Foreskin Restoration - worth it?
Paul Xavier
My boyfriend has expressed an interest in performing some foreskin
restoration on himself -- he's interested in doing it for "au natural"
purposes and to enhance sexual pleasure. I suggested to him that perhaps we
should ask others if they have first done it, to see if this is something
that will benefit him in the long run.
Therefore, we had a few questions....
- Does the end result look like a naturally uncircumcised penis?
- Does it indeed enhance pleasure?
- Is it a difficult, long process that's worth the time and effort?
- Overall, if you've done it, are you pleased with the results?
- Does it increase/decrease the size of the penis?
Are there any other comments about this particular process?
Thanks in advance for your help.
John Dorrance
Paul Xavier wrote:
> Quick question for you all...
I've only seen one restored foreskin, but I was not impressed. First
off, the skin looked and felt very dry - as if it weren't able to retain
moisture as well. Your boyfriend would probably have to use lotion to
keep the skin soft, which might not be that effective (I'm talking,
like, *papery* dry, as if it were thin and more fragile), would probably
not be condom compatible, and would probably be kind of unpleasant to
suck, unless they have dick-flavored-and-scented lotion. And second,
the "foreskin" portion didn't cling to the head at all - Since it had
been literally stretched out of shape, it didn't seem to hug the head as
well as a real foreskin.
So I wasn't impressed. But again, that was just one fake foreskin
(faux-skin?), so this guy could have been exceptional. But I think
foreskin restoration (at least if overdone) is pretty damaging to the
skin.
John
Jack
> Quick question for you all...
>
> My boyfriend has expressed an interest in performing some foreskin
> restoration on himself -- he's interested in doing it for "au natural"
> purposes
"'au natural' purposes"? Tonsils next?
> and to enhance sexual pleasure.
Perhaps massaging the prostate or couples counseling would be just as
enhancing.
http://indra.com/~shredder/restore/diary.html
This is the site of a guy who did it himself complete with diary. The
tone strikes me as a bit loopy - like what you get on sites about
crystals - but it was his experience not mine. There are kerjillion
sites on this.
Jack
Kevin Michael Vail
<jer...@erols.com> wrote:
> Quick question for you all...
>
> My boyfriend has expressed an interest in performing some foreskin
> restoration on himself -- he's interested in doing it for "au natural"
> purposes and to enhance sexual pleasure. I suggested to him that perhaps we
> should ask others if they have first done it, to see if this is something
> that will benefit him in the long run.
My ex was trying this, but we split up before he had any results. It's
not the kind of thing I can ask about now, though!
--
Kevin Michael Vail | a billion stars go spinning through the night,
ke...@vaildc.net | blazing high above your head.
. . . . . . . . . | But _in_ you is the presence that
. . . . . . . . . | will be, when all the stars are dead. (Rainer Maria Rilke)
Steve Christie
> > purposes and to enhance sexual pleasure
Except for ancidotal accounts there is no evidence that having a foreskin is
better. When the whole issue of foreskins came up, i got the impression it
was bitter person/people who just like to complain. Beware of jumping onto a
bandwagon.
DRS
news:oJTH7.6356$vR4.8...@news20.bellglobal.com...
|
| > > purposes and to enhance sexual pleasure
|
| Except for ancidotal accounts there is no evidence that having a foreskin
is
| better.
That's blatantly untrue. There is overwhelming medical evidence that having
a foreskin is better, not to mention the huge and growing body of first-hand
accounts from men who have had their foreskins restored and are thus in a
position to know and comment.
| When the whole issue of foreskins came up, i got the impression it
| was bitter person/people who just like to complain. Beware of jumping onto
a
| bandwagon.
Beware of cynics without a clue.
--
"One must look pretty while being brutal!"
MeanMary
Steve Jones
news:9sp351$rvs$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> "Steve Christie" <s9_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:oJTH7.6356$vR4.8...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> |
> | > > purposes and to enhance sexual pleasure
> |
> | Except for ancidotal accounts there is no evidence that having a
foreskin
> is
> | better.
>
> That's blatantly untrue. There is overwhelming medical evidence that
having
> a foreskin is better, not to mention the huge and growing body of
first-hand
> accounts from men who have had their foreskins restored and are thus in a
> position to know and comment.
Who are, of course, totally unbiased reporters.
By the way, hi.
- Steve, "but then again, given that I have foreskin, maybe I'm not
qualified to speak to this"
Brian Vogel
> "DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in message
> news:9sp351$rvs$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
>>"Steve Christie" <s9_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:oJTH7.6356$vR4.8...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>>|
>>| > > purposes and to enhance sexual pleasure
>>|
>>| Except for ancidotal accounts there is no evidence that having a
>>|foreskin is better.
>>
>> That's blatantly untrue. There is overwhelming medical evidence that
>> having a foreskin is better,
It's mixed, at best. That's the reading you'll get from
anyone who's without a vested interest in which "side" you're on.
>> not to mention the huge and growing body
>> of first-hand accounts from men who have had their foreskins restored
>> and are thus in a position to know and comment.
>>
> Who are, of course, totally unbiased reporters.
Thanks for pointing out the inherent bias with the perfect
ironic style it deserves.
Those who would best be able to give accurate and unbiased
comment are those men who had to undergo adult circumcision for
medical reasons. If there are any out there reading this, I'd
like to hear your perceptions about the "before and after", once
the obvious surgical trauma has passed. I would also be interested
in hearing how your "after" perceptions may have changed over
time.
Brian
P.S. The best one could do as far as research goes in this area
is to compile the anecdotal/descriptive experiences of those
men likely to be "neutral" on the subject [i.e., those who've
had a natural foreskin and lost it due to medical necessity.]
Unless technology advances in some truly frightening ways
I don't think any quantitative measures of "useful privates
data" is in the offing.
Ellen Evans
Steve Jones <xa...@mindspring.com> wrote:
[]
>By the way, hi.
Look everybody, it's *xaos*!
--
Ellen Evans 17 Across: The "her" of "Leave Her to Heaven"
je...@panix.com New York Times, 7/14/96
John Dorrance
> Those who would best be able to give accurate and unbiased
> comment are those men who had to undergo adult circumcision for
> medical reasons.
Possibly, but they wouldn't exactly be unbiased, either - if they had to
get circumcised, it would be because their foreskins were causing
problems, so they'd probably be relieved to lose them.
John
terry
decided to get circimcised and at 52 I have been circumcised for 25
years. It is different, of course, but no better, no worse.
I think some men forget that the sensitivity they have lost is in their
brains and not the tip of their penis. Remember you can rub/cause
friction to a penis all day long and no errection. You can leave a
penis untouched and have a massive errection/even an organism! Brain
drain! Questions welcomed.
DRS
news:3BF10773...@telus.net...
| for 25 years I had a perfect uncircumcised penis, worked just fine. I
| decided to get circimcised and at 52 I have been circumcised for 25
| years. It is different, of course, but no better, no worse.
|
| I think some men forget that the sensitivity they have lost is in their
| brains and not the tip of their penis.
Not true. The keratinisation of the glans that occurs after circumcision is
not natural and significantly reduces sensitivity in what is a mucous
membrane and not supposed to be constantly exposed.
DRS
news:3BF058CA...@yahoo.com...
| Steve Jones wrote:
|
| > "DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in message
| > news:9sp351$rvs$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
| >
| >>"Steve Christie" <s9_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| >>news:oJTH7.6356$vR4.8...@news20.bellglobal.com...
| >>|
| >>| > > purposes and to enhance sexual pleasure
| >>|
| >>| Except for ancidotal accounts there is no evidence that having a
| >>|foreskin is better.
| >>
| >> That's blatantly untrue. There is overwhelming medical evidence that
| >> having a foreskin is better,
|
| It's mixed, at best. That's the reading you'll get from
| anyone who's without a vested interest in which "side" you're on.
It's not mixed at all. The medical evidence is overwhelmingly against it.
That's why every developed country except America which used to routinely
perform circumcision no longer does, and even in America the rate is
dropping. It's just a money spinner for unscrupulous doctors.
| >> not to mention the huge and growing body
| >> of first-hand accounts from men who have had their foreskins restored
|
| >> and are thus in a position to know and comment.
| >>
| > Who are, of course, totally unbiased reporters.
|
| Thanks for pointing out the inherent bias with the perfect
| ironic style it deserves.
|
| Those who would best be able to give accurate and unbiased
| comment are those men who had to undergo adult circumcision for
| medical reasons. If there are any out there reading this, I'd
| like to hear your perceptions about the "before and after", once
| the obvious surgical trauma has passed. I would also be interested
| in hearing how your "after" perceptions may have changed over
| time.
You'll find lots of such accounts in the foreskin restoration web ring.
Follow the links from the link Jack gave.
Brian Vogel
True, but they've also likely had a lengthy non-problematic
"with" period followed (obviously) by a "without". One can be
quite relieved to lose something that's become problematic but
have very accurate perceptions of "both sides, now" based on
"before problems" and "after fix".
Brian
Brian Vogel
> "Brian Vogel" <vog...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3BF058CA...@yahoo.com...
> | Steve Jones wrote:
> |
> | > "DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in message
> | > news:9sp351$rvs$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> | >
> | >>"Steve Christie" <s9_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | >>news:oJTH7.6356$vR4.8...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> | >>|
> | >>| > > purposes and to enhance sexual pleasure
> | >>|
> | >>| Except for ancidotal accounts there is no evidence that having a
> | >>|foreskin is better.
> | >>
> | >> That's blatantly untrue. There is overwhelming medical evidence that
> | >> having a foreskin is better,
> |
> | It's mixed, at best. That's the reading you'll get from
> | anyone who's without a vested interest in which "side" you're on.
>
> It's not mixed at all.
Stating that like it's a fact doesn't make it so. There are
medically documented plusses and minuses to circumcision.
> That's why every developed country except America which used to routinely
> perform circumcision no longer does, and even in America the rate is
> dropping.
Which, in my opinion, is a good thing all around.
> It's just a money spinner for unscrupulous doctors.
Er, no.
> | Those who would best be able to give accurate and unbiased
> | comment are those men who had to undergo adult circumcision for
> | medical reasons. If there are any out there reading this, I'd
> | like to hear your perceptions about the "before and after", once
> | the obvious surgical trauma has passed. I would also be interested
> | in hearing how your "after" perceptions may have changed over
> | time.
>
> You'll find lots of such accounts in the foreskin restoration web ring.
> Follow the links from the link Jack gave.
While I'll probably give this a look, considering that the source
is the ultimate in biased, the data is tainted.
Brian
DRS
| DRS wrote:
| > "Brian Vogel" <vog...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:3BF058CA...@yahoo.com...
| > | Steve Jones wrote:
| > | > "DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in message
| > | > news:9sp351$rvs$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
[...]
| > | >> That's blatantly untrue. There is overwhelming medical evidence
that
| > | >> having a foreskin is better,
| > |
| > | It's mixed, at best. That's the reading you'll get from
| > | anyone who's without a vested interest in which "side" you're on.
| >
| > It's not mixed at all.
|
| Stating that like it's a fact doesn't make it so. There are
| medically documented plusses and minuses to circumcision.
No, there are not. All the myths about circumcision reducing the rate of
penile cancer, etc, have been destroyed by the evidence. They simply don't
exist. That's why the doctors all around the developed world, except in
America, refuse to even contemplate circumcision except under the most
extreme and unusual circumstances.
[...]
| > It's just a money spinner for unscrupulous doctors.
|
| Er, no.
Er, yes, given that according to the EVIDENCE it is virtually always bad.
| > | Those who would best be able to give accurate and unbiased
| > | comment are those men who had to undergo adult circumcision for
| > | medical reasons. If there are any out there reading this, I'd
| > | like to hear your perceptions about the "before and after", once
| > | the obvious surgical trauma has passed. I would also be interested
| > | in hearing how your "after" perceptions may have changed over
| > | time.
| >
| > You'll find lots of such accounts in the foreskin restoration web ring.
| > Follow the links from the link Jack gave.
|
| While I'll probably give this a look, considering that the source
| is the ultimate in biased, the data is tainted.
For fuck's sake, who else are you going to ask?
Steve Jones
news:9sqa5s$ruh$1...@panix3.panix.com...
> In article <9spj8d$hf6$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
> Steve Jones <xa...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> []
> >By the way, hi.
>
> Look everybody, it's *xaos*!
And here I thought I'd go unrecognized. Hi Ellen, just stopping in fer my
semi-regular driveby. Missed anything exciting?
- Steve
Michael Thomas
Hey looky everybody! DRS lecturing somebody with
direct experience!
Imagine that!
--
Michael Thomas (mi...@mtcc.com http://www.mtcc.com/~mike/)
Multi-mode fiber with an optical splitter |
B G P sessions conFIGGED not to litter | My Fav'rite 'Net Things
Reverting from A T M back to I P | by kc claffy, CAIDA
These are a few of my fav'rite `Net things |
DRS
news:v7668ee...@fasolt.mtcc.com...
| "DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> writes:
| > "terry" <Dri...@telus.net> wrote in message
| > news:3BF10773...@telus.net...
| > | for 25 years I had a perfect uncircumcised penis, worked just fine. I
| > | decided to get circimcised and at 52 I have been circumcised for 25
| > | years. It is different, of course, but no better, no worse.
| > |
| > | I think some men forget that the sensitivity they have lost is in
their
| > | brains and not the tip of their penis.
| >
| > Not true. The keratinisation of the glans that occurs after
circumcision is
| > not natural and significantly reduces sensitivity in what is a mucous
| > membrane and not supposed to be constantly exposed.
|
| Hey looky everybody! DRS lecturing somebody with
| direct experience!
|
| Imagine that!
You should try it some time.
Imagine that!
Michael Thomas
> | > Not true. The keratinisation of the glans that occurs after
> circumcision is
> | > not natural and significantly reduces sensitivity in what is a mucous
> | > membrane and not supposed to be constantly exposed.
> |
> | Hey looky everybody! DRS lecturing somebody with
> | direct experience!
> |
> | Imagine that!
>
> You should try it some time.
>
> Imagine that!
I'll take a rain check, seeing how you're the
master, what with those silly WTC folks not
realizing how they should feel until you set
them straight and all, so for your next act can
you lecture some aboriginals about how white
land grabs weren't so bad after all?
DRS
| "DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> writes:
| > "Michael Thomas" <mi...@mtcc.com> wrote in message
| > | "DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> writes:
| > | > Not true. The keratinisation of the glans that occurs after
| > circumcision is
| > | > not natural and significantly reduces sensitivity in what is a
mucous
| > | > membrane and not supposed to be constantly exposed.
| > |
| > | Hey looky everybody! DRS lecturing somebody with
| > | direct experience!
| > |
| > | Imagine that!
| >
| > You should try it some time.
| >
| > Imagine that!
|
| I'll take a rain check, seeing how you're the
| master, what with those silly WTC folks not
| realizing how they should feel until you set
| them straight and all, so for your next act can
| you lecture some aboriginals about how white
| land grabs weren't so bad after all?
You're telling lies again. I've never told anyone how to feel about the WTC
attack.
The reason you're taking a rain check is because I've caught you out.
Again.
Michael Thomas
> You're telling lies again. I've never told anyone how to feel about the WTC
> attack.
When you do your morning duty, does it hurt?
Mike McKinley
The only exciting thing mentioned on this newsgroup for *años* is your
foreskin.
--
*************************************
It is not true that life is one damn thing after another -- it's one damn
thing over and over.
Edna St. Vincent Millay
DRS
| "DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> writes:
| > You're telling lies again. I've never told anyone how to feel about the
WTC
| > attack.
|
| When you do your morning duty, does it hurt?
When you tell such terrible lies, why doesn't it hurt?
Ned Deily
>And here I thought I'd go unrecognized. Hi Ellen, just stopping in fer my
>semi-regular driveby. Missed anything exciting?
It seems to take a circumcision thread to get you
to show your head around here.
What's new with you?
--E this thread's not D
--
Ned Deily,
n...@visi.com -- []
Scott Safier
>XAOS:
>>And here I thought I'd go unrecognized. Hi Ellen, just stopping in fer my
>>semi-regular driveby. Missed anything exciting?
>
>It seems to take a circumcision thread to get you
>to show your head around here.
You're channelling Mike M now?
DRS
news:9srlhu$sj3$1...@panix3.panix.com...
| In article <9sr7b9$fdq$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>,
| DRS <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
|
| >exist. That's why the doctors all around the developed world, except in
| >America, refuse to even contemplate circumcision except under the most
| >extreme and unusual circumstances.
|
| just extreme and unusual?
Anyone who mutilates infants is at the very least unscrupulous.
Michael Thomas
> | just extreme and unusual?
>
> Anyone who mutilates infants is at the very least unscrupulous.
No shit Shylock!
Ruh-Rah! Go Team Go!
Brian Vogel
> "Brian Vogel" <vog...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3BF1154C...@yahoo.com...
> | DRS wrote:
> | > "Brian Vogel" <vog...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> | > news:3BF058CA...@yahoo.com...
> | > | Steve Jones wrote:
> | > | > "DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in message
> | > | > news:9sp351$rvs$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
> [...]
>
> | > | >> That's blatantly untrue. There is overwhelming medical evidence
> | > | >> that having a foreskin is better,
> | > |
> | > | It's mixed, at best. That's the reading you'll get from
> | > | anyone who's without a vested interest in which "side" you're on.
> | >
> | > It's not mixed at all.
> |
> | Stating that like it's a fact doesn't make it so. There are
> | medically documented plusses and minuses to circumcision.
>
> No, there are not.
Yes, there are. There are hundreds of peer reviewed articles out
there
that document plusses as well as minuses. I'm not either pro or anti
circumcision,
but I know that.
You are a anti-circumcision fanatic who doesn't even know what
the most
current research and recommendations are.
From the American Academy of Pediatrics:
> AAP Statement, March 1, 1999.
> "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn
> male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine
> neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential
> benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current
> well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child.
>
> To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate
> and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision.
> It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions,
> in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision.
>
> Analgesia is safe and effective in reducing the procedural pain associated with
> circumcision; therefore, if a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia
> should be provided. If circumcision is performed in the newborn period, it should
> only be done on infants who are stable and healthy".
From the Canadian Pediatric Society:
> Canadian Pediatric Society, March 16, 1996
> "The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly
> balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine
> procedure for newborns."
> "When parents are making a decision about circumcision, they should be
> advised of the present state of medical knowledge about its benefits and
> harms.Their decision may ultimately be based on personal, religious or
> cultural factors."
And, from a pro-circumcision practitioner who has *all* his research
ducks in a row:
<http://www.personal.usyd.edu.au/~bmorris/circumcision.shtml>
which includes notes on the latest position paper of the Australian College
of Pediatrics issued in 1995.
> All the myths about circumcision reducing the rate of
> penile cancer, etc, have been destroyed by the evidence. They simply don't
> exist.
You're a moron on this issue, an absolute, unmitigated,
fanatical moron.
> That's why the doctors all around the developed world, except in
> America, refuse to even contemplate circumcision except under the most
> extreme and unusual circumstances.
Funny, that's not consistent with any of the medical bodies
whose current position statements are noted above. At least I can
and do perform some research before spouting off. On this subject
you're a veritable gusher of crap.
> | While I'll probably give this a look, considering that the source
> | is the ultimate in biased, the data is tainted.
>
> For fuck's sake, who else are you going to ask?
The exact men I mentioned before: those who don't have any
stake one way or another in the foreskin restoration or anti-circumcision
movements who have been circumcised as adults.
That's about as clean a sample as you can get.
I'm through with this now. I've backed up my assertions like you
cannot back up yours.
Brian
John Dorrance
> John Dorrance wrote:
> > Brian Vogel wrote:
I dunno about that. I thought most "adult" circumcisions were performed
at a still fairly-young age, to correct problems that develop once the
kid's sexual maturation has advanced enough for the problems to be
evident. I could be wrong, though.
John (having difficulty understanding how a foreskin should just
suddenly become problematic in a person who'd made it into sexual
maturity without experiencing any problems)
Michael Thomas
> John (having difficulty understanding how a foreskin should just
> suddenly become problematic in a person who'd made it into sexual
> maturity without experiencing any problems)
And vise versa.
Paul Wallich
<jhdo...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
>John (having difficulty understanding how a foreskin should just
>suddenly become problematic in a person who'd made it into sexual
>maturity without experiencing any problems)
Fwiw, I recall some reports of a fair number of "emergency" circumcisions
being performed among US troops participating in the desecration of
the holy places of islam, oops, Desert Shield/Storm. Apparently fine
sand, pervious clothing and rationing of wash water didn't go together
nicely. But that kind of thing is probably the exception.
paul
David W. Fenton
>Remember you can rub/cause
>friction to a penis all day long and no errection. You can leave
>a penis untouched and have a massive errection/even an organism!
But my landlord doesn't allow pets.
--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
David W. Fenton
-13110119...@192.168.1.100>:
Wasn't there a circumcision featured for one of the soldiers on
Platoon, who wanted it because of walking around all day in waist
-deep water?
Brian Vogel
I'm not an expert on phimosis nor will I play one on usenet.
That being said, I can't imagine that there exists all sorts of
etiologies that cause it, and that they could occur at any point
in life, even if there is a greater clustering of incidence at
specific life stages.
Why should the foreskin be all that different from other
random body parts that "suddenly become problematic"?
Brian
Brian Vogel
>
> I'm not an expert on phimosis nor will I play one on usenet.
> That being said, I can't imagine that there
Substitute "do not exist" for the former "exists"
Gwendolyn Alden Dean
> I nominate this for the Classic Posting of 2001 Award. At the
> awards ceremony, it should be read by a good John Wayne voice.
I do a good John Wayne voice.
Gwendolyn
Ellen Evans
Jess Anderson <ande...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
[]
>Well, today is Ellen's birthday, and I bet she'd think it
>exciting if you sent her a bottle of really good single malt.
>As to her age, well, after all, she's a classic and therefore
>timeless.
But if I were a bottle of scotch, I'd be really, really expensive.
--
Ellen Evans 17 Across: The "her" of "Leave Her to Heaven"
je...@panix.com New York Times, 7/14/96
John Dorrance
> I'm not an expert on phimosis nor will I play one on usenet.
> That being said, I can't imagine that there exists all sorts of
> etiologies that cause it, and that they could occur at any point
> in life, even if there is a greater clustering of incidence at
> specific life stages.
It's just a flap of skin. Kinda like an earlobe.
> Why should the foreskin be all that different from other
> random body parts that "suddenly become problematic"?
It's just a flap of skin. Kinda like an earlobe.
John
Christian Hansen
wrote:
I see. I have a bit of a sore on the back end of my earlobe--comes and goes,
and is probably due to the piercing I had done many years ago.
Chris "Should I have it amputated?" Hansen
--
Chris Hansen | chris at hansenhome dot demon dot co dot uk
http://www.hansenhome.demon.co.uk
"'Rooms' full of dimbulbs with screen names that are illiterate
variations of 'Hung Buff Jock' aren't that tough to work."
Joon
DRS
| DRS wrote:
| > "Brian Vogel" <vog...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:3BF1154C...@yahoo.com...
| > | DRS wrote:
| > | > "Brian Vogel" <vog...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > | > news:3BF058CA...@yahoo.com...
| > | > | Steve Jones wrote:
| > | > | > "DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in message
| > | > | > news:9sp351$rvs$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
| >
| > [...]
| >
| > | > | >> That's blatantly untrue. There is overwhelming medical
evidence
| > | > | >> that having a foreskin is better,
| > | > |
| > | > | It's mixed, at best. That's the reading you'll get from
| > | > | anyone who's without a vested interest in which "side" you're on.
| > | >
| > | > It's not mixed at all.
| > |
| > | Stating that like it's a fact doesn't make it so. There are
| > | medically documented plusses and minuses to circumcision.
| >
| > No, there are not.
|
| Yes, there are. There are hundreds of peer reviewed articles out
| there
| that document plusses as well as minuses. I'm not either pro or anti
| circumcision,
| but I know that.
You need to get up to date with the current research. All the myths about
the benefits of circumcision have been destroyed, even if there are some who
for whatever reason don't want to admit that fact.
| You are a anti-circumcision fanatic who doesn't even know what
| the most
| current research and recommendations are.
Exactly the opposite is true. I am up to date with the current research
which is how I know you are wrong.
| From the American Academy of Pediatrics:
|
| > AAP Statement, March 1, 1999.
| > "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical
benefits of newborn
| > male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend
routine
| > neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are
potential
| > benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's
current
| > well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the
child.
The so-called benefits of circumcision are myths and have been exposed as
such.
| > To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be
given accurate
| > and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this
decision.
| > It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious,
and ethnic traditions,
| > in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision.
Cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions have absolutely nothing to do
with the biological reality of circumcision and should not be taken into
account. Mutilating infants who are by definition incapable of giving
informed consent is always wrong.
| > Analgesia is safe and effective in reducing the procedural pain
associated with
| > circumcision; therefore, if a decision for circumcision is made,
procedural analgesia
| > should be provided. If circumcision is performed in the newborn period,
it should
| > only be done on infants who are stable and healthy".
At least they're now recommending analgesia. This from the same people who
until recently were mindlessly repeating the lie that infants felt no pain
when they were subject to this surgical procedure without it.
| From the Canadian Pediatric Society:
|
| > Canadian Pediatric Society, March 16, 1996
| > "The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so
evenly
| > balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine
| > procedure for newborns."
The so-called benefits of circumcision are myths and have been exposed as
such.
| > "When parents are making a decision about circumcision, they should be
| > advised of the present state of medical knowledge about its benefits and
| > harms.Their decision may ultimately be based on personal, religious or
| > cultural factors."
Cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions have absolutely nothing to do
with the biological reality of circumcision and should not be taken into
account. Mutilating infants who are by definition incapable of giving
informed consent is always wrong.
| And, from a pro-circumcision practitioner who has *all* his
research
| ducks in a row:
|
| <http://www.personal.usyd.edu.au/~bmorris/circumcision.shtml>
|
| which includes notes on the latest position paper of the Australian
College
| of Pediatrics issued in 1995.
He's repeating many of the myths about the benefits of circumcision which
have been destroyed by proper studies. He might be able to swear that black
is white in order to justify his position but I am not. He tells outright
lies, such as "Moreover, the sensitivity during sexual intercourse is in
fact identical, according to men circumcised as adults." The personal
evidence from men who have had their foreskins restored is overwhelmingly
the opposite but according to him and the various paediatric associations
their accounts - the only accounts of substance in this matter - are
worthless.
| > All the myths about circumcision reducing the rate of
| > penile cancer, etc, have been destroyed by the evidence. They simply
don't
| > exist.
|
| You're a moron on this issue, an absolute, unmitigated,
| fanatical moron.
No, I am up to date with the current research which is how I know you are
wrong.
| > That's why the doctors all around the developed world, except in
| > America, refuse to even contemplate circumcision except under the most
| > extreme and unusual circumstances.
|
| Funny, that's not consistent with any of the medical bodies
| whose current position statements are noted above. At least I can
| and do perform some research before spouting off. On this subject
| you're a veritable gusher of crap.
No, I am up to date with the current research which is how I know you are
wrong.
| > | While I'll probably give this a look, considering that the
source
| > | is the ultimate in biased, the data is tainted.
| >
| > For fuck's sake, who else are you going to ask?
|
| The exact men I mentioned before: those who don't have any
| stake one way or another in the foreskin restoration or anti-circumcision
| movements who have been circumcised as adults.
|
| That's about as clean a sample as you can get.
IOW, if a man's been circumcised and doesn't like it then his evidence is
"tainted", but if he's been circumcised and is happy with it then his
evidence is "clean". That's just bullshit.
| I'm through with this now. I've backed up my assertions like you
| cannot back up yours.
You've done nothing of the sort. You've relied almost entirely upon vague
comments from conservative authorities. I, on the other hand, have listed
and quoted extensively from current research reports on the subject many
times in this forum, as a quick search of Google will prove.
The fundamental problem for advocates of medical circumcision is that there
exists a gigantic control group whose collective experience proves them
utterly wrong. That group is the male population of Western and Northern
Europe, a population in the hundreds of millions. They do not suffer rates
of penile infection, cancer, etc, predicted by advocates of circumcision.
Given the range of non-surgical and less radical surgical alternatives they
do not require circumcision for conditions like phimosis.
BTW, what is it with you and the bizarre formatting?
DRS
| John Dorrance wrote:
[...]
| > John (having difficulty understanding how a foreskin should just
| > suddenly become problematic in a person who'd made it into sexual
| > maturity without experiencing any problems)
|
| I'm not an expert on phimosis nor will I play one on usenet.
| That being said, I can't imagine that there exists all sorts of
| etiologies that cause it, and that they could occur at any point
| in life, even if there is a greater clustering of incidence at
| specific life stages.
|
| Why should the foreskin be all that different from other
| random body parts that "suddenly become problematic"?
I know of and have documented in this forum four non-surgical and four less
radical surgical alternatives to circumcision to phimosis. Why don't your
precious pro-circumcision doctors know about them also? Is it because they
don't pay as well?
DRS
news:3BF1DEFF...@facstaff.wisc.edu...
| Brian Vogel wrote:
|
| > I'm not an expert on phimosis nor will I play one on usenet.
| > That being said, I can't imagine that there exists all sorts of
| > etiologies that cause it, and that they could occur at any point
| > in life, even if there is a greater clustering of incidence at
| > specific life stages.
|
| It's just a flap of skin. Kinda like an earlobe.
Er, no.
As you should well know, at the very least from the last time this topic
went around.
Mike McKinley
> Ellen Evans:
> >Jess Anderson:
> >>Well, today is Ellen's birthday, and I bet she'd think it
> >>exciting if you sent her a bottle of really good single malt.
> >>As to her age, well, after all, she's a classic and therefore
> >>timeless.
> >But if I were a bottle of scotch, I'd be really, really
> >expensive.
> You already are, of course. Expensive, that is. I've never had
> a scotch as old as you, I'm fairly certain. But I've had cognac
> a *lot* older.
Darling, I thought they wrote _The Night They Invented
Champagne_ in your honor because you were *there*.
Kisses, daddy!
PS For anyone who has *not* plowed through my autobiography
see:
http://www.mezine.net/icandy/
Michael Thomas
> "John Dorrance" <jhdo...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote in message
> news:3BF1DEFF...@facstaff.wisc.edu...
>
> Er, no.
>
> As you should well know, at the very least from the last time this topic
> went around.
Hey John! He knows better than you!
Imagine that!
DRS
| "DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> writes:
| > "John Dorrance" <jhdo...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote in message
| > news:3BF1DEFF...@facstaff.wisc.edu...
| > | It's just a flap of skin. Kinda like an earlobe.
| >
| > Er, no.
| >
| > As you should well know, at the very least from the last time this topic
| > went around.
|
| Hey John! He knows better than you!
|
| Imagine that!
I for sure know better than you.
Michael Thomas
> "Michael Thomas" <mi...@mtcc.com> wrote in message
> news:v7adxpc...@fasolt.mtcc.com...
> | "DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> writes:
> | > "John Dorrance" <jhdo...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote in message
> | > news:3BF1DEFF...@facstaff.wisc.edu...
> | > | It's just a flap of skin. Kinda like an earlobe.
> | >
> | > Er, no.
> | >
> | > As you should well know, at the very least from the last time this topic
> | > went around.
> |
> | Hey John! He knows better than you!
> |
> | Imagine that!
>
> I for sure know better than you.
Why are you shifting attention from what you
wrote? You claim you know better than John. I
guarantee you that John is perfect capable of
speaking for himself on this matter.
But oh wait! You are the sole spokesman for
"us"! I keep forgetting.
DRS
| "DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> writes:
| > "Michael Thomas" <mi...@mtcc.com> wrote in message
| > news:v7adxpc...@fasolt.mtcc.com...
| > | "DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> writes:
| > | > "John Dorrance" <jhdo...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote in message
| > | > news:3BF1DEFF...@facstaff.wisc.edu...
| > | > | It's just a flap of skin. Kinda like an earlobe.
| > | >
| > | > Er, no.
| > | >
| > | > As you should well know, at the very least from the last time this
topic
| > | > went around.
| > |
| > | Hey John! He knows better than you!
| > |
| > | Imagine that!
| >
| > I for sure know better than you.
|
| Why are you shifting attention from what you
| wrote? You claim you know better than John. I
| guarantee you that John is perfect capable of
| speaking for himself on this matter.
No, what he said is biologically wrong. The foreskin is not "just skin".
| But oh wait! You are the sole spokesman for
| "us"! I keep forgetting.
Just like you keep forgeting facts and logic too.
Steve Jones
So what you're saying is that circumcision is some sort of a boondongle?
Damn, I slay me.
- Steve
DRS
news:9su0nj$fls$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
For too many doctors that's exactly what it is.
Michael Thomas
> "Michael Thomas" <mi...@mtcc.com> wrote in message
> news:v77kstc...@fasolt.mtcc.com...
> | "DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> writes:
> | > "Michael Thomas" <mi...@mtcc.com> wrote in message
> | > news:v7adxpc...@fasolt.mtcc.com...
> | > | "DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> writes:
> | > | > "John Dorrance" <jhdo...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote in message
> | > | > news:3BF1DEFF...@facstaff.wisc.edu...
> | > | > | It's just a flap of skin. Kinda like an earlobe.
> | > | >
> | > | > Er, no.
> | > | >
> | > | > As you should well know, at the very least from the last time this
> topic
> | > | > went around.
> | > |
> | > | Hey John! He knows better than you!
> | > |
> | > | Imagine that!
> | >
> | > I for sure know better than you.
> |
> | Why are you shifting attention from what you
> | wrote? You claim you know better than John. I
> | guarantee you that John is perfect capable of
> | speaking for himself on this matter.
>
> No, what he said is biologically wrong. The foreskin is not "just skin".
John made a comparison, you contradicted him.
John is perfectly capable of making such a
comparison. Now you're changing the subject as
if there were some grand significance to his use
of the word "skin" which you've decided to
seize upon to make certain that you've left
no bridge unburned.
You're a loony-toon. Telling people who have
direct experience that they aren't qualified to
relate their experience based on made up
distinctions of language when the author implied
none is the sign of mouth frothing insanity.
But keep going. You're really on a roll. I'm
especially fond of your telling Jews that
they're for all intents and purposes evil
monsters for mutilating their sons. This is even
better than lecturing survivors of the WTC about
what they experienced.
DRS
You're telling lies again. John said, "It's just a flap of skin." He's
wrong. The foreskin is not "just a flap of skin." It is different to and
much more than that (as I've detailed before in this very forum). His
comparison is therefore invalid and I'm absolutely on subject in saying so.
| You're a loony-toon. Telling people who have
| direct experience that they aren't qualified to
| relate their experience based on made up
| distinctions of language when the author implied
| none is the sign of mouth frothing insanity.
You're telling lies again. I've done nothing of the sort. We all know he's
got a foreskin. That doesn't make him a biologist or a doctor. He made a
simple statement about a part of the body that happens to be factually
incorrect. Deal.
| But keep going. You're really on a roll. I'm
| especially fond of your telling Jews that
| they're for all intents and purposes evil
| monsters for mutilating their sons. This is even
| better than lecturing survivors of the WTC about
| what they experienced.
You're telling lies again. I've never once lectured survivors of the WTC
about what they experienced. What I did say was that Greg's reaction could
not be taken to be universal, which is neither contradicting anything he
said about his experience nor is in any way exceptional.
Are you trying to set a record for the number of lies in one post?
Brian Vogel
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 21:03:27 -0600, John Dorrance <jhdo...@facstaff.wisc.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >Brian Vogel wrote:
> >
> >> I'm not an expert on phimosis nor will I play one on usenet.
> >> That being said, I can't imagine that there exists all sorts of
> >> etiologies that cause it, and that they could occur at any point
> >> in life, even if there is a greater clustering of incidence at
> >> specific life stages.
> >
> >It's just a flap of skin. Kinda like an earlobe.
> >
> >> Why should the foreskin be all that different from other
> >> random body parts that "suddenly become problematic"?
> >
> >It's just a flap of skin. Kinda like an earlobe.
>
> I see. I have a bit of a sore on the back end of my earlobe--comes and goes,
> and is probably due to the piercing I had done many years ago.
>
> Chris "Should I have it amputated?" Hansen
I think I'm detecting Patented Miss Manners Arch Tone (PMMAT) from
many quarters now.
In serious response to John: yes, it's just a flap of skin;
kinda like an earlobe, no. The "use and storage" conditions are *quite*
different and there's no mucosa involved in an earlobe. An earlobe is
also out in the fresh air and sunlight way more frequently than the
typical foreskin, which spends the bulk of its time in a very warm, very
dark, very flora ridden environment. The little webs of skin between the
fingers are "just flaps of skin", yet they often become problematic (much
more frequently than foreskins) due to things like excessive washing,
extended exposure to dry air, etc. Earlobes, even pierced ones, seldom
experience major problems, though not never.
Brian
Michael Thomas
> You're telling lies again.
The Roonatic is on the grass.
> He's wrong.
The Roonatic is on the grass.
> The foreskin is not "just a flap of skin."
Remembering games and daisy chains and laughs
> It is different to and
> much more than that
Got to keep the Roonies on the path.
> (as I've detailed before in this very forum).
The Roonatic is in the hall.
> His comparison is therefore invalid and I'm absolutely on subject in saying so.
The Roonatics are in my hall.
> You're telling lies again.
The paper holds their folded faces to the floor.
> I've done nothing of the sort.
And every day the paper boy brings more.
> We all know he's
> got a foreskin.
The Roonatic is in your head.
> That doesn't make him a biologist or a doctor. He made a
> simple statement about a part of the body that happens to be factually
> incorrect. Deal.
The Roonatic is in your head.
> You're telling lies again.
You raise the blade, you make the change
> I've never once lectured survivors of the WTC about what they experienced.
You re-arrange me 'til I'm sane.
> What I did say was that Greg's reaction could
> not be taken to be universal,
You lock the door.
> which is neither contradicting anything he
> said about his experience nor is in any way exceptional.
And throw away the key.
> Are you trying to set a record for the number of lies in one post?
There's someone in your head but it's not me.
Ellen Evans
Steve Jones <xa...@mindspring.com> wrote:
[]
>And here I thought I'd go unrecognized. Hi Ellen, just stopping in fer my
>semi-regular driveby. Missed anything exciting?
Nah. It's been kind of quiet.
Scott Safier
>Damn, I slay me.
You, sir, are no Joan^h^h^h^hBuffy.
Gwendolyn Alden Dean
> Steve Jones <xa...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >And here I thought I'd go unrecognized. Hi Ellen, just stopping > >in fer my semi-regular driveby. Missed anything exciting?
> Nah. It's been kind of quiet.
Hi Stevie!
Gwendolyn
Steve Jones
news:slrn9v5g17...@frogger.telerama.com...
> Steve Jones:
> >Damn, I slay me.
>
>
> You, sir, are no Joan^h^h^h^hBuffy.
Don't you make me burst into song, mister. No, not even if it culminates in
a big wet one with Randy Spike.
- Steve
Steve Jones
news:3BF2C5AE...@cornell.edu...
Yay all my fave groovy chicks are around and about; does it get any better
than this? I don't think so...
- Steve
Scott Safier
Steve Jones
> Steve Jones:
> >"Scott Safier" <sc...@pink-triangle.NO.org.SPAM> wrote in message
> >news:slrn9v5g17...@frogger.telerama.com...
> >> Steve Jones:
> >> >Damn, I slay me.
> >>
> >>
> >> You, sir, are no Joan^h^h^h^hBuffy.
> >
> >Don't you make me burst into song, mister. No, not even if it culminates
in
> >a big wet one with Randy Spike.
>
>
> I'd randy Spike if given the chance...
Oddly enough, I'd spike Randy if given the chance
- Steve
Brian Vogel
> | > | > It's not mixed at all.
> | > |
> | > | Stating that like it's a fact doesn't make it so. There are
> | > | medically documented plusses and minuses to circumcision.
> | >
> | > No, there are not.
> |
> | Yes, there are. There are hundreds of peer reviewed articles out
> | there that document plusses as well as minuses. I'm not either pro or anti
> | circumcision, but I know that.
>
> You need to get up to date with the current research.
No, you do. I did extensive web research yesterday
and it's all out there to see. Most of it conducted within the last 5
years and peer reviewed.
> All the myths about the benefits of circumcision have been destroyed,
They're only myths in your mind. I'll trust the copious quantities
of peer reviewed research I've read, both pro and con, over your opinions
and those of the rabidly biased anti-circumcision crowd.
I'll admit that I'd not choose circumcision because the benefits
are more for possible, rather than probable, problems. However, others
may legitimately make different decisions.
> BTW, what is it with you and the bizarre formatting?
The composer in both Netscape 6.1 and newly released 6.2 is
doing some very *not* WYSIWYG things. I wish I could consistently
tell when things were going to come out normal appearing and when
not.
Brian
John Dorrance
Christian Hansen wrote:
> John Dorrance <jhdo...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
> >It's just a flap of skin. Kinda like an earlobe.
> I see. I have a bit of a sore on the back end of my earlobe--comes and goes,
> and is probably due to the piercing I had done many years ago.
> Chris "Should I have it amputated?" Hansen
Most certainly. Good heavens, but earlobes are disgusting, filthy
things anyway - don't know why you haven't gotten rid of the thing
already.
John
John Dorrance
> He's repeating many of the myths about the benefits of circumcision which
> have been destroyed by proper studies. He might be able to swear that black
> is white in order to justify his position but I am not. He tells outright
> lies, such as "Moreover, the sensitivity during sexual intercourse is in
> fact identical, according to men circumcised as adults." The personal
> evidence from men who have had their foreskins restored is overwhelmingly
> the opposite but according to him and the various paediatric associations
> their accounts - the only accounts of substance in this matter - are
> worthless.
I think the problem with using people who've restored their foreskins as
data points on the sensitivity debate is that they're a self-selecting
group - people who want a foreskin badly enough to go through the
foreskin restoration process. Such a person would certainly see the
restoration of foreskin as beneficial, since they wanted it bad enough
to find out how to do it and spend months actually doing it. That alone
is enough to indicate strong anti-circumcision bias.
The most unbiased sources we can have about circumcision are people who
had foreskins (natural ones) in adulthood, felt neither here nor there
about them, and got them removed in adulthood for reasons having nothing
to do with chronic functionality problems or social stigma. And it
would be best to hear from them over time. My guess is the loss in
sensitivity would probably be gradual enough that it wouldn't have an
impact on their lives.
I agree that circumcision at birth is a bad and unnecessary thing. But
I don't think it's possible to get unbiased information from people who
are traumatized enough by it to "correct" the condition. As I see it,
yes, circumcision causes a loss in sensitivity, but there's plenty of
sensitivity to go around down there for most men (possibly more than
enough, given how my own penis was much too sensitive to begin with, and
I had to learn how not to jump through the ceiling every time it was
touched in an unfamiliar way), so in most cases the decrease in
sensitivity isn't enough to cause any problems. Which doesn't justify
the procedure by any means, but it mitigates the need for doing further
damage to the penis in order to "rectify" the situation.
Circumcision of infants is definitely a wrong and backward practice, in
my mind, and people with any sense shouldn't do it to their children, as
it is unnecessary and a violation of the child's right to make his own
decisions about his body. If someone is really traumatized by the
circumcision, they should by all means consider restoration, but they
should also consider what larger wrongs or violations of their childhood
this issue might serve as a touchstone for. Because it seems to me that
a circumcised penis, if functional and featuring all the required parts
besides the foreskin, is better to have than one that's had the skin all
stretched out in an effort to correct the situation. Maybe it's better
to just accept that a wrong had been done that cannot be corrected, and
work to make sure that friends and family do not do the same to their
children.
John
John Dorrance
DRS wrote:
> "John Dorrance" <jhdo...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote...
> | It's just a flap of skin. Kinda like an earlobe.
> Er, no.
> As you should well know, at the very least from the last time this topic
> went around.
I don't recall - I think I tuned the discussion out pretty quickly when
things got out of hand. But my point was that it's not like the
foreskin itself contains any major mechanical parts that can
malfunction, any big organs or glands, as far as I know (well, it
"contains" the glans, but that's not actually *inside* the foreskin,
just surrounded by it, if you know what I mean). There's the whole "too
tight to retract" thing, but then it seems like that can be dealt with
non-surgically in most cases.
John
John Dorrance
Brian Vogel wrote:
> In serious response to John: yes, it's just a flap of skin;
> kinda like an earlobe, no. The "use and storage" conditions are *quite*
> different and there's no mucosa involved in an earlobe. An earlobe is
> also out in the fresh air and sunlight way more frequently than the
> typical foreskin, which spends the bulk of its time in a very warm, very
> dark, very flora ridden environment. The little webs of skin between the
> fingers are "just flaps of skin", yet they often become problematic (much
> more frequently than foreskins) due to things like excessive washing,
> extended exposure to dry air, etc. Earlobes, even pierced ones, seldom
> experience major problems, though not never.
Well, okay, I oversimplified, but even given all the factors you
describe, that doesn't mean a foreskin must be a difficult thing to
possess. Really, as long as you don't use baby oil and not wash up
afterwards (BIG FUCKING OUCH!!!), and keep the foreskin as clean as the
rest of the body, it's not going to cause problems for all but outliers
on the foreskin spectrum. I'm not the most hygienic person in the
world, but I've still managed to avoid any problems (except for the baby
oil incident, and that cleared up in a couple days). I swear, some
people seem to think that having a foreskin is nothing but endless toil
and worry, but really it's just a damn body part.
John
John Dorrance
> "DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> writes:
> > "John Dorrance" <jhdo...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote in message
> > news:3BF1DEFF...@facstaff.wisc.edu...
> > | It's just a flap of skin. Kinda like an earlobe.
> > Er, no.
> > As you should well know, at the very least from the last time this topic
> > went around.
> Hey John! He knows better than you!
> Imagine that!
Oh, chill, Mike. Most of my knowledge about foreskins comes from my
own, which is a particularly handsome, exemplary specimen that has
caused me no problems. There could easily be problems with foreskins
that are less beautiful and perfect than mine, and I'm perfectly willing
to let others inform me about those unfortunate cases, secure in the
knowledge that *mine* is not one of *those* *kinds* of penises.
John
John Dorrance
that bitch wrote:
> DRS <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
> >"Michael Thomas" <mi...@mtcc.com> wrote:
> >| But keep going. You're really on a roll. I'm
> >| especially fond of your telling Jews that
> >| they're for all intents and purposes evil
> >| monsters for mutilating their sons. This is even
> >| better than lecturing survivors of the WTC about
> >| what they experienced.
> And Muslims. Muslims are evil monsters for the same
> reason, don't forget.
> >You're telling lies again. I've never once lectured survivors of the WTC
> >about what they experienced. What I did say was that Greg's reaction could
> >not be taken to be universal, which is neither contradicting anything he
> >said about his experience nor is in any way exceptional.
> Note the non-denial of the antisemitism. Cool!
I have some difficulty with this. I don't think objection to
circumcision as a religious or cultural rite is necessarily bigoted, and
I think it's unfair of you to jump to that conclusion WRT DRS. Yes, his
tone is problematic, but that's with anything having to do with
circumcision, not just the religious aspect.
John
John Dorrance
DRS wrote:
> "Michael Thomas" <mi...@mtcc.com> wrote:
> | Why are you shifting attention from what you
> | wrote? You claim you know better than John. I
> | guarantee you that John is perfect capable of
> | speaking for himself on this matter.
Mike, what has been with you lately, anyway? I love you dearly, but
you've been a raving shit for the past several months, much more so than
normal, and it's really getting old.
> No, what he said is biologically wrong. The foreskin is not "just skin".
Well, yeah, it's got some kind of fatty tissue behind it, too, but it's
not like it contains muscles or the spleen or anything. This "phimosis"
word people are throwing about - you don't mean to tell me my foreskin
could suddenly rebel on me and become a problem, rather than a joy?
Stop it, DRS - you're scaring me!
John
Brian Vogel
>
> Brian Vogel wrote:
>
>
>> In serious response to John: yes, it's just a flap of skin;
>>kinda like an earlobe, no. The "use and storage" conditions are *quite*
>>different and there's no mucosa involved in an earlobe. An earlobe is
>>also out in the fresh air and sunlight way more frequently than the
>>typical foreskin, which spends the bulk of its time in a very warm, very
>>dark, very flora ridden environment. The little webs of skin between the
>>fingers are "just flaps of skin", yet they often become problematic (much
>>more frequently than foreskins) due to things like excessive washing,
>>extended exposure to dry air, etc. Earlobes, even pierced ones, seldom
>>experience major problems, though not never.
>>
>
> Well, okay, I oversimplified, but even given all the factors you
> describe, that doesn't mean a foreskin must be a difficult thing to
> possess.
To be perfectly honest, if I was giving that impression,
then your previous observations about my "tone problems" certainly
applied here. I know several "foreskin possessors", and none of
them have trouble with theirs and I seriously doubt they will.
> Really, as long as you don't use baby oil and not wash up
> afterwards (BIG FUCKING OUCH!!!),
If you don't mind my asking, what in the world does baby
oil do in this case? That's not something that I'd imagine would
serve as an irritant to skin in general, nor foreskin in particular.
[re: foreskin]
> it's not going to cause problems for all but outliers
> on the foreskin spectrum.
A perspective upon which we agree (and, just for the
record, I don't own one). That's why I previously mentioned (to DRS)
that I think that most of the health benefits noted by researchers
that result from circumcision fall in the "possible, but not
very likely, foreskin problems" category.
> but really it's just a damn body part.
Now, now. It's just a body part, no "damn" about it.
Brian
Brian Vogel
> This "phimosis" word people are throwing about -
From Webster's Medical Desk Dictionary (1986):
tightness or constriction of the orifice of the
prepuce arising either congenitally or from
inflammation, congestion, or other postnatal
causes and making it impossible to bare the glans.
> you don't mean to tell me my foreskin
> could suddenly rebel on me and become a problem, rather than a joy?
Uh, it could happen.
> Stop it, DRS - you're scaring me!
I'm not DRS, nor am I trying to play him anywhere.
Brian
Brian Vogel
>
> that bitch wrote:
>
>
>>DRS <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>"Michael Thomas" <mi...@mtcc.com> wrote:
>>>
>
>>>| But keep going. You're really on a roll. I'm
>>>| especially fond of your telling Jews that
>>>| they're for all intents and purposes evil
>>>| monsters for mutilating their sons. This is even
>>>| better than lecturing survivors of the WTC about
>>>| what they experienced.
>>>
>
>>And Muslims. Muslims are evil monsters for the same
>>reason, don't forget.
>>
>
>>>You're telling lies again. I've never once lectured survivors of the WTC
>>>about what they experienced. What I did say was that Greg's reaction could
>>>not be taken to be universal, which is neither contradicting anything he
>>>said about his experience nor is in any way exceptional.
>>>
>
>>Note the non-denial of the antisemitism. Cool!
>>
>
> I have some difficulty with this. I don't think objection to
> circumcision as a religious or cultural rite is necessarily bigoted,
I absolutely concur.
> and I think it's unfair of you to jump to that conclusion WRT DRS.
I waffle. I would like to believe that he's just being
carried along with the tidal wave of anti-circumcision sentiment
that he constantly rides.
> Yes, his tone is problematic,
To put it kindly.
Brian
Leith Chu
Jack Hamilton wrote:
> il...@panix.com (that bitch) wrote:
> >DRS <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
> >>exist. That's why the doctors all around the developed world,
> >>except in America, refuse to even contemplate circumcision except
> >>under the most extreme and unusual circumstances.
> >So which is it? Are Jews and Muslims unscrupulous or
> >just extreme and unusual?
> Third possibility: they're not in the "developed world".
It's so nice to know that Canada is also not in the "developed world".
And those Canadian Jews and Muslims; well!
Leith, UNICEF poster child
Leith Chu
> Look everybody, it's *xaos*!
Innit *great*?
Leith, happy
Michael Thomas
> that bitch wrote:
> > Note the non-denial of the antisemitism. Cool!
>
> I have some difficulty with this. I don't think objection to
> circumcision as a religious or cultural rite is necessarily bigoted, and
> I think it's unfair of you to jump to that conclusion WRT DRS. Yes, his
> tone is problematic, but that's with anything having to do with
> circumcision, not just the religious aspect.
In this particular case, the people under
consideration are perfectly capable of having
fulfilling sex lives. If there were a religious
rite which chopped off your wee-wee, I'd
obviously have a different opinion because you
clearly wouldn't be able to participate in the
same sex that most people are capable of. Where
DRS goes off the rails is when he claims that
we're damaged goods when by our very own
reports, it's not *that* big a deal.
I really don't see circumcision qua religious
rite as hugely significant; yes, it probably
should be chosen by the person in question, but
there are any number of things that are foisted
on children -- not the least of which is the
mental control of religion itself -- that I have
a hard time getting worked up about the Global
Scourge that those evil Jews are promulgating on
their boys. Indeed given the problematic history
of using circumcision as a marker for Jews for
ill, I'd question anybody's sanity in pressing
the argument.
Michael Thomas
> Oh, chill, Mike. Most of my knowledge about foreskins comes from my
> own, which is a particularly handsome, exemplary specimen that has
> caused me no problems. There could easily be problems with foreskins
> that are less beautiful and perfect than mine, and I'm perfectly willing
> to let others inform me about those unfortunate cases, secure in the
> knowledge that *mine* is not one of *those* *kinds* of penises.
Don't worry, John. I'm just protecting your fine
flap from DRS's newest hunt for the inadequately
trivialized. He should be worshiping it, not
doubting its self-knowledge.
David W. Fenton
<3BF2F223...@facstaff.wisc.edu>:
>. . .outliers
>on the foreskin spectrum. . . .
This is certainly a concept I've never encountered before.
> . . . I swear, some
>people seem to think that having a foreskin is nothing but endless
>toil and worry, but really it's just a damn body part.
That all depends on which end of the "having" you are on, no?
--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
DRS
news:v7wv0sb...@fasolt.mtcc.com...
| John Dorrance <jhdo...@facstaff.wisc.edu> writes:
| > that bitch wrote:
| > > Note the non-denial of the antisemitism. Cool!
| >
| > I have some difficulty with this. I don't think objection to
| > circumcision as a religious or cultural rite is necessarily bigoted, and
| > I think it's unfair of you to jump to that conclusion WRT DRS. Yes, his
| > tone is problematic, but that's with anything having to do with
| > circumcision, not just the religious aspect.
|
| In this particular case, the people under
| consideration are perfectly capable of having
| fulfilling sex lives. If there were a religious
| rite which chopped off your wee-wee, I'd
| obviously have a different opinion because you
| clearly wouldn't be able to participate in the
| same sex that most people are capable of. Where
| DRS goes off the rails is when he claims that
| we're damaged goods when by our very own
| reports, it's not *that* big a deal.
Who promoted to you to speak for everybody? There's a huge and growing
number of men who are speaking out about they way they were mutilated and
how it's adversely affected their lives - who are you to say they're wrong?
--
"One must look pretty while being brutal!"
MeanMary
DRS
| DRS wrote:
|
| > "John Dorrance" <jhdo...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote...
|
| > | It's just a flap of skin. Kinda like an earlobe.
|
| > Er, no.
|
| > As you should well know, at the very least from the last time this topic
| > went around.
|
| I don't recall - I think I tuned the discussion out pretty quickly when
| things got out of hand.
That's a shame. The foreskin and the glans are actually part of the same
organ. The foreskin contains 36% of the nerves in the penis and they are a
specialised type different to those in the glans.
| But my point was that it's not like the
| foreskin itself contains any major mechanical parts that can
| malfunction, any big organs or glands, as far as I know (well, it
| "contains" the glans, but that's not actually *inside* the foreskin,
| just surrounded by it, if you know what I mean).
Nevertheless to lose the foreskin is to lose its functionality whereas to
lose an earlobe is merely an aesthetic loss.
| There's the whole "too
| tight to retract" thing, but then it seems like that can be dealt with
| non-surgically in most cases.
Absolutely.
DRS
news:3BF2EA4...@yahoo.com...
| DRS wrote:
| > | > | > It's not mixed at all.
| > | > |
| > | > | Stating that like it's a fact doesn't make it so. There
are
| > | > | medically documented plusses and minuses to circumcision.
| > | >
| > | > No, there are not.
| > |
| > | Yes, there are. There are hundreds of peer reviewed articles
out
| > | there that document plusses as well as minuses. I'm not either pro or
anti
| > | circumcision, but I know that.
| >
| > You need to get up to date with the current research.
|
| No, you do. I did extensive web research yesterday
| and it's all out there to see. Most of it conducted within the last 5
| years and peer reviewed.
You need to search harder.
| > All the myths about the benefits of circumcision have been destroyed,
|
| They're only myths in your mind. I'll trust the copious
quantities
| of peer reviewed research I've read, both pro and con, over your opinions
| and those of the rabidly biased anti-circumcision crowd.
My opinions are based on the facts. I repeat: the problem for the
pro-circumcision crowd is the male population of Western and Northern
Europe. They do not suffer the problems predicted by the pro-circumcision
mob. The reason they don't suffer those problems is because those problems
are myths.
| I'll admit that I'd not choose circumcision because the benefits
| are more for possible, rather than probable, problems. However, others
| may legitimately make different decisions.
Possible? You don't mutilate 100,000 infants in order to prevent potential
problems for 1.
DRS
news:3BF304D6...@pei.sympatico.ca...
|
| Jack Hamilton wrote:
| > il...@panix.com (that bitch) wrote:
| > >DRS <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
| > >>exist. That's why the doctors all around the developed world,
| > >>except in America, refuse to even contemplate circumcision except
| > >>under the most extreme and unusual circumstances.
| > >So which is it? Are Jews and Muslims unscrupulous or
| > >just extreme and unusual?
| > Third possibility: they're not in the "developed world".
|
| It's so nice to know that Canada is also not in the "developed world".
Canadian rates are well below that of America.
DRS
| DRS wrote:
|
| > He's repeating many of the myths about the benefits of circumcision
which
| > have been destroyed by proper studies. He might be able to swear that
black
| > is white in order to justify his position but I am not. He tells
outright
| > lies, such as "Moreover, the sensitivity during sexual intercourse is in
| > fact identical, according to men circumcised as adults." The personal
| > evidence from men who have had their foreskins restored is
overwhelmingly
| > the opposite but according to him and the various paediatric
associations
| > their accounts - the only accounts of substance in this matter - are
| > worthless.
|
| I think the problem with using people who've restored their foreskins as
| data points on the sensitivity debate is that they're a self-selecting
| group - people who want a foreskin badly enough to go through the
| foreskin restoration process. Such a person would certainly see the
| restoration of foreskin as beneficial, since they wanted it bad enough
| to find out how to do it and spend months actually doing it. That alone
| is enough to indicate strong anti-circumcision bias.
But whence does that bias arise? It's because those men have problems being
circumcised. It's not something they do on a whim.
| The most unbiased sources we can have about circumcision are people who
| had foreskins (natural ones) in adulthood, felt neither here nor there
| about them, and got them removed in adulthood for reasons having nothing
| to do with chronic functionality problems or social stigma. And it
| would be best to hear from them over time. My guess is the loss in
| sensitivity would probably be gradual enough that it wouldn't have an
| impact on their lives.
|
| I agree that circumcision at birth is a bad and unnecessary thing. But
| I don't think it's possible to get unbiased information from people who
| are traumatized enough by it to "correct" the condition. As I see it,
| yes, circumcision causes a loss in sensitivity, but there's plenty of
| sensitivity to go around down there for most men (possibly more than
| enough, given how my own penis was much too sensitive to begin with, and
| I had to learn how not to jump through the ceiling every time it was
| touched in an unfamiliar way), so in most cases the decrease in
| sensitivity isn't enough to cause any problems. Which doesn't justify
| the procedure by any means, but it mitigates the need for doing further
| damage to the penis in order to "rectify" the situation.
How can you, of all people, possibly say the loss of sensitivity "isn't
enough to cause any problems"? How can you dispute all those men who say it
is? Here's one man's experience:
"When I was aged 38, I had a problem with my penis being bent downwards.
This caused the frenelum to tear during intercourse, which was very painful.
A surgeon recommended a z plasty to the frenelum, and also release of
chordae. He said that he would most likely circumcise me as well. I told him
that I didn't want a circumcision. During the procedure, while I was HIGH on
medication, he said that it would be much easier if I was circumcised. At
that time I said, (in a drugged state) "don't care what you do just fix it
up". So I was circumcised.
Immediately following this procedure, foreplay was out of the question. I
could not bear to be touched. I had to stimulate my wife, then using lots of
KY on myself, have intercourse. After 2 years, I had no feelings during sex,
and had to fantasize of what it used to be like, before the circumcision, to
climax.
The new foreskin can never be as good as what was removed, but much better
than none. As a sexually active adult both with and without a foreskin I
KNOW WHICH IS BETTER."
(http://www.4skin.com/chymmylt/gallery/members/johnaldous.shtml)
| Circumcision of infants is definitely a wrong and backward practice, in
| my mind, and people with any sense shouldn't do it to their children, as
| it is unnecessary and a violation of the child's right to make his own
| decisions about his body. If someone is really traumatized by the
| circumcision, they should by all means consider restoration, but they
| should also consider what larger wrongs or violations of their childhood
| this issue might serve as a touchstone for. Because it seems to me that
| a circumcised penis, if functional and featuring all the required parts
| besides the foreskin, is better to have than one that's had the skin all
| stretched out in an effort to correct the situation. Maybe it's better
| to just accept that a wrong had been done that cannot be corrected, and
| work to make sure that friends and family do not do the same to their
| children.
Maybe it's better to do what can be done to fix the problem as well as
trying to prevent it being inflicted on others. Why should these men live
with being mutilated?
Brian Vogel
> "Brian Vogel" <vog...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> | I'll admit that I'd not choose circumcision because the benefits
> | are more for possible, rather than probable, problems. However, others
> | may legitimately make different decisions.
>
> Possible? You don't mutilate 100,000 infants in order to prevent potential
> problems for 1.
Possible, yes. You'll note that I contrasted that to "probable".
You'll also note that I pretty much agree that the "possibles" are so
statistically small that circumcision isn't indicated as a standard
procedure to prevent them.
You just don't get those points because you're a zealot on
this issue, plain and simple (with simple being the bigger part). The
fact that you can't see that data collected from the "I wanted my foreskin
restored, and *did* it!" crowd would be tainted, badly tainted, is evidence
of that.
Brian
DRS
[...]
| You just don't get those points because you're a zealot on
| this issue, plain and simple (with simple being the bigger part). The
| fact that you can't see that data collected from the "I wanted my foreskin
| restored, and *did* it!" crowd would be tainted, badly tainted, is
evidence
| of that.
What you just wrote is evidence only of your inability to read what is
written. You also clearly haven't paid any atention to what the men
themselves have said. According to you if a man says he had problems being
circumcised and had it (FSVO) fixed then his testimony is automatically
tainted. The truth is his testimony is fundamentally as valid as anyone
else's. If those men say they did the right thing by having their foreskins
restored then it is not for you to say otherwise or to try to subtly
discredit them by some sort of "of course they'd say that" nonsense.
Mike McKinley
> According to you if a man says he had problems being
> circumcised
What on earth are the problems with being circumsised?
Grrrrrl, you're a mess. I'm cut and I have no problems. My boyfriend's
uncut and has no problems.
Get a grip.
--
*************************************
It is not true that life is one damn thing after another -- it's one damn thing
over and over.
Edna St. Vincent Millay
DRS
news:3BF3CACB...@mail.utexas.edu...
| DRS wrote:
|
| > According to you if a man says he had problems being
| > circumcised
|
| What on earth are the problems with being circumsised?
| Grrrrrl, you're a mess. I'm cut and I have no problems. My
boyfriend's
| uncut and has no problems.
| Get a grip.
I have a very firm grip. That you are happy as you are is of absolutely no
bearing on how others feel about their situation. That so many are speaking
out about how badly they've fared is proof that complacency like yours is to
be deplored.
Michael Thomas
> | consideration are perfectly capable of having
> | fulfilling sex lives. If there were a religious
> | rite which chopped off your wee-wee, I'd
> | obviously have a different opinion because you
> | clearly wouldn't be able to participate in the
> | same sex that most people are capable of. Where
> | DRS goes off the rails is when he claims that
> | we're damaged goods when by our very own
> | reports, it's not *that* big a deal.
>
> Who promoted to you to speak for everybody?
I didn't. I -- unlike you, presumably -- am part
of that group, and have probably *far* more
experience with cut men than you do. They don't
complain. In fact, many of them prefer it both
on theirs, and their playmates.
You, on the other hand, presume to speak for me
and the vast majority of circumcised men when
you call it "mutilation". I am not mutilated,
and I've never even *met* anybody who calls it
mutilation. I don't doubt they exist, but for
you to presume to talk for the vast majority who
do not subscribe to your agenda is typical to
say the least.
> There's a huge and growing
> number of men who are speaking out about they way they were mutilated and
> how it's adversely affected their lives
Huge? Try "tiny minority".
> - who are you to say they're wrong?
I say they should speak for themselves. And you
need to stop pontificating to those who actually
are part of the group you presume to lecture.
Again.
DRS
| "DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> writes:
| > "Michael Thomas" <mi...@mtcc.com> wrote in message
| > | In this particular case, the people under
| > | consideration are perfectly capable of having
| > | fulfilling sex lives. If there were a religious
| > | rite which chopped off your wee-wee, I'd
| > | obviously have a different opinion because you
| > | clearly wouldn't be able to participate in the
| > | same sex that most people are capable of. Where
| > | DRS goes off the rails is when he claims that
| > | we're damaged goods when by our very own
| > | reports, it's not *that* big a deal.
| >
| > Who promoted to you to speak for everybody?
|
| I didn't. I -- unlike you, presumably -- am part
| of that group, and have probably *far* more
| experience with cut men than you do. They don't
| complain. In fact, many of them prefer it both
| on theirs, and their playmates.
So now you're presuming to speak for my sex life as well. Your arrogance
has no bounds.
| You, on the other hand, presume to speak for me
| and the vast majority of circumcised men when
| you call it "mutilation". I am not mutilated,
| and I've never even *met* anybody who calls it
| mutilation. I don't doubt they exist, but for
| you to presume to talk for the vast majority who
| do not subscribe to your agenda is typical to
| say the least.
There are women in Afghanistan who don't think the burqa is a symbol of
female oppression.
| > There's a huge and growing
| > number of men who are speaking out about they way they were mutilated
and
| > how it's adversely affected their lives
|
| Huge? Try "tiny minority".
You're not listening. Again.
| > - who are you to say they're wrong?
|
| I say they should speak for themselves. And you
| need to stop pontificating to those who actually
| are part of the group you presume to lecture.
| Again.
They are speaking for themselves. It's shits like you who aren't listening
to them, preferring instead to denigrate their feelings. But then that's
all you're good for.
Michael Thomas
> "Mike McKinley" <mp...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> | Grrrrrl, you're a mess. I'm cut and I have no problems. My
> boyfriend's
> | uncut and has no problems.
> | Get a grip.
>
> I have a very firm grip. That you are happy as you are is of absolutely no
> bearing on how others feel about their situation. That so many are speaking
> out about how badly they've fared is proof that complacency like yours is to
> be deplored.
Hey Mikey! You're part of the problem too! How
dare you lead a satisfying sex life! You're
oppressing all six of those foreskin loonies!
Respect their trip!
_Next on Oprah: when 8 oppresses 6, and the Roo 2's that love them!_
Michael Thomas
> | of that group, and have probably *far* more
> | experience with cut men than you do. They don't
> | complain. In fact, many of them prefer it both
> | on theirs, and their playmates.
>
> So now you're presuming to speak for my sex life as well. Your arrogance
> has no bounds.
I didn't, fool. Look up the words "presumably"
and "probably" if you're confused.
>
> | You, on the other hand, presume to speak for me
> | and the vast majority of circumcised men when
> | you call it "mutilation".
>
> There are women in Afghanistan who don't think the burqa is a symbol of
> female oppression.
Wow -- just when you didn't think it couldn't
get any better. Yes, I do believe that there are
women in Afghanistan who don't think of the
burqa as a symbol of female oppression. They're
probably horrified that the Taliban has turned
it into one though. Yet, you presume to know
what's better for them anyway. It's certainly
nothing new for your finger-wagging, holier than
thou, my-way-or-no-way personality, but it's
still stunning to see such bigoted remarks.
Merry Christmas!
DRS
| "DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> writes:
| > "Michael Thomas" <mi...@mtcc.com> wrote in message
| > | I didn't. I -- unlike you, presumably -- am part
| > | of that group, and have probably *far* more
| > | experience with cut men than you do. They don't
| > | complain. In fact, many of them prefer it both
| > | on theirs, and their playmates.
| >
| > So now you're presuming to speak for my sex life as well. Your
arrogance
| > has no bounds.
|
| I didn't, fool. Look up the words "presumably"
| and "probably" if you're confused.
I know what they mean. I also know that since you have zero knowledge of
the extent of my sexual experiences you have no grounds for saying what you
did (not that that ever stops you) and therefore you had to make an utterly
unsound asumption.
| > | You, on the other hand, presume to speak for me
| > | and the vast majority of circumcised men when
| > | you call it "mutilation".
| >
| > There are women in Afghanistan who don't think the burqa is a symbol of
| > female oppression.
|
| Wow -- just when you didn't think it couldn't
| get any better. Yes, I do believe that there are
| women in Afghanistan who don't think of the
| burqa as a symbol of female oppression. They're
| probably horrified that the Taliban has turned
| it into one though. Yet, you presume to know
| what's better for them anyway. It's certainly
| nothing new for your finger-wagging, holier than
| thou, my-way-or-no-way personality, but it's
| still stunning to see such bigoted remarks.
You've yet to see a single bigotted remark from me. You're just making
things up out of thin air or twisting my words beyond all recognition to
satisfy your depraved desire to wound at all costs.
Mike McKinley
> "Roonatic" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> writes:
> > "Mike McKinley" <mp...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> > | What on earth are the problems with being circumsised?
> > | Grrrrrl, you're a mess. I'm cut and I have no problems. My
> > boyfriend's
> > | uncut and has no problems.
> > | Get a grip.
> > I have a very firm grip. That you are happy as you are is of absolutely no
> > bearing on how others feel about their situation. That so many are speaking
> > out about how badly they've fared is proof that complacency like yours is to
> > be deplored.
> Hey Mikey! You're part of the problem too! How
> dare you lead a satisfying sex life! You're
> oppressing all six of those foreskin loonies!
> Respect their trip!
All I know is that if my cock were any more sensitive, I'da died *years* ago.
But, then again, I'm a butch top!
Clay Colwell
> "Michael Thomas" <mi...@mtcc.com> wrote in message
> news:v7wv0sb...@fasolt.mtcc.com...
> |
> | consideration are perfectly capable of having
> | fulfilling sex lives. If there were a religious
> | rite which chopped off your wee-wee, I'd
> | obviously have a different opinion because you
> | clearly wouldn't be able to participate in the
> | same sex that most people are capable of. Where
> | DRS goes off the rails is when he claims that
> | we're damaged goods when by our very own
> | reports, it's not *that* big a deal.
> Who promoted to you to speak for everybody? There's a huge and growing
> number of men who are speaking out about they way they were mutilated and
> how it's adversely affected their lives - who are you to say they're wrong?
Um, one of a myriad of men who've been "mutilated" with no
siginficant effect to their lives?
Clay Colwell
> [...]
Fine for them. \/\/hatever.
Still, given that you've testified that 36% of the penis' nerves
are in the foreskin, wouldn't you conclude that "foreskin restor-
ation" is a hollow sham, since those specialized nerves won't
be restored along with the "skin flap"?
DRS
news:R8TI7.34925$jp.26...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
Nope. That you or anybody else might find their circumcision to be of no
personal consequence is utterly irrelevant to those who do.
DRS
| DRS <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
| > "Brian Vogel" <vog...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:3BF3B84...@yahoo.com...
|
| > [...]
|
| > | You just don't get those points because you're a zealot on
| > | this issue, plain and simple (with simple being the bigger part). The
| > | fact that you can't see that data collected from the "I wanted my
foreskin
| > | restored, and *did* it!" crowd would be tainted, badly tainted, is
| > evidence
| > | of that.
|
| > What you just wrote is evidence only of your inability to read what is
| > written. You also clearly haven't paid any atention to what the men
| > themselves have said. According to you if a man says he had problems
being
| > circumcised and had it (FSVO) fixed then his testimony is automatically
| > tainted. The truth is his testimony is fundamentally as valid as anyone
| > else's. If those men say they did the right thing by having their
foreskins
| > restored then it is not for you to say otherwise or to try to subtly
| > discredit them by some sort of "of course they'd say that" nonsense.
|
| Fine for them. \/\/hatever.
I didn't expect you to be so callous.
| Still, given that you've testified that 36% of the penis' nerves
| are in the foreskin, wouldn't you conclude that "foreskin restor-
| ation" is a hollow sham, since those specialized nerves won't
| be restored along with the "skin flap"?
It's not a sham just because it isn't perfect. The restored skin (it truly
is skin in this instance) still protects the glans and allows it to lose its
keratinisation and return to its natural state, that of a mucous membrane.
Steve Jones
news:9t12ti$dlf$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> "Clay Colwell" <er...@bermuda.io.com> wrote in message
> news:KcTI7.34944$jp.26...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> | are in the foreskin, wouldn't you conclude that "foreskin restor-
> | ation" is a hollow sham, since those specialized nerves won't
> | be restored along with the "skin flap"?
>
> It's not a sham just because it isn't perfect. The restored skin (it
truly
> is skin in this instance) still protects the glans and allows it to lose
its
> keratinisation and return to its natural state, that of a mucous membrane.
Cripes, what the heck are you doing with yer weiner to "keratinise" it. Is
that like carmelization?
- Steve
DRS
news:9t1505$sns$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
Skin possesses a layer of keratin, and the greater the exposure to abrasion,
pressure and use the thicker the layer. The glans is not skin but is a
mucous membrane, softer than skin, moist and its thermal temperature usually
approaches or is at body temperature. Mucous membranes ordinarily do not
possess a keratin layer, but after circumcision the constant exposure of the
glans to irritation (rubbing against underwear, for exampe) causes it to
develop such a layer. The glans then becomes dry, dull and leathery, taking
on the characteristics of skin. This process contributes significantly to
the desensitisation of the glans but is reversible after foreskin
restoration.
Michael Thomas
> | siginficant effect to their lives?
>
> Nope. That you or anybody else might find their circumcision to be of no
> personal consequence is utterly irrelevant to those who do.
And those of us who find it irrelevant think you
should telling us we're mutilated.
DRS
| "DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> writes:
| > "Clay Colwell" <er...@bermuda.io.com> wrote in message
| > | Um, one of a myriad of men who've been "mutilated" with no
| > | siginficant effect to their lives?
| >
| > Nope. That you or anybody else might find their circumcision to be of
no
| > personal consequence is utterly irrelevant to those who do.
|
| And those of us who find it irrelevant think you
| should telling us we're mutilated.
You just want to argue that black is white. Your opinion is therefore
worthless.