radical cicumcision and masturbation
JEALSA
teens. Cut the foreskin very close the glande and eliminate the
posibilities of masturbation.
Bertha Lopez
coon...@my-dejanews.com
Hey Bertha,
Why not just go whole-hog and cut the entire penis off. That's what you want
isn't it?
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
HckyMike80
MMC1864
Chris van Rensburg (a.k.a. Tom Kidding)
>
> A radical circumcision is very ussefull to preven masturbations in male
> teens. Cut the foreskin very close the glande and eliminate the
> posibilities of masturbation.
>
> Bertha Lopez
Yeah, right, "Bertha".
--
Regards,
Chris (a.k.a. Tom Kidding)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Kidding's World of Art, Poetry, Music, Songs, Thoughts & Links
"I experienced a personal epiphany at Jack in the Box. You could too."
http://www.tomkidding.com/?oddities/32
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rick B.
>
> A radical circumcision is very ussefull to preven masturbations in male
> teens. Cut the foreskin very close the glande and eliminate the
> posibilities of masturbation.
>
> Bertha Lopez
First of all, it's a proven fact that short of removing the
entire reproductive system, there isn't much you can do that
will prevent masturbation.
Second, why on earth would you want to prevent it? Mastubation
is a healthy and normal part of every teenager's life and also
of most adults' lives. Trying to prevent it does NOT prevent
it but it does cause guilt and psychological problems. It's as
natural as eating and sleeping.
Zachery
wrote:
>A radical circumcision is very ussefull to preven masturbations in male
>teens. Cut the foreskin very close the glande and eliminate the
>posibilities of masturbation.
>
>
> Bertha Lopez
>
I would rather let my son masturbate than get a girl pregnant. Boys
will be boys and there is nothing you can really do about it.
Zachery
Cheri
Santa, I was a GOOD girl, honest
--
To reply via email replace nospam with cheri
HckyMike80 wrote in message
<19981218125519...@ng-fc2.aol.com>...
Rick B.
>
> *groan*
> Santa, I was a GOOD girl, honest
har har har --- LOL
coon...@my-dejanews.com
In my entire life.. an I'm not a sexual athlete either, I cannot imagine a
male not having a sexual outlet of some kind. The so called victorian
nocturnal pollutions are a sign of severe sexual inhibition.. IMHO.. Do boys
masturbate.. parents.. you'd better hope he does!
StukInTime
>teens. Cut the foreskin very close the glande and eliminate the
>posibilities of masturbation.
Well, as an uncut guy, I enjoy the luxury of masturbation, something that
apparently you cut guys cannot. I find this humorous. If about 65% of the US
male population is cut, and 4 out of 5 teen males masturbate, then it doesn't
appear that circumcision stops masturbation.
I'm Stuk!
"The future holds the need for auto selection of the human race."
coon...@my-dejanews.com
stuki...@aol.comGoAway (StukInTime) wrote:
> >A radical circumcision is very ussefull to preven masturbations in male
> >teens. Cut the foreskin very close the glande and eliminate the
> >posibilities of masturbation.
>
> Well, as an uncut guy, I enjoy the luxury of masturbation, something that
> apparently you cut guys cannot. I find this humorous. If about 65% of the
US
> male population is cut, and 4 out of 5 teen males masturbate, then it doesn't
> appear that circumcision stops masturbation.
>
> I'm Stuk!
my teen years.. I would have gone mad.. if I could not have had a wank.
Are you sure your figures are right? Twenty percent not wanking is scarey!
peter_m
Cut away her clitoris?
Her lips?
Her vulva?
--
Surf Usenet at home, on the road, and by email -- always at Talkway.
http://www.talkway.com
Dietzz666
>And what do you do with a masturbating daughter?
>Cut away her clitoris?
>Her lips?
>Her vulva?
that's the idea!
the female circumcision will keep your daughter chaste and more marketable
(less dowry for you to pay!)
umm... circumcision as a cure (preventetive medicine?) for masturbation: dates
back to the victorian era... (no shit!)
but now to all the "cured" men here:
be honest,
has it cured you?!
coon...@my-dejanews.com
A circumcised man without a partner will give his soul for a good wank. But,
frankly he doesn't have to. ;)
Embee98
In article <19981218234028...@ng-cc1.aol.com>,
stuki...@aol.comGoAway (StukInTime) writes:
>Well, as an uncut guy, I enjoy the luxury of masturbation, something that
>apparently you cut guys cannot. I find this humorous. If about 65% of the
>US
>male population is cut, and 4 out of 5 teen males masturbate, then it
>doesn't
>appear that circumcision stops masturbation.
>
>
This is absolutely right. *Of course* circumcision doesn't prevent
masturbation. Infant circ reduces penile infections which may make it less
likely that the boy will accidentaly discover the pleasures of jerking off, in
a culture where sexuality is kept away from children. Also in the Victorian era
it was performed on adolescents w/o anaesthetic very specifically to punish
masturbation, and I guess this probably did have some deterrent effect.
Embee98
In article <mcPe2.22540$el4.34...@c01read02.service.talkway.com>, "peter_m"
<pe...@aol.de> writes:
>And what do you do with a masturbating daughter?
>Cut away her clitoris?
>Her lips?
>Her vulva?
Well yes, in Victorian England and America clitoridectomy was the standard
response to female masturbation, premarital sex etc.And the procedure is still
very popular in Moslem Africa for the same reasons, but as a routine
preventative rather than a cure when needed.
Richard W. Smith, M.D.
mutilation to heal plus the time it takes to discover an adequate lubricant to
replace the lost foreskin.
I did see a notable exception to the above when I was a doctor in the Navy. We were
in the Tonkin Gulf and a sailor came to me for help. He had started to masturbate a
bit too soon after he was circumcised, and in his virorous enthusiasm he tore about
one third of his fresh circumcision scar open. The wound was gaping open and
bleeding profusely. I bandaged it up and he was OK after about three weeks. I also
helped him to get some lube. He had never needed it before.
Richard W. Smith, M.D.
coon...@my-dejanews.com
"Richard W. Smith, M.D." <richar...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Circumcision prevents masturbation only for about as long as it takes for the
> mutilation to heal plus the time it takes to discover an adequate lubricant to
> replace the lost foreskin.
>
> I did see a notable exception to the above when I was a doctor in the Navy. We
were
> in the Tonkin Gulf and a sailor came to me for help. He had started to
masturbate a
> bit too soon after he was circumcised, and in his virorous enthusiasm he tore
about
> one third of his fresh circumcision scar open. The wound was gaping open and
> bleeding profusely. I bandaged it up and he was OK after about three weeks. I
also
> helped him to get some lube. He had never needed it before.
>
> Richard W. Smith, M.D.
Actually, very young men teens or so.. don't need a whole lot of help to get
off. But, that said, male sexual function does decline, like all else with
age, and it is here that circumcision makes sex a lot more difficult.
coon...@my-dejanews.com
"Richard W. Smith, M.D." <richar...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Circumcision prevents masturbation only for about as long as it takes for the
> mutilation to heal plus the time it takes to discover an adequate lubricant to
> replace the lost foreskin.
>
> I did see a notable exception to the above when I was a doctor in the Navy. We
were
> in the Tonkin Gulf and a sailor came to me for help. He had started to
masturbate a
> bit too soon after he was circumcised, and in his virorous enthusiasm he tore
about
> one third of his fresh circumcision scar open. The wound was gaping open and
> bleeding profusely. I bandaged it up and he was OK after about three weeks. I
also
> helped him to get some lube. He had never needed it before.
>
> Richard W. Smith, M.D.
How can we punish Embee.. is this Penny returned? Actually his/her/its rants
are sorta funny to anybody who owns a foreskin. They're so over-kill and
totally clueless they make the excesses of the antis shine.
John Pritchard
>
> Circumcision prevents masturbation only for about as long as it takes for the
> mutilation to heal plus the time it takes to discover an adequate lubricant to
> replace the lost foreskin.
>
> I did see a notable exception to the above when I was a doctor in the Navy. We were
> in the Tonkin Gulf and a sailor came to me for help. He had started to masturbate a
> bit too soon after he was circumcised, and in his virorous enthusiasm he tore about
> one third of his fresh circumcision scar open. The wound was gaping open and
> bleeding profusely. I bandaged it up and he was OK after about three weeks. I also
> helped him to get some lube. He had never needed it before.
>
> Richard W. Smith, M.D.
And if you had been more considerate in the first place and not given
him such a tight job, he would not have *needed* the lube afterward
either.
Was it done in such a manner as to ensure subsequent difficulties?
John
Richard W. Smith, M.D.
it. That assumption was entirely yours. Are you, perhaps related to chicken little?
Richard W. Smith, M.D.
coon...@my-dejanews.com
Dr. Smith, Please proceed immediately to give John the final and best cut
of all, especially since humanity will be immensely improved by your swift
intervention. A circumcision just above the Adam's apple. Kindly remove all
molding, necrotic, putrified and dead tissue. Be sure to give him a very
tight circumcision here.. ;)
CKr6459925
prevent it in boys . Maybe in girls removing their clitoris may prevent
masturbation. But not boys. I know from personel experience ok CK
Centure
>What makes you think that I performed the sailor's circumcision? I did not
>say that I did
>it. That assumption was entirely yours. Are you, perhaps related to chicken
>little?
As far as i can tell you don't clearly state that you did not do the original
circumcision?
His assumption was expected as you claim to have been on
a military ship where obviously crews did not get shore leave
very often.
i would imagine the crew could have been on the ship for up
to nine months at a time.
And i also imagine that his circumcision was performed recently before he
started having complications.
I also imagine Most military doctors where on shore in vietnam.
therefor one would conclude you where the only md aboard.
If so it had to be you or the corpsman and some how i cant
Imagine a guy allowing a corpsman to circumcise him.
John Pritchard
>
> it. That assumption was entirely yours. Are you, perhaps related to chicken little?
>
No but I am related to Charlie Little - an uncle. Close enough?
> John Pritchard wrote:
>
> > Richard W. Smith, M.D. wrote:
> > >
> > > Circumcision prevents masturbation only for about as long as it takes for the
deletion
Rick B.
>
> richard smith wrote.
>
> >What makes you think that I performed the sailor's circumcision? I did not
> >say that I did
> >it. That assumption was entirely yours. Are you, perhaps related to chicken
> >little?
>
> circumcision?
> His assumption was expected as you claim to have been on
> a military ship where obviously crews did not get shore leave
> very often.
> i would imagine the crew could have been on the ship for up
> to nine months at a time.
> And i also imagine that his circumcision was performed recently before he
> started having complications.
> I also imagine Most military doctors where on shore in vietnam.
> therefor one would conclude you where the only md aboard.
> If so it had to be you or the corpsman and some how i cant
> Imagine a guy allowing a corpsman to circumcise him.
And I "imagine" that you shoot your mouth off too
much before you're sure of the facts.
Anyone who has a modicum of experience with this NG community
knows Richard well enough that it would be a real stretch
of the imagination that he had performed a circumcision.
ma...@thelabyrinth.com
James H. Sindberg
<richar...@earthlink.net> wrote:
;Circumcision prevents masturbation only for about as long as it takes for the
;mutilation to heal plus the time it takes to discover an adequate lubricant to
;replace the lost foreskin.
;I did see a notable exception to the above when I was a doctor in the Navy. We were
;in the Tonkin Gulf and a sailor came to me for help. He had started to masturbate a
;bit too soon after he was circumcised, and in his virorous enthusiasm he tore about
;one third of his fresh circumcision scar open. The wound was gaping open and
;bleeding profusely. I bandaged it up and he was OK after about three weeks. I also
;helped him to get some lube. He had never needed it before.
At that time did the Navy try promote circumcision? Did the Navy
require all its male Tonkin Gulf sailors to be circumcised? If
so, what was the rational?
US Army medical personnel had told me that male US soldiers
serving in Vietnam were required to be circ'd under threat of
court martial.
One must remember that masturbation has been illegal in some
states during my lifetime. In USA men have been committed to
mental institutions when found to have masturbated. Men have
been put in jail... Men have been divorced...
James H. Sindberg
sind...@pobox.com
Richard W. Smith, M.D.
Your inane litany of absolute non sequiturs is awe inspiring.
Please explain what you are driving at, thank you.
Richard W. Smith, M.D.
Rick B.
>
>
> Your inane litany of absolute non sequiturs is awe inspiring.
Gee, Richard... I thought he just asked a few fairly
innocent questions. Are you having a bad day?
R.
James H. Sindberg
<richar...@earthlink.net> wrote:
;What is the point of your post?
My point is: I want to know if the US Navy required its male
sailors to be circumcised.
;Your inane litany of absolute non sequiturs is awe inspiring.
Please explain why you think my request for information is
an inane litany ... .
;Please explain what you are driving at, thank you.
A simple request for info.
;Richard W. Smith, M.D.
;
James H. Sindberg
sind...@pobox.com
coon...@my-dejanews.com
sind...@pobox.com wrote:
I'll let Dr. Smith speak for himself, for he is quite capable. It's been my
understanding many US military MDs did favor circumcision, as most US doctors
apparently do today. Because of the close rank hierarchy of military
personnel.. an MD always out ranked the majority of the men he saw. There
were some who made it a point to circumcise every sailor, G.I. etc. that came
their way. But, there was not a policy. However, that said, some researchers
feel for reasons not quite clear, the US NAVY had a 99 % circumcised rank.
Why should this be when even the elite Air Force had plenty of uncut air men?
I don't know.. unless the stories and rumors aired about the Navy were Urban
myths.
Neal
...
>My point is: I want to know if the US Navy required its male
>sailors to be circumcised.
The US Navy has NEVER required sailors to be circumcised. Nor have
any of the other services.
There are stories, mostly from WWII, of commanders coercing soldiers
into circumcision. I have never been able to run them to ground.
I have a personal friend who served in the US Navy during Vietnam as a
Corpsman on a destroyer. To this day he has his foreskin. He said
that many other sailors had their foreskins. One time he estimated
that only half of the guys he saw in the Navy to be circumcised. He
served from 1969 to 1973.
I can personally attest that in the Army, circumcision was not
required. I had a soldier in my unit in Vietnam complain to the IG
because the Army doctors would not circumcise him. Not medically
required, they said. I was in Vietnam 1970-71.
--
Neal
Note: To contact, remove the ".NS" from address
Richard W. Smith, M.D.
James H. Sindberg wrote:
On Fri, 25 Dec 1998 23:36:22 -0800, "Richard W. Smith, M.D."
<richar...@earthlink.net> wrote:
;What is the point of your post?
The US Navy has no requirement regarding the status of the foreskins of any of its members. If you have a foreskin, you can keep it. Also, if you want to get your foreskin cut off, they will happily turn it into fishbait for you.My point is: I want to know if the US Navy required its male
sailors to be circumcised.
;Your inane litany of absolute non sequiturs is awe inspiring.Please explain why you think my request for information is
an inane litany ... .
This is the part that is an inane litany of non sequiturs:
;James H. Sindberg wrote:
;;> One must remember that masturbation has been illegal in some
;> states during my lifetime. In USA men have been committed to
;> mental institutions when found to have masturbated. Men have
;> been put in jail... Men have been divorced...
;>
;> James H. Sindberg
;> sind...@pobox.com
RWS, M.D.
Richard W. Smith, M.D.
the comments were insane: "Blah, blah, blah about someone perhaps
getting divorced or being imprisoned for jacking off. What shit!
RWS, M.D.
ma...@thelabyrinth.net
"Richard W. Smith, M.D." wrote:
>
Well, what would you expect from a Sindboig?
James H. Sindberg
neal_...@rocketmail.NS.com (Neal) wrote:
;sind...@pobox.com (James H. Sindberg) wrote:
;>My point is: I want to know if the US Navy required its male
;>sailors to be circumcised.
;The US Navy has NEVER required sailors to be circumcised. Nor have
;any of the other services.
How do you know this?
;There are stories, mostly from WWII, of commanders coercing soldiers
;into circumcision. I have never been able to run them to ground.
;I have a personal friend who served in the US Navy during Vietnam as a
;Corpsman on a destroyer. To this day he has his foreskin. He said
;that many other sailors had their foreskins. One time he estimated
;that only half of the guys he saw in the Navy to be circumcised. He
;served from 1969 to 1973.
One event on one ship does not prove that no commander
required his command to circumcised. One jaywalker safe
does not mean none died.
My information that circumcision was coerced for some units
serving in Vietnam comes from three Army medical personnel
who served in Vietnam and witnessed the operations and knew
of the coercion.
;I can personally attest that in the Army, circumcision was not
;required. I had a soldier in my unit in Vietnam complain to the IG
;because the Army doctors would not circumcise him. Not medically
;required, they said. I was in Vietnam 1970-71.
It wouldn't surprise me that in some commanders at some
times required, while others did not require, their troops
to be uniformly cut. Some commanders have a twisted sense
of humor, especially in war.
James H. Sindberg
sind...@pobox.com
Richard W. Smith, M.D.
sound like a good way to be prepared for battle at any moment, though I am
sure that there is a commander or two in the Army who is as stupid as you
have imagined him to be.
James H. Sindberg wrote: .
> One event on one ship does not prove that no commander
> required his command to circumcised. One jaywalker safe
> does not mean none died.
>
> My information that circumcision was coerced for some units
> serving in Vietnam comes from three Army medical personnel
> who served in Vietnam and witnessed the operations and knew
> of the coercion.
And what one commander may or may not have required at some time or other
does not imply that the entire branch of the armed services had that
policy. Why are you so unnaturally interested in the imposition of
involuntary mutilations on unwilling members of the American armed forces?
You are letting your latest fetish show, and it is not very pretty.
Richard W. Smith, M.D.
James H. Sindberg
<richar...@earthlink.net> wrote:
;Requiring your troops to have their dicks cut on the battlefield does not
My search for information is certainly not a fetish. Your
continued fight to hide it and to smear me is questionable
thou.
I ask you again, did you witness the military's requirement
that normal male service members were routinely coerced into
being circumcised?
James H. Sindberg
sind...@pobox.com
James H. Sindberg
<richar...@earthlink.net> wrote:
;OK, here is your reply:
;James H. Sindberg wrote:
;> On Fri, 25 Dec 1998 23:36:22 -0800, "Richard W. Smith, M.D."
;> <richar...@earthlink.net> wrote:
;> ;What is the point of your post?
;> My point is: I want to know if the US Navy required its male
;> sailors to be circumcised.
;The US Navy has no requirement regarding the status of the foreskins of any of its members.
;If you have a foreskin, you can keep it. Also, if you want to get your foreskin cut off,
;they will happily turn it into fishbait for you.
What is the present US Navy's policy is not what I asked. I
asked about past policy.
;> ;Your inane litany of absolute non sequiturs is awe inspiring.
;> Please explain why you think my request for information is
;> an inane litany ... .
;This is the part that is an inane litany of non sequiturs:
This is a non constructive/instructive answer.
;> ;James H. Sindberg wrote:
;> ;;> One must remember that masturbation has been illegal in some
;> ;> states during my lifetime. In USA men have been committed to
;> ;> mental institutions when found to have masturbated. Men have
;> ;> been put in jail... Men have been divorced...
;So what does all this mean, you stupid twit? The above Sindberg post is a prime example of
;absolute nonsense.
The nonsense is the nonsensical, nonprofessional name
calling. The nonsense is that in the USA crazy things
happen, like the laws against masturbation and their
punishment. I take it that you support just laws.
James H. Sindberg
sind...@pobox.com
James H. Sindberg
<richar...@earthlink.net> wrote:
;REad the post I just posted. The questions were pointless but ok, but
;the comments were insane: "Blah, blah, blah about someone perhaps
;getting divorced or being imprisoned for jacking off. What shit!
Someone is having a bad day. Poor puppy.
James H. Sindberg
sind...@pobox.com
coon...@my-dejanews.com
sind...@pobox.com wrote:
Jimmy, baby, I think the good Doc already told you NO!
In any event Dr. Smith would never have cut a foreskin unless they held a
rope out and threthened to hang him from the ships rigging.
Centure
> ;Requiring your troops to have their dicks cut on the battlefield does not
> ;sound like a good way to be prepared for battle at any moment,
The Turkish empire was known to circumcise, the christian soldiers that fell
under there orbit. the sultans, caliphs, and vizars would not allow christian
soldiers to fight under the banner of islam uncircumcised.
They also would not employ mercenaries, unless they where circumcised. and when
alliances where made with christendom the christian kings would often have to
circumcise there sons, as a prerequisite to ally.
Some believe that prince charles of modern day UK is the ruler of the house of
david. or rather that he has the blood of the christ in his veins.
Those that believe that believe he has abdicated his throne by the refusal to
circumcise his heirs. and there are many who believe that templars, masons, and
priori of zian followers.
As a parallel in history they see that just as there christian kingdoms fell to
the asiatics. there was recently the ugly incident of prince charles handing
over part of his kingdom Hong Kong in a most undignified manner.
After the surrender ceremony prince charles was afoot back to the QE2,
scurrying through the streets of hong kong. fast on his heels where the modern
day mongol hordes.
So yes mr sindberg since some of these American generals, are well schooled in
ancient military rights some of them advocate circumcision.
coon...@my-dejanews.com
Yeah, Centure and there are those that belong and are already in loonie
bins, where it sounds people like you and those that believe such dog
droppings belong.
Centure
>bins, where it sounds people like you and those that believe such dog
>droppings belong.
I most certainly dont believe prince charles is god. but others believe he has
the christ blood in him of the Menovigite kings.
Neal
...
>;> My point is: I want to know if the US Navy required its male
>;> sailors to be circumcised.
>
>;The US Navy has no requirement regarding the status of the foreskins of any of its members.
>;If you have a foreskin, you can keep it. Also, if you want to get your foreskin cut off,
>;they will happily turn it into fishbait for you.
>
>What is the present US Navy's policy is not what I asked. I
>asked about past policy.
I posted this to you some months before, I will again.
I have heard the stories of forced circumcision of soldiers during
WWII, particularly by the Navy.
After WWII, the DoD commissioned an official history of WWII. There
are six or eight volumes on the medical corps. I looked in all of
them, particularly the volume on the public health effort.
There is no mention of any campaign to circumcise uniformed personnel.
If there had been such an effort, I think that it would have been
mentioned in the histories, particularly considering the good light in
which circumcision was held in the post-WWII period.
Hang it up. It's a myth.
I have seen Army doctors (this was in the days when every battalion
had a surgeon, and they were bored), try to convince soldiers that
they should be circumcised. In the unit I was in, in the early 1960s,
the soldiers thought it was funny. As far as I know only one guy took
him up on it. The doc's medics hid from him the fact that half of
them had foreskins. They just wanted to forego the hassle they knew
they would get if he learned they were uncircumcised.
No medical doctor can (or could) order a soldier to submit to
circumcision without a valid medical reason for the operation. The
reason would have to include the fact that because of his foreskin the
soldier had missed days of work. If the soldier had never missed any
days of work there would be no medical necessity. The criteria is
interference with the soldier's duty. If it doesn't interfere with
his duty, it is not medically necessary.
That's why they would not circumcise the soldier of mine in Vietnam.
He had never missed any days work over it, ergo, it was not medically
necessary. Elective procedures were not provided in Vietnam.
I do remember hearing of one case where a doc cut a guy as a favor
right before he left Vietnam. He wasn't supposed to do it. There was
an attack on the base camp that night and the wound got ripped open.
Third hand story. I can't vouch for it.
Neal
>James H. Sindberg wrote
>
>> ;Requiring your troops to have their dicks cut on the battlefield does not
>> ;sound like a good way to be prepared for battle at any moment,
>
>The Turkish empire was known to circumcise, the christian soldiers that fell
... Much nonsense snipped
>So yes mr sindberg since some of these American generals, are well schooled in
>ancient military rights some of them advocate circumcision.
Well Sindberg, centure supports you. There are two on your side now.
Neal
>On Sun, 27 Dec 1998 01:49:27 GMT,
>neal_...@rocketmail.NS.com (Neal) wrote:
>
>;sind...@pobox.com (James H. Sindberg) wrote:
>;>My point is: I want to know if the US Navy required its male
>;>sailors to be circumcised.
>;The US Navy has NEVER required sailors to be circumcised. Nor have
>;any of the other services.
>How do you know this?
Because many sailors kept their foreskins during WWII, Korea, Vietnam,
etc. You must prove that at sometime they DID require circumcision.
I don't think that you can.
>;I have a personal friend who served in the US Navy during Vietnam as a
>;Corpsman on a destroyer. To this day he has his foreskin. He said
>;that many other sailors had their foreskins. One time he estimated
>;that only half of the guys he saw in the Navy to be circumcised. He
>;served from 1969 to 1973.
>One event on one ship does not prove that no commander
>required his command to circumcised. One jaywalker safe
>does not mean none died.
You stated:
>;>My point is: I want to know if the US Navy required its male
>;>sailors to be circumcised.
Because one sailor was uncircumcised, that is proof that the US Navy
did not require circumcision. My corpsman friend served on two
different ships and at the Navy hospital in San Diego. If the Navy
had required circumcision, he would have known it. He left the Navy
with his foreskin.
>My information that circumcision was coerced for some units
>serving in Vietnam comes from three Army medical personnel
>who served in Vietnam and witnessed the operations and knew
>of the coercion.
>;I can personally attest that in the Army, circumcision was not
>;required. I had a soldier in my unit in Vietnam complain to the IG
>;because the Army doctors would not circumcise him. Not medically
>;required, they said. I was in Vietnam 1970-71.
>It wouldn't surprise me that in some commanders at some
>times required, while others did not require, their troops
>to be uniformly cut. Some commanders have a twisted sense
>of humor, especially in war.
There are weirdos everywhere. But it would surprise me if a commander
required his men to be circumcised. If a man complained, how would
that commander explain it to his commander?
Perhaps those guys are pulling your leg? Please provide the exact
identification of the unit(s), the dates, and who the commanders were.
coon...@my-dejanews.com
Isn't this fact enough proof that circumcision is a pathology. It also says
in the O.T. that the ancient Hebrews circumcised the foreskins of those they
slew in battle.. SICKO stuff here.. why hasn't anyone noticed?
Centure
>No medical doctor can (or could) order a soldier to submit to
>circumcision without a valid medical reason for the operation.
No but his commanding officer could. it is plainly obvious in war, a battalion,
regiment or platoon commander could do as he wished. as to his military
objectives he might have felt there was less of a chance of getting infections
in the trenches, or out in the brush. if he was of that thought he could god
damn well do as he pleased, including orders that his men be cut. if you where
in the military? did you ever see an infantry soldier disobey his CO out in the
brush or on point. NO
Centure
>>
>>The Turkish empire was known to circumcise, the christian soldiers that fell
>... Much nonsense snipped
>>So yes mr sindberg since some of these American generals, are well schooled
>in
>>ancient military rights some of them advocate circumcision.
>
>Well Sindberg, centure supports you. There are two on your side now.
No i don't support mr sindberg, just that war is a black art and if one comes
out of it with a beenie bag. one should consider one self lucky, there are far
greater things one could lose in war then the foreskin.
Centure
>> >So yes mr sindberg since some of these American generals, are well
>schooled
>in
>> >ancient military rights some of them advocate circumcision.
>>
>> Well Sindberg, centure supports you. There are two on your side now.
> Isn't this fact enough proof that circumcision is a pathology. It also says
>in the O.T. that the ancient Hebrews circumcised the foreskins of those they
>slew in battle..
In defence of the cannites there mutilation of those they slew
had religious cannotations. most other soldier/mutilaters had no such
compelling reason for said behavior.
Neal
>>From: neal_...@rocketmail.NS.com
>
>>No medical doctor can (or could) order a soldier to submit to
>>circumcision without a valid medical reason for the operation.
>
>No but his commanding officer could.
No. You overestimate the authority of a CO.
>it is plainly obvious in war, a battalion,
>regiment or platoon commander could do as he wished.
Absolutely not. He cannot do as he wished.
>as to his military
>objectives he might have felt there was less of a chance of getting infections
>in the trenches, or out in the brush. if he was of that thought he could god
>damn well do as he pleased, including orders that his men be cut.
He could not. He doesn't make medical decisions. And don't curse.
>if you where
>in the military? did you ever see an infantry soldier disobey his CO out in the
>brush or on point. NO
I spent most of my adult life in the military. I have never seen
blatant disobedience, because I never saw such an illegal order. Such
an order would not be obeyed. If a commander ordered a doctor to
circumcise a man with a heathy foreskin the doctor would refuse.
Sindberg is talking Vietnam era. At that time the battalion surgeons
were all draftees, and hated it. There is no way they would have
carried out such an order, and the commander held no power over them.
What was he going to do? Ruin their career? On the other hand, the
surgeon could easily ruin their career. That's the Army I was in.
What Army were you in? Have you been watching too many movies by
Hanoi Jane?
coon...@my-dejanews.com
> >... Much nonsense snipped
> >in
> >>ancient military rights some of them advocate circumcision.
> >
> >Well Sindberg, centure supports you. There are two on your side now.
>
> out of it with a beenie bag. one should consider one self lucky, there are far
> greater things one could lose in war then the foreskin.
Name one!
Centure
>>
>> No i don't support mr sindberg, just that war is a black art and if one
>comes
>> out of it with a beenie bag. one should consider one self lucky, there are
>far
>> greater things one could lose in war then the foreskin.
>
> Name one!
Life and limbs.
coon...@my-dejanews.com
cen...@aol.comnospam (Centure) wrote:
> >From: coon...@my-dejanews.com
>
> >> >So yes mr sindberg since some of these American generals, are well
> >schooled
> >in
> >> >ancient military rights some of them advocate circumcision.
> >>
> >> Well Sindberg, centure supports you. There are two on your side now.
>
> >in the O.T. that the ancient Hebrews circumcised the foreskins of those they
> >slew in battle..
>
> In defence of the cannites there mutilation of those they slew
> had religious cannotations. most other soldier/mutilaters had no such
> compelling reason for said behavior.
Centure.. this is planet Earth... As I recall some passage in the O.T.
claims a huge pile of enemy foreskins.. offered to Yeweh.. Now, this is
clearly not only primitive and sick.. it is pathological.
Hugh Young
Centure <cen...@aol.comnospam> wrote in article
<19981230110914...@ng-fu1.aol.com>...
Wrong question. If enforced circumcision leaves a soldier demoralised, or
if he is still recovering and not up to par when there is an attack, (cf
Genesis 34, 14-25), then circumcision of soldiers is even more
counter-productive than usual.
--
Hugh Young, Pukerua Bay, Nuclear-free Aotearoa / New Zealand
http://www.Geocities.com/WestHollywood/Park/7712/
>
Richard W. Smith, M.D.
Just to put you on the right track, I will tell you a story I heard once from an old General Practitioner Mentor of Mine who served on the home front during W.W.II.
The story:
Battlefield Doctor: "This is amazing! You were shot right through the middle of your scrotum, and the bullet missed everything. How did the bullet miss your penis?"
Wounded Soldier: "I was thinking about my sister-in-law."
Freaky things happen on the battlefield, and you should remember that it would be just as easy to direct a bullet to the heart or head of the CO.
Naiveté thy name is Centure.
Try growing up,
Richard W. Smith, M.D.
Richard W. Smith, M.D.
are not free of it. Fuck the Turks, they can leave our western european penises
alone. Cutting off the foreskins of unwilling prisoners of war constitutes the
commission of atrocities, war crimes, etc.
Richard W. Smith, M.D.
Centure wrote:
> >From: neal_...@rocketmail.NS.com
>
> >>
> >>The Turkish empire was known to circumcise, the christian soldiers that fell
> >... Much nonsense snipped
> >>So yes mr sindberg since some of these American generals, are well schooled
> >in
> >>ancient military rights some of them advocate circumcision.
> >
> >Well Sindberg, centure supports you. There are two on your side now.
>
Centure
Charles martel did not save you from circumcision, but it is possible he saved
western europe from extinction.
> Alas, you
>are not free of it. Fuck the Turks,
The turks are known for there anti-islamic sodomy so i am sure you would and
could. HAVE FUN.
> Cutting off the foreskins of unwilling prisoners of war constitutes the
>commission of atrocities,
In the context of the times, the roman catholic church, burning heretics alive.
circumcision was mild by comparison.
James H. Sindberg
wrote:
;In article <36884698...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
; sind...@pobox.com wrote:
;> On Mon, 28 Dec 1998 11:53:09 -0800, "Richard W. Smith, M.D."
;> <richar...@earthlink.net> wrote:
;> ;Requiring your troops to have their dicks cut on the battlefield does not
;> ;sound like a good way to be prepared for battle at any moment, though I am
;> ;sure that there is a commander or two in the Army who is as stupid as you
;> ;have imagined him to be.
;> ;> One event on one ship does not prove that no commander
;> ;> required his command to circumcised. One jaywalker safe
;> ;> does not mean none died.
;> ;> My information that circumcision was coerced for some units
;> ;> serving in Vietnam comes from three Army medical personnel
;> ;> who served in Vietnam and witnessed the operations and knew
;> ;> of the coercion.
;> ;And what one commander may or may not have required at some time or other
;> ;does not imply that the entire branch of the armed services had that
;> ;policy. Why are you so unnaturally interested in the imposition of
;> ;involuntary mutilations on unwilling members of the American armed forces?
;> ;You are letting your latest fetish show, and it is not very pretty.
;> My search for information is certainly not a fetish. Your
;> continued fight to hide it and to smear me is questionable
;> thou.
;> I ask you again, did you witness the military's requirement
;> that normal male service members were routinely coerced into
;> being circumcised?
; Jimmy, baby, I think the good Doc already told you NO!
;In any event Dr. Smith would never have cut a foreskin unless they held a
;rope out and threthened to hang him from the ships rigging.
You think!!! You think??? I see no answering "NO" in the
Doc's writing. The Doc inferred that someone circ'd a
sailor and I would like to know if it was a Naval doctor and
if the doctor's command ordered routine circumcision of
sailors. I know from personal experience as a sailor in the
US Navy in the 50's that Commanders did some weird shit and
some sailors got circ'd.
James H. Sindberg
sind...@pobox.com
James H. Sindberg
neal_...@rocketmail.NS.com (Neal) wrote:
;sind...@pobox.com (James H. Sindberg) wrote:
;>On Sun, 27 Dec 1998 01:49:27 GMT,
;>neal_...@rocketmail.NS.com (Neal) wrote:
;>;sind...@pobox.com (James H. Sindberg) wrote:
;>;>My point is: I want to know if the US Navy required its male
;>;>sailors to be circumcised.
;>;The US Navy has NEVER required sailors to be circumcised. Nor have
;>;any of the other services.
;>How do you know this?
;Because many sailors kept their foreskins during WWII, Korea, Vietnam,
;etc. You must prove that at sometime they DID require circumcision.
;I don't think that you can.
How do you know many sailors kept their foreskins? The Doc
said a sailor lost his and I know that in the 50's of a
sailor who lost his. Two examples don't make a case, only a
probable case, so I ask. So far all I get is BS and
antidotal answers. Maybe no Naval commander ever required
his sailors circ'd. But knowing the USA's fetish for
circumcision and against masturbation, it is not
unreasonable to suggest that some military commanders might
make such a requirement.
;>;I have a personal friend who served in the US Navy during Vietnam as a
;>;Corpsman on a destroyer. To this day he has his foreskin. He said
;>;that many other sailors had their foreskins. One time he estimated
;>;that only half of the guys he saw in the Navy to be circumcised. He
;>;served from 1969 to 1973.
;>One event on one ship does not prove that no commander
;>required his command to circumcised. One jaywalker safe
;>does not mean none died.
;You stated:
;>;>My point is: I want to know if the US Navy required its male
;>;>sailors to be circumcised.
;Because one sailor was uncircumcised, that is proof that the US Navy
;did not require circumcision. My corpsman friend served on two
;different ships and at the Navy hospital in San Diego. If the Navy
;had required circumcision, he would have known it. He left the Navy
;with his foreskin.
That is proof that at ONE time the US Navy did not require
circumcision. But I won't be surprised, if some Naval
commander did require his sailors circ'd at some other time.
;>My information that circumcision was coerced for some units
;>serving in Vietnam comes from three Army medical personnel
;>who served in Vietnam and witnessed the operations and knew
;>of the coercion.
;>;I can personally attest that in the Army, circumcision was not
;>;required. I had a soldier in my unit in Vietnam complain to the IG
;>;because the Army doctors would not circumcise him. Not medically
;>;required, they said. I was in Vietnam 1970-71.
;>It wouldn't surprise me that in some commanders at some
;>times required, while others did not require, their troops
;>to be uniformly cut. Some commanders have a twisted sense
;>of humor, especially in war.
;There are weirdos everywhere. But it would surprise me if a commander
;required his men to be circumcised. If a man complained, how would
;that commander explain it to his commander?
The old boys club among commanders is strong. They protect
each other. If it was a female sailor being abused, then
something adverse might happen to the commander, but far
less so when male sailors are abused, especially when the
abuse is so socially acceptable. Plus, in war time the male
sailor has less chance for justice.
;Perhaps those guys are pulling your leg? Please provide the exact
;identification of the unit(s), the dates, and who the commanders were.
Sorry, but I'm no longer working with the US Army. Where I
live now, there is very little US Army presense. I'll check
with my son, who works with US Army in Europe. Maybe he can
locate such info.
James H. Sindberg
sind...@pobox.com
James H. Sindberg
neal_...@rocketmail.NS.com (Neal) wrote:
;cen...@aol.comnospam (Centure) wrote:
;>James H. Sindberg wrote nothing here
On Mon, 28 Dec 1998 11:53:09 -0800, "Richard W. Smith, M.D."
<richar...@earthlink.net> wrote:
;>> ;Requiring your troops to have their dicks cut on the battlefield does not
;>> ;sound like a good way to be prepared for battle at any moment,
;>The Turkish empire was known to circumcise, the christian soldiers that fell
;... Much nonsense snipped
;>So yes mr sindberg since some of these American generals, are well schooled in
;>ancient military rights some of them advocate circumcision.
;Well Sindberg, centure supports you. There are two on your side now.
Not Sindberg, it was Doc Smith.
James H. Sindberg
sind...@pobox.com
Richard W. Smith, M.D.
authorities were entirely responsible for that.
Centure wrote:
Thou hast changed the subject, thou compleat dope.
Richard W. Smith, M.D.
James H. Sindberg
wrote:
I see nothing below which I wrote. I inserted the proper
credits. It was the Doc's writing.
;James H. Sindberg wrote
;> On Mon, 28 Dec 1998 11:53:09 -0800, "Richard W. Smith, M.D."
<richar...@earthlink.net> wrote:
;> ;Requiring your troops to have their dicks cut on the battlefield does not
;> ;sound like a good way to be prepared for battle at any moment,
;
;The Turkish empire was known to circumcise, the christian soldiers that fell
;under there orbit. the sultans, caliphs, and vizars would not allow christian
;soldiers to fight under the banner of islam uncircumcised.
;They also would not employ mercenaries, unless they where circumcised. and when
;alliances where made with christendom the christian kings would often have to
;circumcise there sons, as a prerequisite to ally.
;Some believe that prince charles of modern day UK is the ruler of the house of
;david. or rather that he has the blood of the christ in his veins.
;Those that believe that believe he has abdicated his throne by the refusal to
;circumcise his heirs. and there are many who believe that templars, masons, and
;priori of zian followers.
;As a parallel in history they see that just as there christian kingdoms fell to
;the asiatics. there was recently the ugly incident of prince charles handing
;over part of his kingdom Hong Kong in a most undignified manner.
;After the surrender ceremony prince charles was afoot back to the QE2,
;scurrying through the streets of hong kong. fast on his heels where the modern
;day mongol hordes.
;So yes mr sindberg since some of these American generals, are well schooled in
;ancient military rights some of them advocate circumcision.
The above is Doc Smith's writings, not mine. Please be more
careful.
James H. Sindberg
sind...@pobox.com
Neal
...
>
>Not Sindberg, it was Doc Smith.
>
>
>James H. Sindberg
>sind...@pobox.com
I'm sorry. I quoted centure's post, and they was he does it, all the
attributions are messed up. I should have caught it.
Craig Wagner
"precautions" to protect against things the military believes MAY happen
in the future. Vaccinations against disease and bio/chem weapon threats
come to mind. So if some commander became convinced at some point in the
past that "circumcisions prevents future medical problems," the "valid
medical reason" test would have been met.
In article <368c4b39...@news.idt.net>, neal_...@rocketmail.NS.com wrote:
> No medical doctor can (or could) order a soldier to submit to
Neal
>OTOH, military personnel are frequently ordered to undergo medical
>"precautions" to protect against things the military believes MAY happen
>in the future. Vaccinations against disease and bio/chem weapon threats
>come to mind.
The efficaciousness of vaccinations against disease and biological
agents is well established to high degree of certainty.
By the way, there are no "vaccinations" against chemical weapons.
The efficaciousness of circumcision against ???? (you name it, short
of removal of the foreskin) is not established.
>So if some commander became convinced at some point in the
>past that "circumcisions prevents future medical problems," the "valid
>medical reason" test would have been met.
But it is not a decision a commander is allowed to make. Not legally.
It is a medical decision. And there is still no justification for it.
Centure
>>OTOH, military personnel are frequently ordered to undergo medical
>>"precautions" to protect against things the military believes MAY happen
>>in the future. Vaccinations against disease and bio/chem weapon threats
>>come to mind.
>
>By the way, there are no "vaccinations" against chemical weapons.
If saddam hussein unleashed mosquitos on American troops
with the purpose of infecting American troops with maleria, then by definition
he would have used chemical warfare.
Chemical warfare need not be anthrax it can be as simple as
maleria, botulism, or as serious as ebola, and many of those chemical agents
are able to be prevented by vaccinations
Craig Wagner
personally find it to be morally reprehensible.
In my line of work "bio/chem" is the term generally used whenever one or
the other or both is being discussed.
In article <3694633a....@news.idt.net>, neal_...@rocketmail.NS.com
wrote:
> cwa...@his.com (Craig Wagner) wrote:
>
> >OTOH, military personnel are frequently ordered to undergo medical
> >"precautions" to protect against things the military believes MAY happen
> >in the future. Vaccinations against disease and bio/chem weapon threats
> >come to mind.
>
> The efficaciousness of vaccinations against disease and biological
> agents is well established to high degree of certainty.
>
> By the way, there are no "vaccinations" against chemical weapons.
>
coon...@my-dejanews.com
People will use inappropriate analogies when they are trying to cover up
what they've done, rationalize it, or to avoid any feelings of guilt for
circumcising someone.
Some common ones I've herad..
1. circumcision is no different than a girl's ear pierce 2. Why are YOU
people so interested in the penises of OTHER people's children. Surely there
MUST be something wrong with YOU. 3. I think there are more important issues
to be upset about 4. Its like a shot.. both hurt and prevent RIGHT? 5. Potty
training is easier if my son is circumcisied (This one I've never been able
to figure out unless Pappa is cut and demonstrates shot at the target for the
boy) There really might be some confusion in what part of the body to use to
do that. ;)
Neal
>>From: neal_...@rocketmail.NS.com
>
>>>OTOH, military personnel are frequently ordered to undergo medical
>>>"precautions" to protect against things the military believes MAY happen
>>>in the future. Vaccinations against disease and bio/chem weapon threats
>>>come to mind.
>
>>
>>By the way, there are no "vaccinations" against chemical weapons.
>
>If saddam hussein unleashed mosquitos on American troops
>with the purpose of infecting American troops with maleria, then by definition
>he would have used chemical warfare.
>Chemical warfare need not be anthrax it can be as simple as
>maleria, botulism, or as serious as ebola, and many of those chemical agents
>are able to be prevented by vaccinations
Those are biological agents. Some biological agents have effective
vaccinations or immunizations.
Biological agents enter the body and cause the equivalent of disease.
They are relatively slow acting. Chemical agents are effective
through a chemical reaction with the body. They are fast acting.
The common chemical agents (GA-GB-VX) include the nerve gases which
paralyze the nervous system - much like the commercial insecticides.
Older technologies include Mustard Gas (HD) which causes large
blisters to form on the affected skin, CS (tear gas) which is
non-lethal but temporarily debilitating, vomiting gas - again
non-lethal but debilitating, and lung agents like chlorine which
attack the lungs (can be lethal). There are no effective
immunizations or vaccinations for any of these agents. Protection is
provided by avoiding contact (masks and protective clothing). There
are some injections for a nerve agent attack, but they cannot be taken
in advance.
I was a member of the last Officer Advanced Course to be taught "bugs"
in the "cage" at Fort Sill. 1970. Following my class the US Army
quit teaching "prefix 5" officers how to employ biological agents.
But my class was taught Nucs, Gas, and Bugs (as we called it). I have
a strange array of talents.
By the way: Thank you for adopting the convention of indenting quoted
text. It helps keep straight who said what.
Centure
>non-lethal but temporarily debilitating, vomiting gas - again
>non-lethal but debilitating, and lung agents like chlorine which
>attack the lungs (can be lethal). There are no effective
>immunizations or vaccinations for any of these agents. Protection is
>provided by avoiding contact (masks and protective clothing). There
>are some injections for a nerve agent attack, but they cannot be taken
>in advance.
atropine, but i don't think it will help, and the blood agents will eat through
masks and protective clothing.
>I was a member of the last Officer Advanced Course to be taught "bugs"
>in the "cage" at Fort Sill. 1970. Following my class the US Army
>quit teaching "prefix 5" officers how to employ biological agents.
>But my class was taught Nucs, Gas, and Bugs (as we called it). I have
>a strange array of talents.
Not realy strange, what i find strange is how does a man go from cold warrior?
combat vet? and some kind of black op?
till a victim of forskin hysteria? i find any kind of victim mentality/status
to be incompatible to those experiances.
Neal
...
>Not realy strange, what i find strange is how does a man go from cold warrior?
>combat vet? and some kind of black op?
All Field Artillery officers were trained like this.
>till a victim of forskin hysteria? i find any kind of victim mentality/status
>to be incompatible to those experiances.
I do not believe that I have ever displayed a victim mentality. My
claims to "victim" status are muted. I tell what happened.
I have stated that I have had a successful marriage (one), children, a
fulfilling sex life, a good career, and professional recognition.
But: I was also circumcised so tightly that as a teenager I had
painful erections, and I had to have an operation at the age of 25 to
correct problems caused by my circumcision.
I am opposed to infant circumcision because I believe that it damaged
me and I do what I can to prevent it from happening to others.
mate...@aol.com
mostly on age and cultural exposures. I was born in 1927 into an Irish-
Catholic family in which sex and bodily parts were seldon mentioned. I was
not circumcised at birth and the only mention of the procedure I ever heard
at home was the admonition that , "If you ever start playing with yourself,
we will have you circumcised. Of course, by that time a neighbor lad had
introduced "show and tell" and informed me in positive terms that he had been
circumcised and I had not. I didn't ask if he had been caught playing with
himself. Later, in boarding school, I was amazed that I was one of the few
retaining my foreskin. At home, the threat of circumcision came up at least
once on every visit, with the accompanying warning. Many years later, my
first son had been circumcisaed at birth at his mother's insistance. My
mother's comment on that was, "Now, what can you do if he starts to play with
himself?" That led to the only discussion we ever had on the subject. She
said that as a young woman (c. 1915) she knew that it was fairly common for
parents to subject sons to teen-aged circumcsion if suspected of
masturbation. This was often done by force and without anesthesia. It was
also a commonly held belief at the time that any form of masturbation, male
or female, was evidence of men
al...@rev.net
>A radical circumcision is very ussefull to preven masturbations in male
>teens. Cut the foreskin very close the glande and eliminate the
>posibilities of masturbation.
To what end? Do you want teenagers to seek out hookers?
--J. Byrd <http://www.rev.net/~aloe/freedom#4skin>
NickS728
CKr6459925
masturbation increased after circumcision & it was more pleasure after being
cut so word of experience circumcision definately does not prevent masturbation
& may eaven increas it If you want to discuss it e mail me ck
sonofmoon
Well, tou're right there, if it did the high schools of this great Nation
would need to replace the drinking fountain with a humping post.
But, I'm not sure how after the cut, masturbation could be more pleasurable?
Circumcision as a routine must end. Find out its bizarre history.
http://homestead.dejanews.com/user.coontail/nocir1.html
wadi
$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com
>But, I'm not sure how after the cut, masturbation could be more pleasurable?
>
Well this is exactly the problem my olde fruit, even though you are "not
sure" about most things you have the ridiculous tendency to continue to
present speculation as fact.
Sooner or later you are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into
reality.
al...@rev.net
>As a parallel in history they see that just as there christian kingdoms fell to
>the asiatics. there was recently the ugly incident of prince charles handing
>over part of his kingdom Hong Kong in a most undignified manner.
>After the surrender ceremony prince charles was afoot back to the QE2,
>scurrying through the streets of hong kong. fast on his heels where the modern
>day mongol hordes.
What if they had caught the prince? Would they have circumcised him?
--J. Byrd <http://www.rev.net/~aloe/freedom#4skin>
Lurker
sheehan...@gmail.com
> A radical circumcision is very ussefull to preven masturbations in male
> teens. Cut the foreskin very close the glande and eliminate the
> posibilities of masturbation.
>
>
you can still masturbate it does matter how tight you cut the foreskin,i am cut low and very tight and have no problems
jackpinef...@gmail.com
R Ne
> A radical circumcision is very ussefull to preven masturbations in male
> teens. Cut the foreskin very close the glande and eliminate the
> posibilities of masturbation.
>
> Bertha Lopez
Dabunny Rabbit
the bottom line is, its not yours period.
you have no right as a parent or otherwise to have someone held down and remove part of their genitals no matter how clean or religious you think it is.
children can't consent to sex, but cutting off part of it for no reason or concept of whats being done is ok... honestly!!!
under that same logic then I should be able to have someone held down and their ears cut off because I think it would be healthier and cleaner for them. (or the skin cancer they might get)
circumcision has no effect on how much teens masturbate, teens are gonna do it and do it a lot regardless.
not to mention that there were 2 doctors in the US that claimed it cured a host of bizarre ailments (including epilepsy and rheumatism) and when people figured out that was a crock, they claimed it prevented masturbation. and in the religious society it took off once more.
it's not about what you want its about what the individual wants
so in conclusion circumcision is a violation of someone's human rights and bodily integrity and there is nothing anyone can say that will make it ok.
Patrik Terhorst
> teens. Cut the foreskin very close the glande and eliminate the
> posibilities of masturbation.
>
> Bertha Lopez