Circumcise penis looks ugly
RSFtLauder
seen I don't see the alledge aesthetic beauty of a circumcised penis:an ugly
circular dark scar about an inch from the glands then from the gland to the
corona what is left of the inner skin all wrinkled and dry and a
bulbous,dry,karotinized glans overproportioned to the size of the shaft hence
the term mushroomhead.
I really do not see the beauty in it.
Depending on the uncircumcised penis(as long as they are not too little and
have a big overhang) ;those that are like me bigger and with no overhang they
look sexier,better.
Centure
>I am a male so I don't really go around looking at penises
I know it's just that the optic nerves gravitate toward the crotch.
GWMRed
gay...and every one is different, each with a personality, just like its owner
:)
coon...@my-dejanews.com
I think that's true too.. but I really don't hold a degree in cock watch the
way Wadi does. Lots of problems with circumcision including scars, skin
bridges.. pieces removed from the glans.. actually a wet glans I would think
would look a lot more sexy to someone who enjoyed sex. But, what do I know..
I guess when people saw its friigin ugly they are referring to very long
foreskin that might have blemishes on the skin. A normal foreskined penis is
a work of art as so many great painters have shown. I think the ugly uncut
penis is just another manifestation of the true blooded American bitch.
Find out how circumcision in the USA Began. Its outrageous! Go to
http://homestead.dejanews.com/user.coontail/nocir1.html
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Centure
All men look at each others crotchs, at one time or the other.most straight
guys do it for comparison.
I just dont like some of the intactadicks, claiming they never have, when
talking about the cosmetic enhancement or lack thereof of the circumcised
penis.
coon...@my-dejanews.com
Are you working for a degree in cock watch Centure, contact Wadi, Professor
of cock watch studies international. Find out how circumcision in the USA
RE RE 2089
>penis is just another manifestation of the true blooded American bitch.
I think that's very rude, and totally false. I know many men who think that if
you are not circumcised you have an ugly penis, and I know of many women, like
myself, that do not think that a normal penis is ugly.
AnnMarie
http://members.xoom.com/NOCIRC/
StukInTime
Amen...
I'm Stuk!
"The future holds the need for auto selection of the human race."
Centure
> Are you working for a degree in cock watch Centure, contact Wadi, Professor
>of cock watch studies international.
This coming from a guy, who daily leads into the discussion of cocks, with. I
DONT LOOK AT OTHER MENS COCKS BUT.
Centure
Stop hanging on to that closet door so hard.
Centure
>
> I think that's true too.. but I really don't hold a degree in cock watch the
>way Wadi does. Lots of problems with circumcision including scars, skin
>bridges.. pieces removed from the glans.
For a guy who dont look, you sure observed a lot. wonder how?
int...@my-dejanews.com
This whole thread is pretty silly. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So
why argue?
Besides, it does no good to call the circumcised penis ugly. This will only
foster resentment -- and at worst, anger -- among circumcised men, and
virtually all of them were robbed of their foreskin anyway, no permission
given. Their likely response? Clip Junior as soon as possible, so he'll be
-- all together now -- "just like Daddy."
Those of us who lucked out shouldn't disparage those who didn't.
Best,
Michael
Nature uses as little of anything as possible. --Kepler
Craig Wagner
> I am a male so I don't really go around looking at penises,
Do you also not "go around looking at" other men's hands, feet, faces or
elbows? There is not reason for men NOT to look at other men. Can we
PLEASE get past the homophobic "shit" for the purposes of this discussion?
> but for what I have
> seen I don't see the alledge aesthetic beauty of a circumcised penis:an ugly
> circular dark scar about an inch from the glands then from the gland to the
> corona what is left of the inner skin all wrinkled and dry and a
> bulbous,dry,karotinized glans overproportioned to the size of the shaft hence
> the term mushroomhead.
WHILE I agree with you in many respects, it seems critical to me to point
out to people that NOT all circumcised men have "an ugly circular dark
scar about an inch from" the glans. Some have "an ugly circular dark
scar" much nearer the glans -- they've had their frenulum and inner
foreskin AS WELL AS their frenar band cut from their penis.
Quite frankly: it PISSES ME OFF that some people argue that all
circumcisions should be considered as though they are the same operation.
coon...@my-dejanews.com
Well I'm supposed to be an educator and activist in this area.. so it
behooves me to learn as much as I can about problems of both cut and uncut
penises. Mine has never had the slightest problem and in this way I am the
Elvis Presely of cockdum.. don't be jealous Centure.
Find out how circumcision in the USA Began. Its outrageous! Go to
http://homestead.dejanews.com/user.coontail/nocir1.html
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
coon...@my-dejanews.com
> >of cock watch studies international.
>
> This coming from a guy, who daily leads into the discussion of cocks, with. I
> DONT LOOK AT OTHER MENS COCKS BUT.
Well, circumcision is of the cock or am I way off in left field here.
Actually there are different degrees of cock watch.. crouch watch comes first.
Cheers and good viewing! ;)
noci...@my-dejanews.com
> seen I don't see the alledge aesthetic beauty of a circumcised penis:an ugly
> circular dark scar about an inch from the glands then from the gland to the
> corona what is left of the inner skin all wrinkled and dry and a
> bulbous,dry,karotinized glans overproportioned to the size of the shaft hence
> the term mushroomhead.
> Depending on the uncircumcised penis(as long as they are not too little and
> have a big overhang) ;those that are like me bigger and with no overhang they
> look sexier,better.
What you need to say, is I am not a member of the cock watches of the world,
charter member Centure and president Wadi.
noci...@my-dejanews.com
rere...@aol.com50 (RE RE 2089) wrote:
> > I think the ugly uncut
> >penis is just another manifestation of the true blooded American bitch.
>
> I think that's very rude, and totally false. I know many men who think that
if
> you are not circumcised you have an ugly penis, and I know of many women, like
> myself, that do not think that a normal penis is ugly.
>
> AnnMarie
> http://members.xoom.com/NOCIRC/
Its an insult to every man to have his penis demeaned by women and when a
callow youth by peers. That is what I'm saying. I did not say all women shun
a foreskined penis, by no means. But, did you know this fear, whether real or
imagined is why a youth or man gets a perfectly normal penis "fixed". I am
NOT saying all women are bitches.. or anything even remotely.
noci...@my-dejanews.com
I've always wondered why Islam was so concerned about arm pits and foreskins
while blowing whole sidewalks and store fronts away? Strange world?
noci...@my-dejanews.com
gwm...@aol.com (GWMRed) wrote:
> Well, I am a male , too, and I do go around looking at crotches, .because I am
> gay...and every one is different, each with a personality, just like its owner
Does each one also have its own little voice? Some sweeky and some bass?
But, kidding aside.. ofcourse the foreskin can be different.. if its not too
long and smooth.. what is there to hate?
Intact men need their own board walks and Atlantic City..
Centure
>Mine has never had the slightest problem and in this way I am the
>Elvis Presely of cockdum.. don't be jealous Centure.
Coontail i am 30, 5, 10, and 170 pds. considered somewhat handsome.
You are in your fifties, with a beergut, and arthritis, your more apt to look
like jerry garcia.
Centure
> I've always wondered why Islam was so concerned about arm pits and foreskins
>while blowing whole sidewalks and store fronts away? Strange world?
Urban demolition, for reconstruction
Centure
>Actually there are different degrees of cock watch.. crouch watch comes
>first.
>Cheers and good viewing! ;)
Same to you, and don' blame you're elderly status on you're failing vision.
stop straining your eyes..
Centure
> What you need to say, is I am not a member of the cock watches of the world,
>charter member Centure and president Wadi.
This from the dick expert, and foreskin/cock messiah.
Centure
>>All men look at each others crotchs, at one time or the other.most straight
>>guys do it for comparison.
>
>This is a fact that has been confirmed by recent scientific
>research.
Hi don.
Maybe coontails protestations to the contrary, means he is not a man?
coon...@my-dejanews.com
cwa...@his.com (Craig Wagner) wrote:
> In article <19990119075753...@ng143.aol.com>,
> rsftl...@aol.com (RSFtLauder) wrote:
>
>
> Do you also not "go around looking at" other men's hands, feet, faces or
> elbows? There is not reason for men NOT to look at other men. Can we
> PLEASE get past the homophobic "shit" for the purposes of this discussion?
>
> > seen I don't see the alledge aesthetic beauty of a circumcised penis:an ugly
> > circular dark scar about an inch from the glands then from the gland to the
> > corona what is left of the inner skin all wrinkled and dry and a
> > bulbous,dry,karotinized glans overproportioned to the size of the shaft
hence
> > the term mushroomhead.
>
> out to people that NOT all circumcised men have "an ugly circular dark
> scar about an inch from" the glans. Some have "an ugly circular dark
> scar" much nearer the glans -- they've had their frenulum and inner
> foreskin AS WELL AS their frenar band cut from their penis.
>
> Quite frankly: it PISSES ME OFF that some people argue that all
> circumcisions should be considered as though they are the same operation.
As Don says, you should be happy your parents and doctor conspired to cut ..
for a whole life time of a carefree penis... dah daah dah.. Don just can't
imagine why your not singing.
Find out how circumcision in the USA Began. Its outrageous! Go to
http://homestead.dejanews.com/user.coontail/nocir1.html
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
WizzKid2000
but uncircumcised!, phewwww! hot summers day and what a cheesey sweaty
smegma filled foreskin, i am not gay and have a steady female in my life!,
but a foreskin smells like yesterdays trash
Anonymous
Troll Alert! Looks like Vernon Quaintance and his multiple personalities
are back. Which one is this? Mary/Embee in yet another disguise, or is
this a new spinoff of Pedo-Vern's child molesting imagination? This one
claims to be an MD in another post! Uh-huh.
BallBrkr2
unless you got real close...hmmmmmmm
your not gay right? hahahaha
Vernon Quaintance
Whereas Anonymous hides behind an anonymous remailer, I have never
posted under anything but my own name and from the same account as I am
now using.
The writer's libellous statements have been reported for action to be
taken against him.
--
Vernon Quaintance
Anonymous
Oh shut up and go back to your regular job of passing around pictures of
naked circumcised boys and fantasy stories eroticizing circumcision on that
circ-list of yours, you old queen.
wal...@my-dejanews.com
"WizzKid2000" <Wiz...@technoland2000.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> but uncircumcised!, phewwww! hot summers day and what a cheesey sweaty
> smegma filled foreskin, i am not gay and have a steady female in my life!,
> but a foreskin smells like yesterdays trash
Well you are obviously cut, but A) How the fuck would you know, B) why do you
care if you're straight? So that being said, what WAS the point of your post?
Dave;wal...@Pacbell.net
StukInTime
>> smegma filled foreskin, i am not gay and have a steady female in my life!,
>> but a foreskin smells like yesterdays trash
Hmm...I'm sure I speak for all guys...but I shower daily...so there is little
problem with this.
Paul Hagen
stuki...@aol.comGoAway (StukInTime) wrote:
> Hmm...I'm sure I speak for all guys...but I shower daily...so there is little
> problem with this.
There's a reason that, in every "sex poll" I've heard ever heard of, women
overwhelmingly say they prefer circumcised penises for oral sex.
How long it takes for an intact penis to start smelling after bathing
(assuming that the foreskin is fully retractable) varies widely from guy
to guy. Some guys say they NEVER smell (although it would be interesting
to hear what their sex partners have to say about this claim). Other guys
say they start reeking within hours of bathing (which precludes a lot of
spontaneous oral sex, like after dinner and a movie).
Back when I had a foreskin, I was one of the "instant reekers" as soon as
I hit puberty. My foreskin was fully retractable, I washed daily with soap
and water, and - BAM! - my penis always smelled like something died after
just a few hours. Don't miss the smell a bit, and for me, sex feels better
without a double layer of foreskin rolling forward and "insulating" my
glans on all the "out" and "up" strokes.
sonofmoon
Beauty is culturally dependent.. its more or less learned.. and what
deviates too far from what's seen as normal is seen as ugly. Therefore a good
looking guy deviates from the norm by less than someone seen as ugly.
However, there is nothing inherently smelly with a foreskin. If you had a
dead smell, it can only take place with some nutrient, perhaps semen or
urine? And bacteria to break the constituents down. If intact becomes the
norm, I am 100 percent sure so freshner will hit the market for those that
need same. However, I am not aware of such an agent on sale in Europe? Could
Euros just be less persnickety? In any event that excuse.. odor seems like a
lame excuse to remove somebody elses foreskin, but ofcourse adult men could,
if it bothered them, be circumcised. Actaully semen back down causing a fishy
oder is common in circumcised men too. I wonder if we should advise
circumcised men to avoid hygiene, based on their cut status?
As far as any one can see, that is reasonable, in the absence of phimosis, the
only reason for circumcision is pure vanity .. cosmetics.. or attempting to
fit into what somebody preceives as the majority.
All not good reasons for RIC, but perfectly OK for adult men who decide to get
cut.
Circumcision as a routine must end. Find out its bizarre history.
http://homestead.dejanews.com/user.coontail/nocir1.html
Craig Wagner
> Back when I had a foreskin, I was one of the "instant reekers" as soon as
> I hit puberty. My foreskin was fully retractable, I washed daily with soap
> and water, and - BAM! - my penis always smelled like something died after
> just a few hours...
Has it never occurred to you that that might have been part of the problem?
Not all bacteria are "bad." (Note to Don M: "in my opinion")
It's entirely possible to apply soap too often. (Note to Don M: "in my
opinion." As argued to me by a friend of mine who's a doctor)
Craig Wagner
(Don M.) wrote:
> While no man has ever told me that he "reeks" within hours of
> bathing, a few men have told me that the odor (an odor which they
> deem to be unpleasant) is there always, even immediately after
> bathing.
After bathing with what?
(Water introduces nothing. "in my opinion".)
(Other agents being applied can be changed "in my opinion".)
(The results may differ. "in my experience".)
sonofmoon
What Morgan is saying is NOT possible. The foreskin does not stink, it is
the break-down of protein from bacterial action on the foreskin that causes
that fishy.. or decay odor.. it can be kept to a minimum without appeal to
either circumcision or rocket science. And quite frankly.. this odor develops
in cut men as well.. but is more or less confined to the skin because no
moisture is present for it to be rubbed on something.
Its hardly an excuse for circumcision.. if this is all they can produce,
they're at the end of the line.. admit defeat..go play cards.. Centure will
instruct.
sonofmoon
cwa...@his.com (Craig Wagner) wrote:
> In article <36c5f6e4...@news.fidalgo.net>, Do...@bogus.address.com
> (Don M.) wrote:
>
> > While no man has ever told me that he "reeks" within hours of
> > bathing, a few men have told me that the odor (an odor which they
> > deem to be unpleasant) is there always, even immediately after
> > bathing.
>
> After bathing with what?
Damn fools.. why didn't they wash their hands after they washed their dicks.
This is the height of absurdity... even for Morgan..
sonofmoon
> prh...@bitstream.net (Paul Hagen) wrote:
>
> > Back when I had a foreskin, I was one of the "instant reekers" as soon as
> > I hit puberty. My foreskin was fully retractable, I washed daily with soap
> > and water, and - BAM! - my penis always smelled like something died after
> > just a few hours...
>
Don I hate to say this.. but did you check the seat of your pants for brown
stains?
John Pritchard
>
> On Fri, 05 Feb 1999 03:06:23 GMT, sonofmoon
> <coon...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
> > Damn fools.. why didn't they wash their hands after they washed their dicks.
> >This is the height of absurdity... even for Morgan..
>
> was other men who told me this. They were anticircumcision
> themselves, but told me that there was an unmistakable and
> unpleasant odor associated with retracting the foreskin, even
> right after bathing. An unpleasant odor that they could not get
> rid of even though they certainly didn't consider circumcision.
>
> Don
IMO. I have likened it to five-o'clock shadow - to a greater or lesser
degree it does happen. It comes with the territory.
John
John Pritchard
>
> In article <cwagner-0402...@pm8-230.his.com>,
> cwa...@his.com (Craig Wagner) wrote:
> > (Don M.) wrote:
> >
> > > While no man has ever told me that he "reeks" within hours of
> > > bathing, a few men have told me that the odor (an odor which they
> > > deem to be unpleasant) is there always, even immediately after
> > > bathing.
> >
> > After bathing with what?
>
> This is the height of absurdity... even for Morgan..
>
> http://homestead.dejanews.com/user.coontail/nocir1.html
>
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
For further interesting reading, see:
ten killer
think that the onslaught of hormones might have been the problem?
ten killer
>While no man has ever told me that he "reeks" within hours of bathing,
a few men have told me that the odor (an odor which they deem to be
unpleasant) is there always, >even immediately after bathing.
I don't believe it.
>After bathing with what?
I can only imagine.
>(Water introduces nothing. >"in my opinion".)
>(Other agents being applied can be changed "in my opinion".)
>(The results may differ. "in my experience".)
In my experience too. It might reek of soap which in itself can be a
bad odor, in my opinion.
>What Morgan is saying is NOT possible.
He says lots of things. He don't think that circumcised men make
smegma. The Tyson's glands. located on each side of the frenulum and
underneath the glans, makes the major components of smegma. These are
not removed in a circumcision. This shows how little real research he
does.
>The foreskin does not stink, >it is the break-down of protein from
bacterial action on the foreskin that causes that fishy.. >or decay
odor.. >it can be kept to a minimum without appeal to either
circumcision or rocket science. >And quite frankly.. >this odor develops
in cut men as well.. >but is more or less confined to the skin because
no moisture is present for it to be rubbed on something.
Don't forget about the pheromones. My gf says I smell like sex "down
there". She finds it a turn on. They don't stink. They have a musky
smell. I even like it.
>Its hardly an excuse for circumcision.. >if this is all they can
produce, >they're at the end of the line
'Xactly
sonofmoon
tenk...@webtv.net (ten killer) wrote:
> If Paul became an instant "reeker" as soon as he hit puberty, don't you
> think that the onslaught of hormones might have been the problem?
>
Yes and NO. The semen base for sperm is sugar ( a food ) fructose. This
energy source fuels the break down of semen! If bacteria in the right
environment ( moist) have good, fructose ( a sugar) they break down semen..
this can cause a musky or fishy or I hate to say it, but have you ever
smelled a can of worms whilst on a fishing trip. Same biological process..
simply nature recycling bio molecules.. Its all natural.. and if one hates
the odor just wash it off.. Its so simple that I can't believe the pro-circs
are at this level.. but here we are.. this excuse for circumcision as dumb as
it is, would only be acceptable if the adult man felt that the trade in
destroying the foreskin and its moisture.. recycle was worth it. Certainly no
an acceptable excuse for RIC
wadi
$LocalHost@hughyoun>...>Binyomin Kaplan <biny...@gs.net> wrote in article
><36B8DCC8...@gs.net>...
>
>> What people usually mean by calling something a violation of human rights
>is a)
>> they are against it and b) they don't want other people to have a choice
>about
>> it. (That is what I mean when I say that murder is a violation of human
>rights.)
>
>In talking about human rights, one is trying to get outside of oneself, and
>put into practice the Golden Rule*, which is more basic than any religion.
>(ie, one doesn't need religious belief to endorse it, only to acknowledge
>that fellow humans are equal to oneself.)
>
I think we have the essence of the argument here.
The human rights issue as it relates to circumcision is a red herring.
As it becomes more and more apparent that there is no medical argument against
neonatal circumcision and that the much vaunted sexual attributes of the 4skin
have failed to be elucidated and proven all that remains is to hitch there
agenda to the human rights bandwagon.
When arguing anti circumcision on this basis the 4skinners still need to show
that by circumcising a boy he is being deprived of something of value. As
there is no case to be made for the 4skin per se and the fact that the boy
will be medically benefited through the procedure 4skinners are left to
resort to promoting theoretical concepts such as intactness, wholeness and
bodily integrity.
As one can imagine discussions and debates about such abstract concepts can
drag on forever. But in the absence of any substance in their arguments, what
else can they do?
wadi
$LocalHost@hughyoun>...>
>
>Don M. <Do...@bogus.address.com> wrote in article
><36e52540...@news.fidalgo.net>...
>> I do NOT dismiss
>> Taylor's evidence because he is, I believe, an intactivist. I
>> tend to be suspicious of his evidence if he is intactivist, and
>> that is all.
>
>And that is the classic argument ad hominem in the strict sense. Taylor's
>evidence stands or falls on its own merits. Whether Taylor is an
>Intactivist - especially since he seems to have become one because of what
>he found - is neither here nor there.
>
Yes indeed Taylors evidence stands and falls on its own merits. The first
point is that Taylor,Lockwood & Taylor's study had as its objective:
"To assess the type and amount of tissue missing from the adult circumcised
penis".
All that he achieved was, through autopsy, that the foreskin comprised certain
structures, which had no known function. He took it upon himself to postulate
as to what purpose these structures had. The study comes nowhere close to
presenting these structures of the foreskin as having a sexually dedicated
purpose or indeed that the 4skin has any value to its owner at all.
If Taylor had not been a 4skin promoter one would quite likely believe that
the results of this study had been taken out of context and embellished to
suit the dubious 4skin agenda. However, it appears that Taylor himself has
embellished upon these findings.
This study smacks of a theory seeking proof. And in the absence of proof
embellishment reigns supreme. No science here, only embellishment and wishful
thinking.
wadi
$LocalHost@hughyoun>...>
>
>
>> All I am asking for is that you state the other
>> morbidity and mortality probabilities of the 4skin.
>
>Wadi can do it himself! And I demand the probability of suffering chronic
>athletes foot, while he's about it.
>
This is a pretty standard example of ducking and diving by a 4skinner.
Hugh produced a cute little depiction of the risk to the uncircumcised from
penile cancer. On request he has again ducked having to present the combined
risk for all the nasties that may befall the uncircumcised. What has he got
to hide?
Maybe the truth as reflected by a depiction of that combined risk will not
serve his agenda well.
Athletes foot? Well that depends where you put your toes. With you, anything
is possible. Lol.
wadi
$LocalHost@hughyoun>...>
>
>I don't know what Wadi's or Wizz's problem with this is. I say what we do
>know, I admit ignorance for the rest. Wadi and Wizz can bluster about as
>much as they like. The truth is in there....
>
Well as it transpires the ignorance part is greater than your knowledge. I
can understand why you so desperately need to find a basis for defending the
4skin but cannot accept your methods by which you continue to present theory
and fantasy as fact.
Surely you must realise that anyone with any intelligence is not going to just
accept your wishful thinking and speculation as to sensory transmission from
the penis to the brain. To continue with your nonsense you will need to start
producing scientific evidence to support your theory or your pathetic
postulations will just be laughed off as the rantings and ravings of the penis
obsessed lunatic you are.
wadi
230.HIS.COM ...
>The LAST thing I want is for my son (OR DAUGHTER) to be "just like
>everyone else."
>
>I hope to raise my children well enough to be self-confident individuals
>who don't worry about criticisms ot teasing from others.
>
Craig Wagner<CWA...@HIS.COM wrote in message<CWAGNER-0502991939310001@PM9-
174.HIS.COM ...
>Mine was "forced" on me.
>
Two possibilities here.
One, that your son is uncircumcised so as to be different. A pretty strange
variation on the theme.
Two, and even more pathetic, that you wish to live your lost "intactness" out
through your son. This moves from the strange to the weird.
And in so doing you accept that your son may be subjected to "criticisms and
teasing" with unknown psychological effects.
I pity your son for having been not circumcised for all the wrong reasons.
Hugh Young
ten killer <tenk...@webtv.net> wrote in article
<12977-36...@newsd-151.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
>Do...@bogus.address.com (Don M.) wrote:
>What Morgan is saying is NOT possible.
He says lots of things. He don't think that circumcised men make
smegma. The Tyson's glands. located on each side of the frenulum and
underneath the glans, makes the major components of smegma.
Actually, Tyson's glands, discovered in orang-outangs, have not been
confirmed in humans. But cut men certainly do make smegma.
--
Hugh Young, Pukerua Bay, Nuclear-free Aotearoa / New Zealand
http://www.Geocities.com/WestHollywood/Park/7712/
sonofmoon
wadi <wadi...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> Craig Wagner<CWA...@HIS.COM wrote in message<CWAGNER-0402991923000001@PM8-
> 230.HIS.COM ...
>
> >The LAST thing I want is for my son (OR DAUGHTER) to be "just like
> >everyone else."
> >
> >I hope to raise my children well enough to be self-confident individuals
> >who don't worry about criticisms ot teasing from others.
> >
>
> Craig Wagner<CWA...@HIS.COM wrote in message<CWAGNER-0502991939310001@PM9-
> 174.HIS.COM ...
>
> >Mine was "forced" on me.
> >
>
> Two possibilities here.
>
> One, that your son is uncircumcised so as to be different. A pretty strange
> variation on the theme.
>
> Two, and even more pathetic, that you wish to live your lost "intactness" out
> through your son. This moves from the strange to the weird.
>
> And in so doing you accept that your son may be subjected to "criticisms and
> teasing" with unknown psychological effects.
>
> I pity your son for having been not circumcised for all the wrong reasons.
>
Another jewel from the professor of poofdum who for some god only knows,
reason is cockwatching on the net this summer. I hope school starts again
soon.
Circumcision as a routine must end. Find out its bizarre history.
http://homestead.dejanews.com/user.coontail/nocir1.html
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
sonofmoon
wadi <wadi...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> Hugh Young<HU...@WN.GAR.PLA.BAGE.NZ wrote in message <01be5022$07218520
> $LocalHost@hughyoun>...>
> >
> >I don't know what Wadi's or Wizz's problem with this is. I say what we do
> >know, I admit ignorance for the rest. Wadi and Wizz can bluster about as
> >much as they like. The truth is in there....
> >
>
> Well as it transpires the ignorance part is greater than your knowledge. I
> can understand why you so desperately need to find a basis for defending the
> 4skin but cannot accept your methods by which you continue to present theory
> and fantasy as fact.
>
> Surely you must realise that anyone with any intelligence is not going to just
> accept your wishful thinking and speculation as to sensory transmission from
> the penis to the brain. To continue with your nonsense you will need to start
> producing scientific evidence to support your theory or your pathetic
> postulations will just be laughed off as the rantings and ravings of the penis
> obsessed lunatic you are.
Now lets count. How many lunatics has the professor diagnosed.. well now
Hugh, joins the ranks for the loonie bin. I wonder if it could be the full
moon that does this or could it be that worthless foreskin.. weaver of all
ill and fancy? Again I ask.. go play cards with Centure.. he's been waiting
for you.
John Pritchard
>
> In article <79glju$94f$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> wadi <wadi...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> > Hugh Young<HU...@WN.GAR.PLA.BAGE.NZ wrote in message <01be5022$07218520
> > $LocalHost@hughyoun>...>
> > >
>
> Now lets count. How many lunatics has the professor diagnosed.. well now
> Hugh, joins the ranks for the loonie bin. I wonder if it could be the full
> moon that does this or could it be that worthless foreskin.. weaver of all
> ill and fancy? Again I ask.. go play cards with Centure.. he's been waiting
> for you.
>
> Circumcision as a routine must end. Find out its bizarre history.
> http://homestead.dejanews.com/user.coontail/nocir1.html
>
Craig Wagner
perhaps just being deceitful.
"In my opinion" of course. Your mileage may vary. Optional accessories
cost more. Etc, etc, etc...
In article <79heh1$rdm$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, sonofmoon
<coon...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> In article <79gmcl$9rl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> wadi <wadi...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> > Craig Wagner<CWA...@HIS.COM wrote in message<CWAGNER-0402991923000001@PM8-
> > 230.HIS.COM ...
> >
> > >The LAST thing I want is for my son (OR DAUGHTER) to be "just like
> > >everyone else."
> > >
> > >I hope to raise my children well enough to be self-confident individuals
> > >who don't worry about criticisms ot teasing from others.
> > >
> >
> > Craig Wagner<CWA...@HIS.COM wrote in message<CWAGNER-0502991939310001@PM9-
> > 174.HIS.COM ...
> >
> > >Mine was "forced" on me.
> > >
> >
> > Two possibilities here.
> >
> > One, that your son is uncircumcised so as to be different. A pretty strange
> > variation on the theme.
> >
> > Two, and even more pathetic, that you wish to live your lost
"intactness" out
> > through your son. This moves from the strange to the weird.
> >
> > And in so doing you accept that your son may be subjected to "criticisms and
> > teasing" with unknown psychological effects.
> >
> > I pity your son for having been not circumcised for all the wrong reasons.
> >
>
> Another jewel from the professor of poofdum who for some god only knows,
> reason is cockwatching on the net this summer. I hope school starts again
> soon.
>
> Circumcision as a routine must end. Find out its bizarre history.
> http://homestead.dejanews.com/user.coontail/nocir1.html
>
physical (Droll Troll)
I am circumcisized, and altho I don't begrudge the wicked allopath who
snipped it off, I am starting to miss the piece. He did a great job,
however. My mom's half is jewish, with 6 sisters, and they were all
there quarterbacking and cheering, with an occasional threat in
Yiddish. The doc was jewish too, and I guess he understood, so he
really did an _artful_ job, way beyond the call of duty. I get
compliments on it all the time, and a couple of the more observant babes
swore they could make out his initials: SHMD (Seymore Hyman, MD).
But here's the rub:
I actually _have_ the snippet, and the docs say they might be able to
re-attach it!! My mom saved it (it was a close call, cuz all of her
sisters were taking turns with it, you know, the mantle display and
all), and I have it sitting right here in a jar. We usually bring it out
on my birthdays, along with my naked baby pictures, and all sorts of
embarrassing closeups.
Unfortunately, said snippet would just about fit on my pinky, and not
to brag or anything, but now it would have to be able to at least fit
around my ankle, by way of comparison, for it to do me any good. Just
reporting the facts, ma'am...
But the docs say that this could be done, if they could just get the
snippet to grow. So they're talking bout some fancy-dancy biology
stuff, putting it in agar with some pubic DNA or sumpn, or even with
same female pubic hair, to kind of get it excited. I don't know if any
of this is going to work. One doc said that at the very least, they can
stitch it back on _as is_, as a kind flag that marked the spot. They
also said they could do it in a way that would give the wife a bit of a
thrill... which she could really use, after 15 years of the same
ole-same ole...
Speaking of the wife, however, she has vowed to leave me if I put that
bad boy back on. She has vowed to leave many times before, but this,
says she, will be the snippet that busts the camel's hump wide open.
Even tho sex is somewhat of a mute point around here (I'm one of these
very quiet, shy guys), I guess the thought of a hammer with a bow tied
around the, uh, head is a little too much to bare. And she ain't goin
for the flag thing, either.
So I'm in a quarry over here. I want my thing back, but I don't know
if it's worth losing the missus for it. But then, maybe it's time to
forge ahead. But, if the docs can only give me a stitched-on flag, how
will new babes react? Will they understand? Will they like it? Will
they salute? What would authorities such as Ms. Lewinsky think?
I found an issue of Tattoo USA, and I'm wondering if I do just get a
flag stitched on, after it all heals, could I get some stars and stripes
inked on?
I'm so confused, I really need to get my head together. I really need
some feedback and help!
--
Futilely Espousing God's Word on Pre-Purchase Epiphany,
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Kristofer Hogg, ms rd, Who can't safely boil water, much less cook!
More inciteful ravings, but with a plumb, at http://www.holobarre.com
HoloBarre Fitness/Stretching Systems, NY phys...@erols.com
Nice Bodies are, well, nice, but still largely irrelevant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hugh Young
wadi <wadi...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in article
<79glju$94f$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> Hugh Young<HU...@WN.GAR.PLA.BAGE.NZ wrote in message <01be5022$07218520
> $LocalHost@hughyoun>...>
> >
> >I don't know what Wadi's or Wizz's problem with this is. I say what we
do
> >know, I admit ignorance for the rest. Wadi and Wizz can bluster about as
> >much as they like. The truth is in there....
> >
>
> Well as it transpires the ignorance part is greater than your knowledge.
We none of us know nearly enough about the innervation of the intact penis
because in the US where most of the work is done, the things are relatively
hard to find, and the medical establishment doesn't want to know.
> Surely you must realise that anyone with any intelligence is not going to
just
> accept your wishful thinking and speculation as to sensory transmission
from
> the penis to the brain.
What's to wish? You touch the foreskin, it feels good. You cut it off, it
can't. So what happens then?
To continue with your nonsense you will need to start
> producing scientific evidence to support your theory
I only raise this because "Wadi" insists on no basis whatever that the
foreskin has no erotic function at all. It obviously has, we need to know
more about what they are. "Wadi" thinks the glans is "the business end".
This is news to intact men.
or your pathetic
> postulations will just be laughed off as the rantings and ravings of the
penis
> obsessed lunatic you are.
"Wadi" posts at least as often to this group as I do - though seldom with
any useful information. So who's obsessed?
Paul Hagen
(Don M.) wrote:
> While no man has ever told me that he "reeks" within hours of
> bathing, a few men have told me that the odor (an odor which they
> deem to be unpleasant) is there always, even immediately after
> bathing.
OK. I gotta fess up. I've never actually heard anyone use the word "reek"
except ME referring to the stench of MY OWN penis back when it had a
foreskin and I hit puberty. **HOWEVER** my Webster's defines "reek" as "to
have a strong, offensive smell," and I've seen MANY posts to that effect
right here in this newsgroup - even from guys who reported that they were
otherwise happy with their foreskins.
ten killer
>Do...@bogus.address.com (Don M.) wrote:
>While no man has ever told me that he "reeks" within hours of bathing,
>a few men have told me that the odor (an odor which they deem to be
unpleasant) is there always, >even immediately after bathing.
>I don't believe it.
>I don't believe that you don't believe it.
Why? That is the most idiotic statement. Why should I believe it? I
don't care who it is, if they have just washed themselves, no matter
what part of the body even the anus, it is not going to smell like
anything but soap. It is stupid for you to say otherwise/
>After bathing with what?
>I can only imagine.
>I believe you that you can _only_ imagine. >(You certainly don't have
anything in the way of reality to present.)
Why because I can back myself up with recent studies? Like I said for
each procircumcision study that you post and it seems that you only can
find one, there are numerous anitcircumcision related studies
available. The one with a reality problem is you. Even the
procircumcision people think you are a kook. My reality is in the
studies that I have read and I have read many. My reality is in real
life. What is yours based on? So far all you have shown is that your
only reality is sitting all day and night at the computer. I am not
here often because I DO have a life. My reality is based on many things
all concrete and real. What have I posted that was not?
>(Water introduces nothing. >"in my opinion".) >(Other agents being
applied can be changed >"in my opinion".) >(The results may differ. "in
my experience".)
>In my experience too. >It might reek of soap which in itself can be a
bad odor, in my opinion.
>What Morgan is saying is NOT possible.
>He says lots of things. >He don't think that circumcised men make
smegma.
>Are you another of those presumptuous anticirc fanatics who thinks that
he/she is a mind-reader? >Well, I've got news for you, you don't have
the foggiest idea whether I do or don't think circumcised men produce
smegma, and you just proved it with your erroneous statement regarding
what I allegedly think about it.
Oh really? You yourself have posted the statement many times that
smegma is erradicated by circumcision.
>The Tyson's glands. located on each side of the frenulum and underneath
the glans, makes the major components of smegma.
>Other anticircers who are more knowledgeable than you are claim that
smegma is not produced by glands but by the natural breakdown and
sloughing of dead tissue.
ALL medical dictionaries, text books, studies, etc. state PLAINLY
that the Tyson's glands make the major components of smegma. Whatever
they produce plus dead skin and whatever. Most research states that
diet can affect the amount of smegma produced as the Tyson glands remove
fats and impurities in the system.
>These are not removed in a circumcision.
>Sometimes the mucosa and the frenum in this area are, in fact, removed
by circumcision.
Do you know where the Tyson glands are? The part of the mucosa where
they are located would be difficult to remove.
>This shows how little real research he does.
>Never mind that you are the one who doesn't know what he/she is talking
about here.
Why do you say that? I have backed everything that I have said up. At
least when necessary. The proof that I don't know what I am talking
about is up to you. The more you dispute me the more ignorant you
sound.
>The foreskin does not stink, >it is the break-down of protein from
bacterial action on the foreskin that causes that fishy.. >or decay
odor.. >it can be kept to a minimum without appeal to either
circumcision or rocket science. >And quite frankly.. >this odor develops
in cut men as well.. >but is more or less confined to the skin because
no moisture is present for it to be rubbed on something.
>Don't forget about the pheromones. >My gf says I smell like sex "down
there". >She finds it a turn on. >They don't stink. >They have a musky
smell. >I even like it.
>The scent of pheromes produced by different people is different both in
strength and in character.
No one said that it didn't. But, there are components in all people's
particular chemistries that ARE the same basic ones. It is well
documented though, that women are attracted to certain men and their own
particular odors. I have caught my Gf smelling the clothing that I have
worn and taken off. If a female don't like your odor, chances are that
even if you are gorgeous, etc. she won't like you.
>Not everyone likes the odor of everyone else's pheromes.
No, everyone has their own perfume. Like I said before, there are
common components in everyone.
>Some people don't even like their own let alone that of others.
Personal preference.
>Its hardly an excuse for circumcision.. >if this is all they can
produce, >they're at the end of the line
'Xactly
>Of course it should be obvious even to you that this isn't all that
"they" can produce.
So far, there is zero _overwhelming_ evidence that circumcision does
anything except put money in a Dr.'s pocket and give people something to
argue about. Reality Check time for you Don. It seems to me that you
are desperately trying to justify something. What I don't know, but
it is eating you up. You seem to be a halfway intelligent man. Why
don't you use your intelligence for something good. Needless surgery is
not good. "Preventive" medicine is not good when it does not prevent
anything or causes other problems. Circumcision may prevent certain
problems such as phimosis, but it can cause Meatal Stenosis. Phimosis
can be cured without surgery, Meatal Stenosis can not. Meatal stenosis
is many times more common than phimosis. Reckon why? Paraphimosis can
be cured also without surgery. Skin bridges can not. Balanoposthisis is
found in both uncircumcised and circumcised. Where is the prevention
here? Penile cancer is said to be prevented by circumcision, but it
is found in old Hebrew and Muslim men at about the same rate as for
uncircumcised men. It is even documented in young neonatally
circumcised men. Phimosis, paraphimosis and balanitis are rare anyway.
STDs are said to be prevented by circumcision but in the US, STDs are
rampant especially in High circumcision rate areas. There are also some
STDs uncommon in uncircumcised men. AIDS is rampant in circumcising
countries but not in non circumcising ones. Sexual dysfunctions are
said to be less in circumcised men. This has been found in only one
study. It was badly flawed. I can go on, but I won't.
This is my reality. Why do you think that I am being unreal? What do
you base this on? Why do you think you are existing in reality? There
is little real substance in what you post. One old tired medical study
does not cut it. Your hyperbole, ad hominem, and other noise does not
hide the truth you have little fact. You are notorious for cutting out
and deleting parts of other people's posts and studies in order to make
them say what you want. This has been pointed out by several others in
this NG and other NGs where you have been posting wildly.
You seem to have an agenda or vendetta or something. When you are shown
to be in error or get caught posting things that you have blasted others
for, you start calling names and trying to belittle them. That my dear
Mr. Morgan is clear signs of an immature person trying to hide the truth
that they are grasping at straws. This is how a 10 year old will act,
not a 65+. An intelligent, stable person, who knows that they are
right does not resort to these tactics.
Mr. Morgan, in the future, please try to act in a manner befitting
your age. It is more becoming. Really not just you, there are
several in here who need to control theirselves. I am not the only one
in this NG who feel this way. I am not the only one who feels that your
reality and attitude need adjusting, anti and pro circumcision. Some
have contacted me through my e-mail in reference to your treatment of
this subject and persons in this NG. Most think that you are unstable
as you flip-flop back and forth anticirc to procirc and back again,
even in the same day. Your hiding behind a fake addy just furthers that
notion. Only cowards and con men hide.
A. Tenkiller
Tenk...@webtv.net
A REAL and working addy
oonelooga tsanilitsogeski gayileyooski
References available upon request.
ten killer
killer) wrote:
If Paul became an instant "reeker" as soon as he hit puberty, don't you
think that the onslaught of hormones might have been the problem?
It might have. It might not have. What use is speculation of this sort?
Don
Well, as puberty hits lots of things happen to the body. You know
that. He hadn't had an odor under his foreskin before, now had he. He
said "after puberty hit".
sonofmoon
Don't you think semen was discharged as puberty hits. As I have tried to
explain dozens of times, semen is broken down on the skin by naturally
existing bacteria.. the base of semen is fructose.. a five carbon sugar, its
there to nourish sperm. Because the foreskin is damp.. the breakdown
products, which have a fishy ordor can end up on ones hands. That is what
smells, not the foreskin. Circumcised men break down semen too, but because
the foreskin is gone.. little moisture is available to allow the break down
products to escape either in air or hands or what have you. Its stinky, but
harmless! If the skin bacteria are reduced and or the semen cleaned out,
depriving the bacteria of its "food".. the so called recycle process ends..
you'd still have residuals or semen under the foreskin, but the odor would
be less because its the degraded products that smell.
Not all men have an odor problem.. its grossly inaccurate to state that the
foreskin STINKS. Its just another ignorant, bigoted slur designed to promote
RIC. But, we're so used to them aren't we?
sonofmoon
tenk...@webtv.net (ten killer) wrote:
> >tenk...@webtv.net (ten killer) wrote:
>
> >Do...@bogus.address.com (Don M.) wrote:
> >While no man has ever told me that he "reeks" within hours of bathing,
> >a few men have told me that the odor (an odor which they deem to be
> unpleasant) is there always, >even immediately after bathing.
>
> >I don't believe it.
And you should not believe it! If a man had a semen flow.. erotic though
etc.. after he washed and he still had some skin bacteria under the
foreskin.. then nature will take its course and chemically break down the
semen. This is why until a boy ejaculates semen, no fishy odor will ever take
place. You cannot prove otherwise! Degraded semen is the source of the odor..
And yes.. this same break down takes place on the penal skins of circumcised
males. The difference is moisture for transmission away from the skin through
rubbing or evaporation etc.. In any event a normal foreskin that is
retractile.. ( and I disagree with those that say a foreskin is normal that
cannot be pulled back freely) hygiene is so simple that it boggles the mind
that this natural albeit smelly process, is so replusive that someone would
recommend or get the foreskin cut. The only valid reason for circumcision is
a phimosis ( in post puberty) that cannot be resolved by more conservative
means. Its a pity that some boys will never enjoy a normal foreskin because
of either a thoughtless circumcision or a defect where the foreskin just
doesn't behave as it should.
Don M.
killer) wrote:
>>tenk...@webtv.net (ten killer) wrote:
>
>>Do...@bogus.address.com (Don M.) wrote:
>>While no man has ever told me that he "reeks" within hours of bathing,
>>a few men have told me that the odor (an odor which they deem to be
>unpleasant) is there always, >even immediately after bathing.
>
>>I don't believe it.
>
>>I don't believe that you don't believe it.
>
>Why? That is the most idiotic statement.
It is no more idiotic than your idiotic statement from which I
copied my statement.
>Why should I believe it?
Why should I believe that you don't believe it?
>I don't care who it is, if they have just washed themselves, no matter
>what part of the body even the anus, it is not going to smell like
>anything but soap.
The fact that you are not aware of something doesn't mean that
you can apply what you are not aware of to what someone else is
aware of. This is one of the most basic and ignorant of reasoning
errors.
FYI, when I was young, my foreskin and penis certainly didn't
"reek" in anything like the manner that the other person
described, but no matter what I washed with (plain water, soap of
various kinds and water) there was an unmistakable and unpleasant
odor associated with my foreskin even immediately after washing.
And that is the fact of the matter. That you refuse to believe it
demonstrates your bias and your stubbornness.
>It is stupid for you to say otherwise/
It is even more stupid for you to pretend to know what doesn't
happen. In fact, attempting to say what never happens or doesn't
exist is one of the most basic and most ignorant of all reasoning
errors.
>>After bathing with what?
>>I can only imagine.
>
>>I believe you that you can _only_ imagine. >(You certainly don't have
>anything in the way of reality to present.)
>
>Why because I can back myself up with recent studies?
Show me a study (or several studies) that say that washing with
soap and water invariably eliminates unpleasant odor associated
with the foreskin, and I'll believe you. Otherwise I will think
that you are just spewing more of the same sort of uninformed BS
that you have spewed in the past.
>Like I said for each procircumcision study that you post and it seems
>that you only can find one, there are numerous anitcircumcision related
>studies available.
I'm calling your bluff. Let's see you find numerous (that means
amounting to a large number, many) anticirc studies to refute
these studies which demonstrate that the foreskin harbors
pathogens:
----------- Begin quoted material -----------
A prospective study of 25 boys who underwent circumcision for
medical reason was performed. Specimens of periurethral
bacterial flora were taken before operation as well as 3 weeks
after surgery, so that each boy acted as his own control. Before
circumcision, 13 (52%) harboured uropathogenic organisms
(Escherichia coli and other coliforms, Enterococcus spp, Proteus
spp, Pseudomonas spp, and Klebsiella spp); after circumcision,
none of the boys had uropathogens, the only organisms cultured
from the periurethral region being skin commensals. We postulate
that circumcision converts a 'cul-de- sac' that is a reservoir
of organisms capable of causing ascending urinary tract
infection into a surface colonised by natural skin organisms.
[Does circumcision alter the periurethral bacterial
flora? Author Wijesinha SS; Atkins BL; Dudley NE; Tam PK Address
Department of Pediatric Surgery, John Radcliffe Hospital,
Oxford, UK. Source Pediatr Surg Int, 1998 Mar, 13:2-3, 146-8]
-----------
BACKGROUND: It has been established that lack of circumcision
increases the risk of urinary tract infection in infants. During
the first six months, the presence of foreskin is associated
with a greater quantity and a higher concentration of
uropathogens in the periurethral area. Very little is known
about this association in older males.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the periurethral bacteriology of
uncircumcised healthy males of more than one year of age.
METHODS: The periurethral area of 125 uncircumcised and 46
circumcised healthy males (mean age, 26.5 and 28.3 years,
respectively) was swabbed and cultured for facultative and
anaerobic bacteria, genital mycoplasmas and Chlamydia
trachomatis.
RESULTS: Facultative Gram positive cocci predominated in both
groups (62% and 80%, respectively). Pure culture of facultative
Gram negative rods was more common in uncircumcised males (17% v
4% in circumcised males, p = 0.01). Streptococci, strict
anaerobes and genital mycoplasmas were found almost exclusively
in uncircumcised males of more than 15 years of age. No case of
C trachomatis was identified.
CONCLUSIONS: The higher prevalence of potential uropathogens in
the subpreputial space is in accordance with a previous finding
of increased risk of urinary tract infection in uncircumcised
young men. Our results also support the role of the prepuce as a
reservoir for sexually transmitted organisms.
[Comparative periurethral bacteriology of uncircumcised and
circumcised males. Author Serour F; Samra Z; Kushel Z;
Gorenstein A; Dan M Address Paediatric Surgery Unit. E Wolfson
Hospital, Holon, Israel. Source Genitourin Med, 1997 Aug, 73:4,
288-90]
-----------
A cross-sectional study and a retrospective study were
performed to determine the frequency of balanitis in a randomly
selected group of dermatology patients. A total of 398 subjects
were included in the cross-sectional study, 213 (53.5%) of whom
had been circumcised. Balanitis was diagnosed in 2.3% of
circumcised men and in 12.5% of uncircumcised men. In patients
with diabetes mellitus, balanitis occurred with a prevalence of
34.8% in the uncircumcised population, compared with 0% in the
circumcised population. Balanitis did occur with increased
frequency in the diabetic population (16%), regardless of
circumcision status, compared with the nondiabetic population
(5.8%). Of 63 circumcisions performed at our institution between
1987 and 1989, 28.6% were for the treatment of balanitis; 44.4%,
for phimosis (which was probably induced by chronic balanitis);
19% in preparation for placement of penile prostheses; and 8%
for miscellaneous reasons. No complications of circumcision were
reported. In this group of patients, balanitis was more frequent
in diabetic than in nondiabetic uncircumcised men (50% vs
15.4%).
[An argument for circumcision. Prevention of balanitis in the
adult. Fakjian N; Hunter S; Cole GW; Miller J Dermatology
Service, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Long Beach, Calif.
90822. Arch Dermatol, 1990 Aug, 126:8, 1046-7]
-----------
We retrieved the records of 20 cases of lichen sclerosus et
atrophicus of the penis from pathology service files at five
metropolitan hospitals. Histologic sections were available for
study in 16 cases. All patient records were available. All cases
except one (that of a 14-year-old boy) occurred in men aged 34
to 77 years. Most of the patients (14) were circumcised for
phimosis, often with meatal stenosis, and the diagnosis was made
on the foreskin specimen. The remaining six patients had already
been circumcised, at ages 32 to 54 years, and had lichen
sclerosus et atrophicus of the glans penis. Therefore in this
series of patients, the condition occurred only in patients
circumcised late in life. This must be considered when a
decision about neonatal circumcision is made.
[Late circumcision and lichen sclerosus et atrophicus of the
penis. Ledwig PA; Weigand DA. Veterans Administration Medical
Center, Oklahoma City, OK. J Am Acad Dermatol, 1989 Feb, 20:2 Pt
1, 211-4]
-----------
The mucosal surface of the human foreskin from newborns shows a
propensity to be colonized by pathogenic bacteria. Bacteria with
P fimbriae and type 1 fimbriae adhere. However, hydrophobic
interaction as well as electrostatic charge appear to be as
important in this adherence as are fimbriae. Since bacterial
adherence has been shown to precede urinary tract infection in
female patients it is assumed that this adherence to the
foreskin in male patients also may be necessary before
initiation of the disease. The high incidence of urinary tract
infection in uncircumcised male patients combined with these
findings of adherence of pathogenic bacteria to the mucosal
surface of the foreskin, thus, would seem to be related.
Prevention of urinary tract infection and acute pyelonephritis
in male neonates then may require either circumcision or the
prevention of bacterial adherence to the human foreskin.
Language of Publication English Unique Identifier 89012269
[Adherence of bacteria to human foreskins. Fussell EN; Kaack
MB; Cherry R; Roberts JA. Department of Urology, Tulane
University School of Medicine, Delta Regional Primate Research
Center, Covington, Louisiana. J Urol, 1988 Nov, 140:5, 997-1001]
-----------
To determine whether bacterial colonization is a factor in the
pathogenesis of urinary tract infection, we compared the
periurethral bacterial flora of uncircumcised versus circumcised
boys during the first year of life. Intraurethral and
circumferential glans cultures were obtained from 25 circumcised
and 25 uncircumcised infants at 2 days, 2 weeks, 2 months, 4
months, 6 months, and 12 months of age. Different children were
used at each age (300 total). The types of bacteria and the
total and specific colony counts were compared. The results of
the glans cultures were similar to those from the urethra.
Uncircumcised boys had significantly higher total colony counts
(p less than 0.003) at all ages except 12 months. Escherichia
coli was present significantly more often (p less than 0.01) in
the urethras of uncircumcised boys at 2 weeks, 2 months, 4
months, and 6 months. Gram-negative uropathogenic organisms
(Klebsiella-enterobacter, Proteus mirabilis, and Pseudomonas
aeruginosa) were cultured more frequently (p less than 0.0005)
from the urethras of uncircumcised boys at 2 months, 4 months,
and 6 months. The specific colony counts for E. coli and the
other uropathogenic organisms were significantly higher (p less
than 0.05) at all ages except 12 months. We conclude that during
the first 6 months of life, the presence of a foreskin is
associated with a greater quantity of periurethral bacteria and
a greater likelihood for the presence of, as well as higher
concentrations of, potentially uropathogenic organisms.
[Title Effect of circumcision status on periurethral bacterial
flora during the first year of life. Author Wiswell TE; Miller
GM; Gelston HM Jr; Jones SK; Clemmings AF Address Department of
Pediatrics, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas.
Source J Pediatr, 1988 Sep, 113:3, 442-6]
-----------
"Swabs were taken for culture from the periurethral area and
urethral meatus in 124 uncircumcised and 60 circumcised boys.
Proteus mirabilis was grown from 28 (22.6%) swabs from
uncircumcised boys and from only one (1.7%) swab from circumcised
boys. This supports the idea that the prepuce may be a source of
proteus urinary tract infection." [Circumcision and periurethral
carriage of Proteus mirabilis in boys." Glennon, Ryan, Keane &
Rees; National Children's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. Arch Dis
Child, 1988 May, 63:5, pp 556-7.]
-----------
Eight hundred forty consecutive male patients were examined for
the presence of pearly penile papules. The age, race and
presence or absence of circumcision were recorded. Two hundred
fifty-three (30.1%) of patients had lesions, and there was a
significantly increased incidence of pearly penile papules in
Negroes and uncircumcised men. A significantly greater
proportion of Negroes were uncircumcised, possibly explaining
the racial difference. The incidence of papules was greatest in
young adults and tended to decrease with increasing age. A
higher percentage of men over 40 had pearly penile papules than
previously reported.
[Pearly penile papules: incidence. Rehbein HM Cutis, 1977 Jan,
19:1, 54-7]
----------- End quoted material -----------
>The one with a reality problem is you.
I may be the one problem with _your_ reality, I'll grant that.
>Oh really? You yourself have posted the statement many times that
>smegma is erradicated by circumcision.
Prove it. Find many quotes where I said smegma is "erradicated
[sic]" (or even eradicated) by circumcision. You can't because I
didn't.
>>The Tyson's glands. located on each side of the frenulum and underneath
>the glans, makes the major components of smegma.
>>Other anticircers who are more knowledgeable than you are claim that
>smegma is not produced by glands but by the natural breakdown and
>sloughing of dead tissue.
>
>ALL medical dictionaries,
You did it again, attempting to state a universal truth as if you
were omniscient, one of the most ignorant and most basic of
reasoning errors.
Well, I've got two medical dictionaries on my desk right now, and
neither of them states that the Tyson's glands produce the major
component of smegma. One of them says that smegma is produced by
the sabaceous glands of the foreskin, however anticircers who
took part on intact-l back when I did say that smegma isn't
produced by glands at all, that this has been found to be untrue
(not that I necessarily believe that they know any better what
they are talking about than you do).
>text books, studies, etc. state PLAINLY
>that the Tyson's glands make the major components of smegma.
All of them? No, not all of them. Wrong.
>Whatever they produce plus dead skin and whatever. Most research states that
>diet can affect the amount of smegma produced as the Tyson glands remove
>fats and impurities in the system.
Remember, I am not the one who disputes that glands, whatever
glands, produce smegma, rather it is your anticirc buddies who
dispute it.
>>These are not removed in a circumcision.
>>Sometimes the mucosa and the frenum in this area are, in fact, removed
>by circumcision.
>
>Do you know where the Tyson glands are? The part of the mucosa where
>they are located would be difficult to remove.
Perhaps difficult but not impossible. In any case, you said this:
"The Tyson's glands. located on each side of the frenulum and
underneath the glans, makes the major components of smegma.
These are not removed in a circumcision. This shows how little
real research he does."
This statement of yours proves beyond the shadow of a doubt just
how far out on a limb you are willing to go with nothing
whatsoever to back you up. Fact: some circumcisions do remove the
frenulum and the mucosa in the area of the frenulum.
>>This shows how little real research he does.
Fact: I have researched the subject of circumcision for approx.
50 years (likely more years than you have been alive).
>>Never mind that you are the one who doesn't know what he/she is talking
>about here.
>
>Why do you say that? I have backed everything that I have said up.
You have backed up almost nothing that you have said except with
more unfounded assertions and vague references to books and
studies which you don't produce.
Here are some statements that you have made which I challenge you
to back up with something other than another statement of your
opinion:
1.) Healthy tissue is never harmful.
2.) Nature never gives us anything we don't need.
3.) If removing a body part was better in the long run than
keeping it, Nature would have removed it long ago. That is why
we still have tonsils, an appendix, a foreskin.
4.) After so long a time circumcising the Jews should be born
without foreskins if evolution is to be believed.
5.) I just looked at the statement made by the AAP committe [sic]
posted on Pubmed. It states "potential" benefits for
circumcision. [In other words, look at the rest of the 1989
statement and the other AAP statements and prove that they don't
ever say "benefits" without the "potential"--you can't, because
they do.]
6.) ... rarely are the risks explained.
7.) the HARMS of circumcision are GREAT.
8.) Cancer is not given to us by Nature.
9.) He don't think that circumcised men make smegma.
10.) I don't care who it is, if they have just washed
themselves, no matter what part of the body even the anus, it
is not going to smell like anything but soap. It is stupid for
you to say otherwise.
11.) Like I said for each procircumcision study that you post
and it seems that you only can find one, there are numerous
anitcircumcision [sic] related studies available.
12.) You yourself have posted the statement many times that
smegma is erradicated [sic] by circumcision.
13.) Only cowards and con men hide.
14.) ALL medical dictionaries, text books, studies, etc. state
PLAINLY that the Tyson's glands make the major components of
smegma.
15.) So far, there is zero _overwhelming_ evidence that
circumcision does anything except put money in a Dr.'s pocket and
give people something to argue about.
16.) [Re: the musk from a muskdeer [sic] is found underneath the
foreskin.] It is in any perfumology book, biology book, zoology
book, encylopedia [sic] etc.
>So far, there is zero _overwhelming_ evidence that circumcision does
>anything except put money in a Dr.'s pocket and give people something to
>argue about.
One can qualify any phrase to make it sound good and to make it
more or less irrefutable. For example, "So far, there is zero
_overwhelming_ evidence that a normal circumcision has any major
drawbacks other than giving anticircers something to rant and
rave about."
>Reality Check time for you Don. It seems to me that you
>are desperately trying to justify something. What I don't know, but
>it is eating you up.
The only part of your statement that accords with reality is "I
don't know."
>You seem to be a halfway intelligent man.
You are incapable of judging who is and isn't intelligent.
>Why don't you use your intelligence for something good.
I do, on a daily basis. One of those good things I do is to
counteract some of the ignorant misinformation put out by
anticircers such as you.
>Needless surgery is not good.
Sometimes, it is. And, in any case, there is hardly any specific
surgery or any specific medical procedure that is strictly
necessary.
>"Preventive" medicine is not good when it does not prevent
>anything or causes other problems.
Not universally true.
>Circumcision may prevent certain problems such as phimosis, but
>it can cause Meatal Stenosis.
True. The question is whether the medical/health benefits and
advantages outweigh the risks and disadvantages. The evidence is
on the side of circumcision. On the other hand, there is also an
individual rights issue. Therefore, it is reasonable either for
parents to decide to circumcise or to decide to not circumcise,
depending on what they feel most important.
>Phimosis can be cured without surgery,
Not always.
>Meatal Stenosis can not. Meatal stenosis is many times more common
>than phimosis. Reckon why?
I reckon that I know what _you_ think the reason, but the fact is
that I know a child who is uncircumcised and had to undergo a
meatotomy.
>Paraphimosis can be cured also without surgery.
Not always.
>Skin bridges can not. Balanoposthisis is found in both uncircumcised and circumcised.
Not unless the circumcision left too much tissue.
>Where is the prevention here?
Who mentioned prevention other than you? What I say is that
circumcision reduces the risk of specific problems.
>Penile cancer is said to be prevented by circumcision,
Not by me.
>but it is found in old Hebrew and Muslim men at about the same rate as for
>uncircumcised men. It is even documented in young neonatally
>circumcised men.
The majority of studies which correlate penile cancer and
circumcision find that neonatal circumcision offers something
like a 70% reduction in the risk of acquiring penile cancer.
>Phimosis, paraphimosis and balanitis are rare anyway.
>STDs are said to be prevented by circumcision but in the US,
Not by me.
>STDs are rampant especially in High circumcision rate areas. There
>are also some STDs uncommon in uncircumcised men. AIDS is rampant
>in circumcising countries but not in non circumcising ones. Sexual dysfunctions are
>said to be less in circumcised men. This has been found in only one
>study. It was badly flawed.
Oh, of course. The studies which support your viewpoint are not
flawed, but the one real study that we have that supports that
circumcised men are somewhat *less* likely to suffer sexual
dysfunction is "badly flawed."
>I can go on,
Of course you could go on spewing your anticirc litany BS.
>but I won't.
Thank you.
>This is my reality. Why do you think that I am being unreal? What do
>you base this on? Why do you think you are existing in reality? There
>is little real substance in what you post. One old tired medical study
>does not cut it. Your hyperbole, ad hominem, and other noise does not
>hide the truth you have little fact. You are notorious for cutting out
>and deleting parts of other people's posts and studies in order to make
>them say what you want. This has been pointed out by several others in
>this NG and other NGs where you have been posting wildly.
>You seem to have an agenda or vendetta or something. When you are shown
>to be in error or get caught posting things that you have blasted others
>for, you start calling names and trying to belittle them. That my dear
>Mr. Morgan is clear signs of an immature person trying to hide the truth
>that they are grasping at straws. This is how a 10 year old will act,
>not a 65+. An intelligent, stable person, who knows that they are
>right does not resort to these tactics.
Your hypocritical ad hominem diatribe is noted.
>Only cowards and con men hide.
I don't "hide" behind a fake "addy," Tenkller. Anyone who wants
to contact me can do so by following the instructions (unless, of
course, it is too complicated for them to follow. Is that your
problem?).
Don
*** Sorry for the inconvenience, but in an effort to completely
thwart SPAM, I do not post my actual e-mail address (or even a
distorted version of it). If you want to e-mail me, say so in a
post to alt.anonymous.messages and make the subject:
"Attn. Don M." and I'll likely respond with an e-mail.***
Centure
>From: sonofmoon <coon...@my-dejanews.com>
>Date: Sat, Feb 6, 1999 22:18 EST
>Message-id: <79j0m8$1pb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
>Not all men have an odor problem.. its grossly inaccurate to state that the
>foreskin STINKS. Its just another ignorant, bigoted slur designed to promote
>RIC. But, we're so used to them aren't we?
Thus the real reason for coontails urgent need of a fire hydrant!
sonofmoon
Just trying to be truthful, Centure. Did the professor send you Prince
Andrew yet?
Dave
> But in the absence of any substance in their arguments, what
> else can they do?
Wadi: Next time do remember to add "in my opinion", because you're
probably the only person capable of believing the crap that you spew.
Craig Wagner
No need to say this. I'm certain Don M will point this out to him.
wadi
> (The same could, and doubtless will by
>"Wadi", be said for parents who circumcise - until the kid learns what
>circumcision does. Some, like "Wadi", are *determined* not to.)
>
Ok, lets hear it about what "circumcision does" then.
ten killer
going to be a long one. I have been really busy living my life (some of
us do have a life) and have not had time to work on it as much as I
want. As I have said, there are numerous anticircumcision studies for
every procircumcision study. My posts will all be without any
deletions or additions to make them say what I want.
tenkiller
ten killer
& Paste accidentally left out one important sentence. It was the last
sentence of the body of the study. The same study abstract posted on
PubMed Medline was cut and pasted by me below. Anyone can go to Pubmed
and see this is a direct quote without editing. The one Don posted is
below the line which he typed himself with the words " Begin quoted
material". Does quoting also include deleting what he feels is not
appropriate for his cause?
The actual abstract quoted DIRECTLY from PubMed, posted by Tenkiller:
Does circumcision alter the periurethral bacterial flora?
Wijesinha SS, Atkins BL, Dudley NE, Tam PK
Department of Pediatric Surgery, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
A prospective study of 25 boys who underwent circumcision for medical
reason was performed. Specimens of periurethral bacterial flora were
taken before operation as well as 3 weeks after surgery, so that each
boy acted as his own control. Before circumcision, 13 (52%) harboured
uropathogenic organisms (Escherichia coli and other coliforms,
Enterococcus spp, Proteus spp, Pseudomonas spp, and Klebsiella spp);
after circumcision, none of the boys had uropathogens, the only
organisms cultured from the periurethral region being skin commensals.
We postulate that circumcision converts a 'cul-de-sac' that is a
reservoir of organisms capable of causing ascending urinary tract
infection into a surface colonised by natural skin organisms. This study
provides circumstantial evidence supporting the idea that circumcision
in well-selected patients may confer protection from urine infection.
PMID: 9563029, UI: 98224127 the above report in format documents on
this page through Loansome Doc
Don's version begins here:
----------- Begin quoted material -----------
Wijesinha SS, Atkins BL, Dudley NE, Tam PK
Department of Pediatric Surgery, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
A prospective study of 25 boys who underwent circumcision for medical
reason was performed. Specimens of periurethral bacterial flora were
taken before operation as well as 3 weeks after surgery, so that each
boy acted as his own control. Before circumcision, 13 (52%) harboured
uropathogenic organisms (Escherichia coli and other coliforms,
Enterococcus spp, Proteus spp, Pseudomonas spp, and Klebsiella spp);
after circumcision, none of the boys had uropathogens, the only
organisms cultured from the periurethral region being skin commensals.
We postulate that circumcision converts a 'cul-de-sac' that is a
reservoir of organisms capable of causing ascending urinary tract
infection into a surface colonised by natural skin organisms. [Does
circumcision alter the periurethral bacterial flora? Author Wisjesinha
SS; Atkins BL; Dudley NE; Tam PK Address Department of Pediatric
Surgery, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK. Source Pediatr Surg
Int, 1998 Mar, 13:2-3, 146-8]
end
Notice that the one sentence that somehow did not make it through his
"Cut and Paste" kinda pulls the supports out from under his argument.
"This study provides circumstantial evidence supporting the idea that
circumcision in well-selected patients may confer protection from urine
infection." The inclusion of the word "circumstantial" says that this
study has no concrete proof of anything. Therefore the study is
useless. Don is posting it as hard proof that Uncircumcised men are
more prone to UTIs.
It is only circumstantial proof, not admissable in any court.
Tenkiller (BTW is my real name)
ten killer
studies about UTIs on the anticircumcision side as there is on the pro
side. Below are 9. There are no additions or deletions from the
origional. If you need more, I will be glad to get them for you.
Begin acurately quoted material
1.
J Urol 1992 Aug;148(2 Pt 2):733-6; discussion 737-8 Pyelonephritis in
male infants: how important is the foreskin? Rushton HG, Majd M
Department of Urology, Children's National Medical Center, Washington,
D.C. 20010. We investigated the association of the uncircumcised
foreskin and pyelonephritis in male infants less than 6 months old.
During a 21-month prospective study 94 children (age range 2 weeks to
18.9 years) were hospitalized for febrile urinary tract infection. The
male-to-female ratio for 35 patients less than 6 months old was 2.2:1.
Of 59 patients older than 6 months the male-to-female ratio was reversed
at 0.25:1 (p less than 0.001). In 13 of 24 infants (54%) less than 6
months old and in 8 of 12 boys (67%) older than 6 months a
dimercaptosuccinic acid renal scan documented acute parenchymal damage
(p = 0.72). Vesicoureteral reflux or other genitourinary abnormalities
were found in only 3 of 24 patients (12.5%) less than 6 months old
compared with 6 of 12 boys (50%) older than 6 months (p = 0.036). Of 24
infants less than 6 months old 22 (92%) were uncircumcised compared with
6 of 12 boys (50%) older than 6 months (p = 0.009). We then
retrospectively compared the circumcision status of the infants who had
febrile urinary tract infection with a control group of 63 infants
matched for age, race and socioeconomic status hospitalized with febrile
upper respiratory infection during a similar period. The frequency of
uncircumcised infants in the control group with febrile upper
respiratory infection was only 44% (28 of 63) compared with 91% of
infants with febrile urinary tract infection (p less than 0.001).
Overall the findings of the male predominance among patients less than 6
months old with febrile urinary tract infection, the disproportionately
high frequency of infants with febrile urinary tract infection who were
not circumcised, and the disproportionately low occurrence of
vesicoureteral reflux and other genitourinary abnormalities in infants
with febrile urinary tract infection strongly support an association
between circumcision status and the risk for febrile urinary tract
infection and pyelonephritis in male infants. PMID: 1640557, UI:
92349547 the above report in format documents on this page through
Loansome Doc
______________________________________
2.
Lancet 1998 Dec 5;352(9143):1813-6
Cohort study on circumcision of newborn boys and subsequent risk of
urinary-tract infection. To T, Agha M, Dick PT, Feldman W Population
Health Sciences, Research Institute, Hospital for Sick Children,
Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Toronto, Ontario,
Canada. tere...@sickkids.on.ca BACKGROUND: A decrease in risk of
urinary-tract infection is one of the most commonly given reasons for
circumcision of newborn boys. Previous studies have reported rates of
UTI to be 10-20 times higher in uncircumcised than in circumcised boys.
This population-based cohort study followed neonates in Ontario, Canada,
prospectively to study the relation between circumcision and subsequent
UTI risk. METHODS: Eligible boys were born to residents of Ontario
between April 1, 1993, and March 31, 1994. We used hospital discharge
data to follow up boys until March 31, 1996. FINDINGS: Of 69,100
eligible boys, 30,105 (43.6%) were circumcised and 38,995 (56.4%)
uncircumcised. 888 boys circumcised after the first month of life were
excluded. 29,217 uncircumcised boys were matched to the remaining
circumcised boys by date of birth. The 1-year probabilities of hospital
admission for UTI were 1.88 per 1000 person-years of observation (83
cases up to end of follow-up) in the circumcised cohort and 7.02 per
1000 person-years (247 cases up to end of follow-up) in the
uncircumcised cohort (p<0.0001). The estimated relative risk of
admission for UTI by first-year follow-up indicated a significantly
higher risk for uncircumcised boys than for circumcised boys (3.7
[2.8-4.9]). 195 circumcisions would be needed to prevent one hospital
admission for UTI in the first year of life. INTERPRETATION: Although
our findings support the notion that circumcision may protect boys from
UTI, the magnitude of this effect may be less than previously estimated.
PMID: 9851381, UI: 99066706 the above report in format documents on this
page through Loansome Doc
______________________________________
3.
Clin Pediatr (Phila) 1992 Feb;31(2):100-4 Circumcision: is the risk of
urinary tract infection really the pivotal issue? Chessare JB Department
of Pediatrics, Medical College of Ohio, Toledo 43699. Recent information
regarding the increased risk of urinary tract infections in the first
year of life for uncircumcised boys has created confusion regarding the
appropriate guidance to be given to parents confronting the circumcision
issue. A decision model was built that addressed the question of whether
or not to circumcise a newborn male considering the probability of a
non-circumcised boy having a UTI in the first year of life (0.041), the
probability of a circumcised boy having a UTI in the first year of life
(0.002), and the likelihood of renal scarring from a UTI (0.075). After
considering the morbidity associated with the procedure, all possible
outcomes were ranked from worst to best (circumcised-renal pathology to
uncircumcised-no infection) and given a value on a 0 to 1 scale. For the
set of values assigned to the outcomes, the choice of no circumcision
yielded the highest expected utility. For the set of assigned utilities,
sensitivity analysis showed that unless the probability of a UTI in the
first year of life for an uncircumcised male was greater than or equal
to 0.29, then non-circumcision was still the preferred choice. The
decision was most sensitive to the degree of aversion to the morbidity
associated with the procedure (pain, bleeding, inflammation). PMID:
1544271, UI: 92183404 the above report in format documents on this page
through Loansome Doc
_____________________________________
4.
Br J Vener Dis 1977 Apr;53(2):121-2
Yeasts and circumcision in the male.
Davidson F
Sixty-six circumcised men and 69 uncircumcised men, both heterosexual
and homosexual, had specimens taken from the coronal sulcus and meatus
of the penis. Yeasts were isolated at similar rates in both the
circumcised (14%) and uncircumcised (17%) men. The circumcised men had
significantly fewer symptoms (P = 0-0058). Therefore the female partners
of both circumcised and uncircumcised men are exposed to similar rates
of yeast infection despite the absence of symptoms in circumcised men.
Eighty per cent of the female contacts of yeast-positive men had yeast
infection while 32% of the contacts of yeast-negative men were affected.
This difference was statistically significant (0-05 greater than P
greater than 0-025). Men with non-specific genital infection seemed more
likely to carry yeasts than men with gonorrhoea or normal men. PMID:
322822, UI: 77159348 the above report in format documents on this page
through Loansome Doc
______________________________________
5.
Isr J Med Sci 1996 Nov;32(11):1098-102
Urinary tract infection following ritual Jewish circumcision. Goldman M,
Barr J, Bistritzer T, Aladjem M Department of Pediatrics, Assaf Harofeh
Medical Center, Israel. Circumcision seems to reduce the overall
incidence of urinary tract infections (UTI), although a few studies have
suggested that ritual circumcision may be a predisposing factor for UTI
within the first 2 weeks following the procedure. The aim of this study
was to investigate a possible causal relationship between ritual
circumcision and UTI. The study comprised 82 infants with UTI, 55
females and 27 males under the age of 1 year. All males were circumcised
on the eighth day of life. The median age of infection was 0.75 and 7.0
months for males and females, respectively. Fifty-two percent (14/27) of
UTI episodes were diagnosed within the 2 weeks following circumcision. A
significantly lower incidence in Escherichia coli-induced UTI was
observed in males compared to females, 67% and 93%, respectively.
Similarly, the incidence of E. coli-induced UTI was also significantly
lower in males presenting within 2 weeks following circumcision (57%)
compared to infants presenting prior or more than 2 weeks following the
procedure (92%). Positive blood cultures of an identical microorganism
were observed in 6/27 males compared to 2/55 females. The incidence of
urinary tract malformations and their severity were similar in both
sexes. We conclude that the high incidence of UTI following a ritual
Jewish circumcision, as well as the relatively high preponderance of
bacteria other than E. coli, may suggest a causal relationship between
circumcision and UTI. PMID: 8960080, UI: 97119257 the above report in
format documents on this page through Loansome Doc
______________________________________
6.
Am J Public Health 1987 Apr;77(4):452-4
Circumcision as a risk factor for urethritis in racial groups. Smith GL,
Greenup R, Takafuji ET
A retrospective population-based case-control study of sexually
transmitted urethritis was conducted at a large military base over a
21-month period. During the study, 9,514 patients were seen for sexually
transmitted disease. The analysis was restricted to active duty males
and showed that Blacks had 14.8 times the incidence rate of gonococcal
urethritis (GCU) and 4.7 times the rate of nongonococcal urethritis
(NGU) compared to Whites. There were slightly fewer cases of NGU than
GCU. A case-control study of active duty soldiers showed that both Black
and White circumcised subjects were 1.65 times as likely to have NGU as
uncircumcised subjects (95% CI: 1.37-2.00). However, circumcision was
not associated with an increased incidence of GCU. PMID: 3826463, UI:
87154067 the above report in format documents on this page through
Loansome Doc
______________________________________
7.
Am J Med 1984 Feb;76(2):257-62
Is the clean-catch midstream void procedure necessary for obtaining
urine culture specimens from men? Lipsky BA, Inui TS, Plorde JJ, Berger
RE To determine whether the results of voided urine cultures in men are
affected by meatal cleansing, midstream sampling, or circumcision
status, 308 paired (initial and midstream) specimens were collected from
254 urology clinic patients. Half of the patients cleansed their
urethral meatus with povidone-iodine prior to voiding. The circumcision
status of all patients was noted. The rates of true bacteriuria (growth
of 10(4) or greater colony-forming units/ml urine with a single
predominant species) and contamination (growth of 10(3) or greater
colony-forming units/ml urine with two or more colonial types) were
compared in the various collection technique subgroups. Neither the
bacteriuria nor contamination rates were significantly different (p
greater than 0.05) in circumcised and uncircumcised patients, or in
those who cleansed their meatus and those who did not. Contamination,
but not bacteriuria, rates were higher in initial as compared with
midstream specimens. These data suggest that the clean-catch midstream
void procedure is unnecessary for obtaining routine voided urine culture
specimens from men. PMID: 6695949, UI: 84125391 the above report in
format documents on this page through Loansome Doc
______________________________________
8.
Circumcision May Not Be As Significant In Reducing UTI Risk As
Previously Thought LONDON, ENGLAND -- Dec. 4, 1998 -- Researchers in
Canada report in this week's issue of The Lancet this week that
circumcision of new-born boys does lower the risk of infections of the
urinary tract (UTI: bladder and kidneys) during the first three years of
life, but that the magnitude of this effect may be less than previously
estimated. A lower risk of UTI is one of the most commonly given reasons
to support circumcision of new-born baby boys. Dr. Teresa To and
colleagues, from the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Institute for
Clinical Evaluative Sciences, and the University of Toronto, studied
nearly 60,000 boys born in Ontario between April 1993 and March 1994.
There were 29,217 babies circumcised before the age of one month. They
were each matched to an uncircumcised boy with the same date of birth.
Hospital discharge data were used to identify all children with UTI
admitted to hospital up to March 1996. There were 83 cases of UTI among
the circumcised boys during the follow-up period, compared with 247
among those who had not been circumcised. The risk of UTI was 3 (seven
times higher in the uncircumcised boys). However, the researchers
calculated that to prevent one admission for UTI, 195 boys would have to
undergo the procedure of circumcision. Previous studies have suggested
that uncircumcised boys have a risk of UTI 4 (eight to 39 times higher
than circumcised boys). However, the groups of babies studied in the
previous investigations were not as representative of the general
population as the large group studied by Dr. To and colleagues. For
example, some of the studies were based on infants born in US Army
hospitals. Related Links: The Lancet
Doctor's Guide General Medicine News Page All contents Copyright (c)
1998 P\S\L Consulting Group Inc. All rights reserved.
__________________________________
9.
Cultural Bias and the Urinary Tract Infection (UTI) Circumcision
Controversy
Martin S. Altshul
Recently much discussion in the circumcision controversy has centered on
the issue of infant urinary tract infections (UTI). This is largely a
technical question but it has some bearing on the larger ethical and
social issues of routine newborn circumcision. In order to discuss
infant UTI intelligently, it is first necessary to understand that
childhood UTI is in general a difficult and confusing diagnosis. If a
careful physician and an adult patient have a telephone conversation
that leads to the diagnosis of UTI the diagnosis will usually, though
not always, be correct. But if the same conversation passes between the
physician and the parent of a healthy preschool girl, the UTI
diagnosis has, in my experience, an 80% chance of being wrong. The
comparable figures for a preschool boy approaches 95%. Even if a boy
is examined and a urine specimen is obtained, UTI misdiagnosis rates are
still substantial because of the difficulty of obtaining "clean" urine
specimens from small children. The physician who wishes to avoid
mistakes either of over or underdiagnosis must be prepared to make
the best possible initial diagnosis (UTI or not UTI) and then mistrust
his (her) first impression sufficiently to make the correct diagnosis in
the end. This caveat applies both to individual clinical cases and to
research projects.
This brings us to newborn circumcision, a surgical procedure that is now
alleged to prevent UTI. Until recently the state of medical "common
knowledge" regarding infant male was as follows: In all age groups
except early infancy, females have a much higher rate of UTI than males.
Male infants are more likely to be born with abnormalities of the
urinary tract. Although such abnormalities are rare they are the
predominant cause of infant UTI. Infant UTI is therefore a serious
condition that often requires surgical correction of the underlying
cause.
Now enter Dr. Thomas Wiswell, Army pediatrician who did a prospective
study of UTI in infants, targeting the role, if any, of circumcision.
The result, which drew widespread attention both inside and outside the
medical community, was that the uncircumcised boys appeared to have
twenty times as many UTI's as the circumcised ones (4% vs. 0.2%).
Obviously this result does not fit with our "common knowledge." A
condition with 4% incidence is no longer rare. And perhaps more
disturbing, the crucial connection between UTI and urinary birth defects
is broken. Circumcision could conceivably prevent UTI but it cannot
prevent birth defects without violating Einstein's Law of Relativity.
Because of these concerns and others of a similar technical nature, a
controversy erupted over Wiswell's result, and Wiswell responded with
more data by doing an indirect review of all available hospitalized Army
cases. This review also showed a twentytoone ratio between the two
groups of boys but with different rates (1.0% and 0.05%). I then did a
similar review in Northwest Permanente Hospitals. I found not a similar
confirmed case of UTI in a normal male infant. All of the confirmed
cases occurred in infants who had clearcut urinary birth defects. Not
only is my result dramatically different from Wiswell's, my result is
perfectly consistent with "common knowledge." Now "common knowledge" can
be wrong - flat earth and so on. But we must never jump to the
conclusion that it is wrong without hard evidence. In the present case,
we have some unconfirmed evidence of infants with bacteria in their
urine. The evidence that the infants are actually harmed by these
bacteria is practically nonexistent. Indeed, if Wiswell's 4% figure was
correct, there would have been 80 uncircumcised boys with UTI in my
study. What happened to these patients if they never got diagnosed? They
didn't die, they didn't turn up with sepsis (blood poisoning or
meningitis, they didn't have kidney transplants. It might be supposed
that the undiagnosed babies turn up as adults with urinary problems, but
neither scientific evidence nor "common knowledge" supports this notion.
It is "common knowledge" that girls who have recurrent UTI in childhood
and are "lost to followup" in adolescence sometimes turn up in adulthood
with serious kidney problems. The closest we get to this in the medical
lore of the male is that middleaged men often suffer urinary problems
due to teenage gonorrhea.
We are a long way from understanding the relationship if any, between
infant UTI and circumcision.
The incidence of UTI seems to vary widely depending on whether the
investigator passively collects cases or goes fishing for them. How then
can this confusing and ambiguous scientific question be factored into
the larger social and ethical controversy over the legitimacy of routine
newborn circumcision. I believe that one must start by establishing a
basis for the discussion that is free from cultural bias. Although the
numbers vary somewhat, the U.S. is about 75% circumcised in the
postwar period. However, white middle class "baby boomers are almost
all circumcised. It is not so long ago since the "routine" circumcision
was "Routine" with a capital "R," done without discussion or parental
consent. Many parents still expect it to be done this way. Also the
(male) physicians in the U.S. who discuss this issue are almost all
circumcised. It is therefore inevitable that these circumcised
physicians have an "I'm OK, you're OK" attitude about the state of being
circumcised. I can vividly recall seeing a Hispanic boy with an intact
foreskin about 30 years ago. I thought he had a weird abnormal growth.
Bible stories not withstanding, it took me a couple of years to figure
out the truth. In an attempt to escape this bias, I have put newborn
(male) circumcision on a list of primitive cultural practices that can
be discussed together.
Starting with the most obnoxious:
Castration
Foot binding
Radical female circumcision or infibulation Scarification
Ubangi lip stretching
Limited female circumcision
Male circumcision
Mayan head deformation
Maori tattooing
Ear and nose piercing.
It takes awhile for the white middle class American physician to digest
the fact that newborn (male) circumcision fits on this list. It also
takes awhile to digest the fact that circumcision was introduced into
this country not as physical hygiene measure but as a mental hygiene
measure to prevent masturbation. In this context, male circumcision was
promulgated in the same breath with clitoridectomy (removal of the
clitoris) and frontal lobotomy.
When an American physician says that circumcision prevents UTI or cancer
of the penis he is sincere. But is like a medieval Chinese physician
saying that foot binding prevents flat feet. If someone asks me, what
rate of preventable UTI would justify routine male circumcision?" I
respond by asking, What rate of preventable UTI would justify routine
female circumcision?" The second question is patently absurd unless
one's cultural bias allows a sympathetic view of female circumcision.
Therefore, the first question can be only slightly less absurd. To put
it another way, if newborn circumcision were introduced as a new
procedure, it would have to be proven "safe and effective." It is
conceivable that circumcision could be proven effective, i.e., that the
significant UTI prevented might exceed the the significant complications
of the procedure. But to prove safety, it is necessary to prove that
that circumcision does not interfere with the sexual functioning of the
penis. In the "I'm OK, you're Ok," culturallybased discussion, this
point is easily overlooked. For example one hears the following
argument:
The foreskin may have been useful to early man who ran naked through the
brambles but modern man wears clothes and has no need of the thing, so
he might as well get rid of it and cut down the cancer risk. My response
to the argument is a slight change in the wording: Breasts may have been
useful to early woman who had no choice but to suckle her babes. But
modern woman has many infant feeding options and therefore has no
absolute need of breasts. She might as well get rid of them and cut down
the cancer risk.
Incidentally, breast cancer is 5,000 times more common than foreskin
cancer. Ounce for ounce, the rate might be the same. Finally, what is
the relationship between the cultural bias in this country and the
religious aspect of circumcision? The history of religious circumcision
contains some positive elements. It appears that circumcision spread in
the early Hebraic period as part of a campaign of religious reform that
suppressed pagan religions that suppressed human sacrifice. Medieval
Jewish writings specifically denied any hygienic function for
circumcision. Jewish physicians were forbidden by law to perform
"secular" circumcisions of gentiles. Therefore the promulgation of
secular circumcision in this country from 1880 to 1950 cannot have been
a "Jewish activity."
On the other hand, the modern secular Jew likes to explain religious law
as a reflection of practical considerations: The eating of pork was
forbidden because pigs carry Trichinosis. This statement probably does
not contain a grain of historical truth, but its tidy logic is
appealing. So we may just as well say: (1930 version)
Biblical circumcision was performed in order to improve penile hygiene
and prevent venereal disease.
or
(1890 version)
Biblical circumcision was performed in order to prevent wicked
masturbation and the mental illness that it causes. Any day now I expect
to see the following update in print: (1990 version)
Biblical circumcision was performed in order to decrease the risk of
contracting AIDS.
It is a mistake for Jews, Christians, or Moslems to buy into the notion
that these secular arguments are a legitimate part of their cultural
heritage.
Martin S. Altschul, MD, received his doctorate in medicine from The
Johns Hopkins University Medical School; an M.S. degree in statistics
from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and is currently a staff
pediatrician at the Northwest Region Kaiser Foundation Hospital, Salem,
Oregon.
This article originally appeared in The Truthseeker, July/August 1989,
pp. 4345.
Don M.
(ten killer) wrote:
>On Sun, Feb 7, 1999 DonM posted a study which for some reason, his Cut
>& Paste accidentally left out one important sentence.
No, my cut and paste didn't leave out one important sentence. I
am not infallible and I have no idea why that sentence isn't
there. The fact is, that my point is better made with that
missing sentence in place, therefore I thank you for posting it.
I have now added it to the abstract as it was on my HD and it
will be there in the future.
[snipped all but last sentence of abstract, which follows]
"This study provides circumstantial evidence supporting the idea
that circumcision in well-selected patients may confer protection
from urine infection."
[snipped my version which omitted the above sentence]
>Notice that the one sentence that somehow did not make it through his
>"Cut and Paste" kinda pulls the supports out from under his argument.
On the contrary, it adds additional support to my argument. That
you don't see that makes you seem either ignorant or less than
honest.
>"This study provides circumstantial evidence supporting the idea that
>circumcision in well-selected patients may confer protection from urine
>infection." The inclusion of the word "circumstantial" says that this
>study has no concrete proof of anything.
With that bit of nonsense, you prove beyond the shadow of a doubt
that you do not understand the significance of the findings in
such studies or that you are purposefully intending to deceive.
ALL such findings are circumstantial until and if causation can
be proven. "Circumstantial evidence" and "statistically
correlated" are more or less synonymous.
If circumstantial meant in this case what you say that it does,
then it would contradict the conclusion of the study, it would
contradict the title of the study, and it would make the
publication of the study a complete waste.
>Therefore the study is useless.
Don't you wish.
>Don is posting it as hard proof that Uncircumcised men are
>more prone to UTIs.
Don is doing no such thing. You are piss poor as a mind-reader.
>It is only circumstantial proof, not admissable in any court.
This isn't the context of law or a court. This is a medical
research study.
>Tenkiller (BTW is my real name)
Don Morgan are my real names. So what?
Don M.
(ten killer) wrote:
>Don, here is the first installment on my reply to you. There are more
>studies about UTIs on the anticircumcision side as there is on the pro
>side.
Unless you were aware of all the studies in existence, and I know
that you are not, you could not make such a statement and be
certain that it were true. This didn't stop you from doing so, of
course. Like so many anticirc fanatics, you seem to think that
you are omniscient.
>Below are 9. There are no additions or deletions from the
>origional.
>If you need more, I will be glad to get them for you.
I have posted more than two dozen studies showing a connection
between UTIs and circumcision status. Inasmuch as it is your
claim that you can post "several" for every one of mine, you will
need at post at least 73 supporting that there isn't such a
connection.
Nine is not at all impressive.
>Begin acurately quoted material
>
>1.
In case you didn't notice, number 1. supports my point.
>J Urol 1992 Aug;148(2 Pt 2):733-6; discussion 737-8 Pyelonephritis in
>male infants: how important is the foreskin? Rushton HG, Majd M
>Department of Urology, Children's National Medical Center, Washington,
>D.C. 20010.
[snipped all but significant sentence]
>... the disproportionately high frequency of infants with
>febrile urinary tract infection who were not circumcised, and
>the disproportionately low occurrence of vesicoureteral reflux
>and other genitourinary abnormalities in infants with febrile
>urinary tract infection strongly support an association between
>circumcision status and the risk for febrile urinary tract
>infection and pyelonephritis in male infants. PMID: 1640557,
>UI: 92349547 the above report in format documents on this page
>through Loansome Doc
TenKiller: note: "Strongly support an association between
circumcision status and the risk of febrile urinary tract
infection and pyelonephritis in male infants."
Why are you posting this? To prove that you are an idiot or what?
This one counts for me. You are down to eight.
>______________________________________
>2.
>Lancet 1998 Dec 5;352(9143):1813-6
>Cohort study on circumcision of newborn boys and subsequent risk of
>urinary-tract infection. To T, Agha M, Dick PT, Feldman W Population
>Health Sciences, Research Institute, Hospital for Sick Children,
>Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Toronto, Ontario,
>Canada.
[snipped all but important part]
>FINDINGS: Of 69,100
>eligible boys, 30,105 (43.6%) were circumcised and 38,995 (56.4%)
>uncircumcised. 888 boys circumcised after the first month of life were
>excluded. 29,217 uncircumcised boys were matched to the remaining
>circumcised boys by date of birth. The 1-year probabilities of hospital
>admission for UTI were 1.88 per 1000 person-years of observation (83
>cases up to end of follow-up) in the circumcised cohort and 7.02 per
>1000 person-years (247 cases up to end of follow-up) in the
>uncircumcised cohort (p<0.0001). The estimated relative risk of
>admission for UTI by first-year follow-up indicated a significantly
>higher risk for uncircumcised boys than for circumcised boys (3.7
>[2.8-4.9]). 195 circumcisions would be needed to prevent one hospital
>admission for UTI in the first year of life. INTERPRETATION: Although
>our findings support the notion that circumcision may protect boys from
>UTI, the magnitude of this effect may be less than previously estimated.
>PMID: 9851381, UI: 99066706 the above report in format documents on this
>page through Loansome Doc
This one also supports that there is a connection between
circumcision status and risk of UTIs, although it isn't as large
a correlation as was found by other researchers.
You are down to seven. And I'm beginning to wonder if you can
read.
The above study supports that a circumcision based solely on
prevention of UTIs based in turn on the subjective scale assigned
by these authors to the various morbidities favors no
circumcision. It does not dispute that circumcision status and
risk of UTIs are correlated.
You are down to six. And now I'm quite sure that you are either
incapable of reading correctly or of understanding what you read,
or both.
>_____________________________________
>4.
>Br J Vener Dis 1977 Apr;53(2):121-2
>Yeasts and circumcision in the male.
>Davidson F
>Sixty-six circumcised men and 69 uncircumcised men, both heterosexual
>and homosexual, had specimens taken from the coronal sulcus and meatus
>of the penis. Yeasts were isolated at similar rates in both the
>circumcised (14%) and uncircumcised (17%) men. The circumcised men had
>significantly fewer symptoms (P = 0-0058). Therefore the female partners
>of both circumcised and uncircumcised men are exposed to similar rates
>of yeast infection despite the absence of symptoms in circumcised men.
>Eighty per cent of the female contacts of yeast-positive men had yeast
>infection while 32% of the contacts of yeast-negative men were affected.
>This difference was statistically significant (0-05 greater than P
>greater than 0-025). Men with non-specific genital infection seemed more
>likely to carry yeasts than men with gonorrhoea or normal men. PMID:
>322822, UI: 77159348 the above report in format documents on this page
>through Loansome Doc
This one says nothing about UTIs. If we are going to discuss
yeast infections, that's fine, but I have never suggested that
circumcising to prevent yeast infections was a good idea.
Your are down to five. And please, one subject at a time.
While this study does support that _ritual_ circumcision may be
associated with an increased risk of UTIs during the first two
weeks following circumcision, it says nothing about the remainder
of the child's lifetime. In addition, this study concerns ritual
circumcision. I oppose ritual circumcision. My interest is with
nonreligious male circumcision as it is practiced here in the
United States.
This study is irrelevant to the question of whether circumcision
offers long-term reduction in the risk of UTIs.
You are down to four.
>______________________________________
>6.
>Am J Public Health 1987 Apr;77(4):452-4
>Circumcision as a risk factor for urethritis in racial groups. Smith GL,
>Greenup R, Takafuji ET
>A retrospective population-based case-control study of sexually
>transmitted urethritis was conducted at a large military base over a
>21-month period. During the study, 9,514 patients were seen for sexually
>transmitted disease. The analysis was restricted to active duty males
>and showed that Blacks had 14.8 times the incidence rate of gonococcal
>urethritis (GCU) and 4.7 times the rate of nongonococcal urethritis
>(NGU) compared to Whites. There were slightly fewer cases of NGU than
>GCU. A case-control study of active duty soldiers showed that both Black
>and White circumcised subjects were 1.65 times as likely to have NGU as
>uncircumcised subjects (95% CI: 1.37-2.00). However, circumcision was
>not associated with an increased incidence of GCU. PMID: 3826463, UI:
>87154067 the above report in format documents on this page through
>Loansome Doc
This study supports your viewpoint. You are still at four for
now.
>______________________________________
>7.
>Am J Med 1984 Feb;76(2):257-62
>Is the clean-catch midstream void procedure necessary for obtaining
>urine culture specimens from men? Lipsky BA, Inui TS, Plorde JJ, Berger
>RE To determine whether the results of voided urine cultures in men are
>affected by meatal cleansing, midstream sampling, or circumcision
>status, 308 paired (initial and midstream) specimens were collected from
>254 urology clinic patients. Half of the patients cleansed their
>urethral meatus with povidone-iodine prior to voiding. The circumcision
>status of all patients was noted. The rates of true bacteriuria (growth
>of 10(4) or greater colony-forming units/ml urine with a single
>predominant species) and contamination (growth of 10(3) or greater
>colony-forming units/ml urine with two or more colonial types) were
>compared in the various collection technique subgroups. Neither the
>bacteriuria nor contamination rates were significantly different (p
>greater than 0.05) in circumcised and uncircumcised patients, or in
>those who cleansed their meatus and those who did not. Contamination,
>but not bacteriuria, rates were higher in initial as compared with
>midstream specimens. These data suggest that the clean-catch midstream
>void procedure is unnecessary for obtaining routine voided urine culture
>specimens from men. PMID: 6695949, UI: 84125391 the above report in
>format documents on this page through Loansome Doc
This has to do with urine collection methodology and does not
even address the issue of a correlation between circumcision and
risk of UTI.
You are down to three.
The above is not a study nor an abstract of a study but an
article about a study. And either you didn't notice that it is
the same as your number 2 abstract or else you are trying to pull
a fast one.
You are down to two.
>__________________________________
>9.
>Cultural Bias and the Urinary Tract Infection (UTI) Circumcision
>Controversy
>Martin S. Altshul
[snipped article]
>This article originally appeared in The Truthseeker, July/August 1989,
>pp. 4345.
This is not a study at all, but an anticircumcision propaganda
piece written by an anticircumcision activist published in a
magazine that is noted for its anticircumcision bias, and you
promised _studies_ saying that there were "several" for every
procircumcision _study_.
You are down to one actual study that supports your point of view
that there is no reduction of risk of UTIs associated with
circumcision. You have 71 to go. But don't bother. You likely
can't find that many on either side of the fence to begin with
and you don't seem to know when you read an article which side of
the fence it is on anyway.
Centure
>Date: Thu, Feb 11, 1999 00:07 EST
>Message-id: <12999-36...@newsd-152.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
>Tenkiller (BTW is my real name)
i thought it was that you hate guys with ten inchs.
Geoffrey T. Falk
>No, my cut and paste didn't leave out one important sentence. I
>am not infallible and I have no idea why that sentence isn't
>there. The fact is, that my point is better made with that
>missing sentence in place, therefore I thank you for posting it.
>I have now added it to the abstract as it was on my HD and it
>will be there in the future.
The sentence is in the original. For all we know, the version of the
abstract that you parroted was originally posted by a pro-mutilation
fanatic bent on deception. The fact is, you didn't check the reference
before plastering it all over the net for everyone to see.
Yours
g.
--
I conceal nothing. It is not enough not to lie. One should strive
not to lie in a negative sense by remaining silent. ---Leo Tolstoy
ADDRESS ALTERED TO DEFLECT SPAM. UNSOLICITED E-MAIL ADS BILLED $500
Geoffrey T. Falk <gtf(@)cirp.org> http://www.cirp.org/~gtf/
Don M.
Falk) wrote:
>The sentence is in the original. For all we know, the version of the
>abstract that you parroted was originally posted by a pro-mutilation
>fanatic bent on deception. The fact is, you didn't check the reference
>before plastering it all over the net for everyone to see.
>
>Yours
>g.
No, Geoffrey, you do not know the reason that the sentence was
not in my version. You do not know whether I checked the
reference or not. You are apparently assuming I didn't because
from your myopic viewpoint that would seem to be the only likely
explanation.
In any case, I am happy to have that last sentence now in place
on my hard drive. It supports my point that there is a
correlation between circ status and risk of UTIs.
James H. Sindberg
wrote:
;On Thu, 11 Feb 1999 00:07:50 -0500 (EST), tenk...@webtv.net
;(ten killer) wrote:
;>On Sun, Feb 7, 1999 DonM posted a study which for some reason, his Cut
;>& Paste accidentally left out one important sentence.
;No, my cut and paste didn't leave out one important sentence. I
;am not infallible and I have no idea why that sentence isn't
;there. The fact is, that my point is better made with that
;missing sentence in place, therefore I thank you for posting it.
;I have now added it to the abstract as it was on my HD and it
;will be there in the future.
;[snipped all but last sentence of abstract, which follows]
;"This study provides circumstantial evidence supporting the idea
;that circumcision in well-selected patients may confer protection
;from urine infection."
;[snipped my version which omitted the above sentence]
;>Notice that the one sentence that somehow did not make it through his
;>"Cut and Paste" kinda pulls the supports out from under his argument.
;On the contrary, it adds additional support to my argument. That
;you don't see that makes you seem either ignorant or less than
;honest.
;>"This study provides circumstantial evidence supporting the idea that
;>circumcision in well-selected patients may confer protection from urine
;>infection." The inclusion of the word "circumstantial" says that this
;>study has no concrete proof of anything.
;With that bit of nonsense, you prove beyond the shadow of a doubt
;that you do not understand the significance of the findings in
;such studies or that you are purposefully intending to deceive.
;ALL such findings are circumstantial until and if causation can
;be proven. "Circumstantial evidence" and "statistically
;correlated" are more or less synonymous.
;If circumstantial meant in this case what you say that it does,
;then it would contradict the conclusion of the study, it would
;contradict the title of the study, and it would make the
;publication of the study a complete waste.
;>Therefore the study is useless.
;Don't you wish.
;>Don is posting it as hard proof that Uncircumcised men are
;>more prone to UTIs.
;Don is doing no such thing. You are piss poor as a mind-reader.
;>It is only circumstantial proof, not admissable in any court.
;This isn't the context of law or a court. This is a medical
;research study.
What I find interesting is that the other half did not
suffer from bacteria. Perhaps the sufferers could benefit
from that knowledge, if that knowledge suggested a simple
change in lifestyle, like proper bathing. Perhaps if
bacteria sufferers did benefit from a simple lifestyle
change, then circumcision would not be seen as necessary,
but only as a radical and expensive way of treating the
problem.
James H. Sindberg
sind...@pobox.com
Gh444444
>Well, as puberty hits lots of things happen to the body. You know
>that. He hadn't had an odor under his foreskin before, now had he. He
>said "after puberty hit".
>
put your nose under the foreskin?
anteater44
Paul Hagen
(Gh444444) wrote:
> If the odor is UNDER the foreskin, then what difference does it make
unless you put your nose under the foreskin?
The odor is only UNDER the foreskin when the foreskin is covering the
glans. Guys who have foreskins that are retractable normally roll them
back to reveal their glans during sexual activity, and that's when their
nose (and their sex partner's nose) gets the news. As I've stated earlier,
the amount of oder that intact guys produce (and how rapidly it returns
after bathing) varies widely from individual to individual. Some intact
guys claim to have no odor at all, but it would be interesting to hear if
their sex partners feel the same way. I suspect that the widely-held
perception that foreskins are "dirty and smelly" comes primarily from
people who've had sex with intact guys after being used to having sex with
circumcised guys. I suspect that in cultures where most people's sexual
experiences have been exclusively with intact guys (hence, no basis for
comparison), "male odor" is just taken in stride (just like ALL men
EVERYWHERE take varying amounts of "female odor" in stride). When it comes
to oral sex, I wonder if the women in predominantly intact cultures have
an equivalent to the (crude, but timeless) "guy joke" about how "once you
get past the smell, you've got it licked."
RSFtLauder
>Date: 23/02/1999 12:20 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <prhagen-2302...@port124.bitstream.net>
You've got a good point here.
Personally,I have no odor.In general other than penis I am not a very stinky
person and I have had no complaint from partners.
Also would the odor vary on the same individual depending on
stress,environmental factors and they things they eat?
Craig Wagner
been eaten by a man in the hours leading up to oral sex.
If you want to be clean, eat clean.
If your significant other likes garlic, eat garlic.
If s/he likes chocolate chip mint ice cream, eat that.
In article <19990223155315...@ng08.aol.com>,
sonofmoon
cwa...@his.com (Craig Wagner) wrote:
> Absolutely. Some women are able to distinguish certain foods which have
> been eaten by a man in the hours leading up to oral sex.
Could it be he just ate galic then without washing his hands, took a leak?
;)
Circumcision as a routine must end. Find out its bizarre history.
http://homestead.dejanews.com/user.coontail/nocir1.html
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Centure
>From: sonofmoon <coon...@my-dejanews.com>
>Date: Tue, Feb 23, 1999 20:56 EST
>Message-id: <7avm7h$gu8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
> Could it be he just ate galic then without washing his hands, took a leak?
For you coontail i suggest chopping up some jabenjero peppers.
Steve McDonald
And if he chopped up a very large amount, I bet you'd suggest
he put it in a hyperbowl.
Centure
>Date: Tue, Feb 23, 1999 23:43 EST
>Message-id: <36d382b2...@news.mindspring.com>
>And if he chopped up a very large amount, I bet you'd suggest
>he put it in a hyperbowl.
No thats were the 4skins go before they are harvested.
bAnG
and infection occurs
Gh444444 wrote in message <19990221135215...@ng101.aol.com>...
>>
>>Well, as puberty hits lots of things happen to the body. You know
>>that. He hadn't had an odor under his foreskin before, now had he. He
>>said "after puberty hit".
>>
>If the odor is UNDER the foreskin, then what difference does it make unless
you
>put your nose under the foreskin?
>anteater44
RSFtLauder
>Date: 25/02/1999 02:33 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <36d4f...@shiva.ukisp.net>
>
>because a strong smell of cheese, gets worse!
>
>
>and infection occurs
>
Generalizations,I am an adult uncircumcised man and have no smegma or bad smell
and to this day have never had an infection.
sonofmoon
"bAnG" <bA...@freenet.co.uk> wrote:
> because a strong smell of cheese, gets worse!
>
> and infection occurs
>
> >>
> >>Well, as puberty hits lots of things happen to the body. You know
> >>that. He hadn't had an odor under his foreskin before, now had he. He
> >>said "after puberty hit".
> >>
> >If the odor is UNDER the foreskin, then what difference does it make unless
> you
> >put your nose under the foreskin?
> >anteater44
I'm so sick of talking about the odor issue. Its really such a red herring,
introduced by those that have nothing else left as argument. Odor only is the
decomposed SEMEN being acted on by common skin bacteria. The reason there is
an odor is quite simple. There is moisture under the foreskin that allows the
broken down proteins to rub off on hands etc. and be detected. Circumcised
men break down semen too.. but its dried out and adherent to the skin
surface.. so it can't be easily rubbed off and sme;;ed. This is just such a
silly and trivial issue.. any intact man will tell you odor either isn't or
if is is easily controlled. And while were no the subject, what about female
odor? Ummm?
James H. Sindberg
<coon...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
; I'm so sick of talking about the odor issue. Its really such a red herring,
;introduced by those that have nothing else left as argument. Odor only is the
;decomposed SEMEN being acted on by common skin bacteria. The reason there is
;an odor is quite simple. There is moisture under the foreskin that allows the
;broken down proteins to rub off on hands etc. and be detected. Circumcised
;men break down semen too.. but its dried out and adherent to the skin
;surface.. so it can't be easily rubbed off and sme;;ed. This is just such a
;silly and trivial issue.. any intact man will tell you odor either isn't or
;if is is easily controlled. And while were no the subject, what about female
;odor? Ummm?
While I haven't smelled male genitals, in the past 40 years
all the female ones I've been close to smelled very
noticeably.
I suggest to all those chancing smelly male genitals, that
you keep a scented warm wash cloth handy and if it gets too
rank for you taste, scrub him up a bit.
James H. Sindberg
sind...@pobox.com
tuvaahnuratahuuumm aaahhhooommm
for the young ladies who were my students, I emphsized the changing of
the cervical fliud term "mucus" to "NECTAR" and on the day of ovulation
that incresingly sweet NECTAR becums AMBROSIA...women who hav natural ,
unpolluted diets hav the sweetest smelling, most delicious tasting,
smoothest liquifing virginas......you becum what ( and who)
eat.....women can do their own testifing of male smells ....one lady
love shell fish believe it without having to see (sea) her eat a
lobster....heavy meat eaters load up on uric acids in bodily
secretions, whch can lead to an unfine ordo.....figure the rest out for
yoursleves....
sooo its safe to eat vegetarians and viseversa
by doing even without understanding, it will be made plain; your body
will undersand it long before long before your mind puts words to it.
but no amount of knowing without doing will work. it is not necessary
that knowledge precede experience. doing creates knowledge. - Siva
To lose your way is to wander into perfection. - FULLTOUCH
osculuae ergo amorae - Clitango
tuvaahnuratahuuumm aaahhhooommm
RA
James H. Sindberg
M.) wrote:
;On Thu, 25 Feb 1999 14:02:41 GMT, sonofmoon
;<coon...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
;> I'm so sick of talking about the odor issue. Its really such a red herring,
;>introduced by those that have nothing else left as argument. Odor only is the
;>decomposed SEMEN being acted on by common skin bacteria. The reason there is
;>an odor is quite simple. There is moisture under the foreskin that allows the
;>broken down proteins to rub off on hands etc. and be detected.
;Shows you how narrow your information and viewpoint are. I knew a
;nine year-old who, proud of his smegma collection (he thought it
;had something to do with maturing) was so odoriferous that you
;could smell him several feet away.
Did you also know his parents and how they felt about his
collection?
See www.intelihealth.com or Pediatrics 1999;103:686-693 for
latest AAP report against RIC.
James H. Sindberg
sind...@pobox.com
James H. Sindberg
M.) wrote:
;On Tue, 02 Mar 1999 17:19:00 GMT, sind...@pobox.com (James H.
;Sindberg) wrote:
;>On Fri, 26 Feb 1999 06:17:25 GMT, Do...@see.info.below (Don
;>M.) wrote:
;>;On Thu, 25 Feb 1999 14:02:41 GMT, sonofmoon
;>;<coon...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
;>;> I'm so sick of talking about the odor issue. Its really such a red herring,
;>;>introduced by those that have nothing else left as argument. Odor only is the
;>;>decomposed SEMEN being acted on by common skin bacteria. The reason there is
;>;>an odor is quite simple. There is moisture under the foreskin that allows the
;>;>broken down proteins to rub off on hands etc. and be detected.
;>;Shows you how narrow your information and viewpoint are. I knew a
;>;nine year-old who, proud of his smegma collection (he thought it
;>;had something to do with maturing) was so odoriferous that you
;>;could smell him several feet away.
;>Did you also know his parents and how they felt about his
;>collection?
;No, do you?
Then we can assume that you nosed of his problem without his
parents permission.
;And the only point was that Coontail's statement, "Odor only is
;the decomposed SEMEN being acted on by common skin bacteria. The
;reason there is an odor is quite simple," could hardly be the
;case in a nine year-old.
Of course odor could be caused by other sources than semen
just as with armpits.
James H. Sindberg
sind...@pobox.com
James H. Sindberg
M.) wrote:
;On Thu, 04 Mar 1999 07:28:44 GMT, sind...@pobox.com (James H.
;Sindberg) wrote:
;>;>Did you also know his parents and how they felt about his
;>;>collection?
;>;No, do you?
;>Then we can assume that you nosed of his problem without his
;>parents permission.
;The question is a two-part question. I knew his parents, I did
;not know how they felt about his odor. He was nine and so was I.
;>;And the only point was that Coontail's statement, "Odor only is
;>;the decomposed SEMEN being acted on by common skin bacteria. The
;>;reason there is an odor is quite simple," could hardly be the
;>;case in a nine year-old.
;>Of course odor could be caused by other sources than semen
;>just as with armpits.
;True. Coontail was a bit off. But this odor was definitely
;associated with his smegma collection inasmuch as it was even
;more noticeable with foreskin retracted as he proudly displayed
;that collection to a group of his friends.
Kids want to part of the herd, but sometimes do odd things
to show their bravery or individuality. This kid had a
really odd way to show he was brave enough or individual
enough to stand up/out in his society. Kids are full of
attention getting devices. Perhaps his parents were (in the
kid's perception) not giving him enough quality time.
James H. Sindberg
sind...@pobox.com
James H. Sindberg
M.) wrote:
;On Fri, 05 Mar 1999 18:50:11 GMT, sind...@pobox.com (James H.
;Sindberg) wrote:
;>Kids want to part of the herd, but sometimes do odd things
;>to show their bravery or individuality. This kid had a
;>really odd way to show he was brave enough or individual
;>enough to stand up/out in his society. Kids are full of
;>attention getting devices. Perhaps his parents were (in the
;>kid's perception) not giving him enough quality time.
;Yours is a totally unwarranted speculation regarding the
;circumstances of the incident and the motivations of the kid in
;question.
There is no unwarranted speculation in news groups.
;Inasmuch as the people he was with (his brother and me)
;were all three of us uncircumcised, he wasn't different. He
;mistakenly thought that smegma was connected with maturing.
One wonders where he got that idea. Perhaps his parents
didn't monitor his hygiene very well.
James H. Sindberg
sind...@pobox.com