, but
would
>like a boy next time, & this was the only thing that bothered me (I can't
stand
>to hear my child cry when there is something I could do or have done about
it).
>Susan
The mother of the baby was very nervous. The ceremony was performed in the
dining room with the strong hearted gathered around. The mother sat in the
living room with her knees clenched to her chest and her hands over her
ears. The father was very nervous too. When the bris was performed, I
don't think anyone even took a breath. But when all turned out fine, there
was an audible sigh of relief. Followed by much joy - toasting with glasses
of wine, kissing and hugging, etc.
I hope you do have the boy that you want. And, remember to ask the mohelim
if he uses local anesthetic. Good luck.
Eileen
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
"Eileen Camilleri" <el...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote in message <1997Dec...@mm.huji.ac.il>...
>>> Speaking of anesthesia, I read about a week ago that some doctors
>>> (and mohelim) use a mild local anesthetic, ointment-type.
>>
>>New to me. I can believe it about doctors but I never saw a mohel -
>>ritual circumcisor - use it. I could also believe David that it "can
>>do more harm than good".
>
> I was invited to a Bris two or three years ago. The mohelim used a local
> anesthetic which he dabbed on the baby with a cotton swab.
Maybe it was alchohol for sanitary reasons? I'm just asking.
> The baby didn't even cry. It was very quick, clean, and there was
> obviously no pain. No gore, no horror story to report. It was all
> very calm.
>
> I really don't understand the whining brought on by this subject.
In 99% of the cases it's plain antisemitism with a "veneer" of "human
rights".
> A great many Christians are circumscised for sanitary reasons. Now,
> perhaps that theory has been debunked but it is now pretty much a
> custom that boy babies are circumcised. When this started to be a
> topic of conversation, I asked my son if he felt any anger at being
> circumcised. He looked at me as if I'd lost my mind and said, "No,
> I never thought about it. Besides most guys are you know."
Sensible answer. I would guess that the other 1% are social misfits
who blame their situation on the fact that they're circumcised.
> This is totally different from female circumcision which is performed
> by tribal people solely to prevent the enjoyment of sex and to make
> child bearing even more painful. These tribes brag that they have
> no incidences of adultery.
Oy. It hurts just to talk about it.
Eileen Camilleri
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote in message <1997Dec1...@mm.huji.ac.il>...
>"Eileen Camilleri" <el...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote in message <1997Dec...@mm.huji.ac.il>...
>>>Yisroel Markov <mar...@juno.com> writes:
>
>>>> Speaking of anesthesia, I read about a week ago that some doctors
>>>> (and mohelim) use a mild local anesthetic, ointment-type.
>>>
>>>New to me. I can believe it about doctors but I never saw a mohel -
>>>ritual circumcisor - use it. I could also believe David that it "can
>>>do more harm than good".
>>
>> I was invited to a Bris two or three years ago. The mohelim used a local
>> anesthetic which he dabbed on the baby with a cotton swab.
>
>Maybe it was alchohol for sanitary reasons? I'm just asking.
>
No, he said it was an anesthetic - he may have even named it, but I don't
remember. I think he did also use an antiseptic first. I could try to
find out for you if it's important or at least get the name of the mohelim
so that you could contact him.
Eileen
Susan Cohen
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
> "Eileen Camilleri" <el...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> .
> > The baby didn't even cry. It was very quick, clean, and there was
> > obviously no pain. No gore, no horror story to report. It was all
> > very calm.
> >
> > I really don't understand the whining brought on by this subject.
>
> In 99% of the cases it's plain antisemitism with a "veneer" of "human
> rights".
This routinely pops up on <alt.parenting.solutions>, & I can corroborate that
100%.
> When this started to be a
> > topic of conversation, I asked my son if he felt any anger at being
> > circumcised. He looked at me as if I'd lost my mind and said, "No,
> > I never thought about it. Besides most guys are you know."
>
> Sensible answer. I would guess that the other 1% are social misfits
> who blame their situation on the fact that they're circumcised.
I think the percentage is higher than that, given some of the silliness I've
encountered, but will not argue with you! :-)
> > This is totally different from female circumcision which is performed
> > by tribal people solely to prevent the enjoyment of sex and to make
> > child bearing even more painful. These tribes brag that they have
> > no incidences of adultery.
Gee, I wonder why!!!!???
> Oy. It hurts just to talk about it.
You're just a sweet & senstive guy!
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
dan...@pluto.ame.arizona.edu (Daniel Israel) writes:
> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il writes:
>> Yisroel Markov <mar...@juno.com> writes:
>> > Wish I knew about it 6 weeks ago, when my son was circumcised.
>>
>> Mazal Tov! May you see much nachas and joy from him and your whole
>> family. Don't feel bad about no anesthetic, I and all my acquaintences
>> didn't use it either.
>>
>> Much snipped.
>
> Ouch!
>
> Poor choice of words their, Moshe? ;)
ROTFLOL! Yes, it was a bit unfortunate. Thanks for pointing it in
such a humorous way.
Madeleine Page
Baba Looey wrote:
: On 12 Dec 1997 18:50:19 GMT, Alan Pollock wasted 27 lines babbling
: about Re: The Circumcision Decision:
And then babbled on irrelevantly for seventeen more.
: Are any represented in this newsgroup?
*Which* newsgroup, you prepusillanimous pratt? There were about nine in
the original Newsgroups line, and your post was relevant to precious few
of them.
Madeleine "keep this crap out of afu" Page
Stix
Baba Looey posted the following to alt.atheism:
>Are any represented in this newsgroup? I for one remember getting my
>dick mutilated (read: "circumcized") around the age of four--- a VERY
>painful procedure which I would not wish on anyone. If it was
>supposed to be cut off it wouldn't be there in the first place.
So by that rationale, if we were meant to wear trousers and undergarments
(which reduce a foreskin to nothing more than a cheese-producing
lint-catcher) we'd be born wearing them.
As for "there in the first place," I guess hemorroids, the appendix,
melanomae, tumours, warts, and any other useless growth that gets removed
should never be removed because it's "there in the first place."
You didn't think that one through too well, did you?
Stix
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"Mysticism is a disease of the mind."
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
SRanz6969
Baba Looey brays:
>>As for "there in the first place," I guess hemorroids, the appendix,
>>melanomae, tumours, warts, and any other useless growth that gets removed
>>should never be removed because it's "there in the first place."
>
>I don't know about you but I wasn't born with tumours and warts and
>hemorrhoids. They develop afterwards in most people who can then
>decide if they want to live with them or not. From what you say,
>these are things you've always lived with. No wonder you're mixed up.
>
Well, we ARE born with appendices and, might I add, tonsils. So, Stix's basic
point remains standing.
Sheldon Ranz
Stix
Baba Looey posted the following to alt.atheism:
>>As for "there in the first place," I guess hemorroids, the appendix,
>>melanomae, tumours, warts, and any other useless growth that gets removed
>>should never be removed because it's "there in the first place."
>I don't know about you but I wasn't born with tumours and warts and
>hemorrhoids.
Nor an appendix, right? I *knew* you'd omit that one and focus on the rest.
> They develop afterwards in most people who can then
>decide if they want to live with them or not.
Ditto foreskins.
> From what you say, these are things you've always lived with.
Nah, but my appendix is.
> No wonder you're mixed up.
Hey lardhead, if you haven't got an argument to make, shut the fuck up.
Reuven Singer
Werent you born with an appendix?
Baba Looey <baba...@howardstern.com> wrote in article
<671ssm$5na$1...@news.bconnex.net>...
> On Sun, 14 Dec 1997 19:18:06 GMT, Stix wasted 21 lines babbling about
> Re: The Circumcision Decision:
>
> >So by that rationale, if we were meant to wear trousers and
undergarments
> >(which reduce a foreskin to nothing more than a cheese-producing
> >lint-catcher) we'd be born wearing them.
>
> Like the saying goes, if people were meant to be naked they'd be born
> that way.
>
> >As for "there in the first place," I guess hemorroids, the appendix,
> >melanomae, tumours, warts, and any other useless growth that gets
removed
> >should never be removed because it's "there in the first place."
>
> I don't know about you but I wasn't born with tumours and warts and
> hemorrhoids. They develop afterwards in most people who can then
> decide if they want to live with them or not. From what you say,
> these are things you've always lived with. No wonder you're mixed up.
>
>
> *******************************************************
> Sean & Mona: a great tradition since 1996
> "And it repented the lord that he had made man
> on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."
> -Genesis 6:6
> *******************************************************
>
>
> [Posted with Agent 1.5. For info, email agent...@forteinc.com.]
>
James H. Sindberg
On Sun, 14 Dec 1997 19:18:06 GMT, stixR...@oz-email.com.au
(Stix) wrote:
;Baba Looey posted the following to alt.atheism:
;>Are any represented in this newsgroup? I for one remember getting my
;>dick mutilated (read: "circumcized") around the age of four--- a VERY
;>painful procedure which I would not wish on anyone. If it was
;>supposed to be cut off it wouldn't be there in the first place.
;So by that rationale, if we were meant to wear trousers and undergarments
;(which reduce a foreskin to nothing more than a cheese-producing
;lint-catcher) we'd be born wearing them.
Suggest you read up on the foreskin and its functions. Your
knowledge seems severely limited.
;As for "there in the first place," I guess hemorroids, the appendix,
;melanomae, tumours, warts, and any other useless growth that gets removed
;should never be removed because it's "there in the first place."
The above, hemorrhoids, appendix, etc., are removed only if and
when they are problem to the person, not just a problem to the
person's parents. BTW, there is nothing wrong with surgically
treating children's hemorrhoids, inflamed appendix, diseased
skin, including foreskin, etc.
;You didn't think that one through too well, did you?
Neither did you. We aren't against adults circumcising
themselves, only against adults cutting up kids for no explicit
medical purpose.
James H. Sindberg
james.s...@get2net.dk
Aake
I accidently came across this posting and wanted to add my two cents. Many
gentiles used to be circumcised almost systematically some years ago, a few
days after birth (I'm one of them). Some kind of a medical fad, I suppose.
Anyhow, I think this improves the whole hygiene process, and I believe there's
been studies showing that circumcised males are less likely to catch STD's. I
suffer no inconvenience from this minor surgery (there's a bit of skin left),
contrary to my brother, who had the procedure done at age 3 and still
painfully recalls the incident...
J.D.
Reuven Singer wrote:
>
> Werent you born with an appendix?
>
removed is when medical intervension is cruical. (This is also the only
time circumcision can be justified.)
Are you suggesting we remove the appendix of every baby (or every male
baby, seeing as so many people just love to torture the male species,
esp. their genitals) just because it might burst?
Some people justify circumcision by saying that the foreskin can get
dirty. How about pulling out babies' nails so that they never have to
worry about keeping THEM clean?
If you wanna be circumcized, be my guest. But you have ABSOLUTLEY NO
RIGHT to take a helpless infant, subject him to this barbaric and
excruciatingly painful procedure. There are tons of circumcized men out
there who wish they hadn't been circumcized. Their right to their own
bodies has been robbed, and some of them are mad as hell.
Can you blame them?